HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.planning.273511100801 (1987)~~..,_.
PARCEL ID: 2735-111-00-001 DATE RCVD: ~ # COPIES: CASE NO P11A-87
CASE NAME:IJehovah's Witnesses Special R/GMP Exempt Planners
PROJ ADDR: 0055 Pyramid Dr
OWN/APP: f Aspen Congregation ADR C/S/Z: PHN:
REP: ADR: C/S/Z: PHN:
Email Addr: ALLOCATED HOURS:~-
FEES DUE: FEES RCVD:~~ % OVER:
REFERRALS
REF: BY~ DUE:
MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED DATE OF FINAL ACTION:
~- ~ N o
~- ~- No I
;N0
REMARKSI
CLOSED: r~~ BY: I
PLAT RECORDED PLAT (BK,PG): 83 P46
VR APPROVAL DATE: VR EXPIRES:
BOCC Reso: 187-069
BOCC Ord:
PZ:
HRG OFF:
HO INDEX: I -
ADMIN:
ADMIN INDEX:
CASE TYP: Special R-Community Facilities CASE TYPS:
CASE TYP2: GMP Exempt CASE TYP6:
CASE TYP3: CASE TYP7;
CASE TYP4: Date Scanned: 7/16/09
File Location: Box 168
lsfor.LV[~L .auaRHtf2~1 .7IILPi1
~ PITKIN COUNTY
M
~ -av
' ~' Rnt'E RECEIV ED: 3//~i
c -
.SATE RECEIV ED COMPLETc.:
~~/,3,j ///-00 -O O /
.~.S E rIO.
S`iAFF
PROJECT NA
APPL ICANT:
~l icant
REPRESENTAiivr,: Lv s-~n
Representative Addr ss/Phone: -,
Type of Application:
I. GMP/Subdivision/PUD
1. General Submission 20 $2,900.00
2. Detailed Submission 13 1,885.00
3. Final Plat 5 725.00
II. Subdivision/PUD
1_ General Submission 12 $1,740.00
2. Detailed Submission 10 1,450.00
3. Final Plat 5 725.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications 10 $1 450.00
IV. All "One Step" Applications 5 $ 725.00
V. Consent Agenda Items
1. Minor Applications 0-2 $ 50.00
2. Major Applications More than 2 $ 100.00
VI. Referral Fees - Environmental
;~~ Health, Housing, Engineering,
Environmental Coordinator
1. Minor Applications 2 $ 5
0_00
(per referral agency) -
.~
2 . Major Appl ications 5 $ 125 .00
(per
------------------ referral agency)
------------------------------
--
P&Z OCC MEETING DATE: ~at ~/ PUBLIC HEARING: (~~ NO
DATE REFERRED• y~/'~~~7 INITIALS: ~~ \
REFERRALS:
~ County Atty
!/ Aspen Consol. S. D.
School District
!~-County Engr Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
Housing Dir. Envir. Coordinator 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 Colo. GeologicSurvey
County Mgr. Snowmass Village US FS
Div. Wildlife FAA Div. Water Resources
Mt Sopris Soil State Planning Off. Water Conservation Bd.
Trails Di r . Other : _ Other : _________ ____ _ _
FINAL ROUTING : DATE ROUTED:
INITIAL
County Atty County Engineer Building Dept.
Housing Director Envir. Health Envir. Coordtr.
Other • Other
f/a n
/a
~~aw~ucsu a~ ~ ~ ~~ o~c`K1..._M,LI! ~! 0
Reception No ~ Z fo ~~
-~ SlLVfA OAYtS PnKIN COUMY RECORDER
eaof~ y~4~ PacEO ~//~ ~~ ~ %~.,~ , ~ ~~-
eooK ~4 PA~E545
SOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
~ W ~ OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING A
0
~ ~o GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION TO THE ASPEN
N ~ ~ ~ CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES FOR THE
o CbNSTRUCTION OF A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT KINGDOM HALL
N ~~
>z
_'~ RESOLUTION NO. 87- G 9
~ wz ~
N ~ .,~
~ ~
WHEREAS, the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
(hereinafter "Applicant") has applied to Pitkin County for Scenic
Foreground Overlay and Growth Management Exemption for Essential
Community Facilities to construct a 3,500 square foot church (on
a parcel as described in Exhibit "A" attached); and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter "Commission") reviewed this application at their
regular meetings on May 19, 1987, and July 7, 1987, and granted
Scenic Foreground Overlay approval by their Resolution 87-PZ17
which resolution also recommended the approval of the Growth
Management Exemption to the Board of County Commissioners of
Pitkin County, Colorado (hereinafter "Board"); and
~, ~ WHEREAS, the Board heard this application at a regularly
~ •~
I ~ scheduled public meeting on August 10, 1987, at which time
X
W
~ ;evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this
~ '
~ application; and
a
~o l WHEREAS, the Board finds .that this project does represent an
~ essential community facility because it provides a basic public
service upon which the community is dependent for support, it is
a~
open to the public and community; and
i x
WHEREAS, the Board also finds that the impacts of this
project are negligible and will be mitigated.
eooK ~4't PAGE
Resolution No. 87- G4
Page 2
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board that it hereby grants
a Growth Management Exemption for Essential Community Facilities
pursuant to Section 5-510.2(f) of the Land Use Code to the
Applicant for the construction of a 3,500 square foot Kingdom
Hall subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicants shall provide a fire hydrant and fire alarm
system or an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm system as
recommended by the Fire Marshall.
2. Mud and dirt from the construction site shall not be carried
out onto Highway 82.
3. A fugitive dust control plan shall be filed with the Environ-
mental Health Department prior to construction.
4. The applicants are required to comply with the City of Aspen
Noise Abatement Ordinance.
5. The proposed parking lot shall be limited to the one access
point closest to Highway 82.
6. The applicants shall make every effort to close the existing
driveway adjacent to the Maroon Creek bridge (Pyramid Road).
7. The applicants shall work~"taith the neighborhood to consolida-
te the three existing Highway 82 access points into one access.
8. The applicants shall pave or and maintain the parking lot and
the access drive from the parking lot to Highway 82 to mitigate
dust and traffic impacts.
9. The applicants shall submit a drainage plan to the County
Planning Engineer for his review and approval prior to the
insurance of a building permit.
10. The applicants shall submit performance guarantees for
landscaping and road work in a form acceptable to the County
Attorney and an amount acceptable to the Planning Office prior to
the issuance of a building permit for the project.
uuun c1'2J PAGEU / 4
eoaK 544 PacE54`~
Resolution No. 87- !~9
Page 3
11. If the traffic generated from the site exceeds 150 of the
peak traffic (60 vph) at peak times (Sunday 9:30 A.M. to 12:30
P.M. and Thursdays 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.) as determined by the
County Engineer then further Special Review will be required.
APPROVED by the Board at its regular meeting on August 25,
1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF PITKIN COUN~Y, COLORADO
By ~ ~ e
G o ge adsen, Chairman
ATTEST:
~. ~_~~
Deputy County Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1
Thomas F. ith, County
Attorney
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
lan Richman, Planning and
Development Director
Attorney
BOOR 545 PA~E675
D:f-~i3lT A
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN T~iE= N(C I/4 OF SECTION I~1,
T t0 S., R.85 W. OF THE 6Ttl f?M. f I'i"KiN COUNTY, COI.OR!\00
fif=1NG MORE FULLY Ol=5CIZIOC~ AS 1=0t_LOWS=
(i(_GINld) NG AT A ('DINT ON TFiE :~OUTFIERLY R.O. W. `INE C~
STATE t IIGti~'1AY No 82 ~~ IE:NCE TNE~. EASTERLY i/4 CORNER Oar
SAIU SrC~f10N 11 f3t'ARS S53°22 05"E 2025.13 FEET;
THENCE S24°31'00"W 290.93 FEEY;
THENCE N33°26'i5"W 74.50 f=EET;
Tt~ENCE 199.79 f=EET ALONG THE A!~C OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RAOtUS OF119.10 FEET;
THENCE N 27°20'OO~~W 250.00 FEET;
THENCE 168.65 FEET ALONG Tf-IE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 102.4E r~ET;
TI~ENCE N 32°C9~?_5"E 224.84 FEET" TO PG'(~ITOF INTF_FtSECTi01~1
~vITH SAI O SOU T NERI Y R.(i.'/1. LIIvE ;
THENCE SGO°48'00"E IG8.OOFEET ALONG SAID R.O.~ti! LINE;
THENCE ALONG SAID R.O iW. SINE A1-l0 THE aRC OF A CUft~JE
TO THE RIGHT 390.OOFECTIiAV1f`!G A RADIUS OF 2864.79FEEi
TO THE POINT OF 6EGINNIf\~G CON"iAINING 3.41 ACRES •
~~
RESOLUTION OF THE PITKIN COUI7TY PL~e'1NNING AND ZONING COI.4t•iISSION
GRANTING SCENIC FOREGROUND OVERLAY APPROVAL
AND RECOMMENDING GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION APPROVAL
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,500 SQUARE TOOT "KINGDOM I-FALL"
BY THE ASPEN CONGREGA`T'ION OF JEIIOVAH' S WI'i'NliSSES
Resolution No_ 87- p'- i7
~.7FiEREAS, the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's L•~itnesses
(hereinafter "Applicant") has applied to Pitkin County for Scenic
Foreground Overlay and Growth Management Exemption approvals to
construct a 3,500 square foot church (on a parcel as described in
Exhibit "A" attached); and
WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
(hereinafter "Commission") reviewed this application at their
regular meetings on May 19, 1987, and July 7, 1987, at which time
evidence and testimony was presented with respect to this
application; and
µ7HEREAS, the Commission finds that no information of record
was presented to support that ownership of the property is other
than as represented by the applicant's deed; and
WHEREAS, the Commission interprets Section 3-3.10 of the
Land Use Code to permit churches on 2 acre parcels of land as
allowed uses in all zone districts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it
does hereby grant Scenic Foreground Overlay approval to the
applicant subject to the following conditions:
'-n 1~; 'I~i'e applicant shall generally comply with the land-
G~ ,,,o escaping plan as submitted to the Planning Commission on
>~ Jt~-ly 7, 1987 and shall provide a performance guarantee
- ~ ~ for plants, materials and irrigation in an amount
- > ~ a~eptable to the Planning Office and a form acceptable
~ N x to the County Attorney.
~ r--- -~
^ ry
- r'
Resolution No. 87-~~~- ~7
Page 2
2) The church style and materials shall be in substantial
compliance with the representations contained in the
application which provides for a single-story, approxi-
mately 3,500 square foot building with 4-12 pitch roof
and cedar shake roofing.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission that it
does hereby recommend that the Board of County Commissioners
grant a Growth Management Exemption for Essential Community
Facilities pursuant to Section 5-510.2(f) to the applicant
subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicants shall provide a fire hydrant and fire
alarm system or an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm
system as recommended by the Fire Marshall.
2) Mud and dirt from the construction site shall not be
carried out onto Highway 82.
3) A fugitive dust control plan shall be filed with the
Environmental Health Department prior to construction.
4) The applicants are required to comply with the City of
Aspen Noise Abatement ordinance.
5) The proposed parking lot shall be limited to the one
access point closest to Highway 82.
6) The applicants shall make every effort to close the
existing driveway adjacent to the Maroon Creek bridge
(Pyramid Road).
7) The applicants shall work ~•~ith the neighborhood to
consolidate the three existing Highway 82 access points
into one access.
8) The applicants shall pave or chip seal and maintain the
parking lot and the access drive from the parking lot
to Highway 82 to mitigate dust and traffic impacts.
9) The applicants shall submit a drainage plan to the
County Planning Engineer for his review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10) The applicants shall submit performance guarantees for
landscaping and road work in a form acceptable to the
Resolution No. 87- ~:' -'l
Page 3
County Attorney and an amount acceptable to the
Planning Office prior to the iss~_iance of a building
permit for the pr_ofect.
11) If the traffic generated from the site exceeds 1500 of
the peak traffic (60 vph) at peak times (Sunday 9:30
A.M. to 12:30 P.M. and Thursdays 7:00 P.M. to 10:00
P.M.) as determined by the County Engineer then
further Special RevieT,a will be required.
APPROVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 21,
1987.
ATTEST:
David Highland, Deputy
County Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
~1
~~
'` _~! ~_ ~~r'
i
Thomas F_ Smith, County
Attorney
PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSI.ON
~= -- - ~ (
ge~Lr~ buy; Chairman
APPI'.OVED AS TO CONTENT:
/`t~( ¢h^
Alan Richman, Planning and
Development Director
FK.J
AGENDA ITEM SUrIlKARY
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Regular Meeting - August 10, 1987
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office ~ /t
ISSUE: The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses is request-
ing a Growth Management Exemption for Essential Community
Facilities to construct a 3,500 square foot church. The project
is located on a vacant 3.4 acre parcel of land in front of the
Aspen Tennis Club subdivision. The Planning Commission reviewed
this application on May 19 and July 7, 1987. The Commission
granted Scenic Foreground Overlay approval to the project and
recommends that the Board approve this project subject to the
conditions outlined in their Resolution No. 87-PZ17 which is
attached. Some homeowners in the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision
have protested this application on grounds of ownership and the
minimum lot size requirements of the Code. Tom Smith has
indicated that his review shows sufficient proof of ownership for
the review of this application. The church is located on a 3.4
acre parcel in the AF-1 zone. The Planning staff and Planning
Commission have interpreted Section 3-3.10 of the Code to allow
churches as a use by right in the AF-1 zone if the lot is at
least 2 acres in size.
ALTERNATIVES:
1) The Board may approve the Growth Management Exemption
for Essential Community Facilities.
2) The Board may deny the application.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend
approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined
in the Commission's Resolution No. 87-PZ17.
JWA
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office {~~
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall
DATE: August 10, 1987
APPLICANT: Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Growth Management
Exemption for an essential community facility pursuant to Section
5-510.2 (f) of the Land Use Code and Scenic Foreground Overlay
approval pursuant to Section 3-1.13 of the Code to construct a
church of approximately 3,500 square feet. The application is
attached. This application was heard by the Planning Commission
on May 19 and July 7, 1987. The commission recommended approval
of this application subject to the conditions outlined in their
Resolution No. 87-PZ17 which is attached.
ZONING: The property contains 3.41 acres and is zoned AF-l.
Churches are an allowed use in the AF-1 zone if they are located
on a lot of at least 2 acres with each building situated at least
30 feet from all property lines.
WATER: Water will be provided by the Aspen Water Department.
SEWER: Sewer service will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
ACCESS: Access is via private drive onto Maroon Drive to Highway
82.
MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
I. Referral Agency Comments:
1. Aspen Fire Marshall: In a memo dated April 1, 1987,
Wayne Vandemark submitted the following comments:
"The Aspen Fire Department can service the
proposed building with minimal response time. We
do find the hydrant too far away from the struc-
ture and of little value if a major fire occurs.
We will require a hydrant line extended closer to
the building and a fire alarm system or an
automatic sprinkler and a fire alarm system."
2. Environmental Health Department: In a memo dated May
5, 1986 (attached), Bob Nelson submitted the following
comments:
o Air Pollution: The applicants should prevent dirt
and mud carry-out onto Highway 82 during construc-
tion. A fugitive dust control plan should be
filed prior to construction activities. The
application does not mention fireplaces or
woodstoves, if any are planned, they must meet
County requirements.
o Noise: The applicant will be required to comply
with the City of Aspen noise abatement ordinance.
o Water and Sewer: The proposal to utilize public
water and sewer service is in conformance with the
policies of the Environmental Health Depart-
ment.
3. County Planning Engineer: In a memo dated May 12, 1987
(attached), Tom Newland submitted the following
comments:
The traffic analysis developed by Banner and
Associates is adequate. Three access points to
the parking lot do not appear necessary, there-
fore, it is recommended that the parking lot
access be limited to one entrance. It is recom-
mended that the church attempt to mitigate dust
impacts by either entering into an aggressive dust
control program or by chip sealing Pyramid Road
from the parking lot entrance to State Highway 82.
The parking lot should also have a hard surface.
Tom also notes that this project provides the
opportunity to eliminate two of the three road
cuts onto the State Highway in this area. The
applicant should submit a drainage control plan.
Due to the extreme building constraints of the
parcel, it appears that the applicants have done
their utmost to comply with the Scenic Foreground
criteria.
4. County Attorney: In a memo dated June 29, 1987, Tom
Smith has commented that it is his opinion that Parcels
A and B have been legally conveyed to the Jehovah's
Witnesses and may be used as provided in the Land Use
Code. Regarding the question of legal use of the
access, Tom notes some ambiguity in the conveyance of
ownerships. Tom suggests that a condition of any
approval should be included to assure proper mainten-
ance of the access to the point where it meets lot 1 of
2
the subdivision to assure appropriate use of the access
to this point. Tom's memo is attached.
5. Public Comment: The Planning Office has received some
letters concerning this project from neighborhood
homeowners. These letters are attached.
II. Staff Comments: The applicant is requesting a Growth
Management Exemption for essential community facilities and
Scenic Foreground Overlay approvals to construct a church on
a 3.4 acre property at the intersection of Maroon Drive and
Highway 82. The property is zoned AF-1, this zone allows
churches as a use by right on lots of at least 2 acres
provided that all buildings are set back at least 30 feet
from all property lines.
In regard to the request for a Growth Management Exemption,
the staff notes that as a previously subdivided lot this
property would not require a GMP allotment for a single-
family residence. However, the applicant must apply for a
Growth Management Exemption for a church to ensure that any
impacts to the neighborhood will be mitigated. Section 5-
510.2(f) of the Code states:
"All construction of essential governmental and
community facilities other than housing, subject to the
approval of the Board of County Commissioners upon the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
To be eligible for said exemption, the applicant shall
first be required to demonstrate that the project
represents an essential governmental or community
facility. Minimum criteria for this determination
shall include; but not be limited to, findings that the
project provides basic or fundamental public services
upon which the remainder of the community is dependent
for support, is available for use by the general public
and serves primarily the local community. Upon the
demonstration that the project is essential, the
applicant shall also be required to document that the
impacts of the project will be mitigated, including
those associated with the generation of additional
employees, the demand for parking, road and transit
services; and the need for such basic services as water
supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and
police protection, and solid waste disposal. Appli-
cants shall also be required to demonstrate that the
project has a negligible adverse impact on the com-
munity's air, water, land and energy resources and is
visually compatible with surrounding areas."
To be eligible for the above exemption, the applicant is
required to show that the project represents an essential
3
community facility. Minimum criteria include findings that
the project provides basic services upon which the community
is dependent for support; is available for use by the
general public and serves primarily the local community.
The applicant contends that religious services and facili-
ties provide a basic service upon which the community is
dependent. The proposed Kingdom Hall will be open to the
general public. The local community will be primarily
served by this project as the members live within the Aspen
and Snowmass areas.
The staff opinion is that this project represents an
essential community facility because it meets the above
criteria.
If the project is found to be an essential community
facility, then the applicant is required to document that
the impacts of the project will be mitigated. Water and
sewer for the project will be provided by the Aspen Water
Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,
respectively. Both agencies have indicated their ability to
serve the project.
Police services are not expected to be impacted by this
proposal. The County Dump has adequate capacity to serve
this project and should not be impacted. The Fire Marshall
recommends that a fire hydrant should be placed near the
building and an alarm system be installed or an automatic
sprinkler and alarm system should be installed. In regard
to employee impacts, the application contends that the
members of the Kingdom Hall live and work in the Aspen and
Snowmass areas and that no workers are employed, therefore,
no employee impacts will result. The Housing Office did not
comment on this application, however, the Planning staff
agrees with the applicant that no employee impacts will be
generated by this proposal.
The applicants have submitted the traffic analysis by
Patrick Dobie, P.E., of Banner Associates, Inc. which states
that parking needs can be accommodated on-site and that
traffic impacts to Highway 82 should be negligible. Mr.
Dobie's analysis indicates that the present membership of
the church is 100 members and is expected to reach 150
members in the future. Assuming 2.5 passengers per vehicle,
the church will require 40 spaces now and 60 in the future.
The staff agrees with Mr. Dobie that the traffic volumes
generated by the project will be negligible, however, we do
recommend that the parking lot and Maroon Drive should be
chip sealed or paved to mitigate dust impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood. In addition, we concur with Tom
Newland's recommendation that the parking lot be limited to
4
one access point The applicants should also submit a
drainage plan for'Tom's review and approval. The Planning
staff and Tom Newland have looked at the three existing
Highway 82 entrance drives and we believe the opportunity
exists to consolidate three dangerous access points into one
relatively safe intersection. The staff has talked to some
of the neighbors who would be affected in the Clasen-Pecjak
subdivision and in the Aspen Tennis Club subdivision and
this proposal appears to be generally supported. We have
received some letters in support of this proposal which are
attached. We recommend that the applicants close the access
road nearest the Maroon Creek bridge and work with the
neighborhood to combine the other two drives into one access
point.
The property is also within the Scenic Foreground Overlay of
Highway 82 which requires that the project be designed to
minimize visual impacts. The applicant has addressed the
Scenic Foreground Criteria in the application. The criteria
and the staff comments follow:
1) Whether the development has utilized existing
topography, such as dry ridges and hills, to
screen buildings to the maximum extent possible.
Staff: The building site is virtually flat so that
existing topographical features cannot be utilized
to screen this project.
2) Whether the development has been designed to
compliment the natural topography of the land,
including, whenever possible and appropriate, the
utilization of innovative architectural techniques
such as earth sheltered design and clustering of
structures in the least visible portions of the
site. Also, whether the development's height and
bulk has been designed to avoid, to the maximum
extent possible, the visibility of buildings from
the highway.
Staff: The proposed building is an approxi-
mately 3,500 square feet one-story ranch style
structure with a shake roof that should be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
3) Whether the development has avoided the location
of uses on the highest ground or most visible
sites for State Highway 82.
Staff: The site is virtually flat.
5
4) Whether the development has been located outside
of the designated Scenic Foreground, or on a
suitable site at the greatest possible distance
from State Highway 82.
Staff: The proposed building site has been located
at the greatest possible distance from Highway 82.
5) Whether the development has been landscaped in
accordance with the adopted State Highway 82
landscape guidelines and has preserved natural
vegetation, to the maximum extent possible,
including avoidance of irrigated meadows.
Staff: The applicant has submitted a landscaping
plan that is in general conformance with the
Highway 82 corridor landscape guidelines. The
staff recommends that plant number sizes and
species and a proposed irrigation plan be submit-
ted for our review and approval. A performance
guarantee should also be submitted.
6) Whether the development's exterior lighting has
been designed in such a manner that objectionable
light sources will be incapable of being seen from
State Highway 82.
Staff: The applicants have indicated that lighting
will be recessed and designed to minimize off-site
impacts. The staff recommends that a lighting
plan be submitted with the landscaping plan.
7) Whether any landforms and earth moving techniques
designed into the development are utilized as one
of several methods to compliment and enhance
development, rather than as the single device for
screening development from view from the State
Highway 82 Corridor.
Staff: The applicants are proposing to utilize
berms up to 6 feet high to screen the project.
8) Whether, in the case of non-residential develop-
ment, the use has been located on a large site and
has been designed so as to preserve the vast
majority of the site as open space.
Staff: The proposed building and parking area will
cover approximately one acre of the 3.4 acre site.
The majority of the site will remain undeveloped.
6
9) Whether the development has been designed so as to
avoid, to the maximum extend possible, any Scenic
Viewplane identified on the adopted State Highway
82 Corridor Master Plan.
Staff: The property is not affected by any
designated Scenic Viewplane.
The staff opinion is that this project complies with
the Scenic Foreground Criteria as outlined above. The
Planning Commission granted Scenic Foreground Overlay
approval to this project on July 7, 1987, by Resolution
No. 87-PZ17 attached.
In summary, it is the recommendation of the Planning
Office and Planning Commission that this project be
granted an exemption from GMP because it represents an
essential community service and has negligible impacts
which can be mitigated.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission granted Scenic Fore-
ground Overlay approval to this project and recommends approval
of the GMP exemption to the Board of County Commissioners subject
to the conditions outlined in their Resolution No. 87-PZ17
(attached).
FK.JEHOVAH
7
t
~ ~~ ~ K"~ f
.~ ~f 1r
A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN 1 HF NE I/4 OF SECT{ON i I,
T 10 S., R.85 W. OF THE 6TH f?M. PITniN COUNTY-, COLORADO
BEING MORE FULLY DLSC(ZIE3EC~ AS I~OLLOWS•
E3CGIPJNING ATA POINTONTHE SOUTHERLY R.O.W. t_INEOi="
STATE I IIGH~"JAY No E32 W11E_NCE THE-. EASTERLY I/4 CORNER 01=
SAI[J SE=CTION I I E3E'AR~ S53°2205"E 2025.13 FEET;
THENCE S24°31~00'~W ?_90.93 FEE(;
THENCE N33°26'15'~W 74.50 FEET;
THENCE 199.?9 FEET ALONG ~ NE ARC OFA CURVE TO THE RIGN?'
t-iAVING A RADIUS OF{f9.10 FEET;
THENCE N 2T°?_0~ OO~~W 250.00 FEET;
THENCE 16E3.65 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CUP,VE TO TNF
LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 102.46 rrET;
THENCE N 32°C9'?_5"E 224.84 FEET TO PG:I~lTOF INTERSCCTlOhd
VJITN SAID SOU"i NERI Y R.O.'+~1. LI lul ;
THENCE SGO°8'00"E iG8.00FEET ALONG SAID R.0.~1! LIME;
THENCE ALONG SAID R.O.VJ. SINE /~~~dD THE aRC OF A CUft~JE
TO THE R(GNT 390.00 FELT I-iA~/! NG A RAD{US OF 2864.?J I`EE;
TO Ti~E POINT OF BEG1i+jNIh~G CO~J"iAiNING 3.4! ACRES ~ -
.~
APPENDIX B
Project Number
Section/Parcel
Date Submitted
pitkin county
T 506 east main street
LAND USE APPLICATION aspen, colorado e1611
TO 3E COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT:
NAME Aspen Congregation of Jehovah`s Witnesses _
ADDRESS Box 3849, c/o Roger Long, Aspen, Colorado 81612
PHONE 925-5460, 5132, 1771
NAME OF PROJECT Kingdom Hall
PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map,~showing boundaries of any
' natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory
districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/
ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.)
TOTAL AREA 3.41 acres
EXISTING USE(S) vacant parcel
PROPOSED USE(S) Church
(approximate square
footage for each) 3500.00
PRESENT ZONING OF SITE AF'-1
DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL The development of Parcels P. and B for the
construction of a church for religious meetings, with an accompanying
bermed parking area.
0 BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE
TYPE OF APPLICATION: REZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
P.U.D. SUBDIVISION
SPECIAL REVIEW EXEMPTION
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW 35-acre + SUBDIVISION
REVIEW PHASE: PRE-APPLICATION GATE COMPLETED
GENERAL SUBMISSION P. AC ON DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
. DETAILED SUBMISSION: ~ P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
__.. _. _. __. nn~nn A/`T TnIJ nATG
r
~' fehovah~ `Witnessed
c/o Roger Long
P.O. sox 3849
Aspen, Colorado 81612
~4spert G'ongrega tiort
March 15, 1987
Gentlemen:
The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses intends to develop 3.41 acres adjacent
to, but not part of, the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision across State Highway 82 from
the Aspen Golf Course and otherwise described as Parcels "A" and "B". We wish to
apply for a building permit for the construction of a church, better known to
Jehovah's Witnesses as a Kingdom Hall.
It is our intention to construct such a Kingdom Hall of approximately 3,500 square
feet that will accorc~rnodate our present membership and interested persons of the
community. We will build a parking area to contain 50 cars. We will mitigate the
i~rpact of our development by berming the perimeter of the building and parking site
in a fashion. that will appear natural Lo the setting.
As we are aware that we must satisfy the concerns of many county agencies, we will
be prepared to answer their criteria. We understand the most important of these to
L be the scenic foreground, parking, appearance of the building, and traffic analysis
and access. We are applying for an exemption from the Growth Management Plan.
We hope to establish and maintain an amiable and close working relationship with
various members and agencies of Pitkin County government. We will be more than
willing to meEt the various criteria with which we must comply and to accommodate,
as best we can, the suggestions you may have.
Sincerely,
ASPEN CONGREGATION BUILDING COA7MITTEE
Charles, Worth ~
Rudi Netzer
Kiran Bhatt
~~:
Appeal for Exemption from GMP Process
The congregation of Jehovah's witnesses was founded in the Aspen area in
1968. During the intervening years our congregation has always rented our
meeting facility at various locations within the community. Presently, we are
renting space from the Pitkin County Community Center. More recently, as our
membership has grown and as increasing demand is put on diminishing public
meeting space, we have sought to obtain property and construct a meeting
facility of our own.
As we hope to soon build such a facility, which we call a Kingdom Ha11,
we are seeking an exemption from the Growth Management Plan for the following
reasons. Please note the following memorandum from Brooke Peterson in which
he writes his opinions that we have closely followed in submitting this appeal
u
for exemption. ;;
i
we are basing the weight of our argument on the contention that we
qualify as an "essential community facility." The birth and growth of
civilizations and, indeed, communities are built on the foundations of primary
services for living, namely, the judicial, governmental, educational and the
religious. It is man's basic nature to have a spiritual need and so mankind
has always considered that it was important for such needs to be satisfied.
Historically, in this country such needs are met in the va ious houses of
worship where members of a community may go to fulfill and~"~satisfy their
spiritual quest. In such manner, citizens then become dependent upon such
institutions for spiritual support. Thereby, churches become centers for
public welfare, education and instruction and so become essential institutions
of the community. If such centers for worship open their doors to any and all
members of a community they become, more so, public servants and essential to
the well-being of a community.
The religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses has sought as much as
any in this community to attend to and care for the spiritual needs of the
local populace. Not only are our meetings of Bible education and instruction
open free of charge to any and all members of the community, but we, as well,
engage in an active door-to-door campaign whereby we personally attend to the
spiritual interests of individual members of this community. We find that
when such interested ones learn and then apply scriptural principles their
personal lives and family lives greatly improve. Ultimately, this has a good
effect upon the community as elevated moral standards are promoted. To
continue making improvement in the learning and applying of Bible principles,
interested ones and our membership thereby become dependent on our
organization for support. In our view then, we become an "essential community
facility" and exempt from the GMP process.
It could further be argued that Pitkin County government has already set
the precedent for such church exemption from the GMP process by granting other
religious organizations immunity from such process. One that comes to mind is
the recent construction of the Redstone Community Church in which the county
not only granted GMP exemption but facilitated and expedited the normally
lengthy review process. While our organization is not eminently due to be
evicted from our rented facility, such extension of assistance from the same
county agencies would be welcomed by our building committee.
Lastly, our appeal is based on the simple fact that we are not a
commercial venture. Our organization is a religious one supported entirely on
the voluntary contributions of our members and interested persons of the
community. As our members live within the Aspen-Snowmass area we are not
generating additional growth nor do we employ workers.
In conclusion may we restate and summarize our appeal. Most
importantly, we feel we should be granted an exemption from the GMP process
because we serve an essential community service by reason of the fact our
church attends to the spiritual needs of the community in a manner that could
not otherwise be met. Secondly, the very committees our submission comes
before have in the past set the precedent by granting other religious
organizations exemption from the GMP process. Lastly, our development is by a
Colorado, non-profit corporation that was organized solely for religious
reasons. we neither seek profit nor will we generate growth. It is our hope
that these arguments will be read favorably and that we may be granted an
exemption from the Growth Management process.
Additionally, our appeal for exemption is supported by documentation
demonstrating our project will have negligible impact on the surroundings,
environment and city-county services. Please note the following letters from
the City of Aspen showing availability of water and sanitation. Also included
is a letter from Banner Associates, Inc. addressing the mitigated impact of
parking and car-trip generations to and from the site.
In further addressing the response from Banner Associates, the Aspen
Congregation would be prepared to further mitigate our developmental impact by
phasing our parking area aaccording to current and projected future needs.
For example, we could construct a parking area to hold our initial 40 cars in
Phase I. As future growth demands, we could enlarge our parking area to
' accommodate an additional 23 cars for a total of 63 parking spaces in a Phase
II development.
We also realize the property is serviced by regional public
transportation and a number of our members will be utilizing such means.
Where practical, we customarily car pool.
Lastly, our proposed construction will have little or no adverse impact
on the community air, water, land and energy resources. Our church will be
used approximately nine hours per week by our present eighty members. water
and sanitation usage will be negligible. We will further conserve resources
by using high-efficiency pulse burners for heating alongside a passive solar
heat collector known as a Tromb wall.
'~~,,
L
i r;,''
,.,...,. ;ti:,7Rfa,:
r
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO 81611
13031 925-8166
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
FROM: Brooke A. Peterson
DATE: March 3, 1987
RE: Construction of New Church - Exemption from Growth
~. Management Plan Application
I have been asked to outline the reasons that should be included
in your Land Use Application as to why the new church should be
exempt from having to compete in the Growth Management competit-
ion.
The appropriate section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code for
the exemption is Section 5-510.2 (f), which exempts the const-
ruction of an "essential community facility" upon the approval
of the Board of County Commissioners after recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The first argument which should
be advanced is that this is not a commercial venture, and that
it will benefit all of the members of the community, much in the
same manner as a school or hospital might.
Secondly, I believe that precedent is on your side, as I have
been informed that the construction of a church within the City,
under a very similar Growth Management Plan and definitions
therein, was exempted from the process.
Thirdly, it is clear that the construction of a church provides
a fundamental public service upon which the community is
dependent for support. One might even argue that the County is
constitutionally prohibited from regulating the church's
construction. There can be little doubt that providing a place
for the exercise of religion which is open to the public is an
essential public service. To argue otherwise would eliminate
the spiritual needs of the community from being considered
essential to the community. In addition, all churches provide
other support to the community in terms of education and
philanthropy... You should set forth any means by which the church
has in the past served the local community.
i.
The public will be allowed to come to this church by choice and
clearly the church is for the local community. -The points to be
emphasized is that no one will be excluded from attending the
~ church, that it is open to all in the community and that any
r "~,.
Memorandum
March 3, 1987
Page Two
,..,.. .. cuouao.;,:. ..:autapana,..
type of church is an essential element of the community,
providing spiritual assistance to all members of the community.
If you are able to, in your application, affirmatively offer the
church for use by other groups for meetings.
The balance of your application should emphasize how you will
mitigate the impacts of the project and how you are working
within the scenic corridor guidelines. If you are generating no
additional employees, state that in your application. In summary
therefore, I would emphasize the community's need for the new
church and how the church will serve the community. I know that
the church in Redstone was allowed to relocate without a great
amount of pressure from the County, and even with its assist-
ance. You should also emphasize that you are looking to the
County to provide assistance to you so that you may in turn
assist, in the manner that all churches do, the community of
Aspen and Pitkin County.
This can be demonstrated, for example, by a discussion of what
is being done to minimize the visibility of the church and
parking lot from Highway 82. Clearly the protection of the
scenic foreground is a major issue. In addition, you should
emphasize how the design of the church will not have a neglig-
ible adverse impact on the air and water, and is visually
compatible with the surrounding areas. I would stress, if
possible, how the church has been designed to look like a home.
You should discuss how the church will not cause an increased
demand for parking, but rather will accommodate all of your
parking away from Highway 82. You should also discuss how the
construction will not increase the demand for road and transit
services, nor will there be an increased need for additional
water supply, sewage treatment and other publicly provided
services.
Further, you should demonstrate that basic services, such as
water and sewer, are already available on the property or to the
property. Thus, no new utility expansion will be necessary. In
addition, you should state how the facility and its design might
mitigate the need for extended fire or police services.
`~; .
~.,
'~ R
-q;
BANNER
April 3, 1987
Mr. Terry Badger
Aspen Congregation Building Committee
Box 3849
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Kingdom Hall Traffic Analysis
Dear Mr. Badger:
The following will address the transportation issues raised by
the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Staff's letter of March 24, 1987,
specifically regarding the parking facilities and the traffic.
The church wi 1 1 be constructed on a 3.41 acre parce 1 adjacent to
the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. Access will be from State
Highway 82 via Pyramid Road, 50 foot wide right-of-way. The
building includes 3,000 square feet of church hall and 500 square
feet of residence. Parking and access facilities are required
for a current congregation of 40 families together with
provisions for future demands.
A review of the parking demand at your present facility, i.e. the
Aspen Community Center, indicates that a parking lot of
approximately 50 spaces would suit your needs. At present,
attendance at a Sunday meeting peaks at 100 members and for
future needs 150 members appears appropriate. Assuming there are
2.5 passengers per vehicle, the church will require 40 spaces now
and 60 in the future.
Traffic impacts at the Pyramid Road/SH 82 intersection will
result from church traffic and subdivision traffic. The Aspen
Tennis Club Subdivision consists of 15 single family residential
lots. At this time the trip generation factors for the
subdivision take into account the area's accessibility to mass
transit and amount to 4 end trips per dwelling unit. Therefore,
the subidvision produces approximately 60 trips/day on the
average. Typically peak hourly traffic for residential use
equates to 20~ of the average daily traffic, i.e. peak traffic
attributable to the subdivision would be 20 vehicles per hour
(vph). The majority of the residential trips would be Aspen-
bound in the morning and homeward-bound in the afternoon.
It is anticipated that the church will generate peak hourly
traffic of 40 vph under present operations and 60 vph based on
future projection. This traffic will only occur Sundays between
the hours of 9:30 AM and 12:30 PM and Thursdays between 7:00 PM
and 10:00 PM. Neither of these peak traffic periods will
coincide with expected peak hourly traffic generated from the
subdivision or with peak hourly traffic on SH 82. Sunday
BANNER ASSOCIATES, QVC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHCCECTS
SUITE 6, 605 EAST MAQd
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611. ~ (303) 925-5857
BANNER ASSOCIATES, WC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCEICfECTS ~+ ~ ,
2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD ~,+~i' ~ ~x";;
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (3ai) 243-2242
~~
i
morning traffic on SH 82 is off-peak because of the absence of
worker-oriented trips.
Based on the demographics of the church's current members, it can
be anticipated that there will be a 50-50 split of downvalley and
upvalley traffic (left turn -right turn).
At this time there is no indication that a traffic signal will be
necessary at the intersection of Pyramid Road and SH 82 as a
result of the addition of the new Kingdom Hall. The Colorado
Department of Highways Access Manual recommends the installation
of a traffic signal when the average hourly traffic volumes
approach 500 vph on the main thoroughfare and 150 vph on the
intersector road. Although traffic volume on SH 82 will approach
this number by the year 2000, xhe traffic resulting from the
church `and the subdivision combined will be a fraction of the
required threshold volume. Therefore, no signals will be needed.
Similarly, speed change lanes (channelization) are warranted when
the average annual traffic volume approaches 40 right turning
movements per hour or 20 left turning movements per hour on a
highway with the characteristics of SH 82. The combined traffic
generation from the subdivision and the church will exceed 20
left turning movements per hour over a maximum of two 15 minute
periods two days per week (Sundays and Thursdays). As they are
exceeding the warrant for a channelized intersection two 15
minute periods on two days per week, their traffic generation
does not meet the criteria for average daily conditions.
Therefore, no channelization of SH 82 is required.
Furthermore, the CDOH, acting through Pitkin County, its
permitting authority, has issued the church an encroachment
permit requiring no additional improvements to SH 82.
The major geometric criteria controlling the design of the
intersection are the minimum stopping sight distance and the
horizontal clearance from the bridge. The required minimum
stopping sight distance is 300' and is easily met under the
existing geometry. The minimum horizontal clearance for the
bridge is 500'. The intersection of Pyramid Road and SH 82 is
located over 800' from the near end of the bridge. Therefore, no
conflict exists.
I have determined that there are no predictable negative traffic
impacts associated with the project as it is being proposed at
this time, and I cannot establish any need to do improvements to
the highway or the intersection in question under current codes.
Sincerely,
u~ N~
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
c/o Roger Long
P.O. Box 3849
Aspen, Colorado 81612
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS -- Traffic analysis for the proposed Kingdom
Hall development located 1~ miles west of Aspen across from
the City golf course, adjacent to, but not part of, the
Aspen Tennis Court Subdivision. Main access will be by
means of Highway 82 onto Pyramid Road. Our members, using
private cars, will access Pyramid Road from 7-7:30 pm on
Thursday, 18 cars arriving from the west and 22 from the
east. The same cars will exit Pyramid Road onto Highway 82
from 9:30-10 pm.
Between 9:30 and 10 am Sunday, approximately the same number
of cars will be accessing Pyramid Road. Between 12-12:30 pm
Sunday, as many cars will .exit Pyramid Road onto Highway 82.
In addition, Monday through Saturday from 9:15-9:30 am
approximately 5-7 cars will access Pyramid Road and from
10:45-11 am the same number will exit Pyramid Road onto
Highway 82.
r
f
CIT S
a=
PEN
eet
611
March 30, 1987
Terry Badger
905 King Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Kingdom Hall
Dear Terry:
This letter is to verify, as you requested, that water is
available to the tract of land situated in the NE 1/4 of section
11, T.lOs, R.85W. of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County Colorado and can
be delivered to the .proposed structure once all the required
.permits have been obtained.
Sincerely,
Ann Ballard
Administrative Assistant
Aspen Water Department
~ ~ ~,
P 4
*
I
.aspen consolidated sanitation l~istvict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. 13031 925-3601
Tele. 1303) 925-2537
March 31,1987
Terry Badger
Jehovah Witness
905 King St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Badger,
In regards to the proposed Jehovah witness building in the Aspen
Club subdivision, this building can be served by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District. A district line is near by but due to grades a
pumping situation may exist in getting into the district's line.
Sincerely
~~
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Response to Scenic Foreground Overlay
Our building committee shares your concern over maintain-
ing and preserving to the extent possible, the rural and
scenic nature of the western entrance to Aspen. To mitigate
the impact of development of Parcels "A" and "B" and upon
reviewing the criteria of the Pitkin County Land Use Code
under sec. 3-1.13 "Scenic Foreground Overlay" and the memoran-
dum, "Highway 82 Corridor Landscape Parameters," we respond to
those criteria.
3-1.13(c) (1) Parcels "A" and "B" are virtually flat so
that we may not utilize hills and such to conceal the proposed
building. There is, however, a slight relief on the E.-S.E.
perimeter of Parcel "A" and adjacent to the site that may be
further incorporated into a berm.
(2) Out of necessity due to setback parameters
and out of regard for the criteria, we are locating the struc-
ture as far away as is feasible from Highway 82. We are
utilizing the services of a local architect who has lived in
the valley for many years and who is therefore aware of the
peculiarities of mountain building. We have designed a roof
that will lessen the impact of the structure. The roof line
will be extended and stepped with the addition of hips on the
east and west elevations to present a more tapered and bal-
anced appearance. To lessen the impact of height we have
chosen to use a 4-12 roof pitch.
(3) Again, the land is virtually flat and the
building site is located as far as possible from Highway 82.
(4) Parcels "A" and "B" are within the 1400'
scenic corridor; however, the site is at the greatest possible
distance from Highway 82.
(5) We intend to leave untouched the sage and
other natural vegetation of parcels "A" and "B" except for
that portion that will be affected by our structure and park-
ing area. Upon the developed site we will utilize the sug-
gested species of landscape materials, specifically the
Western Juniper, sage on the berms, Aspen and various species
of evergreen in the low contours of the berm. Our planting
materials will be placed discreetly (not as unnatural hedge
rows for screening), clumping islands of Aspen and evergreen
together in the lower saddles of the berms and elsewhere. We
will use more mature plants so as to utilize their greater
screening capabilities. We will consult further with land-
scape architects and planners (notably, Design Workshop, Inc.)
for more detailed advice on plant materials indigenous to the
sage flat ecosystem, plant location and care, and planting
instructions.
In reference to #7 of the "Highway 82 Corridor Landscape
Parameters" the impact of our structure will be lessened by a
lower roof profile (4-12 pitch). Rather than using a metal
roof, we have chosen to use heavy cedar shakes as natural
roofing materials.
(6) The northern elevation of our structure
has very few windows thereby eliminating, for the most part,
any interior lighting that would be visible from the highway.
Under the carport and entrance we will have exterior lighting.
We may provide very limited lighting in the parking area. In
all cases, we will utilize lighting techniques (recessed and
downlighting) whereby light sources will not be visible from
the highway. We anticipate ghat Thursday will be the only
evening in which the structure will be using night lighting.
(7) #7 of Landscape Parameters - We will
screen our structure with the use of 6' berms. They will be
constructed in such a manner as to simulate the varied shapes
and slopes of natural hills and ridges. In addition to
berming we will compliment our screening by the use of plant
materials strategically placed (in the valleys and at the end
of the bermed areas). (Please refer to plot plan.)
(8) By far the majority of land within these
parcels will be retained as open space by virtue of the 200'
setback.
(9) The property is not affected by an identi-
fied viewplane.
,.
ASPEN KINGDOM HALL LANDSCAPE SUMMARY
Our goal in landscaping the Aspen Kingdom Hall site was to
preserve as much of the natural site character as possible by
limiting the amount of disturbed area.
By limiting the disturbed areas we were able to retain as much of
the sage native to the site. Earth berms help screen the parking
area as well as separate new plant material from existing. The
berms will surround the outer portions of the parking area. The
side visible to Highway 82 will be revegetated with sage. All
other ground plane revegetation will be native grasses and
wildflowers. The view from Highway 82 will be partially screened
with native chokecherry and native serviceberry which are both
indigenous to most of the Roaring Fork Valley.
Views from the surrounding neighborhood will be enhanced through
the use of aspen which is a commonly used plant material on
adjacent property.
~~~~~~ ~
., D
~ ~ ~~a7 ~~; .j
r ~ ~.~------
'~ ~ v4spe G'ongregatio
IL
fehovah~ `Witnessed
-- - ~ ~ ~;
_ _ _ ~~ -,
-~oi~'1h1='
~~` v.~_
r~.~_ .~.. r; ri
~~
J)ea.L^ iu.nC1_fi:
Further tC OUL~ ~~'22hi"~Gi1C CC31Ve1":'c^~.tl 0i! O;'1 ~I ilUr'~'.',~'T t:!le 7i; ;1
1 1. .l J f _ ~ 1-
~- ~;.: ~,~ritin~;. ~ ~i s = _. ~ ~,er_ ~.:;: nc c~.~ ,; -,; ou o_,' ;=~,1 _;-gh ~, .=;.nf,e in
OU'L' ~U11C~.121f' ~-~_a.n~. ~ ~7.=,C ",i1 :i^~~ n0i ~ ~v1GE'C _~ C)ia.t ~:'.'^_~T
~~d7.1'].O.Oi~1~ 1n C~, file ~,-,~ .. ~ c c _ t~;t=, i ~i1~lc',~ , ;l< ~~ 1n =ier' t0 Fr=~T~
ti~.e 'c;v.ildin~ <w plea:., ~ c. .. ',=~.r~,zcc , -._~d •t,~ ,_ line - taa.l
li`,~t, vde h~:ve cce~.c. ., `Jto -~?~; ;_,1 ~c~, ~ uri~1; .. '~~~re t thi_r
~~~~i1~_ .,:eet t•a _J,~~ L'-,:. ;~ o ; ~ ,~ ~ ; :~ ~+.nr; ._ ~ic.~ .
. -- ~,,,ere~ --,
"or ttc_ r:: ~.ldir_,^~ ^o;Yi_~i_ttee.
f
k
i
r
c
~,`
s
r
»` .,\
\\ \
•. JI`
! C~ M
1
~ w x}U
i
i L _. ___ _ I d >
_ < i
l' _ ~ Z ~
,~ l _ ~ T -.
__ I ~_ r
!,, a _,
_ -~_
E• ~. -
i
-i- .s:
:
i t
\ ~ ~
'~ ~ ~ -
~L
~~
IL/~
- _~, `~'~
~ J .` ~-
~ ~~»~
0 I ~.... , ~. , l ..
J.4 1, 4"1 :A
U X ~ ~X .7 j!` .~ ___ i t
__ I
z
a
a
[--~
~J
W
7 ~ ! ~
~.. z. - g ,y i _ -- ; ~ ~ d
•• C _ ~ )) ~ fl ~ -
!1 ~ ~i p ',..,t
-v r ~ ~,~ t 6 ~ ~ 'y' ~-Jr~ S ,
~ J
- ~~ ~ ~ y i - ;/ ~ ~/ ° AI i
_ o,~ ~~ .._~ I ~ 'A l~ p~ ~, ~~ ~, i
~ ~ I !!A~ _ ~ ~ r„
o C 0+
nti ~' ~ ' r I - ~ IbC ~-- L~
p\1~ I e'er- ~ F .' ~ A
~ ~ ~ ~ ! 4. i~ . f ~ a ~_,,~.~
> s
~> ,~ ~ ! :. , , ~. ! y.
,.
~.. -_-- , ~ ,X
! ,~_~ A,, y. ,~ i
I i ~ i~ ~I `~ / 6 o fm
~ ,„ _ ~ ~ ~" 6 ~~ u
F ~'
' t ~ ''I ~ ~ t{I~! Y V " 04 Z
Q I ~ r' I ~ Q~ ~`1'. `.'`y IF
o ~: '~ r. ~ .. _ ~.o Gov°.s~ &S
I ~ ti A~d,>r
~', 1 N
I *~ ~ ~ ~
~ /l ~~ _~~ o ,v
o - , ~.
u ,P r ,, ; ~ ~. ~/
1 e. 6
0 ~ i Y / }~ o
C o ~ / I: ~'~, a'
- ~
-_ i
~ ,~ ~.
u~ nY Jl^
' f ;a
t y! ~-. _
~' i _
r V 5'L' (:9 t 5 ly.
~,` l24 A4.
~ti~~ ~~
,.
.r ~`~ ~j
y. , ~
~~,
.,~~ r
~~ - .~
'~ t7~;
t c. •{ 7 ..
a
»'..~
'. r'L'.}
t ~
`t . .
i
1~
~~
~. ~ ...
y
;~ _ ~
t
l-, ~~
.. ~ .~ ~.
.`lip "il,
' ~ w ~
t
V e F
.~ ~~~
} }
4'~. ~ ` '.
-' -.~s:
bl ~y a F _
~,7 ) ~
~'; jij ~ ! ~ +.
~~ ~' }~ ~~
jy,
# , f1~ S-(
~ i ~
~t ~ l
j- '^`S.
4x ~' rl '~ `~.,, ~.'
i ~
~~ r~k~
l!
d
~, _
s.,r
-a ~ " `
r~~ -..~... ,. ~ r
~ ~ ,:~ f;
iw'R~(
n
.t~
~~
.~ _ k,
N
t
Os
G
1
U
d
d
y
a
m
.~
N
7
C
>
V
o
s
~
i
i
;I
~~
r
__~_
d a ~~
G _
Eb g ~ ~~'~ ~
~g ~' e = o~SW ~
°
~ ff
w
_
Cg.
s
~Y ~
g ~ `IStsY v
d '
J
~= =tr
z F .
e is=
6
g.~
a'^•
_~ ~k^ ~W'Y b ~
€
,~:ei
W8 g
~~
d t
<o
~ 3
~_
u g:C~.:~..~~gW~~~B~Y~ '~ s
.
mu~"+Eiu~f ~z~ i~i d _ ~ _ t
O~ N~ti~sZ~~.Wif 3F~Oa~ lC
3 i 6
3~
Qi zee ej
sz..•~
- i ~f~~ ~ ~ :6 ,'f-
~`~ ~.. \
N
0
d
R
0
w
V
w
M
a
0
A
R
R
e
a
a
~~, ; j
~~ ~~ '~ .8o~~a
a ~, ~.,,,, ~,
~1
~1 y~ C I Cr JF J
"SsRB o~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~;i ? ~ /
a9R~°: f1 ~ I ~/
a~~tim3 ~ ~'~I
s;~ ~ ~ ;~ j~ ~ ~~
~ w f
o;~ Z ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~
oil' I ~ 3 ~.~ ~~~ ~~- .~
y v.~,.
« .._~
.-- j j.. ~ ~~~y, a6 8 a.b``
I I ' I /` ~ y d s; 4
~,I ~ ~ ,~ ~J ,~ 16 ~ 4
~~/ F g o f r
0 9 a
I
o y/ / ~ r"d, 9~f
o l ~r / ~ Y 4 ' k
~Or ~ V ~~ '~~~
~~ I .~ . o„
o _ \•~:~
0 fr ~•
~ 'f n ~\ :~
\ fil
\ ~
v
N
i
_ ,.....;
,:~
::.. _...... I ...., , i...:..._ l 1 .. ..i ,.
{~~ ,
.,... ,: ,
ASPEN~PITKIN
.;
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTIVIENT
To: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
"•- -From: Bob Nelson, Environmental Health
Date: May 5, 1987
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review
This office has reviewed the referenced submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicants should provide a means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carry-out from the project onto
the State Highway during the initial phases of construction.
This involves daily monitoring of the routes of the equipment
entering and leaving the site. Further, removal of mud or dirt
will be required with the dirt being deposited back on the
applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall be accomp-
lished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to minimize the
production of dust.
During actual construction"the applicant shall provide an
approved means to .control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property, if it becomes a problem. Control may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area. The applicant should file a fugitive
dust control plan with this office prior to construction, but is
not required to submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice and an
Air Pollution Permit application to the Colorado Health Depart-
ment unless the land clearing is expected to last more than six
(6) months.
Solid Fue~ Burning Devices:
addressed in the submittal,
there will be any fireplaces
is in error and some sort of
applicants should make sure
tions.
This topic is not specifically
and the plans do not indicate ;that
or wood stoves. If our assumption
wood burning device is planned, the
that it conforms to County regula-
Noise Abatement:
Although the site is not within the Aspen City limits, the
applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance
2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement because of the close
proximity of the line on the easterly side of the property. All
construction noise related activities will be covered under-the
maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance, and :the
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 8'16'1'1 303/925-2020
Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review
May 5, 1987
Page 2
applicant is expected to observe the time restrictions for
residential areas in setting the hours of work activity.
Sewage Disposal :_
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
Plater Supply•
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General:
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Franri.s Krizmanich, Planning Office
FROM: Tom N~~~atand, Planning Engineer
RE: .Jehc~v.3lr's Witnc-ass Exemption From GM11P F'roce:ss
nnTE: AM 12,19$7
I have r-~>viesa~rct the materials submitted by the A.t~t~e>n congregation
<>f Jehovah's i~' t.r~c~sses and would like tc, 1'arw~cr-ci the following
<,omments to y<~~-r:
Road System: The I-..rrking and c:ircul<~t.ion titan calls for 60
parking spaces .end three entrances to the acce:>s road (Pyramid
Road). I agree with the traffic analysis, de~f~loped b,y Banner
and Assoc_~iates, when it; states that the maximum .mount of packing
to be required by the ch~.rrch is 60 spaces. Howevc.~r, three access
points tci the narking .3_'~,~a are not needed. In fact, i_t is
recommended th~it the Planning Oft`icc~ look :into t.1tie~ possibi 7 ity of
Ii.miting access Lo the ~>arktng area to one entran~~c°.
Impacts on the Road System: The t.ral'f:i.c ana.f ,, ~: i s developed by
Banner ~rnd As',oc.i.ates l~~~lieves that negli_t;ible impact to State
Highway 82 w:il. result from the placement of this church. The
state highway department also agrees that improvements, such as
accel/deacceleration lanes or left hand turn lanes, will not. need
t:o be pl.:~ced on the highway because of this develc}pment.
The appLicati<>n does not address impacts to Pyramid Road, a dirt
subdivision road that is to be used for •a.ccess by the church.
This road wall. see significant incrersses in traffic volumes
during times of church use and could become very dusty with this
heavy use. 7t. is recommended that the church attempt to mitigate
dust impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood by
either entering into <rn aggressive dust. contrr>1 program or by
chip sealing Pyramid Road from the parking lot entrance to State
Highway 82. The parking lot should also have a hard surface.
This land use proposal presents an ideal opportunity for the
county t.o elim:inate two of the three road cut. _: on the state
highway preseni:ly existing in this area. It is recommended that
the county work with the neighbors of the surr-~>uncting subdivis-
ions and the Jehovah's Witnesses to reduce the three highway
entrances in this area to one. The west portion of Pyramid Road
accesses the highway very close to the Maroon Creek Bridge over
the subject parcel. This access should be closed and traffic re-
routed to the east access of Pyramid Road as shown on the
submission plan. Likewise, the eastern access road used by
landowners in the Clasen-Pajak and Gann subdivisions should also
be closed and i.he drier. extended to the east highway access of
Fyramid road. This will consolidate all three road cuts into
one, more easily controlled intersection.
Drainage: The application doesn't. address drainage cc>ntrol. The
applicant should submit a drainage plan that will bring the
proposed development into conformity with county standards.
Scenic Foreground Overlay Criteria: Due to the extreme building
constraints of the parcel, it appears that the applicant has done
the ~i~most, to confc7rm with sub-section 3-1.]3 of the. Pit.kin
County Lind Ilse Code.
pitkin county
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
Tom Smith, County Attorney ~'~ Imo'
June 29, 1987
Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review Application
You have requested my opinion regarding the use of the Jehovah's
Witnesses property for the intended purpose of the applicants,
and the access issue. These issues apparently arose at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which this application
was originally considered.
1. Use. I have reviewed the plat of the Aspen Tennis Club Area,
as well as the restrictive covenants and the relevant deeds
conveying Parcels A and B to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The
plat specifically excludes Parcels A and B from the Sub-
division. These are the properties owned by the Jehovah's
Witnesses which are the subject of this application. Also,
the protective covenants for the Aspen Tennis Club Area do
not include this property. I am aware of no other documents
that might have any bearing on the use of Parcels A and B,
particularly as regards the allegation that such Parcels are
restricted to open space uses. Accordingly, it is my opinion
that Parcels A and B have been legally conveyed to the
Jehovah's Witnesses and may be used as provided in the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
2. Access. There is some ambiguity in the record regarding
ownership and control of Pyramid Road, which now serves as
access to the Aspen Tennis Club Area and which is proposed as
the access for the Jehovah's Witnesses property. The Quit
Claim Deed dated December 12, 1986, from Richard A. Hollers
to the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses includes
that part of the right-of-way commonly known as Pyramid Road
and adjacent to Parcels A and B. However, the Warranty Deed
dated March 31, 1987, from United Bank of Denver to the
Jehovah's Witnesses excludes the roads and roadways as shown
County Commissioners County Attorney Personnel and Finance
Suite B Suite I Suite F
506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street
Aspen, CO 8161 1 Aspen, CO 8161 1 Aspen, CO 8161 1
(303) 925-5232 (303) 920-1223 (303) 925-3166
Road and Bridge
Fleet Managemant
20210 W. Highway 82
Aspen, CO 81611
(303) 925-7212
„~-
Memorandum To Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review Application
June 29, 1987
PAGE 2
on the plat of the Aspen Tennis Club Area. Also, the
approved plat of the Aspen Tennis Club Area clearly indicates
that Pyramid Road is the access to the Subdivision, and
therefore I would question the assertion that has been made
on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses that they have been
conveyed unqualified ownership of any portion of Pyramid
Road. Since it appears that Pyramid Road is the most logical
access to both properties, I would suggest that as a condi-
tion of any approval of the pending application appropriate
conditions be included to assure proper maintenance of the
access to the point where it meets Lot 1 of the Subdivision,
to assure appropriate use of the access to this point, and to
avoid unnecessary controversies regarding these issues in the
future.
TFS:Cd
9
M~ 131987
May 6, 1987
Mr. Francis Krizmanich
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning office
i jt`~ Joutll valeila Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611 `
Re: Kingdom Hall Scenic Foreground Review Application
Dear Mr. Krizmanich:
As a property owner in the Tennis Club or Clasen-Pecjak Subdivision, I
object to the proposed location of the Kinggom Hal! of Jehovah's Witness.
Please note the objections stated in Herb Klein's letter of May 1, 1987. In
addition, we would like to state the following concerns:
1. A use that requires a 65 car parking lot in a quiet residential area is
inappropriate.
2. The visual impact of 65 cars from the highway is detrimental not only
to our subdivision, ;but to the visual quality of the entry to Aspen.
3. The increased traffic generated by this proposed use is dangerous on
this portion of Highway 82.
We respectfully request that you DENY THE APPROVAL of the Kingdom Hall's
Scenic Foreground Review Application.
Very truly yours,
y`
,: .
JEAN GLADDEN, M.D., F.A.C.S.
RES. 741-3491
DRS. GLADDEN & WILLIAMS, P.A.
THORACIC AND GENERAL SURGERY
825 NORTH SPRING STREET
P.O. BOX 1118
HARRISON, ARKANSAS 72602
501/741-8275
20 Apr. 87
RHYS. A. WILLIAMS, M.D., f.A.C.S.
RES. 743-1068
I ~ ~ (a: ~/~i 3 a
(f 1 ; 9
~ APR 2 t! ,fir
~~ ~~
Mr. Peter Guy
Chairman, Pitkin County
Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Guy,
I have been a property owner, "#10 Maroon Drive",
Aspen Tennis Club Area since 1971.
I am aware of the restrictions and constraints
presented by the Growth Management Plan.
I feel that should
Aspen Congregation
would be damaged.
and nature of said
diem to you. TIIis
of the Commission
exemptions.
I appreciate your
Very t ~ ly yours,
Albina G. Williams
an exemption be granted to the
of Jehovah's Witnesses that I
Should you require specifications
damages I shall be happy to supply
let'c~i i5 i_~ uic~e yuu utid in~i[tuers
to vote no for the requested
consideration.
~~~z ~
AGW/ga
r ~ e
L~C~~~~~
~~ ~~
~ MAY ~ ~ 1987
~ r
~ C~~ , C~~ ~ j~~y
K~
1 ~J~~-~ ;
~2 GULP. ~W~/t..~ ~ C,~ ~`.'~-~~ ~Lt ~~~ ~~ ~+.-fr'~i,c.~,~.~~i._
~~~ .
`~'~- W~.~,(J'\ ~1.~'-~/~"~- -~'`Z 7'~~} ~-X'q`y'l ~. ~~ XQ.~- C. G1k ~vVl.~'t.lt-
i r
`~`~" f
~z t ~ ~ ~
,~ C _~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ .
'„~ M1
~.~- . ~~ GL- .t ~ ~ ~ .~-~ G .~..~s,~~-- ~.L..c-~~
`' °~
.~,~,~-- ~~.~, ~ ~~ c- ~wwU~~ ~...~.~ .~ '~-~-~c.__.
J
LAW OFFICES OF
HERBERT S. KLEIN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
201 NORTH MILL STREET
SUITE 203
ASPEN, COLORADO 81 61 1
(303) 925-8700
TELECOPIER (3031 925-3977
May 1, 1987
Francis Krizmanich
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Ate'' ::~ a. TYI~ ti : C' r`n^r.^i' n-i ~v <i A++,.l i•
~:... irg,~c'~r~ I-. y c.r,i., :~ ,.y a viL.~ rr-- ~ .. .-_
Dear Francis:
I am forwarding this letter to you pursuant to our previous
telephone discussion. I represent some property owners in the
neighborhood adjacent to the proposed Kingdom Hall site. They
are concerned about the visual and physical impacts of the
proposed project and requested that I state their objections for
the record. Unfortunately, I will not be available at the May 19
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Therefore, I would
appreciate your discussion of the points raised in this letter at
that time.
The overall visual effect of the project from the highway is
a significant intrusion on the relatively low profile of the
surrounding homes in the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. In
addition, the placement of the existing homes is at a substantial
distance from the highway thus enhancing scenic values. The only
other permitted use in this zone catagory likely to be developed
would be a single family home. Such a use would have much less
impact and far greater design flexibility and thus be a much more
suitable use in this visually sensitive area.
The proposed project appears to be approximately 120 feet
long and in certain parts two to two and a half stories high.
The plans I reviewed were not to scale and, therefore, it was
difficult to precisely determine these footages. However, it is
clear that the structure is substantially more linear in its
design than is appropriate in this location. The site is very
flat and does not have any existing trees which would provide
some mitigation of the visual impact. Other concerns include
traffic generation on this fairly dangerous and congested portion
of highway and the substantial dust due to the high volume of
cars using the access road and the parking lot.
In the event the Commission deems it advisable to approve
the application we would suggest the following requirements be
--_ __._
i .r
Francis Krizmanich
May 1, 1987
Page 2
imposed in order to mitigate some of these concerns.
1. Unify the access point between the Clasen/Pecjak
Subdivision and the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision at the easterly
boundary of the parcel.
2. Paving the access road and all parking areas.
3. Development of appropriate acceleration and
deceleration lanes along its frontage with Highway 82 and
avoidance of conflicts with the bua stop.
4. Extensive landscaping to minimize visual impacts.
I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter and hope
that, if the project is approved, these requirements will be
incorporated into the Resolution of Approval.
Very truly yours,
HERBERT S. KLEIN,
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
~'
~--
Her rt S. Klein
HSK/nwt
April 23, 1987
Dear Property Owner:
As an owner in the tennis court subdivision I am sure you are aware that for many years
there has been a safety problem turning on and off of Highway 82. Part of the safety problem 1s
that there 1s na light ar any means of determining where to turn aff the highway at night or to a
snowstorm, Another safety prabiem results tram the tact that there 1s another entrance on
Highway 82 right next to the Pyramid Road.
Because of these concerns and several recent near accidents, the owners of the Clasen
Pecjeck subdivision have taken three steps: 1) we have negatlated with the owners of the property
on Highway $2 for an easement from the tennis court subdivision entry road (Pyramid Road) to
the Clasen PecjeCk subdivision, 2) we have made an agreement to maintain a light on the stone
entry piers from Highway 82, 3) we have arranged to abandon the current easement in the Clasen
Pecjak subdivision, subject to the approval of those landowners.
Also included 1n the arrangement 1s an agreement to share whatever expenses thera are in
road maintenance and snow removal. Another aspect of the plan is to landscape the area that is
presently be/wean the two roads and to get rid of the thistles. We feel that this will aesthetically
enhance the property as well as make 1t much safer.
Enclosed is a plan of where these new easements would be. If you have any problems with this
plan please contact me, Steven Conger at the above addressor call 925-3021.
Yer truly yours
~•
Steven J. Conger
Encl.
SJC/na
SCHENK, KERST BL DEWINTER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
CENTRAL BANK BUILDING
SUITE 310. 302 EIGHTH STREET
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
13031 945-2447
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. DEWINTER, III
July 29, 1987
Pitkin County Commissioners
Pitkin County Courthouse
506 East Main Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Parcel A, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision
Application of Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses
Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of the owners of various lots within the
Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision, I hereby urge you to deny the
Growth Management Exemption application of the Aspen Congregation
of Jehovah's Witnesses for construction of a church facility on
Parcel A of the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. We submit that
the applicable provisions of the County's Land Use Code require
denial of the application for the following reasons:
1. Section 3-2 of the Land Use Code establishes a ten
(10) acre minimum lot area for parcels within the AF-1 Zone
District. The subject parcel contains approximately 3.41 acres.
The applicant has erroneously relied upon the provision of
Section 3-3.10 of the Code which sets forth those Zone Districts
within which a church is permitted. Section 3-3.10 refers to
"churches located on a lot of at least two (2) acres in size .
." (emphasis added). Under the position adopted by the applicant
and accepted by the Planning Office to date, the quoted language
in Section 3-3.10 is deemed to override the specific minimum lot
area requirement of Section 3-2. This position is in error under
commonly accepted rules of statutory construction.
It is the law of Colorado that statutory provisions
must be harmonized if it can be done by a reasonable interpreta-
tion. Cooper Motors vs Board of County Commissioners of Jackson
Count , 279 P2d 685, 131 Colo. 78 (Colo. 1955); Rowland vs
Theobald, 409 P2d 272, 159 Colo. 1 (Colo. 1965); Board of County
Commissioners of Montezuma County vs E.J. Rippy & Sons, 421 P2d
461, 161 Colo. 261 (Colo. 1966). The Colorado Supreme Court has
also found that if separate clauses within a statute may be
reconciled by one construction but would conflict under a differ-
ent interpretation, the construction which results in harmony
Pitkin County Comm'sioners
July 29, 1987
Page (2)
rather than inconsistency should be adopted. Peo le vs District
Court, Second Judicial District, 713 P2d 918 (Colo. 1986) and
Alpert Cor vs State Department of Highways, 602 P2d 944, 199
Colo. 4 (Colo. 1979). To read Section 3-3.10 in a manner which
is consistent with the minimum lot area requirements of Section
3-2, it is necessary to construe the words "at least" in Section
3-3.10 to mean that where the applicable Zone District otherwise
allows less than a two (2) acre minimum lot size, the con-
struction of a church within that Zone District will require a
lot size of at least two (2) acres; however, where the minimum
lot size is otherwise greater than two (2) acres (as is the case
in the AF-1 Zone District) the greater minimum lot size must be
given effect. In other words, Section 3-3.10 provides a limita-
tion on the lot size permitted for construction of church but it
does not set forth the only limitation and does not render
inoperative the lot size limitation otherwise provided for the
AF-1 Zone District in Section 3-2.
Although I have referred to statutory construction, the
same rules of construction are used in construing legislative
enactments whether they are statutes or ordinances. Gomez vs.
City of Sheridan, Colorado by and through Herring, 611 F. Supp.
230 (D.C. Colo. 1985).
Colorado Courts have also consistently held that
statutes should be construed in a manner which will render them
effective in accomplishing the purposes for which inacted. In
re: U.S. District Court for District of Colorado, 499 P2d 1169,
179 Colo. 270, conformed to Sandoval vs. Heckers, 350 F. Supp.
127 (Colo. 1972). Statutory terms are also to be given the
benefit of common sense understanding. People vs Garcia, 541 P2d
687, 189 Colo. 347 (Colo. 1975). In the matter before you, the
common sense application of the above referenced Sections of the
Land Use Code requires that the ten (10) acre minimum lot size be
adhered to in the AF-1 Zone District. This is further supported
by Section 3-1.11 of the Code which reads as follows:
(a) The intent of the AF-1 Zone is to maintain the rural
and open space character of the lands proximate to the
County's development centers and principal highways by
preserving the integrity of its agricultural lands and
operations, providing land for low density, single
family housing and obtaining public and open space uses
within the areas so zoned. (emphasis added).
The foregoing intent of the Land Use Code relative to
the AF-1 Zone District will clearly be violated if the applicant
is permitted to proceed with the proposed development on the
parcel containing only 3.41 acres.
Pitkin County Comm'l~'sioners ..
July 29, 1987
Page (3)
Since it does not meet the ten (10) acre minimum lot
size, the subject parcel is a substandard lot which would be
subject to the provisions of Section 7-2 of the Code. Section
7-2 allows the parcel to be used for development of one (1)
single family dwelling upon review and approval by the County.
Although we reserve the right to object to use of the subject
property for a single family dwelling, such use is the maximum to
which the property can be put under the provisions of the Land
Use Code.
2. The application fails to demonstrate that the
project represents an essential governmental or community
facility which provides basic or fundamental public services upon
which the remainder of the community is dependent for support
(emphasis added). Although the cause and purposes of the appli-
cant are undoubtedly admirable and of benefit of certain members
of the community, the application does not support a finding
pursuant to Section 5-510.2 of the Land Use Code that the com-
munity is dependent upon the proposed church facility for
support. Moreover, under the circumstances, a finding that the
applicant's facility and proposed use meets the above stated
minimum criteria of providing basic or fundamental public
services upon which the remainder of the community is dependent
for support may violate the provisions of the First Amendment of
the United States Constitution prohibiting the establishment of
religion. I would urge you and the County Attorney to carefully
consider the potential ramifications of finding that this church
facility meets the quoted minimum criteria for exemption from the
Growth Management limitation.
3. You must also find that the impacts of the project
will be mitigated and that the project has a negligible adverse
impact on the community's air, water, land and energy resources
and is visually compatible with surrounding areas. As you review
this application, please consider the following:
(a) The proposed facility will be utilized by as many as
one hundred and fifty (150) members on a regular basis
and will provide a parking lot to ultimately accommo-
date sixty (60) vehicles. You are well aware of the
intensity of traffic on Highway 82 adjacent to the
subject property. The most recent State Highway
Department traffic counts for 1984 and 1985 are in
excess of 19,000 ADT for the portion of Highway 82 in
question. It is apparent that any added traffic
generated by the applicant's facility will increase the
hazards to traffic at an already dangerous inter-
section. Assuming as the applicant argues that the
traffic impact will be periodic, it will nevertheless
be significant during the periods of use. In consider-
ing the application you must also anticipate that the
Pitkin County Comml~°sioners
July 29, 1987
Page (4)
facility will be used more than two (2) times per week,
thus increasing its impact on Highway 82 and the
surrounding properties.
(b) It cannot be found that the proposed facility will be
visually compatible with the surrounding areas. Due to
the limited size of the parcel and its configuration
relative to Highway 82 and the surrounding properties,
the proposed building cannot be situated on the site in
a manner which will acceptably minimize its impact.
The building as proposed will adversely affect sight
distances on the curve in Pyramid Road, thus causing
added traffic hazard. The applicant proposes to
install landscaping as well as a portion of its parking
lot within the fifty (50) foot private road easement of
the property owners as established for the Subdivision.
This intensity of lot coverage to accomplish the
applicant's proposed development illustrates the
inappropriateness of the development to the site.
In summary, the subject application fails to meet the
minimum lot size requirements applicable in the AF-1 Zone
District. In addition, the proposed facility does not satisfy
the requirements for a Growth Management Exemption and finding to
the contrary under the applicable language of the Land Use Code
may exceed your constitutional authority. Finally, the impacts
of the project are simply incapable of being mitigated given the
inadequate lot size and its location. You are therefore urged to
deny the subject application. We will appreciate the opportunity
to present additional information and comments at your hearing on
this matter. Thank you for your consideration in this regard.
ly,
DK/rei
xc Lot Owners, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision
Mr. Thomas F Smith, Pitkin County Attorney
Mr. Brooke A. Peterson, Attorney at Law
LAW OFFICE8
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORA00 91611
13031 025-9166
TELEFAX: 13031 025-1090
August 5, 1987
HAND DELIVERED
Pitkin County Commissioners
Pitkin County Courthouse
506 East Main Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re; Aspen Congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses
Application for Exemption
from Growth Management
Plan Application
Lady and Gentlemen,
I write this letter to you even though our application has the
support of the Planning Office and the unanimous support of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and the support of precedent in this
community. I believe the only issue to be discussed at this time is
whether it is appropriate for our application for construction to be
exempted from the Growth Management Plan.
Prior to addressing Mr. Kerst's arguments, it should be noted
that, while Parcel A, the property owned by my client, is shown on
the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision Plat, it is not part of that sub-
division and is not governed by any restrictive covenants affecting
that subdivision.
The first argument raised by Mr. Kerst on behalf of his clients
relates to the adequacy of the lot size. It is his position that the
AF-1 zone district requires a minimum of ten acres for any lots and,
as this property contains only 3.41 acres, the only use that is
appropriate for this property is a single family residence. He urges
you to examine the Colorado courts' construction of statutory intent
and interpretation and urges that these court cases mandate an
interpretation that the subject property is too small to build a
church upon.
Section 3-2 of the Land Use Code establishes a minimum lot area
of ten acres for the AF-1 zone. However, Section 3-3 of the Land Use
Code, however, varies the minimum lot_area in the AF-1 zone by
allowing a church on a parcel in that zone district as a permitted
use, where the parcel is of at least two acres in size. The language
in Section 3-3 is clear ancY unambiguous. Mr. Kerst's argument that
this two acre restriction is only applicable to those zone districts
which have minimum lot areas of less than two acres is a far
Pitkin County Commissioners
Page Two
reaching attempt to narrow the exact language of Section 3-3.
Section 3-2 is the broad definition of the particular zone district
and Section 3-3 serves to furth~:r define the uses as are allowed in
a particular zone district. Section 3-3 of the Code creates an
exception to the minimum lot size in order to allow construction of
a church on at least a two acre parcel in the AF-1 zone district, a
use allowed by right. In examining the language of Section 3-3 of
the Land Use Code, one must conclude a church is a permitted use on
a parcel of at least two acres in size.
When the language of a zoning ordinance is clear and unambiguous,
there is no need to construe the language in any other manner than
how it is written. 82 Am. Jur 2d Zoning and Planning SS 62, P.495.
The language of Section 3-3 is clear and certain, and there is
nothing to be left to interpretation. It has been the position of
the Colorado courts that, when that is the case, the language of the
ordinance as written must be upheld. Jones v. Board of Ad'ustment,
119 Colo. 420 204 P2d 560 (1949). Furthermore, as zoning laws
restrict the rights of property owners, any conflict with interpret-
ation thereof is to be resolved in favor of the property owner.
Rohan Zoning and Land Use Controls. SS 36.03 2 .
the land is the rule and not t2ie exception., Ibid.wFurthermoref
where an exception appears to favor the owner of land, those
exceptions are to be construed accordingly. The Colorado courts have
further stated that any zoning ordinance restricting the pro ert
owner's power should not be extended by interpretation. Chamberlain
v. Roberts 253 P 27 81 Colo. 23 (1927), Roberts v. Gross 245 P 118
85 Colo. 333 (1929). While we would argue that there is no need to
resolve the alleged inconsistency between Section 3-2 and 3-3 of the
Land Use Code or to interpret the language, if a need exists, the
consistent interpretation of the Planning Office and of the Planning
and Zoning Commission in its debates regarding this issue in July of
this year was that the construction of a church on a parcel of at
least two acres in size in the AF-1 zone district was a use allowed
by right.
Furthermore, since Section 3-2 is a general discussion of minimum
lot area and is varied by the specific language of Section 3-3, the
Courts will, if necessary, favor the specific over the more general
provisions. Rohan Zoning and Land [use Controls SS 36.03(3). Given
the rules of law governing the construction of zoning legislation,
and given the past interpretatio;~s by the Pitkin County Board of
County Commissioners, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commiss-
ion and the Pitkin County Planning Office, one must conclude this
parcel is suitable and contains e,i.ough acreage for its use as a
church by the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Furthermore, we agree with the ~'lanning and Zoning Commission's
interpretation of Section 3-1.11 that a church is a public use of
land and, therefore, fits nicely within the intent of the AF-1 zone,
as defined by Section 3-l.ll.
Pitkin County Commissioners
Page Three
Mr. Kerst's letter then deals with the
this facility should be exempted from Growth1Manafementher or not
submit to the Commissioners that this facility meets the criteria
for an exemption from Growth Management for the following reasons:
The Board has granted exemptions from the application of Growth
Management Plan in the past on st least three occasions wherein the
community as a whole was not "dependent" on the facility. These
exemptions were granted in 1986 for construction at Aspen High
School, in 1985 for construction of the Aspen Community School and
in 1983 for the change in use from the Morris residence to an
alcohol and rehabilitation facility. Clearl
to the exemptions which have been granted in~ther use is comparable
is clear that churches, by their very nature, arepbeneficialltoethe
public:.. welfare. All churches of whatever denomination make a unique
contribution to public morals and welfare, a contribution which I
would argue cannot be made by any other t
Given the interpretation of this yPe of community facility.
nature of a church, the commun~.tyrisl dependent upon tthis facility
for support.
Y
Some of the criteria for exemption from Growth Management which
have been applied in the past in the City of Aspen and in Pitkin
County by the respective government bodies, and by the Planning
Office, has been that the entity be a not for profit venture, that
the facility serves the local community, that it is available to the
general public, and that it is not a growth generator. It is
submitted that the request of the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses meets those criteria, just as the re
Lutheran Church met those criteria in a similar exemptionhapplicath
ion by the City of Aspen in 1985.
In addition, the Board may also exempt the a 1'
to the provisions of Section 5-510.2 a PP ication pursuant
limited by the ( )~ "all development not
provisions of Section 5-510.1(a)." While we are of
the opinion, as was the Planning and Zoning Commission, that this
proposed facility meets the criteria for an exempt "community
facility," this method of exemption may be applied by the Board as
well. Your approval of this exemption certainly cannot be viewed as
violating the provisions of the Ccanstitution regarding the estab-
lishment of religion, as the Board of County Commissioners is simply
not "establishing" a use that has existed in the Aspen community for
over twenty years.
The final argument raised by Mr. Kerst is that the applicant has
not mitigated the impacts of the project and that the project does
not have negligible adverse impact upon the community's air, water,
land, and energy resources and is visually compatible with the
surrounding areas. This argument is contrary to the unanimous
findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the
Pitkin Count ~~'~
y Commissioners
Page Four
Planning Office. The a
willingness and desire ptolc~„rorknwithrtheetcommunitevidence of our
Y and with the
officials of Pitkin County regarding the impact on the traf '
Highway 82. I would ask you to remember that an a f1c of
required to eliminate all of its impacts, but simply to miti ate
those impacts, and we have already committed t PPlicant is not
neighborhood in terms of lessening the entrances onto Highwa 182gahe
to reducing the impact of the traffic as demonstrated b Y nd
studies as much as possible. Y our traffic
The argument that the proposed facilit
compatible with the surroundin Y will not be visually
Planning and Zoning Commission, who has has been addressed by the
of the project as it affects the Highway 82 co rridor. Thehbuildinn
has been sited upon the property and will be constructed in such
manner as to g
give the maximum effect to the landsca a
the visual vulnerability from Highway 82 as was Bing and reduce
Planning and Zoning Commission. Furthermore, the church, as desi n-
ed, bears a resemblance to a single famil resid quired by the
has been taken to minimize its impacts upon theesurround9nedareare
The conditions .placed upon the a g as.
project b
Planning and Zoning Commission andpourv illingness to accept those
conditions amply demonstrate ttie mitigation of the project's
impacts.
In conclusion, I believe valid reasons exist, as evidenced by the
findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Planning Office
and our application, to grant the Growth Management Plan exem tion
to my client for the construction of its church facility upon pthis
property. The facility will be of benefit to the community and will
enhance the welfare of the community in a great respect. I therefore
urge you to grant the exemption from Growth Management at your
meeting on August 10, 1987.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this application
Yours vPr•, t-,-,,,~,~
is OKE A. ET R~SON,
Profe n o o ation
BY ~ ~ Y
BAP: krl
Br~iok A . et r o
cc: Aspen Congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses
Thomas Smith, Esquire
Daniel Kerst, Esquire
Perry Harvey
r /' _v~
~4spert G'ongrega tiort
~f' fehovah~ `tiVitnesse~
July 30, 1987
Aspen Congregation
C/o Roger Long
Box 3849,
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Clasen/Pecjak Homeowner,
Your principal representative, Steve Conger, has been negotiating with the
Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, an adjacent property owner, for two
rights of easement through the smaller parcel of our land. The proposal is to
give the Larson residence a private drive, while the remainder of the Subdivi-
sion would use a second, common roadway, The portion of the existing roadway
not used in this proposal would then be landscaped in aspen trees and grass.
All parties seem to be in favor of this plan, including the Pitkin County
attorney and highway engineers. The Aspen Congregation is also willing to
grant such easements and work with the neighbors in the implementation of
this plan. We feel a suitable time for such work to commence would be after
all public county approval processes have been passed, We would hope that
would be no later than August 10, at which time the County Commissioners
review our land use application.
In view of resolutions passed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, we
feel it is important for representatives of both parties to meet and reach
equitable solutions to lighting the entryway and improvements to and mainte-
nance of the roadway. We also feel it important to put such agreements in
writing and signed by these representatives,
We will look forward to such a meeting in the near future. We could meet
with you or your representative on any evening except Tuesday or Thursday.
We will leave such a meeting to your discretion as to time and place, We
would be happy to meet in one of your homes if that is more convenient.
You may either call Terry Badger at 925-5132 or 5460 or Roger Long at 925-1771
or -2562 to set such a meeting,
Sincerely,
Aspen Congregation
Building Committee
~_
~~~ _
~~ ~~~,
~,..:
SCHENK, KERST ~ DEWII~TTER ca ~ ~ '--~
ATTORNEYS AT LAW ~~
CENTRAL BANK BUILDING ~ ti.. ~ ~ JVL 3 ~ IQQ7
SUITE 310. 302 EIGHTH STREET I! i ~
~'il
GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 51601 Y~
13031 945-2447 C E. A___~.~ _Tx,.._ ~a
i...-... ... ... ... _. _,.._ .. ,..._.... ...._...
JOHN R. SCHENK
DAN KERST
WILLIAM J. DeWINTER, III
July 29, 1987
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Attention: Frances Krizmamich
RE: Parcel A, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision
Application of Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's
Witnesses
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I enclose a letter addressed to the County Commis-
sioners setting forth the opposition of the owners of various
lots within the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision to the Application
of the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. Please circu-
late copies of the enclosed letter among the Commissioners in
advance of the public hearing scheduled for August 10, 1987.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions in this
regard.
Ly,
DK/rei
Enc.
xc Lot Owners, Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision
Mr. Tom Smith, Pitkin County Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall
DATE: July 7, 1987
APPLICANT: Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Growth Management Exemp-
tion for Essential Community Facilities pursuant to Section 5-
510.2(f) of the Land Use Code and Scenic Foreground Overlay
pursuant to Section 3-1.13 of the Code to construct a church of
approximately 3,500 square feet.
BACKGROUND: This application was previously heard by the Planning
Commission on May 19, 1987, at which time the project review was
continued to July 7, 1987. The Commission continued this hearing
so that the County Attorney could review the ownership status of
the property and also to provide the County Engineer an oppor-
tunity to comment on design solutions for proposed and existing
access ways onto State Highway 82.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1) County Attorney: In a memo dated June 29, 1987, Tom
Smith has commented that it is his opinion that Parcels
A and B have been legally conveyed to the Jehovah's
Witnesses and may bs used as provided in the Land Use
Code. Regarding the question of legal use of the
access, Tom notes some ambiguity in the conveyance of
ownerships. Tom suggests that a condition of any
approval should be included to assure proper mainten-
ance of the access to the point where it meets lot 1 of
the subdivision to assure appropriate use of the access
to this point. Tom's memo is attached.
2) County Engineer: The Planning staff was not able to get
written comments from Bud Eylar, County Engineer
regarding access design issues prior to writing this
memorandum. Mr. Eylar is reviewing the information and
will be present at the meeting to discuss any access
design issues which may arise.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning staff reviewed this application in
our attached memorandum dated 5/19/87. Our recommendation
remains for approval with conditions.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Kingdom Hall
DATE: May 19, 1987
APPLICANT: Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a
Exemption for an essential community facility
5-510.2 (f) of the Land Use Code and Scenic
approval pursuant to Section 3-1.13 of the
church of approximately 3,500 square feet.
attached.
Growth Management
pursuant to Section
Foreground Overlay
Code to construct a
The application is
ZONING: The property contains 3.41 acres and is zoned AF-1.
Churches are an allowed use in the AF-1 zone if they are located
on a lot of at least 2 acres with each building situated at least
30 feet from all property lines.
WATER: Water will be provided by the Aspen Water Department.
SEWER: Sewer service will be provided by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District.
ACCESS: Access is via private drive onto Maroon Drive to Highway
82.
MAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
I. Referral Agency Comments:
1. Aspen Fire Marshall: In a memo dated April 1, 1987,
Wayne Vandemark submitted the following comments:
"The Aspen Fire Department can service the
proposed building with minimal response time. We
do find the hydrant too far away from the struc-
ture and of little value if a major fire occurs.
We will require a hydrant line extended closer to
the building and a fire alarm system or an
automatic sprinkler and a fire alarm system."
2. Environmental Health Department: In a memo dated May
5, 1986 (attached), Bob Nelson submitted the following
comments:
o Air Pollution: The .applicants should prevent dirt
and mud carry-out onto Highway 82 during construc-
tion. A fugitive dust control plan should be
filed prior to construction activities. The
application does not mention fireplaces or
woodstoves, if any are planned, they must meet
County requirements.
o Noise: The applicant will be required to comply
with the City of Aspen noise abatement ordinance.
o Water and Sewer: The proposal to utilize public
water and sewer service is in conformance with the
policies of the Environmental Health Depart-
ment.
3. County Planning Engineer: In a memo dated May 12, 1987
(attached), Tom Newland submitted the following
comments:
The traffic analysis developed by Banner and
Associates is adequate. Three access points to
the parking lot do not appear necessary, there-
fore, it is recommended that the parking lot
access be limited to one entrance. It is recom-
mended that the church attempt to mitigate dust
impacts by either entering into an aggressive dust
control program or by chip sealing Pyramid Road
from the parking lot entrance to State Highway 82.
The parking lot should also have a hard surface.
Tom also notes that this project provides the
opportunity to eliminate two of the three road
cuts onto the State Highway in this area. The
applicant should submit a drainage control plan.
Due to the extreme building constraints of the
parcel, it appears that the applicants have done
their utmost to comply with the Scenic Foreground
criteria.
4. Public Comment: The Planning Office has received some
letters concerning this project from neighborhood
homeowners. These letters are attached.
II. Staff Comments: The applicant is requesting a Growth
Management Exemption for essential community facilities and
Scenic Foreground Overlay approvals to construct a church on
a 3.4 acre property at the intersection of Maroon Drive and
Highway 82. The property is zoned AF-1, this zone allows
churches as a use by right on lots of at least 2 acres
provided that all buildings are set back at least 30 feet
2
from all property lines.
In regard to the request for a Growth Management Exemption,
the staff notes that as a previously subdivided lot this
property would not require a GMP allotment for a single-
family residence. However, the applicant must apply for a
Growth Management Exemption for a church to ensure that any
impacts to the neighborhood will be mitigated. Section 5-
510.2(f) of the Code states:
"All construction of essential governmental and
community facilities other than housing, subject to the
approval of the Board of County Commissioners upon the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
To be eligible for said exemption, the applicant shall
first be required to demonstrate that the project
represents an essential governmental or community
facility. Minimum criteria for this determination
shall include; but not be limited to, findings that the
project provides basic or fundamental public services
upon which the remainder of the community is dependent
for support, is available for use by the general public
and serves primarily the local community. Upon the
demonstration that the project is essential, the
applicant shall also be required to document that the
impacts of the project will be mitigated, including
those associated with the generation of additional
employees, the demand for parking, road and transit
services; and the need for such basic services as water
supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and
police protection, and solid waste disposal. Appli-
cants shall also be required to demonstrate that the
project has a negligible adverse impact on the com-
munity's air, water, land and energy resources and is
visually compatible with surrounding areas."
To be eligible for the above exemption, the applicant is
required to show that the project represents an essential
community facility. Minimum criteria include findings that
the project provides basic services upon which the community
is dependent for support; is available for use by the
general public and serves primarily the local community.
The applicant contends that religious services and facili-
ties provide a basic service upon which the community is
dependent. The proposed Kingdom Hall will be open to the
general public. The local community will be primarily
served by this project as the members live within the Aspen
and Snowmass areas.
The staff opinion is that this project represents an
essential community facility because it meets the above
3
criteria.
If the project is found to be an essential community
facility, then the applicant is required to document that
the impacts of the project will be mitigated. Water and
sewer for the project will be provided by the Aspen Water
Department and the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,
respectively. Both agencies have indicated their ability to
serve the project.
Police services are not expected to be impacted by this
proposal. The County Dump has adequate capacity to serve
this project and should not be impacted. The Fire Marshall
recommends that a fire hydrant should be placed near the
building and an alarm system be installed or an automatic
sprinkler and alarm system should be installed. In regard
to employee impacts, the application contends that the
members of the Kingdom Hall live and work in the Aspen and
Snowmass areas and that no workers are employed, therefore,
no employee impacts will result. The Housing Office did not
comment on this application, however, the Planning staff
agrees with the applicant that no employee impacts will be
generated by this proposal.
The applicants have submitted the traffic analysis by
Patrick Dobie, P.E., of Banner Associates, Inc. which states
that parking needs can be accommodated on-site and that
traffic impacts to Highway 82 should be negligible. Mr.
Dobie's analysis indicates that the present membership of
the church is 100 members and is expected to reach 150
members in the future. Assuming 2.5 passengers per vehicle,
the church will require 40 spaces now and 60 in the future.
The staff agrees with Mr. Dobie that the traffic volumes
generated by the project will be negligible, however, we do
recommend that the parking lot and Maroon Drive should be
chip sealed or paved to mitigate dust impacts to the
surrounding neighborhood. In addition, we concur with Tom
Newland's recommendation that the parking lot be limited to
one access point. The applicants should also submit a
drainage plan for Tom's review and approval. The Planning
staff and Tom Newland have looked at the three existing
Highway 82 entrance drives and we believe the opportunity
exists to consolidate three dangerous access points into one
relatively safe intersection. The staff has talked to some
of the neighbors who would be affected in the Clasen-Pecjak
subdivision and in the Aspen Tennis Club subdivision and
this proposal appears to be generally supported. We have
received some letters in support of this proposal which are
attached. We recommend that the applicants close the access
road nearest the Maroon Creek bridge and work with the
neighborhood to combine the other two drives into one access
point.
4
The property is also within the Scenic Foreground Overlay of
Highway 82 which requires that the project be designed to
minimize visual impacts. The applicant has addressed the
Scenic Foreground Criteria in the application. The criteria
and the staff comments follow:
1) Whether the development has utilized existing
topography, such as dry ridges and hills, to
screen buildings to the maximum extent possible.
Staff: The building site is virtually flat so that
existing topographical features cannot be utilized
to screen this project.
2) Whether the development has been designed to
compliment the natural topography of the land,
including, whenever possible and appropriate, the
utilization of innovative architectural techniques
such as earth sheltered design and clustering of
structures in the least visible portions of the
site. Also, whether the development's height and
bulk has been designed to avoid, to the maximum
extent possible, the visibility of buildings from
the highway.
Staff: The proposed building is an approxi-
mately 3,500 square feet one-story ranch style
structure with a shake roof that should be
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
3) Whether the development has avoided the location
of uses on the highest ground or most visible
sites for State Highway 82.
Staff: The site is virtually flat.
4) Whether the development has been located outside
of the designated Scenic Foreground, or on a
suitable site at the greatest possible distance
from State Highway 82.
Staff: The proposed building site has been located
at the greatest possible distance from Highway 82.
5) Whether the development has been landscaped in
accordance with the adopted State Highway 82
landscape guidelines and has preserved natural
vegetation, to the maximum extent possible,
including avoidance of irrigated meadows.
Staff: The applicant has submitted a landscaping
5
plan that is in general conformance with the
Highway 82 corridor landscape guidelines. The
staff recommends that plant number sizes and
species and a proposed irrigation plan be submit-
ted for our review and approval. A performance
guarantee should also be submitted.
6) Whether the development's exterior lighting has
been designed in such a manner that objectionable
light sources will be incapable of being seen from
State Highway 82.
Staff: The applicants have indicated that lighting
will be recessed and designed to minimize off-site
impacts. The staff recommends that a lighting
plan be submitted with the landscaping plan.
7) Whether any landforms and earth moving techniques
designed into the development are utilized as one
of several methods to compliment and enhance
development, rather than as the single device for
screening development from view from the State
Highway 82 Corridor.
Staff: The applicants are proposing to utilize
berms up to 6 feet high to screen the project.
8) Whether, in the case of non-residential develop-
ment, the use has been located on a large site and
has been designed so as to preserve the vast
majority of the site as open space.
Staff: The proposed building and parking area will
cover approximately one acre of the 3.4 acre site.
The majority of the site will remain undeveloped.
9) Whether the development has been designed so as to
avoid, to the maximum extend possible, any Scenic
Viewplane identified on the adopted State Highway
82 Corridor Master Plan.
Staff: The property is not affected by any
designated Scenic Viewplane.
The staff opinion is that this project complies with
the Scenic Foreground Criteria as outlined above and
should be approved by the Planning Commission.
In summary, it is the recommendation of the Planning
Office that this project be granted an exemption from
GMP because it represents an essential community
service and has negligible impacts which can be
6
mitigated.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
Commission grant Scenic Foreground Overlay approval to this
project and recommend approval of the GMP exemption to the Board
of County Commissioners subject to the following conditions:
1) The applicants shall provide a fire hydrant and fire
alarm system or an automatic sprinkler and fire alarm
system as recommended by the Fire Marshall.
2) Mud and dirt from the construction site shall not be
carried out onto Highway 82.
3) A fugitive dust control plan shall be filed with the
Environmental Health Department prior to construction.
4) The applicants are required to comply with the City of
Aspen Noise Abatement ordinance.
5) The proposed parking lot shall be limited to the one
access point close t to Highway 82.
6) Tie ~xisting driveway adjacent to the Maroon Creek
bridge (Pyramid Road) ~ha~~ ro ^'^~P~
7) The applicants shall work with the neighborhood to
consolidate the three existing Highway 82 access points
into one access.
8) The applicants shall pave or chip seal the parking lot
and the access drive from the parking lot to Highway 82
to mitigate dust impacts.
9) The applicants shall submit a drainage plan to the
County Planning Engineer for his review and approval
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10) The applicants shall submit a landscaping plan which
details berm elevations, plant species sizes and
numbers, irrigation methods, lighting locations and
styles.
11) The building style and materials shall be in substan-
tial compliance with the representations contained in
the application.
12) The applicants shall submit performance guarantees for
landscaping and road work in a form acceptable to the
County Attorney and an amount acceptable to the
Planning Office.
FK.JEHOVAH
7
..
TO 3E COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT:
' 508 east main street
LAND USE APPLICATION aspen, Colorado 81811
NAME Aspen Congregation of Jehovah`s Witnesses
ADDRESS Box 3849, c/o Roger Long, Aspen, Colorado 81612
PHONE 925-5460, 5132, 1771
NAME OF PROJECT Kingdom Hall
PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any
" natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory
districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/
ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.)
TOTAL AREA 3.41 acres
EXISTING USE(S) vacant parcel
PROPOSED USE(S) Church
(approximate square
footaoe for each) 3500.00
APPENDIX B
Pro~icbt Number
Section/Parcel
Date Submitted
pitkin county
PRESENT ZONING OF SITE AF-1
DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL The development of Parcels P. and B for the
construction of a church for religious meetings, with an ac
bermed parking area.
anyin
BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE
TYPE OF APPLICATION: REZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
P.U.D. SUBDIVISION
SPECIAL REVIEW EXEMPTION
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW 35-acre + SUBDIVISION
REVIEW PNASE: PRE-APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED
GENERAL SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
DETAILED SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
FINAL PLAT BOARD ACTION DATE
~4sperL C'ongrega tiort
~f' fehovah~ `Witnessed
c/o Roger Long
P.O. Box 3849
Aspen, Colorado 81612
March 15, 1987
Gentlemen:
The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses intends to deva_lop 3.41 acres adjacent
to, but not part of, the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision across State Highway 82 from
the Aspen Golf Course and otherwise described as Parcels "A" and "B". We wish to
apply for a building permit for the construction of a church, better known to
Jehovah's witnesses as a Kingdom Hall.
It is our intenticn to construct such a Kingdom Hall of approximately :;,500 square
feet that will accor~urwdate our present membership and interested persons of the
community. We will build a parking area to cantain 50 cars. We will mitigate the
impact of- our development by berming the perimeter of the building and parking site
in a fashion. that will appe~ir natural i.o the setting.
7-~s we are aware that we must satisfy the concerns of many county agencies, we o:ill
be prepared to answer their criteria. We understand the most important of these to
be tine scenic foreground, parking, appearance of the building, and traffic analysis
anal access. We are applying for an exemption from the Growth Management Plan.
We hope to establish and maintain an amiable and close working relationship with
various members and agencies of Pitkin County government. We will be more than
willing to meEt the various criteria with which we must comply and to accommodate,
as best we can, the suggestions you may have.
Sincerely,
ASPEN CONGREGATION BUILDING COMMITTEE
Charle Worth
Rug io'~N~etz~er
_ ~~ //'Uy+tiDV
Kiran L3hatt
~_~
Te a er
Roge Lon -
Appeal for Exemption from GMP Process
The congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses was founded in the Aspen area in
1968. During the intervening years our congregation has always rented our
meeting facility at various locations within the community. Presently, we are
renting space from the Pitkin County Community Center. More recently, as our
membership has grown and as increasing demand is put on diminishing public
meeting space, we have sought to obtain property and construct a meeting
facility of our own.
As we hope to soon build such a facility, which we call a Kingdom Hall,
we are seeking an exemption from the Growth Management Plan for the following
reasons. Please note the following memorandum from Brooke Peterson in which
he writes his opinions that we have closely followed in submitting this appeal
for exemption.
We are basing the weight of our argument on the contention that we
qualify as an "essential community facility." The birth and growth of
civilizations and, indeed, communities are built on the foundations of primary
services for living, namely, the judicial, governmental, educational and the
religious. It is man's basic nature to have a spiritual need and so mankind
has always considered that it was important for such needs to be satisfied.
Historically, in this country such needs are met in the various houses of
worship where members of a community may go to fulfill and satisfy their
spiritual quest. In such manner, citizens then become dependent upon such
institutions for spiritual support. Thereby, churches become centers for
public welfare, education and instruction and so become essential institutions
of the community. If such centers for worship open their doors to any and all
members of a community they become, more so, public servants and essential to
the well-being of a community.
The religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses has sought as much as
any in this community to attend to and care for the spiritual needs of the
local populace. Not only are our meetings of Bible education and instruction
open free of charge to any and all members of the community, but we, as well,
engage in an active door-to-door campaign whereby we personally attend to the
spiritual interests of individual members of this community. We find that
when such interested ones learn and then apply scriptural principles their
personal lives and family lives greatly improve. Ultimately, this has a good
effect upon the community as elevated moral standards are promoted. To
continue making improvement in the learning and applying of Bible principles,
interested ones and our membership thereby become dependent on our
organization for support. In our view then, we become an "essential community
facility" and exempt from the GMP process.
It could further be argued that Pitkin County government has already set
the precedent for such church exemption from the GMP process by granting other
religious organizations immunity from such process. One that comes to mind is
the recent construction of the Redstone Community Church in which the county
not only granted GMP exemption but facilitated and expedited the normally
lengthy review process. While our organization is not eminently due to be
evicted from our rented facility, such extension of assistance from the same
county agencies would be welcomed by our building committee.
Lastly, our appeal is based on the simple fact that we are not a
commercial venture. Our organization is a religious one supported entirely on
the voluntary contributions of our members and interested persons of the
community. As our members live within the Aspen-Snowmass area we are not
generating additional growth nor do we employ workers.
In conclusion may we restate and summarize our appeal. Most
importantly, we feel we should be granted an exemption from the GMP process
because we serve an essential community service by reason of the fact our
church attends to the spiritual needs of the community in a manner that could
not otherwise be met. Secondly, the very committees our submission comes
before have in the past set the precedent by granting other religious
organizations exemption from the GMP process. Lastly, our development is by a
Colorado, non-profit corporation that was organized solely for religious
reasons. We neither seek profit nor will we generate growth. It is our hope
that these arguments will be read favorably and that we may be granted an
exemption from the Growth Management process.
Additionally, our appeal for exemption is supported by documentation
demonstrating our project will have negligible impact on the surroundings,
environment and city-county services. Please note the following letters from
the City of Aspen showing availability of water and sanitation. Also included
is a letter from Banner Associates, Inc. addressing the mitigated impact of
parking and car-trip generations to and from the site.
In further addressing the response from Banner Associates, the Aspen
Congregation would be prepared to further mitigate our developmental impact by
phasing our parking area aaccording to current and projected future needs.
For example, we could construct a parking area to hold our initial 40 cars in
Phase I. As future growth demands, we could enlarge our parking area to
accommodate an additional 23 cars for a total of 63 parking spaces in a Phase
II development.
we also realize the property is serviced by regional public
transportation and a number of our members will be utilizing such means.
Where practical, we customarily car pool.
Lastly, our proposed construction will have little or no adverse impact
on the community air, water, land and energy resources. Our church will be
used approximately nine hours per week by our present eighty members. Water
and sanitation usage will be negligible. We will further conserve resources
by using high-efficiency pulse burners for heating alongside a passive solar
heat collector known as a Tromb wall.
pitkin county
MEMORANDUM
TO•
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
Tom Smith, County Attorney ~~'~
June 29, 1987
Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review Application
You have requested my opinion regarding. the use of the Jehovah's
Witnesses property for the intended purpose of the applicants,
and the access issue. These issues apparently arose at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which this application
was originally considered.
1. Use. I have reviewed the plat of the Aspen Tennis Club Area,
as well as the restrictive covenants and the relevant deeds
conveying Parcels A and B to the Jehovah's Witnesses. The
plat specifically excludes Parcels A and B from the Sub-
division. These are the properties owned by the Jehovah's
Witnesses which are the subject of this application. Also,
the protective covenants for the Aspen Tennis Club Area do
not include this property. I am aware of no other documents
that might have any. bearing on-the use of Parcels A and B,
particularly as regards the allegation that such Parcels are
restricted to open space uses.- Accordingly, it is my opinion
that Parcels A and B have been legally conveyed to the
Jehovah's Witnesses and may be used as provided in the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
2. Access. There is some ambiguity in the record regarding
ownership and control of Pyramid Road, which now serves as
access to the Aspen Tennis Club Area and which is proposed as
the access for the Jehovah's Witnesses property. The Quit
Claim Deed dated December 12, 1986, from Richard A. Hollers
to the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses includes
that part of the right-of-way commonly known as Pyramid Road
and adjacent to Parcels A and B. However, the Warranty Deed
dated March 31, 1987, from United Bank of Denver to the
Jehovah's Witnesses excludes the roads and roadways as shown
County Commissioners County Attorney - Personnel and Finance Road and Bridge
Suite B Suite I _ Suite F Fleet Managemant
506 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 530 E. Main Street 20210 W. Highway 82
Aspen, CO 8161 1 Aspen, CO 8161 1 Aspen, CO 8161 1 Aspen, CO 8161 1
(303) 925-5232 (303) 920-1223 (303) 925-3166 (303)-925-7212
Memorandum To Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review Application
June 29, 1987
PAGE 2
on the plat of the Aspen Tennis Club Area. Also, the
approved plat of the Aspen Tennis Club Area clearly indicates
that Pyramid Road is the access to the Subdivision, and
therefore I would question the assertion that has been made
on behalf of the Jehovah's Witnesses that they have been
conveyed unqualified ownership of any portion of Pyramid
Road. Since it appears that Pyramid Road is the most logical
access to both properties, I would suggest that as a condi-
tion of any approval of the pending application appropriate
conditions be included to assure proper maintenance of the
access to the point where it meets Lot 1 of the Subdivision,
to assure appropriate use of the access to this point, and to
avoid unnecessary controversies regarding these issues in the
future.
TF5:cd
3'
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
1303) 925-8166
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
FROM: Brooke A. Peterson
DATE: March 3, 1987
RE: Construction of New Church - Exemption from Growth
Management Plan Application
I have been asked to outline the reasons that should be included
in your Land Use Application as to why the new church should be
exempt from having to compete in the Growth Management competit-
ion.
The appropriate section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code for
the exemption is Section 5-510.2 (f), which exempts the const-
ruction of an "essential community facility" upon the approval
of the Board of County Commissioners after recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The first argument which should
be advanced is that this is not a commercial venture, and that
it will benefit all of the members of the community, much in the
same manner as a school or hospital might.
Secondly, I believe that precedent is on your side, as I have
been informed that the construction of a church within the City,
under a very similar Growth Management Plan and definitions
therein, was exempted from the process.
Thirdly, it is clear that the construction of a church provides
a fundamental public service upon which the community is
dependent for support. One might even argue that the County is
constitutionally prohibited from regulating the church's
construction. There can be little doubt that providing a place
for the exercise of religion which is open to the public is an
essential public service. To argue otherwise would eliminate
the spiritual needs of the community from being considered
essential to the community. In addition, all churches provide
other support to the community in terms of education and
philanthropy. You should set forth any means by which the church
has in the past served the local community.
The public will be allowed to come to this church by choice and
clearly the church is for the local community. The points to be
emphasized is that no one will be excluded from attending the
church, that it is open to all in the community and that any
Memorandum
March 3, 1987
Page Two
type of church is an essential element of the community,
providing spiritual assistance to all members of the community.
If you are able to, in your application, affirmatively offer the
church for use by other groups for meetings.
The balance of your application should emphasise how you will
mitigate the impacts of the project and how you are working
within the scenic corridor guidelines. If you are generating no
additional employees, state that in your application. In summary
therefore, I would emphasize the community's need for the new
church and how the church will serve the community. I know that
the church in Redstone was allowed to relocate without a great
amount of pressure from the County, and even with its assist-
ance. You should also emphasize that you are looking to the
County to provide assistance to you so that you may in turn
assist, in the manner that all churches do, the community of
Aspen and Pitkin County.
This can be demonstrated, for example, by a discussion of what
is being done to minimize the visibility of the church and
parking lot from Highway 82. Clearly the protection of the
scenic foreground is a major issue. In addition, you should
emphasize how the design of the church will not have a neglig-
ible adverse impact on the air and water, and is visually
compatible with the surrounding areas. I would stress, if
possible, how the church has been designed to look like a home.
You should discuss how the church will not cause an increased
demand for parking, but rather will accommodate all of your
parking away from Highway 82. You should also discuss how the
construction will not increase the demand for road and transit
services, nor will there be an increased need for additional
water supply, sewage treatment and other publicly provided
services.
Further, you should demonstrate that basic services, such as
water and sewer, are already available on the property or to the
property. Thus, no new utility expansion will be necessary. In
addition, you should state how the facility and its design might
mitigate the need for extended fire or police services.
a
BANNER
April 3, 1987
Mr. Terry Badger
Aspen Congregation Building Committee
Box 3849
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Kingdom Hall Traffic Analysis
Dear Mr. Badger:
The following will address the transportation issues raised by
the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Staff's letter of March 24, 1987,
specifically regarding the parking facilities and the traffic.
The church will be constructed on a 3.41 acre parcel adjacent to
the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. Access will be from State
Highway 82 via Pyramid Road, 50 foot wide right-of -way. The
building includes 3,000 square feet of church hall and 500 square
feet of residence. Parking and access facilities are required
for a current congregation of 40 families together with
provisions for future demands.
A review of the parking demand at your present facility, i.e. the
Aspen Community Center, indicates that a parking lot of
approximately 50 spaces would suit your needs. At present,
attendance at a Sunday meeting peaks at 100 members and for
future needs 150 members appears appropriate. Assuming there are
2.5 passengers per vehicle, the church will require 40 spaces now
and 60 in the future.
Traffic impacts at the Pyramid Road/SH 82 intersection will
result from church traffic and subdivision traffic. The Aspen
Tennis Club Subdivision consists of 15 single family residential
lots. At this time the trip generation factors for the
subdivision take into account the area's accessibility to mass
transit and amount to 4 end trips per dwelling unit. Therefore,
the subidvision produces approximately 60 trips/day on the
average. Typically peak hourly traffic for residential use
equates to 20~ of the average daily traffic, i.e. peak traffic
attributable to the subdivision would be 20 vehicles per hour
(vph). The majority of the residential trips would be Aspen-
bound in the morning and homeward-bound in the afternoon.
It is anticipated that the church will generate peak hourly
traffic of 40 vph under present operations and 60 vph based on
future projection. This traffic will only occur Sundays between
the hours of 9:30 AM and 12:30 PM and Thursdays between 7:00 PM
and 10:00 PM. Neither of these peak traffic periods will
coincide with expected peak hourly traffic generated from the
subdivision or with peak hourly traffic on SH 82. Sunday
BANNER ASSOCIATES, QVC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
SUITE 6, 605 EAST MAIlV 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242
morning traffic on SH 82 is off-peak because of the absence of
worker-oriented trips.
Based on the demographics of the church's current members, it can
be anticipated that there will be a 50-50 split of downvalley and
upvalley traffic (left turn - right turn).
At this time there is no indication that a traffic signal will be
necessary at the intersection of Pyramid Road and SH 82 as a
result of the addition of the new Kingdom Hall. The Colorado
Department of Highways Access Manual recommends the installation
of a traffic signal when the average hourly traffic volumes
approach 500 vph on the main thoroughfare and 150 vph on the
intersector road. Although traffic volume on SH 82 will approach
this number by the year 2000, the traffic resulting from the
church and the subdivision combined will be a fraction of the
required threshold volume. Therefore, no signals will be needed.
Similarly, speed change lanes (channelization) are warranted when
the average annual traffic volume approaches X40 right turning
movements per hour or 20 left turning movements per hour on a
highway with the characteristics of SH 82. The combined traffic
generation from the subdivision and the church will exceed 20
left turning movements per hour over a maximum of two 15 minute
periods two days per week (Sundays and Thursdays). As they are
exceeding the warrant for a channelized intersection two 15
minute periods on two days per week, their traffic generation
does not meet the criteria for average daily conditions.
Therefore, no channelization of SH 82 is required.
Furthermore, the CDOH, acting through Pitkin County, its
permitting authority, has issued the church an encroachment
permit requiring no additional improvements to SH 82.
The major geometric criteria controlling the design of the
intersection are the minimum stopping sight distance and the
horizontal clearance from the bridge. The required minimum
stopping sight distance is 300' and is easily met under the
existing geometry. The minimum horizontal clearance for the
bridge is 500'. The intersection of Pyramid Road and SH 82 is
located over 800' from the near end of the bridge. Therefore, no
conflict exists.
I have determined that there are no predictable negative traffic
impacts associated with the project as it is being proposed at
this time, and I cannot establish any need to do improvements to
the highway or the intersection in question under current codes.
Sincerely,
~~l N~
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
c/o Roger Long
.~ P.O. Box 3849
Aspen, Colorado 81612
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS -- Traffic analysis for the proposed Kingdom
Hall development located 1~ miles west of Aspen across from
the City golf course, adjacent to, but not part of, the
Aspen Tennis Court Subdivision. Main access will be by
means of Highway 82 onto Pyramid Road. Our members, using
private cars, will access Pyramid Road from 7-7:30 pm on
Thursday, 18 cars arriving from the west and 22 from the
east. The same cars will exit Pyramid Road onto Highway 82
from 9:30-10 pm.
Between 9:30 and 10 am Sunday, approximately the same number
of cars will be accessing Pyramid Road. Between 12-12:30 pm
Sunday, as many cars will .exit Pyramid Road onto Highway 82.
In addition, Monday through Saturday from 9:15-9:30 am
approximately 5-7 cars will access Pyramid Road and from
10:45-11 am the same number will exit Pyramid Road onto
Highway 82.
CIT
13
as
March 30, 1987
Terry Badger
905 King Street
Aspen, CO -81611
Re: Aspen Kingdom Hall
Dear Terry:
PEN
eet
611
This letter is to verify, as you requested, that water is
available to the tract of land situated in the NE 1/4 of section
11, T.lOs, R.85W. of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County Colorado and can
be delivered to the proposed structure once all the required
permits have been obtained.
Sincerely,
I
Ann Ballard
Administrative Assistant
Aspen Water Department
.aspen consolidated sanitation l~ist~rict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
Tele. 1303) 925-2537
March 31,1987
Terry Badger
Jehovah Witness
905 King St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Badger,
In regards to the proposed Jehovah witness building in the Aspen
Club subdivision, this building can be served by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District. A district line is near by but due to grades a
pumping situation may exist in getting into the district's line.
Sincerely
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Response to Scenic Foreground Overlay
Our building committee shares your concern over maintain-
ing and preserving to the extent possible, the rural and
scenic nature of the western entrance to Aspen. To mitigate
the impact of development of Parcels "A" and "B" and upon
reviewing the criteria of the Pitkin County Land Use Code
under sec. 3-1.13 "Scenic Foreground Overlay" and the memoran-
dum, "Highway 82 Corridor Landscape Parameters," we respond to
those criteria.
3-1.13(c) (1) Parcels "A" and "B" are virtually flat so
that we may not utilize hills and such to conceal the proposed
building. There is, however, a slight relief on the E.-S.E.
perimeter of Parcel "A" and adjacent to the site that may be
further incorporated into a berm.
(2) Out of necessity due to setback parameters
and out of regard for the criteria, we are locating the struc-
ture as far away as is feasible from Highway 82. We are
utilizing the services of a local architect who has lived in
the valley for many years and who is therefore aware of the
peculiarities of mountain building. We have designed a roof
that will lessen the impact of the structure. The roof line
will be extended and stepped with the addition of hips on the
east and west elevations to present a more tapered and bal-
anced appearance. To lessen the impact of height we have
chosen to use a 4-12 roof pitch.
(3) Again, the land is virtually flat and the
building site is located as far as possible from Highway 82.
(4) Parcels "A" and "B" are within the 1400'
scenic corridor; however, the site is at the greatest possible
distance from Highway 82.
(5) We intend to leave untouched the sage and
other natural vegetation of parcels "A" and "B" except for
that portion that will be affected by our structure and park-
ing area. Upon the developed site we will utilize the sug-
gested species of landscape materials, specifically the
Western Juniper, sage on the berms, Aspen and various species
of evergreen in the low contours of the berm. Our planting
materials will be placed discreetly (not as unnatural hedge
rows for screening), clumping islands of Aspen and evergreen
together in the lower saddles of the berms and elsewhere. We
will use more mature plants so as to utilize their greater
screening capabilities. We will consult further with land-
scape architects and planners (notably, Design Workshop, Inc.)
for more detailed advice on plant materials indigenous to the
sage flat ecosystem, plant location and care, and planting
instructions.
In reference to #7 of the "Highway 82 Corridor Landscape
Parameters" the impact of our structure will be lessened by a
lower roof profile (4-12 pitch). Rather than using a metal
roof, we have chosen to use heavy cedar shakes as natural
roofing materials.
(6) The northern elevation of our structure
has very few windows thereby eliminating, for the most part,
any interior lighting that would be visible from the highway.
. Under the carport and entrance we will have exterior lighting.
We may provide very limited lighting in the parking area. In
all cases, we will utilize lighting techniques (recessed and
downlighting) whereby light sources will not be visible from
the highway. We anticipate that Thursday will be the only
evening in which the structure will be using night lighting.
(7) #7 of Landscape Parameters - We will
screen our structure with the use of 6' berms. They will be
constructed in such a manner as to simulate the varied shapes
and slopes of natural hills and ridges. In addition to
berming we will compliment our screening by the use of plant
materials strategically placed (in the valleys and at the end
of the bermed areas). (Please refer to plot plan.)
(8) By far the majority of land within these
parcels will be retained as open space by virtue of the 200'
setback.
(9) The property is not affected by an identi-
fied viewplane.
.....r"te"..-'~...,_...?_: _._
c~c~~n~~~ ,~,
<<
D ~~
~ ~ ~~ ,,
~~~ _
___.._ .
~~
~ ~4spert C'ongrega tiort
~f' fehovah~ `Witnessed
:' ~ ;
U ~ I / _ _
_, ~ :C.
r~___.. ,.~ c~~_ ~,,,_~_~_.,~cr_.~: c~ .~ ,_,<<t_ _ __ o_ _~,_. , __ ,_
~;:'3' ~a., ~..,. ! ~~,i:^, J" t;C ~G1;___ _ ~~1J ~. ~'1 ~i ~, =(1~„~~ _.ii
_ ,-
~itL. ~~! i_rl._11~ _, ~_r, t! C • ~ ~ u.;Li. ~i L .. '.~~~ r~~ l _~l: ii. L ., 1. .. _, Lei :, i u_ .'.~
;~]~ ~"i';' ti,_ O~i 'G~_t ~~ l~~ ~~ 'i _l_;' ~~, ~ ~ ,~'.~ '}l~a t Yl ~ I _ .~_ ~ -~O _~r~:
_.
. "~c, ~JU=L_'.LT~. c„ - ~ ,ct;~ ~ ~ I ~:t,3 ~_~i1C,~:f ---` ~C~. 1J 7; i~._.. 1~~-.~i~!_
_~_
_ iiV~ ~~~ :. ~. -.ZJ F' ~ ~ ~~.'.~ _. 1. ~) ';)Zi .,. ~-~.,. __~~JC ~, ~r' Y'lt.ti ~;!. ~_;~.
c '
-i ~
r ~, y
. _ ~ - - __ _.. ~_ ~ i ;.- _ _ .
_.. 1 ,1 .. _r. ~1.
- i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ft
Gi
V
6
fa
e
~'
-~\`r
~,
<r <;
~~ ~, ;~ ,
i
~ ~ ~'u ' 7u
_'
__ L
-- ~ ~ d , ~.
r _.. _..._.. _.~ •___• ~. ~
• '
.~
ry __ .~ y... ~...~
_.... - :'
_ _ __ _ _ _ ,{ _ _.. E H
Y._E Eh `v Z~
~, is-:a ~ ... j
. ~,.-_. r.. -~.r.a_ ~l :r:~. .lam _
.-,s,.~i ,7 !. ~. rte: I•' _ i
~. ..
_ ~,..-,Y __ , ~. ~a~..w1.<~- s. ~ ~
' ~ <~. ' s,
.. ~ ~. a
~.
.; ~ , is _ - -,..,_.
~~~~
.t-~
A IF~~ ~'~~ ~ : -T i ~`-, z"
,~
__
~~ ~ -' ~~ ~ - ~ ~zh
~ ~ x _ _
., ~ ~ A ~ ~ '' -a
~,,rr
~~ ) - ,y
n
~° ~ ~ ~ ~~,~{ r, s ~~ =~
i ~ ~ 4 ~ V 'Iv
o .+ { J1 ~ ,r : ~ ,
~ ~r o ~' ~ ~ ~ ' i ~t~ i Q
~~~Txc o ~ i ~~~ '~ J j >
S ^ ~ ,r ~ ti{ { .7
~, ~ - ~ ~ i { J ~~ i
y,,
:~
o C ~r~ i fi / Q f ~ ..~~ { 1 0 ~~
n; i ~ ~ / _ _ ~'T 4 ,1 ~ !~ ~
a Ind ~ -. ~ ,~ ~ ~ d
~ ~{
~'d a-~ ~ i _~ ~~ ~~ t ~~;( wC
ie~ -~ -~ ( _ _ ,~ ~ ,~ C
r '_~"
I i
~ fi` Q
e ~ `. '~ "~
1 '
M '= ,,,.
3i ,.•.
,-. _
j o
1 ~ ~x
i ~. sd g J W
,(r
I '~ -- ~ y
'~~u ~ ~ 4' y F ~~ 4
~£
n ~" _ ~~xi N ~"' d Y
1, •~ ~ ~ ~
0 '~ ''' 1 ,• N ~ ,
' ~
~ ~ t '~ ~~
o I
c ~ a
° ,r
p J ~ ~u
0 t1 x 6
~ "/i a i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
0 ~ t Y ~ r
~ ', t~ ~ ~ p ,+y
~ J
/ ~/
~ 9/
o ~ ~' t"iia r*j - ~
0 ~i` /J} / ~ ~'1 ~ N~
c ,(~ i
`~~ ]~
' 9N u f
0 ' yl ~ T C
°~ ~, ~ ' du - ~ r
y { ~~
~ -~ - __~.
F.
,"
.,, ..
~~-, C 2 q 8 4 ...
}
~~~
kt ~ _
w
x '
,, i~,
y ! N~
4~„y~
{ 4' f,
a ~ ~
d
~.. i., ~
.~~" ~
k' ,_
~t -'
~T.Y ttc.
s~`,t
~~
~`~ ~~~ ~-
°~ ' _
^~' It k: ~ -,,_S .-
~, ~ ~
F `- ~ .rw~ .wi,
B ~ r ~ ~
it ''~~ ' '. ~
~s.
'~. Y
~t~
~ ~,
~~. d~
` `
;~ ~ ~ . ~~~
~.
6
'`}yA'~ ,n ~~
,STi~ ~. ^
r
9,
~~x _ ~~
~,
.~ ~' R
a ~.. " ~ F
'--;
- E
? ~~ }~ 1 ~ y'}~
( i ~ f
Ql ~i 3 //
'~T •~ ~~
.~?`
N
a
l0
Z
01
E
0
u.
.U
a
a
.~
3
I Z
~ F T
a
Y f 6 f
V t 4
_g ba ~ ~ ~ ~~~ O f ~ ~n
a~
€~ _ ~ :.. ~
~ ~ d$Y ~ ~ WgBEB
LL„ ,
3
,,~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~\ ~E ~ .
P ~`~
1 ,j
~ jt!
~ I
a 1' ~eF:c
W a j IY ~ 4r J~F 1
~SaR6 o i~~ ~ ~ /
,a°pR~~< a } ~, i 3 ~,e
F
a~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
j ~ 1pp 1
N g' M ~~ / T
e ^.I ~ ~ ~ 8~ F~ .
oa ~ ~~ it i~ . 5
I
o~i3 F I~1/// y; ~
~I/b /' c. 1// ~~it~ ~p
~ Yr ~ I ~ ,~~~~ a~~
R fi ~ / 4 fy"'~~~
~ ~ ;P
C I I ~I I /'0 ryf ~r'~~ 66 S i~ 5
p I i I *~ p ~~d ~y/ ~ Ej S
G J j ~ ~ 4? ~~J / N
A I ~ I I Y~J ~ A s a s' r
Mk o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~4~ !~ ~ V Y X _ n k
I ~ ~ ~ tl Y F
i I ~ j 9 '.~oN~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
o J • .,.,
'o .way
UI I n n ~~`\~~
5 n >~~''
r `
r„Z ~ J y \ \ / y
~.
~a ~
l
,.
~.. ,. ~ :,
,... .
...........:...
_ ,.. ,...
..., ,
c.; :....:: ~_. _
e
h
4
~s.~~ ~ ~®
ASPEN~PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ~EPARl 'i1/IENT
~~....
To: Francis Rrizmanich, Planning Office
From: Bob Nelson, Environmental Health ~,
Date: May 5, 1987
Re: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review
This office has reviewed the referenced submittal for the
following environmental concerns.
Air Pollution:
Construction: The applicants should provide a means to monitor
and remove any dirt and or mud carry-out from the project onto
the State Highway during the initial phases of construction.
This involves daily monitoring of the routes of the equipment
entering and leaving the site. Further, removal of mud or dirt
will be required with the dirt being deposited back on the
applicants property. Removal of mud and dirt shall be accomp-
lished with a mechanical sweeper that uses water to minimize the
production of dust.
During actual constructrort" the applicant shall provide an
approved means to .control wind blown (fugitive) dust from leaving
the property, if it becomes a problem. Control may take the form
of watering, use of dust suppression chemicals, fencing the site
or shrouding the work area. The applicant should file a fugitive
dust control plan with this office prior to construction, but is
not required to submit an Air Pollution Emission Notice and an
Air Pollution Permit application to the Colorado Health Depart-
ment unless the land clearing is expected to last more than six
(6) months.
Solid Fue~ Burning Devices:
addressed in the submittal,
there will be any fireplaces
is in error and some sort of
applicants should make sure
tions.
This topic is not specifically
and the plans do not indicate that
or wood stoves. If our assumption
wood burning device is planned, the
that it conforms to County regula-
Noise Abatement:
Although the site is not within the Aspen City limits, the
applicant will be required to comply with City of Aspen Ordinance
2, series 1981 titled Noise Abatement because of the close
proximity of the line on the easterly side of the property. All
construction noise related activities will be covered under the
maximum decibel levels as directed by the ordinance, and the
'130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 816'1'1 303/925-2020
t
Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review
May 5, 1987
Page 2
applicant is expected to observe the time restrictions for
residential areas in setting the hours of work activity.
Sewaae DISAOSa
Service to this project by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
Districts public sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
Water Supply:
Service to this project by the distribution lines as provided by
the City of Aspen Water Department is in conformance with
policies of this office.
General•
The applicant can visit this office to obtain copies of all
codes, rules and regulations or laws referred to in this review.
MEMORANDUM
T0: Francis Krizmanich, Flanning Office
FROM: Tom Newland, Planning Engineer
RB: Jehovah's Witness Exemption From GMP Frocess
Nl1a .
DATE: A 12,1987
I have reviewed the materials submitted by the Aspen congregation
c>f Jehovah's Witnesses and would like to forward the following
comments to you:
Road System: They parking and circu:lat.ion plan calls for 60
parking spaces and three entrances to the acr_ess road (Pyramid
Road). T agree with the t.raffi.c analysis, developed by Banner
and Associates, when it states that the maximum amount of parking
to be required by the church is 60 spaces. However, three access
points tc) the parking area are not needed. In fact, it is
recommended that: the Planning Office look into the possibility of
limiting access to the parking area to one entrance.
Impacts on the Road System: The traffic analysis developed by
Banner and Associates be]_ieves that negligible impact to State
H:ig;hway 82 wall result from the placement of this church. The
state highway department also agrees that improvements, such as
accel/deacceleration lanes or left hand turn lanes, will not need
to be placed on the highway because of this development.
The application does not address impacts to Pyramid Road, a dirt
subdivision road that is to be used for ar_cess b,y the church.
This road will. see significant increases in traffic volumes
during times of church use and could become very dusty with this
heavy use. Tt is recommended that the church attempt to mit:igat.e
dust impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhood by
either entering into an aggressive dust, control. program or bar
chip sealing Pyramid Road from the parking lot entrance to State
Highway 82. The parking lot. should also have a Ytard surface.
This land use proposal presents an ideal opportunity for the
county to eliminate two of the three road r_•uts on the state
highway presently existing in this area. It is recommended that
the county work with the neighbors of the surrounding subdivis-
lolls and the Jehovah's Witnesses to reduce the three highway
entrances in this area to one. The west portion of Pyramid Road
accesses the highway very close to the Maroon Creek Bridge over
the subject p~trce:l. This access should be closed and traffic re-
routed to the east access of Pyramid Road as shown on the
submission plan. >;:ikewise, the eastern access road used by
landowners in the Clasen-Pajak and Gann subdivisions should also
bc~ c:losed and the drive extenctc~d to the east h:ightva,y ac:eess of
Pyramid raced. This will consolidate all three road cuts into
one, mare easily cant,ralled interser_tian.
Drainage: The application doesn't address drainage control. The
applicant should submit a drainage plan that will bring the
proposed development into conformity with county standards.
Scenic Foreground Overlay Criteria: Due to the extreme building
constraints of the parcel, it appears that the applicant has done
thf~~ utmost to r.anfarm with sub-ser.tion 3-1..1.3 of the Pitkin
County Land Use Code.
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review-Scenic Foreground
Overlay, GMP Exemption
DATE: April 13, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting
Scenic Foreground Overlay and GMP Exemption approval in order to
construct a 3,000 square foot church on 3.41 acres located on
Pyramid Road adjacent to the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. The
property is zoned AF-1.
Please review this material and send your comments the Planning
Office no later May 5, 1987 in order for this office to have
adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on May.
19th.
Thank you.
"L j~
- /' ~_ -
- -
n - ~~
~~~ t., __ : -~_ ,
~ ~ -
-,.~-
~~~~
,.,
MEMORANDUM _ ,.:>-...
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
A~._Wa~er.: J~epartment.~>
hvironmental Health _ ~""
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall - -
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
,,,,., r+ ~.._
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review-Scenic Foreground
Overlay, GMP Exemption "'"
DATE: April 13, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by the Aspen Congregation-_ of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting
Scenic Foreground Overlay and GMP Exemption approval i;1 :.rder to
construct a 3,000 square foot church on 3.41 acres located on
Pyramid Road adjacent to the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. The
property is zoned AF-l.
Please review this material and send your comments the Planning
Office no later 1~Iay 5, 1987- in order for this office to have
adequate time to prepare for its presentation before P&Z on May.
19th.
Thank you.
~~tnn yr
~O T~.~ ~OtY~
Yr`~?~S
D
APR 1:; ~?87
WtiTER DEPT.
MEMORANDUM
TO: County Attorney
County Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Fire Marshall
FROM: Francis Krizmanich, Planning Office
RE: Jehovah's Witnesses Special Review-Scenic Foreground
Overlay, GMP Exemption
DATE: April 13, 1987
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting
Scenic Foreground Overlay and GMP Exemption approval in order to
construct a 3,000 square foot church on 3.41 acres located on
Pyramid Road adjacent to the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. The
property is zoned AF-1.
Please review this material and
Office no later May 5, 1987 in
adequate time to prepare for its
19th.
send your comments the Planning
order for this office to have
presentation before P&Z on May.
Thank you.
sr ~ -
~:
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, Inc.
Title Insurance Company
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611 MARCH 2 , 1987
(303) 925-1766
T0: PITKIN COUNTY
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE PARCEL CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT BY ASPEN CONGREGATION
OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SITUATED ON HIGHWAY 82 DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE ASPEN
TENNIS CLUB AREA SUBDIVISION WAS CREATED BY THE SUBDIVISION PLAT OF ASPEN TENNIS
CLUB AREA ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1965 AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONVEYED BY OPERATION OF LAW
PURSUANT TO FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS ON JANUARY 8, 1968, AND THE SHERIFF'S DEED
ISSUED ON MAY 20, 1968 AND RECORDED MAY 21, 1968 IN BOOK 234 AT PAGE 694(COPY
OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO). TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT SPLIT OUT
OF ANY OTHER PROPERTIES SUBSEQUENT TO 1965.
PITKIN COUNTY TITLE, INC.
gy; r
VINCENT J. S, PRES.
r
~,:
~. ` .,
I _ Ft~eedad.a .. ~:zo_...'d.e~.e.._...,t. _...May~L..1Y.5E-__ .._-- R,,.,7?4 .,.,tJ~
ltaeapt{w N...._..ia.aos.i__ _.._..___....rFaLY_.l S.vI11a..._...__~war~e.
~'HfFtEAb THE ASPEN GROVE COYPANYt a Colorado_.eorport_i.on,___.,.. _.._
did, u a tenv o[ the ..._Dis tr lc t ...~~ /or th< Conoty oL.._. P! :k le._____,._._,_, ,_, ...md 6ua aI
91+ .................... _...__._......._
Richard A. Aollarsa
~E
__
_._
Colenda, recover a joALment aLaivat _.-.....__.....___. ,._.._ --. ,
for th<mw of ..120, 222.98 _..._.._...._........... _..-.~1i>t~1....._......_...__...__-
~
R]talLand Coate of avif, apoa abieb jvagmr+t m eaeentiav tru itwnd, dated t-e__..-~ t6_,___,~,y a! '~
._.. Ja nuar•.Y_..._._........_.., d D. 19..CYQ...., directed u tba tibarilY of the C,waty oLP1SjS1A
m tb< titak of ('olondo, and by rirtae o! eaid nxeevtivq the raid HLeriff leried vpoa the 4vda atd prep .
~
erty hereiwtter de.erilred and al,er public notice ba d beee Lien of the t[ae • of aJe u n4aMd
/ut~p4 i
_
he L. n_~~•
6y le.. the wo.r were effmd tvr aal< at pnbGe axle and .ea atrmk o8 tad i~tO3~--~
f
iad bsfbiddar--l6arlar.
Cowpany, a Colorado corporat io:t.___~..iL.belaLthe hiLtx.t
and the aamc hat a ovt 6eev redeemed lrom wch rile and the time !or rtes}tiaa Iw tiphad,
e _ ._ _ __ ._... _...._ _.~
_ _.
_.___
NUW,'f'HERE}YiRE, ENpR ALI. S1' 7FFIfi L1EED, 1Sat t. _. C~rTO~_ D...,, 11 t!}.~R 1:)LE-__
B:,Yriff of the Connty of._._...PS tk1n....._....._. .----'-_, is 1!e $ttk of Ootoeado, is teadda+atMa of tla
prembati MeY LraateA, b++LaWd and sold aed do hereby aoaYYy to lte r{dShe...4Pan-ricnae---
~
Coaptny,r ^ _Colorado _cotpo ration,_ 1Lp_s..uq.gf4~9F'E___._.... _..._._-..-.::L:aittrs ^''
and sawtfaa, Ibe follo•iay deaeritxd lr.et or traeu of land, aitwk, (>,n6 and bekL i• tbs llaafy d
.
.....and 8'ate o! Colorado, to~ail:.._....._..._.__..._.........__...___....... _._....._~_
_
bee Exhibit "A" vt UChed hereto ^dd wade
a part hereof by thfa reference _._.. _.._. _____
_._._...._... __...._... _..._____.....__._._..,r-~ .
.... _. _... .._ ... ~Sl e
• '1' Y
TV HAt't •IfD TO AOLD tAe eak dwmbed Dnmrw+, trhb all the ap~w+wa tbaQaeta "~1 ~
The Aaj>e n_ Grote C _ ~e nl, a Colorado corpo~(~gi ._` _t _ ,.~
u W ~
~ -.
~
.
~ \~
is •ucceuorn
1tEt,7tEli~[tad ar.sr, tere+Yr [" - ~~ 1 1 a ~.
~rITA'i8H ap hand and awl tik_.__2Ut h. ___..day t ...._.__ Y~)I~_,,J.s-T...-, ~. 1). /My_MJ_t_~
C.-. QSQ. ~LL~aKMaia6e,._:'.}mceW.+~ - t,",r;.44
j
.
;.
wrr.e__P.1.LtlA_a..r. tti..r y
.
....
L7'A77 OT OW.OtADO•
~
.... .etety !-_P1Uc1G.r_}
.. _._._.
....
Ter HaeeaWr ewrart w atbaaeANlr tt~a t• Yl~~--
Frhltaire_as SAerlff of pittln CountL`Oolu~
rfrNnta a w ar as _
.
~ ~ ~fC! -/ ~tJ _
. ~_
. _ .._ ..CS M~
•.r~r.+.+..,.-w.ew...a_......._.__..._"._r+e .rwr a. w.w.r r'.+... `._~._,~
_n ..
(IK maawea aas sraw aaaat+eMa ~ ~"--'t+ueaewraen~taaaw w.waaaaarw~taaaiiw .. ..
ASPEN TENN/~S CLUB AREA
yiChk4Y
S ~'}
\~ , B?
t[ej. n. Jy~
.~fi ~a~wo ~ . a <~ 0 4
•TRJL `•~Y1 :
' ~ ,}w 8 I ~ :6 ~~,L BEt~rYUNG
iS}~ ... a ~.~~ fig ^ ~.3
~' mr o7 .a
~~
to r
o' \ROAO \
,~ qa» (r.
9 ~~
t1 ~r•a ~z~.
~ ' i ~P 3
rA( 2
'V 8 4~
•,(y ~~ ~~. 74
3 ' am`E qq~t~~~~ T t ~ 1 ~i71f
~~ ~ 1 ! - rA'ii'Oi! ,fDbD6 ~~i0i.8~- ~i2a.K"
fir, ..ti[` .a. ~ ; .. ~ sooo _~~~"" ~~
r'tt,~• ap a a[ a ao xiao~latas 1_ -ssa 1,
r f sa~3i-30'; xoo!.yHsT
• 4' _~ _Dt~lYBO'1!lK13d11_iNKi)~abT_
4
5 ~~., •• ~ i+OrT i
~ ~~ or [arnrow ..[ To [xnrq a .Dorn
~ t~nuta[t 'i • "i rx wr .aw[o w t•nnvnu
.~•.. i-~. Inr ..[[ nor [ruttw a w.o.•.t {wwT
Y [Y[KNn. YK[V 01'Knrr[ YrOnl
- • ~••Tp Mnt[ MKM[0 w O/Kn
swoo' t~t>0 s~ Wn wwr [s uN.rwn ion nr[na• +ao<•n
a wcn Tn(< un.
E In COR. SEt: u
p1AlD UP
r.
SUHVEY~. N .' 'i ti
[ P HACKERT , . ..
:..r fh-!..c `anal Enatn^e: r,ri c !.r t S. ~
. ~-r:.-. N 4909 i :. n-r .~ r ~ ~ t. ..
`•ar. :o1C ~:rr,•r c . Ire. th.:. ,... .. ~ ~ . .. ..
. ,r r o s.d°• '! t-. •:ac „! lard -. .. ... I , r r. t r• ....I
:rl • r i ^a~n :..tri:vldrd and v~+ A'~iur.•.i::.~ ;. •~ :•. t. •:..••:
v..•• ,. h k~, wr. i _ .ASPEN TENNtS CLUB I.F.E:<
a:d 'hut sar.-.e hr:< been a•r<aly s.. C•~y^ a-'s•abn ~.•.. •h• it ~:.•~
i -h; wr. -~ th~< flat
i:MIr1FT : fCA~' K
ai)l.'16i 1 _ rN.ST _ FlYAK: .
-1 _ • MCt.. •~ '~ rIQ1T [IIT1M T•( 3V7w 7 Y: ~. Tr.~
.. _ __~ _ _-.-~•Awr Of T[E SM [[r[fJlgl ~'!4 bTW'• -- «~
Of hT1tr' SLTE O 00.0MIDO YO IIOIt IMTICKNLT 0[S.n~.
_~ f0u0rl _ _ _ I
_ _ {EIINM A7 M [IA CdE_OK YD lfCn i+0 ArN1E!47~Etb~[
I -~[0a~T0 • pNT N M ~T rL4r Ot COLO sq'[ ~IIgT Mal,
_- _ I - ~INE(;11 N7S[T 1~ N rCT M fl[LI ANT Ol K{M!M:. MK E
sz•°ro~r woo' rNpc[ _.
5nTw0000 ~ t~S.ES' ~TKEK[ _ - _... _ _ _
Ig7b5'N'( q_{~p ~Tp ~Ip.T SlSAO IIOr._J M(_af 00.0 St~T~!g}[yi M~ T~(FCt
SSO!M"00'[~NOOQ . kaw /MD ~r_1-K__T? ~_SDNi MT[CE_.
st~s*cI1L~ _: woo ~.:oN_D_ *NE u[c ar ~ z~E. »' ~ioui_?!~i*o *~'"3r!r M
_ 11Ar UI[. MNOR LQ~_W0~_K~~t~NS.~-SM 70'. T0.
... _- r _. __ ~T r!IICN rONT N RiCTiT14?~!R_r9+tT 4~.~NM[i _
_- a -_
.. `_. . _ ~ ~*•i4: rT!o+ I~.SE. ra1S.a 1-CS3
- - -' ~ _..
1 _~.--- - - -. ...- -----
OWNER'S DED;CAT!ON
Kr~cw all men cy Ihe~ rrexnt[ that ~, t}[e_ ... underslar.~d owner l )
r:l the of.^v~ dP::c-rbeci bract of land 'navino rn• :ed srnne to Fr soh
divided iMc Iota and streets to lb hareo}ter known m the
ASPEN TENNIS CLUB AREA
"NI 6FCEN ui[. ~S •M ME• O[ COMP OM 01MM[rSNI- N rNICN [ACM LOT
OwrlEll ]MLLE 011'N .N U[DIVM)[D 1/r{N INTEIIC ST.
In witne<a whereol ~[_ _ hwe he:e~nte s.w'. /r; I ,yLv: aJ tFas
. •.^doy oLSX~,' ..._. A.D., 1915 '
t r
V~lut......~C_~n~52Y.w.- ..~~r... -
A`'KlJOW LEDGMENT
cfA~E uF COLO. cC
Or: !ham 31n day ..a .,~[~' fi I?.o jc s:r~all': ~, {• ~r~a irb••.
.n:~ r!r• :md.•rs:~rd N: ^ar/ f~.lUllC :n ,:~~ >•r ::ald `..'.,...} i .*kl.[
.n . r.~~ S~~t.~ of Coia, the sr:nerf .~t fhe abhvc ~."`+vr~c• s d.., ^ah~-•.
,,; ~.h •I wf.; duly uckncw!,dnAi tc r..e `7at B7
:Inc.wi,.• v and c.,lu.i!ar.!y n.~r1 !n t"r .< ar.,1 l.;,l..a,...y,... e.,
..-. ~'~,1-tv ,.1
s
March 24, 1987
Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
Roger Long
P. O. Box 3849
Aspen, CO 81612
Dear Mr. Long:
The Planning Office has received your application requesting
Special Review/GMP Exemption for a church for the Aspen Congrega-
tion of Jehovah's Witnesses. We have found this application to
be incomplete and before we can assign a date for this project we
will need additional information. Below is a list of what we
will need to render this application complete:
1) While you have addressed the GMP exemption criteria for
how you are an essential community facility, you are
also required to document that the impacts of the
project will be mitigated. In order for us to judge
these impacts, we first need to know how big the
congregation is now and how big it is planned to be.
Next, we want you to demonstrate that the parking has
been properly sized to the size of your congregation.
Have you taken into account the availability of bus
service to the site? Who prepared your transportation
analysis? This must be certified by a technically
competent individual. Finally, please demonstrate that
water, sewer and drainage services have been addressed.
2) You need to respond to the guidelines for employee
dwelling units which are as follows:
a) Newly constructed employee unit shall not have
more than one (1) bedroom nor exceed five hundred
(500) square feet of total floor area.
b) Total floor area of the principal and employee
unit shall not exceed the allowable FAR of the
applicable zone district;
c) There shall be provided one (1) off-street parking
space for each bedroom within the principal unit
and one (1) off-street parking space for each
employee unit;
P,
(!
d) The applicant shall guarantee that the employee
unit shall remain a rental unit; not be condo-
miniumized; not be occupied by the owner or
spouse, be limited to occupancy by not more than
two (2) adults, and related children, who qualify
as employees of the community; and
If you have any questions pertaining to these criteria, please do
not hesitate to contact Francis Krizmanich at the Planning
Office, (303) 925-2020, ext. 222.
Thank you for your cooperation to this matter.
Sincerely,
Nancy Caeti
Administrative Assistant
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
•
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I, hereby certity that on this .~_ day of ~a.(,~
198' , 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 Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the public notice.
Nancy Cae i
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES KINGDOM HALL GROWTH MANAGEMENT
EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing scheduled for
Tuesday, August 25, 1987, at 5:30 P.M., was incorrectly noticed
and will be held on Monday, August 10, 1987, at 4:15 P.M. before
the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, in the Commis-
sioners' Meeting Room, Pitkin County Courthouse, 506 E. Main
Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an application submitted by
the Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses requesting GMP
Exemption approval in order to construct a 3,000 square foot
church on 3.41 acres located on Pyramid Road adjacent to the
Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 222.
~GeorQe Madsen
Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County
Published in the Aspen Times on July 30, 1987.
Pitkin County Invoice No. 37625
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SPECIAL REVIEW-SCENIC FOREGROUND
OVERLAY, GMP EXEMPTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
May 19, 1987, at a meeting to begin at 9:00 A.M. before the
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Commis-
sioners' Meeting Room, 506 E. Main Street, Aspen, Colorado, to
consider an application submitted by the Aspen Congregation of
Jehovah's Witnesses requesting Scenic Foreground Overlay and GMP
Exemption approval in order to construct a 3,000 square foot
church on 3.41 acres located on Pyramid Road adjacent to the
Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision.
For further information contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-
2020, ext. 222.
Peter Guy
Chairman, Pitkin County
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on April 16, 1987.
Pitkin County Invoice No. 35971
Parcels "A" and "B" - Aspen Tennis Club Area
List of Adjacent Land Owners and Addresses.
All land Owners (Lots 1-14) included as adjacent owners or
owners of 1/14 interest in green area on plat.
Aspen Tennis Club Area:
Lot l: Bryant Baker
Two Adams Street
Unit #1603
Denver, Colorado 80203
Lot 2: Robert J. and Christa M. Ziegler
0058 Maroon Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Lot 3: Stephen Martin
Kaufman, Eisenberg & Co. Inc.
Suite 212
9301 Wilshire Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Lot 4: Brian L. and Andrea Mehlig Goodheim
2595 Spruce Street
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Lot 5: Eric A. and JoAnne K. Stern
P.O. Box 529
Basalt, Colorado 71621
Lot 6: Mary Elizabeth and Curtis C. (Jr.) Chase
Box 1446
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lot 7: Zev and Vilma Bufman
Box 1371
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lot 8: Jonathan Bulkley (50% Interest)
Estate of Bertram Kaufman (50%)
1776 South Jackson
Denver, Colorado 80210
Lot 9: David Han
Susan Han
P.O. Box 10226
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Lot 10: Albina G. Williams
Boone County Medical Center
Box 1118
Harrison, Arkansas 72601
Lot 11: Conrad G. Ehart
Donna A. Ehart
9177 East Tufts Place
Evergreen, Colorado 80111
Lot 12: Dr. Walter Henly, M.D.
2067 Claremont
Houston, Texas 77019
Lot 13: Pyramid Estates, Inc., a Colorado Corporation
c/o Ben Zimra, Suite 1200
1925 Century Park East
Los Angeles, California 90067
Lot 14: K. Brent Waldron
Constance K. Waldron
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
AdZacent Owners - Clasen Pecjak Subdivision:
Lot 1: Kenneth and Wendy Larson
0022 Road A
Aspen, Colorado 81611
~~ot 2: Trista K. Conger (Z interest)
Jeanne S. Reeve Erskine (2 interest)
4300 Swanson Lane
Land Owner Across Highway 82 on North:
Reno, Nevada 89509
Aspen Golf Course
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Other Land Owners:
United Bank of Denver
Real Estate Investments #0091
1700 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80274
Apr1123, 1987
Dear Property Owner:
As an owner 1n the tennis court subdivision I am sure you are aware that for many years
there has been a safety problem turning on and off of Highway 82. Part of the safety problem Is
that there is no light or any means of determining where to turn off the highway at night or in a
snowstorm. Another safety problem results from the fact that there is another entrance on
Highway 82 right next to the Pyramid Road.
Because of these concerns and several recent near acclc~nts, the owners of the Clasen
PecjecK subdivision have taken three steps: t) we have negotiated with the owners of the property
on Highway 82 for an easement from the tennis court subdivision entry road (Pyramid Road) to
the Clasen Pecjeck subdivision, 2) we have made an ~reement to maintain a light on the stone
entry piers from Highway 82, 3) we have arranged to abandon the current easement in the Clasen
Pecjak subdivision, subject to the approval of those landowners.
Also lnciuded 1n the arrangement is an agreement to share whatever expenses there are in
road maintenance and snow removal. Another aspect of the plan is to landscape the area that is
presently between the two rods and to get rid of the thistles. We feel that this will aesthetically
enhance the property as well as make it much safer.
Enclosed is a plan of where these new easements would be. if you have any problems with this
plan please contact me, Steven Conger at the above addressor call 925-3021.
Yer~ truly yours,
~,._. ,
~~ '~~~•~
Steven J. Conger
Encl.
SJC/na
~~ '
~~
'i ~ ~
8106 S~
dtl0•St7-kl IM arEl3''J
~ ;'
~ ~' ' ~ ,
6L•661 -1
._` :ONf10.~ 01.611 =d
~y 3M 3S ,'
~'
,,_...
OSb
:135. 1 ~ __ . ~ ~..
I
\ ~ ~ ~
~ ;~ ~
• `.
' ~
~ l ~
~/;; ~, ~
I t
I
~t+
)
~'
'Ji
/
• ~
I ~
I M
f yj~f . j
~ ' aT~ ~
I
0
I
1 ~
j ~ !
I
~-~.
~ , I
I 11111 ~ '
~~ ~ I t 1
~ 1 ; ;
'
, I
l ,
~
~
i.~ 4
~ I •
I ~{ 1
o
.
I ~ ~
°
w 1
'
I
t~ I I
~~,~
~ ~~~
~
~
•-
;~~
"
,, ~
~ I
~
f •
.
~~;~
`
`~ f
_~ l
~
~~ . ~ I I
~IG~
~ U
_
_.. I L~ ~~
..
_ ~ t
~' r'w'
I I~I~ I
• 9L~Z ~~ ~ I ~
' ddb 4311t1N
.
:aNno~ ~ ~ I
_ - ~„j ~
''~ab>~;~`~"d ~NN~Is ~~~~ su.Bpllr~sia~
4
~ °q°4o4eaD~~
!
Y_ fa
_ doc
:~ -
,~~'
LL
J
J
Q
0
0
Z
W
Cn
W
Z
-~
a
W
0
Q
O
J
U
0
Z
W
Cn
Q
co
U
0
~_
m
'~ ~ ~spe vG'ongrega tiort
~f' fehovah~ `Witnessed
c/o Roger Long
P.O. Box 3849
Aspen, Colorado 81612
March 15, 1987
Gentlemen:
The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses intends to develop 3.41 acres adjacent
to, but not part of, the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision across State Highway 82 from
the Aspen Golf Course and otherwise described as Parcels "A" and "B". We wish to
apply for a building permit for the construction of a church, better known to
Jehovah's Witnesses as a Kingdom Hall.
It is our intention to construct such a Kingdom Hall of approximately 3,500 square
feet that will accommodate our present membership and interested persons of the
community. We will build a parking area to contain 50 cars. We will mitigate the
impact of our development by berming the perimeter of the building and parking site
in a fashion that will appear natural to the setting.
As we are aware that we must satisfy the concerns of many county agencies, we will
be prepared to answer their criteria. We understand the most important of these to
be the scenic foreground, parking, appearance of the building, and traffic analysis
and access. We are applying for an exemption from the Growth Management Plan.
We hope to establish and maintain an amiable and close working relationship with
various members and agencies of Pitkin County government. We will be more than
willing to meet the various criteria with which we must comply and to accommodate,
as best we can, the suggestions you may have.
Sincerely,
ASPEN CONGREGATION BUILDING COMMITTEE
/ ~~~
~.~«~Gy
Charl Worth
Rudi Netzer
~~~~'
Kiran Bhatt
G'-- ~ ~_
~.
Ter ad r
Roger Long
TO 3E COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT:
'~- 506 east main street
LAND USE APPLICATION aspen, Colorado 81611
NAME Aspen Congregation of Jehovah`s Witnesses
ADDRESS Box 3849, c/o Roger Long, Aspen, Colorado 81612
PHONE 925-5460, 5132, 1771
NAhiE OF PROJECT Kingdom Hall
PROJECT LOCATION: (On attached sheet, locate on zoning map, showing boundaries of any
natural hazard and resource areas, any other special regulatory
districts, Section 5, Land Use Code; and locate on appropriate CSU/
ERA Maps any areas not covered by the above.)
TOTAL AREA 3.41 acres
EXISTING USE(S) vacant parcel
PROPOSED USE(S) Church
(approxima to square
footage for each) 3500.00
PRESENT ZONING OF SITE AF- 1.
DESCRIPTION OF LAND USE PROPOSAL The development of Parcels A and B for the
construction of a church for religious meetings, with an accompanying
bermed parking area.
TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING OFFICE
TYPE OF APPLICATION: REZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT
P.U.D. SUBDIVISION
SPECIAL REVIEW EXEMPTION
BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW 35-acre + SUBDIVISION
ZEVIEW PHASE: PRE-APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED
GENERAL SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
DETAILED SUBMISSION P.C. ACTION DATE
BOARD ACTION DATE
F1NA1 PI AT BOARD ACTION DATE
APPENDIX B
Prof-,.~t Number
Section/Parcel
Date Submitted
pitkin county
Appeal for Exemption from GMP Process
The congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses was founded in the Aspen area in
1968. During the intervening years our congregation has always rented our
meeting facility at various locations within the community. Presently, we are
renting space from the Pitkin County Community Center. More recently, as our
membership has grown and as increasing demand is put on diminishing public
meeting space, we have sought to obtain property and construct a meeting
facility of our own.
As we hope to soon build such a facility, which we call a Kingdom Hall,
we are seeking an exemption from the Growth Management Plan for the following
reasons. Please note the following memorandum from Brooke Peterson in which
he writes his opinions that we have closely followed in submitting this appeal
for exemption.
We are basing the weight of our argument on the contention that we
qualify as an "essential community facility." The birth and growth of
civilizations and, indeed, communities are built on the foundations of primary
services for living, namely, the judicial, governmental, educational and the
religious. It is man's basic nature to have a spiritual need and so mankind
has always considered that it was important for such needs to be satisfied.
Historically, in this country such needs are met in the various houses of
worship where members of a community may go to fulfill and satisfy their
spiritual quest. In such manner, citizens then become dependent upon such
institutions for spiritual support. Thereby, churches become centers for
public welfare, education and instruction and so become essential institutions
of the community. If such centers for worship open their doors to any and all
members of a community they become, more so, public servants and essential to
the well-being of a community.
The religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses has sought as much as
any in this community to attend to and care for the spiritual needs of the
local populace. Not only are our meetings of Bible education and instruction
open free of charge to any and all members of the community, but we, as well,
engage in an active door-to-door campaign whereby we personally attend to the
spiritual interests of individual members of this community. We find that
when such interested ones learn and then apply scriptural principles their
personal lives and family lives greatly improve. Ultimately, this has a good
effect upon the community as elevated moral standards are promoted. To
continue making improvement in the learning and applying of Bible principles,
interested ones and our membership thereby become dependent on our
organization for support. In our view then, we become an "essential community
facility" and exempt from the GMP process.
It could further be argued that Pitkin County government has already set
the precedent for such church exemption from the GMP process by granting other
religious organizations immunity from such process. One that comes to mind is
the recent construction of the Redstone Community Church in which the county
not only granted GMP exemption but facilitated and expedited the normally
lengthy review process. While our organization is not eminently due to be
evicted from our rented facility, such extension of assistance from the same
county agencies would be welcomed by our building committee.
Lastly, our appeal is based on the simple fact that we are not a
commercial venture. Our organization is a religious one supported entirely on
the voluntary contributions of our members and interested persons of the
community. As our members live within the Aspen-Snowmass area we are not
generating additional growth nor do we employ workers.
In conclusion may we restate and summarize our appeal. Most
importantly, we feel we should be granted an exemption from the GMP process
because we serve an essential community service by reason of the fact our
church attends to the spiritual needs of the community in a manner that could
not otherwise be met. Secondly, the very committees our submission comes
before have in the past set the precedent by granting other religious
organizations exemption from the GMP process. Lastly, our development is by a
Colorado, non-profit corporation that was organized solely for religious
reasons. We neither seek profit nor will we generate growth. It is our hope
that these arguments will be read favorably and that we may be granted an
exemption from the Growth Management process.
Additionally, our appeal for exemption is supported by documentation
demonstrating our project will have negligible impact on the surroundings,
environment and city-county services. Please note the following letters from
the City of Aspen showing availability of water and sanitation. Also included
is a letter from Banner Associates, Inc. addressing the mitigated impact of
parking and car-trip generations to and from the site.
In further addressing the response from Banner Associates, the Aspen
Congregation would be prepared to further mitigate our developmental impact by
phasing our parking area aaccording to current and projected future needs.
For example, we could construct a parking area to hold our initial 40 cars in
Phase I. As future growth demands, we could enlarge our parking area to
accommodate an additional 23 cars for a total of 63 parking spaces'in a Phase
II development.
We also realize the property is serviced by regional public
transportation and a number of our members will be utilizing such means.
Where practical, we customarily car pool.
Lastly, our proposed construction will have little or no adverse impact
on the community air, water, land and energy resources. Our church will be
used approximately nine hours per week by our present eighty members. Water
and sanitation usage will be negligible. We will further conserve resources
by using high-efficiency pulse burners for heating alongside a passive solar
heat collector known as a Tromb wall.
LAW OFFICES
BROOKE A. PETERSON
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPEN. COLORADO Si611
13031 925-8166
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: The Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
FROM: Brooke A. Peterson
DATE: March 3, 1987
RE: Construction of New Church - Exemption from Growth
Management Plan Application
I have been asked to outline the reasons that should be included
in your Land Use Application as to why the new church should be
exempt from having to. compete in the Growth Management competit-
ion.
The appropriate section of the Pitkin County Land Use Code for
the exemption is Section 5-510.2 (f), which exempts the const-
ruction of an "essential community facility" upon the approval
of the Board of County Commissioners after recommendation by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The first argument which should
be advanced is that this is not a commercial venture, and that
it will benefit all of the members of the community, much in the
same manner as a school or hospital might.
Secondly, I believe that precedent is on your side, as I have
been informed that the construction of a church within the City,
under a very similar Growth Management Plan and definitions
therein, was exempted from the process.
Thirdly, it is clear that the construction of a church provides
a fundamental public service upon which the community is
dependent for support. One might even argue that the County is
constitutionally prohibited from regulating the church's
construction. There can be little doubt that providing a place
for the exercise of religion which is open to the public is an
essential public service. To argue otherwise would eliminate
the spiritual needs of the community from being considered
essential to' the community. In addition, all churches provide
other support to the community in terms of education and
philanthropy. You should set forth any means by which the church
has in the past served the local community.
The public will be allowed to come to this church by choice and
clearly the church is for the local community. The points to be
emphasized is that no one will be excluded from attending the
church, that it is open to all in the community and that any
Memorandum
March 3, 1987
Page Two
type of church is an essential element of the community,
providing spiritual assistance to all members of the community.
If you are able to, in your application, affirmatively offer the
church for use by other groups for meetings.
The balance of your application should emphasize how you will
mitigate the impacts of the project and how you are working
within the scenic corridor guidelines. If you are generating no
additional employees, state that in your application. In summary
therefore, I would emphasize the community's need for the new
church and how the church will serve the community. I know that
the church in Redstone was allowed to relocate without a great
amount of pressure from the County, and even with its assist-
ance. You should also emphasize that you are looking to the
County to provide assistance to you so that you may in turn
assist, in the manner that all churches do, the community of
Aspen and Pitkin County.
This can be demonstrated, for example, by a discussion of what
is being done to minimize the visibility of the church and
parking lot from Highway 82. Clearly the protection of the
scenic foreground is a major issue. In addition, you should
emphasize how the design of the church will not have a neglig-
ible adverse impact on the air and water, and is visually
compatible with the surrounding areas. I would stress, if
possible, how the church has been designed to look like a home.
You should discuss how the church will not cause an increased
demand for parking, but rather will accommodate all of your
parking away from Highway 82. You should also discuss how the
construction will not increase the demand for road and transit
services, nor will there be an increased need for additional
water supply, sewage treatment and other publicly provided
services.
Further, you should demonstrate that basic services, such as
water and sewer, are already available on the property or to the
property. Thus, no new utility expansion will be necessary. In
addition, you should state how the facility and its design might
mitigate the need for extended fire or police services.
BANNER
April 3, 1987
Mr. Terry Badger
Aspen Congregation Building Committee
Box 3849
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Kingdom Hall Traffic Analysis
Dear Mr. Badger:
The following will address the transportation issues raised by
the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Staff's letter of March 24, 1987,
specifically regarding the parking facilities and the traffic.
The church will be constructed on a 3.41 acre parcel adjacent to
the Aspen Tennis Club Subdivision. Access will be from State
Highway 82 .via Pyramid Road, 50 foot wide right-of-way. The
building includes 3,000 square feet of church hall and 500 square
feet of residence. Parking and access facilities are required
for a current congregation of 40 families together with
provisions for future demands.
A review of the parking demand at your present facility, i.e. the
Aspen Community Center, indicates that a parking lot of
approximately 50 spaces would suit your needs. At present,
attendance at a Sunday meeting peaks at 100 members and for
future needs 150 members appears appropriate. Assuming there are
2.5 passengers per vehicle, the church will require 40 spaces now
and 60 in the future.
Traffic impacts at the Pyramid Road/SH 82 intersection will
result from church traffic and subdivision traffic. The Aspen
Tennis Club Subdivision consists of 15 single family residential
lots. At this time the trip generation factors for the
subdivision take into account the area's accessibility to mass
transit and amount to 4 end trips per dwelling unit. Therefore,
the subddvision produces approximately 60 trips/day on the
average. Typically peak hourly traffic for residential use
equates to 20~ of the average daily traffic, i.e. peak traffic
attributable to the subdivision would be 20 vehicles per hour
(vph). The majority of the residential trips would be Aspen-
bound in the morning and homeward-bound in the afternoon.
It is anticipated that the church will generate peak hourly
traffic of 40 vph under present operations and 60 vph based on
future projection. This traffic will only occur Sundays between
the hours of 9:30 AM and 12:30 PM and Thursdays between 7:00 PM
and 10:00 PM. Neither of these peak traffic periods will
coincide with expected peak hourly traffic generated from the
subdivision or with peak hourly traffic on SH 82. Sunday
BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC. BANNER ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
SUITE 6, 605 EAST MAIN 2777 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • (303) 925-5857 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 • (303) 243-2242
morning traffic on SH 82 is off-peak because. of the absence of
worker-oriented trips.
Based on the demographics of the church's current members, it can
be anticipated that there will be a 50-50 split of downvalley and
upvalley traffic (left turn - right turn).
At this time there is no indication that a traffic signal will be
necessary at the intersection of Pyramid Road and SH 82 as a
result of the addition of the new Kingdom Hall. The Colorado
Department of Highways Access Manual recommends the installation
of a traffic signal when the average hourly traffic volumes
approach 500 vph on the main thoroughfare and 150 vph on the
intersector road. Although traffic volume on SH 82 will approach
this number by the year 2000, the traffic resulting from the
church and the subdivision combined will be a fraction of the
required threshold volume. Therefore, no signals will be needed.
Similarly, speed change lanes (channelization) are warranted when
the average annual traffic volume approaches 40 right turning
movements per hour or 20 left turning movements per hour on a
highway with the characteristics of SH 82. The combined traffic
generation from the subdivision and the church will exceed 20
left turning movements per hour over a maximum of two 15 minute
periods two days per week (Sundays and Thursdays). As they are
exceeding the warrant for a channelized intersection two 15
minute periods on two days per week, their traffic generation
does not meet the criteria for average daily conditions.
Therefore, no channelization of SH 82 is required.
Furthermore, the CDOH, acting through Pitkin County, its
permitting authority, has issued the church an encroachment
permit requiring no additional improvements to SH 82.
The major geometric criteria controlling the design of the
intersection are the minimum stopping sight distance and the
horizontal clearance from the bridge. The required minimum
stopping sight distance is 300' and is easily met under the
existing geometry. The minimum horizontal clearance for the
bridge is 500'. The intersection of Pyramid Road and SH 82 is
located over 800' from the near end of the bridge. Therefore, no
conflict exists.
I have determined that there are no predictable negative traffic
impacts associated with the project as it is being proposed at
this time, and I cannot establish any need to do improvements to
the highway or the intersection in question under current codes.
Sincerely,
G~ N~
Patrick Dobie, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
Aspen Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
c/o Roger Long
P.O. Box 3849
Aspen, Colorado 81612
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS -- Traffic analysis for the proposed Kingdom
Hall development located l~ miles west of Aspen across from
the City golf course, adjacent to, but not part of, the
Aspen Tennis Court Subdivision. Main access will be by
means of Highway 82 onto Pyramid Road. Our members, using
private cars, will access Pyramid Road from 7-7:30 pm on
Thursday, 18 cars arriving from the west and 22 from the
east. The same cars will exit Pyramid Road onto Highway 82
from 9:30-10 pm.
Between 9:30 and 10 am Sunday, approximately the same number
of cars will be accessing Pyramid Road. Between 12-12:30 pm
Sunday, as many cars will exit Pyramid Road onto Highway 82.
In addition, Monday through Saturday from 9:15-9:30 am
approximately 5-7 cars will access Pyramid Road and from
10:45-11 am the same number will exit Pyramid Road onto
Highway 82.
s
CIT
PEN
13
as
March 30, 1987
Terry Badger
905 King Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Aspen Kingdom Hall
Dear Terry:
eet
611
This letter is to verify, as -you requested, that water is
available to the tract of land situated in the NE 1/4 of section
11, T.lOs, R.85W. of the 6th P.M. Pitkin County Colorado and can
be delivered to the proposed structure once all the required
permits have been obtained.
Sincerely,
i
Ann Ballard
Administrative Assistant
Aspen Water Department
.{aspen consolidated sanitation '1'~. istVict
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. 13031 925-3601
Tele. 1303) 925-2537
March 31,1987
Terry Badger
Jehovah Witness
905 King St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Mr. Badger,
In regards to the proposed Jehovah witness building in the Aspen
Club subdivision, this building can be served by the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District. A district line is near by but due to grades a
pumping situation may exist in getting into the district's line.
Sincerely
~~~,...-
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Response to Scenic Foreground Overlay
Our building committee shares your concern over maintain-
ing and preserving to the extent possible, the rural and
scenic nature of the western entrance to Aspen. To mitigate
the impact of development of Parcels "A" and "B" and upon
reviewing the criteria of the Pitkin County Land Use Code
under sec. 3-1.13 "Scenic Foreground Overlay" and the memoran-
dum, "Highway 82 Corridor Landscape Parameters," we respond to
those criteria.
3-1.13(c) (1) Parcels "A" and "B" are virtually flat so
that we may not utilize hills and such to conceal the proposed
building. There is, however, a slight relief on the E.-S.E.
perimeter of Parcel "A" and adjacent to the site that may be
further incorporated into a berm.
(2) Out of necessity due to setback parameters
and out of regard for the criteria, we are locating the struc-
ture as far away as is feasible from Highway 82. We are
utilizing the services of a local architect who has lived in
the valley for many years and who is therefore aware of the
peculiarities of mountain building. We have designed a roof
that will lessen the impact of the structure. The roof line
will be extended and stepped with the addition of hips on the
east and west elevations to present a more tapered and bal-
anced appearance. To lessen the impact of height we have
chosen to use a 4-12 roof pitch.
(3) Again, the land is virtually flat and the
building site is located as far as possible from Highway 82.
(4) Parcels "A" and "B" are within the 1400'
scenic corridor; however, the site is at the greatest possible
distance from Highway 82.
(5) We intend to leave untouched the sage and
other natural vegetation of parcels "A" and "B" except for
that portion that will be affected by our structure and park-
ing area. Upon the developed site we will utilize the sug-
gested species of landscape materials, specifically the
Western Juniper, sage on the berms, Aspen and various species
of evergreen in the low contours of the berm. Our planting
materials will be placed discreetly (not as unnatural hedge
rows for screening), clumping islands of Aspen and evergreen
together in the lower saddles of the berms and elsewhere. We
will use more mature plants so as to utilize their greater
screening capabilities. We will consult further with land-
scape architects and planners (notably, Design Workshop, Inc.)
for more detailed advice on plant materials indigenous to the
sage flat ecosystem, plant location and care, and planting
instructions.
In reference to #7 of the "Highway 82 Corridor Landscape
Parameters" the impact of our structure will be lessened by a
lower roof profile (4-12 pitch). Rather than using a metal
roof, we have chosen to use heavy cedar shakes as natural
roofing materials.
(6) The northern elevation of our structure
has very few windows thereby eliminating, for the most part,
any interior lighting that would be visible from the highway.
Under the carport and entrance we will have exterior lighting.
We may provide very limited lighting in the parking area. In
all cases, we will utilize lighting techniques (recessed and
downlighting) whereby light sources will not be visible from
the highway. We anticipate that Thursday will be the only
evening in which the structure will be using night lighting.
(7) #7 of Landscape Parameters - We will
screen our structure with the use of 6' berms. They will be
constructed in such a manner as to simulate the varied shapes
and slopes of natural hills and ridges. In addition to
berming we will compliment our screening by the use of plant
materials strategically placed (in the valleys and at the end
of the bermed areas). (Please refer to plot plan.)
(8) By far the majority of land within these
parcels will be retained as open space by virtue of the 200'
setback.
(9) The property is not affected by an identi-
fied viewplane.
M
6
d
k
e
~"
.f~&
\~
>, ..
-_.. 1 c c
~ G
I N '_i ,~~' ~,
p ~.
~ ~
• Q ,~t
V _.~..._- FIB ~
r
`, .
a - ,
•.-r
,y. .... ~...o .r...y, ~~.~. tea. ~....z .._. .~ulu ~~ ~i~ u 1 c~ ys ~ <~ ~ ~~ ~~
~ _ u,~.~ ~
j~
~ i .~,4f~=~ _ _. mow. ~
o ~ '~ / 0. ~~ in ,
h I I ~/ ~
~. y~~~~ t ~ ___I ~. ~ 1 t ~~1Q1
0 i .r~.ti`-~~~: - I t ~~
..
.~
a ~ i'~ ~ `__ ~ -.... ~~ ~~4 ti ~~.
~~ ~ ° ~~X y _, y 1 ~ ~ ~ ~,a'~
~•~ 0 ei 1 ~ 9~~'1. .i r
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- c~
0
^v:~ t ~l 1 ~ `' ~` ~' ~~ r~
0 ~ _
:- li: ~
a, ,~ ,-+~
and ~^3+r a ~~ * ti ~ y '~ ~4~~A ~ )
5 e' i t A~ 4 Jr '. ;/ j
`• ~(1
_ ~} ~~ / i
on ~ ~ .ti~,_ ° d ~ i i~
. I ~.:: ~ 1D 0, ~` r
o Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~' .~ ; /~
e~ lip ! ,~ ~~ ~ ~~t ~. 8
D Y J S ~ i L. ~~. ~ ~ ~+
ld, ti` ~ i - ,~z
e -.-~'"
w """ ~ ~ ~ t j ~ s° ~~ j' ~'~
-~
~e .r ;' ~' Y',y'
--{--`-- -- - l
,.,~
~a j ~ ,-
o y ;.
p l :r~~, .. __ _ ,~- a ~~ ~ ~ ~ 6~6
° r ~,~%' ti ~' d ~
0 ~i ~ ~ \ - C ~~ y ~ r
~i iY
a ~ r~y ~ ~
p ~, ~ ;. .,.:X
a ,/
o m ~ n; ~ ~
c
o ~ d~
0 0 ~ Y 7 ' ~~r ~ /
o c.
' ! >'~
y~ a ~ i'
o I~
c ; A
o ~ ,. ~ ~ ,
o ,; ~ ~~,fi .,~ ~ , .,
i gs~~
i
~+ ca9rv'
N9 CC
!+ a
j '~ i .,~ w F C J s 'r N
J (~ r P
'~l ~ YID ~~~~1~ _. ,\i .I<
`-
~ _ .. f ~ ~._ _ -.}.
>; ~ ~ >
~ <
L
-,»r'
`-~~
1l, t ~ \
ryN
~ / ~ ~
,~
i,, i
~'
,-~
1 ~ ''
''
:w. ~~~ ~
~.
w ~ ,~
,. ~ ~, a
~i
,s w
m
"'?'~ "~
~^k~, r
f~ F
Y~4 ~ ~~ y
4
f ' ~. "'
t i
1
~ ' Fi ~ - -tea
~ ~~~ ___.
~. ` ~~-
r ~
~', ~~
g x -~ -f
~ +~ ,
~A
a ~,
~~
~
~A~~y~ ~
~;~ ..
.,ter'
~i x q. -
y ~ .Ea+~ ~ ~„~aiph(1
",..~
~;. ~..- ..r
~~~
~ _
x ~~
?~~ ~~,
~"~~~
~~ `~
~~:
y" r ~t W
o ~ ~ ~_
S~
N
a
t
_~
G
Q
LL
.U
Q
U!
m
.~
7
S Z
~ 1 T
E
: E 4 ff
_ 88 ~ 4F' G ~.~ C f a~ € F
~~ ~W ~ Q ~_ o~~a U M F W~e~
: `6~Y p . o~e8~
~ vka' J o ~sei
oa<~~«~W w8~o~=~'~'.~ 6
Yq ~es~ NRR~w~Y~,`„e-oWZ f
~ 3~~g€m8eLL3Ne`85«~S C ~ § S
i
~3 ~ ~
?qe 9'.
s 2~~ ~ •.•
0
__ _______ ______ _____ 1__ _
_-
-_~..., - ~, 1
_ _ _______ _ o i \
o ~`~ ~,: ~
~~ ~~
~~
3
"~ '~ ~ ~~ ~goC7d
~+ °F
'~~ ~ a@9t t
w ] 1} l
caARB ~~ 3 / r
1. ~ ~~e .
a~~c~~
« M ~~ .
e x 8' ~~~
o°u 15 ~ ~ ~ 'S
~ F % ~
~ ~I~~ o~~ ~~ ..
~ 1 a I ~'-
I +.
f•. ~ / 1f~ ~' ~~ s sx
~ 1 I ~ 4 ~ ? i.......
y,,,..
~ y
R t> .,..« "..~ ~
i ~ '+ 8 ~P o.'a ~t
i ~ y.
= I ~ I / ry~ a6 8 :, ~
f i ~ ~ lry~ tES
M ~
~ 4~ '~~ ~ N
~ ~ ~ ~ -W ~ .o € t
N / ',~'~/ C ~ ~ ~ a
0 0 ~ I ~' / ~ s°d $ 4
A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sx n
R `'~ a a d~ "~ ~ a
~~:.,~~
e ,,~i''~ ~t I ~'--
o ~ j i W ~~ ~~~~~~ .e
m ,,,
'' ~ E
~ \ / fl
y Y
yj~ F
u5 ~ ~
V
:,~ ~~: ~ :
.,~,
• ~:
~ • ~• .~
l
.~
'~
'J
~.'
'.~,~
~Q.
' '~' ~• l• .. ~. •. )~
.~
_ ~~
~:~ ~~
:,~':
,.
:1.
~~~~:~
.,.:
:~. ~~`
.Q.
~, ; :~~.
:~ ~
~ r.
~gg: . ~ ..........:......... .. ~:
•;'•
~.:
.~4:
~'
~:~ :~::
3 .
;.~_ ~.
:~ ,, .
~~:
~:
..,..;.:...:.. ::, e ~ H
,,
~ ~i ~.':'
.r, ~'•'.'•'~'•'.'~.
:'•. ^. . .
f ~
'~- ~,
~~.
:(~'
:.
.;. ;{~~i
;~;..
:~ ;
coo ~ •'
f' 1
yr
., ,
~~•. ~:~:
a.
Y•
<•
~.
:~
.~•.
:'' ~. : i;
•1M.
'.'.~.
.:' ~~
' ~~
.`; .
•~.
'~:
.4.
,.i',a
.~
•'~.
;:.
. ~~.
~~. ~~•
'r'~. ~
J.'.'~'''. ~'.'.':'
.'~'
:~'` ~~:
., . i ~#~:
S:~~
~~.
~C:
~~:
ti
.~.:
~.
:~~:;..
:~.
:;:~:::~
~~~
.~ .~ g
•~.
.~
;~
;'
r•:;:•
..
:Vi`i`
~~
:\ .
•'/
.a.. .
.~•
~....
',~
:~.
'i•.
~~ . •~
4
P
.i~:•: .
~c. t
•
I
~;~::;: .
.}
.~:-..
.•~7~•"
.•J~i/ ~
:~, ~~.~~
_ '(
r ' •:~i•.
,~ ;~,:
r'.
r
. ~~.
'f •'. ~~':' •~:.~
'~'l'...'. .
.' • \':
~•~: '
;'.'.
:~i
f'. .
r:~
::~?
~• .
~.
:'~~:
.:
~:~:~.~
'l
\ •1?
' ~~ . 7: •
•~'
°r..
~f•.
r
•t
. ~'.
4'••
~~.1.
~~
•~~
~~1~ ""S'
' V~,
F
,~• :` :~:
.~:,
I .'/.
~~~`.
.\'
i. }1•:
. ~. f .
:C'
Y :•}:•
•'If'
.,.
•; ~I :,• ~:~•
.1.
•.~•.
y~ 1,:
•'I:':.~'•~ •1
•~•.•. .
.:~•.
.'!~: '
;.~.~:'' .'t'.
f.•.•.e:.,...~~ .•~
•;{ ,
:'~•:
.•~~:': f
~'
~'/.'
~.'~ {( .•C' . ~..
i'.1
I . ''t.~'.•...
I '!'.'.
. ~.:
:..~ . /;
:.•
,~t~:
/ :~
)~.~~~~~•'
J ~•
':4'1.• 7 .L' '.~'.'.' 'j' ~1•
~~'. .l' .1.'.'. I .I
'~.
.'~ .
.''}~.
1\.
.~.
.t~.
~.
.~. (•.
.'~• .~1
.•\.
i~
••l'
.L' •~. •~t.'.'.,
•:r .1•.
~7: ..7.'
:}•~
/.' ~.'.'.'. •. •.'~•~•~ '.1'. •. •••.
.•~',' 'I
.,
_ ~..
;'~..
_ ~~:
~,.
;~;:
~.
~. .f:
,,.
~~
:i
':<.:. .
a:<~r`>.
~:.•.~.~
.•::~
:E
.;~.
"~:i•
••` .~••
•i
.y_~
' 7~~. ~% .
.~•''
::,
:~~ i
.;
::'
.~
~:~_.
..~•.
:.V .F.
::::
.~.
i't
.~•'
'~ •~•
.~
_ _ ih
'.\'. • f • . 1.
••' .
_ _ .t'
•r.
..
Jt~~
`.J,.
'l.L~
\• .
i~v~ .
,.
'.V
~. ~
•~~~.
1•
•,~
~~
.?'v ~ •
'~ti`I~:.'iJr~
•I•
.1
•:1=.'.
.^ : /
~<
• //~
I.~
l
.~~
~~` ' '
~.'
A • ~ •
{•
`.
/'
it
~Y.
f.:•
__
Y
_ %
a~, ,,,ter,, ,~ .. .~~~~.y
j/,, _~ ~ :ice ~~ ; '' ••,'~ '• •. ,;~ ,~; gjr . ; ~ ~.
~, • i~,.. ,{~ ~,, (~ ~ 1
Permit No:~~ ~ /~~~6
PITKIN COUNTY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
- - -n
Type of work to be performed:
~.
Location: ~~fh_, ~.,.~
Owner• ,,~. ~~- ~ Address:
,~ ~„
Telephone:
Contractor: Contractor License No:
Date work to beg n: ~ Estimated completion date:
Estimated pavement surface
to be cut: Lengt Width Depth
If other, explain: ~ ~2;~c~ ~`~,. ~ ~,.~ c, ,.,_
APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO NOTIFY ASPEN DISPATCH OF CLOSING ~ RE-0PENING DATES (925-9460)
Streets required for line and grade?
Street will need to be closed?
Special traffice control required?
Utility locations required? (Applicant's responsibility)
Temporary pavement repair :required?
Tamped by:
yes no
yes no
yes no
yes. no
yes
How tamped:
no
Material used for backfill:
Compaction approved: yes no Date:
Date permanent repair made:
V
Project or account No.:
Permit and inspection fee:
of°°
Pavement repair fee: (~ ) Date billed:
Other fees: (~ ) Date billed:
Remarks:
Date permit approved: l~ - y - ~~ Applicant:
APPROVED BY:
Owner or agent:
Pitki ounty En`~ _Address:~
kin Coun Road Superviso
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925-2020 ,. f ~ =,
LAND USE APPLICATION FEES
city
- 63721 - 47331
GMP/CONCEPTUAL
00113
- 63722 - 47332 GMP/PRELIMINARY
- 63723 - 47333 GMP/FINAL
- 63724 - 47341 SUB/CONCEPTUAL
- 63725 - 47342 SUB/PRELIMINARY
- 63726 - 47343 SUB/FINAL
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63727 - 47350
S /
- 63728 - 47360 CONSENT AGENDAAT M
REFERRAL FEES:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00125 - 63730 - 47380
00123 - 63730 - 47380 HOUSING
00115 - 63730 - 47380 ENGINEERING
SUB-TOTAL
County
63711 - 47431
GMP/GENERAL
00113 -
- 63712 - 47432 GMP/DETAILED
- 63713 - 47433 GMP/FINAL
- 63714 - 47441 SUB/GENERAL
- 63715 - 47442 SUB/DETAILED
- 63716 - 47443 SUB/FINAL L,: °, r~„`- '~%,~~~
ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
- 63717 - 47450
/
- 63718 - 47460 _
CONSENT AGENDAATEMS
- , ..
REFERRAL FEES:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH -
00125 - 63730 - 47480
00123 - 63730 - 47480 HOUSING
- 47480 ENVIRONMENTAL COORD.
00113 - 63731
00113 - 63732 - 47480 ENGINEERING _
SUB-TOTAL
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 - 63061 - 09000 COUNTY CODE
- 63062 - 09000 COMP. PLAN
- 63066 - 09000 COPY FEES
- 63069 - 09000 OTHER ,
SUB-TOTAL
'
~~
,
~ ±
-1 ,; r~ - TOTAL
-. i
4i 1 ~
f ~.~ ~ /
/
`
, }
`>"P `~
-
Name. ~ ~ ~-.
~; j
.
Phone:
Ir..
rr X,~l._. -
~ Project: ~~ ~~
Address: ~ ~
fi , t, ~ ~
-'i
I
t ,c ~ '~ Date:
Check #
# of Hours:
Additional Billing: _---
N
r~
U
w
E ~~
w
C>
V]
a
O
W
a:
i!]
W
Q
~//
/i /.
/ /
``` /// / 6
~ ~O'
% j
W ~~ ~ ~ ~
i
j ~~'~
i i
~~ .Q• 3
&n~~
i / QV~~ ryk
~ / QQ sm
i
i ~
~ / bi
~ ~n
i m
i ~ ~
i a `'~SZ' q
~ \
/ ,tu ~ YOB
.l p
i ~
~ OC9 ~8 ~' o p
~' s qy
~~ O _...._...
~ ~Q. _
~.~~ _i
i /
/ QO
c P
~ V
i
pj
i~~ ~~~ Q 9
~n
W
~' a
~,i~~n~i
~ !~ v I `o
u°•' bq~ ~
~r n:
n °~;~-~ ~
~ ,~ ~ .d
~ ~ ,~ _ ~
o.~,~ a o h
U',`~ ~ ` ' •r ~~
ti
.Q -n run .~ C, •-` D,
m ~ m ~ 3 0 °'
c vP~, p, ~ ti 3
0 C7 ~ ,~ N >.
t> ~ ~ ~ I
~ ;~
~ w °m r .~ •.~ .~
Yi3~ ~,c;"a`~ n.
.,
a M ._.~pap~~~
= rn O a) C7 O ~ •.~..
a a,z-4~~n.~~ci
~=J' y 5 •- ~ O
N ~ ~ ~~ .O rN~ •LJ u@a
N
aJ
N
"° ~
~. :7
~i ~
.R
c ~?
•~ 07
„,~~
V7
z ~ ~ o
U 'n rn G
F ~ ~ O
~c~
.~~
w h .:.
~,a ~ j .r;
~a 1 zi ~`a~,'
V7
rz ~ ~ ~o
z ~d~
a.
n.. m
G) y ~ ~'
Q) ,~ ~h
0 1~y7
~Q "n o
~ u ~
k: 0O C;
Ci :7 T)
$ dl '(
o •ri •r
1 •p X71
f-
~ f
U
a
W (ti i
_ ~
z ~ i
Q
W? ~
R: n
~ T
~ W ~
_1 2 W V r
~ z i ~ '\~~`y1'
Z o- ~
z ~ v a,
F ~ a a
Z ~ W
N a c
Q W >
C
a o
z~.
a z m ~~ <
N a U)
a3 ~ °
W
IY ~ U)
a J m .ri S`
J N
w = £:
Li rn ?~
0
n ~
LI 2 ,
r. 3
~. O n
i
~~
c5 a
w¢
tl) U
~~
d
~m
W
(F ~ ~ i ~ J-
O ~ G I
A ~~
~ ~ I •.~ r,
ZY N i ~ i
~ ~ v, ' ~
Nt ~ a
b p c~ 4~ 7
~. ~ .f.~ Q~ y ~1
n
ti F m
1~ G ~ C) .~] 6~
V [1
(-'i
~ ~ is
U Qr C ~
„ ~~~c''
,nnt~
~~ >~
~ o~'G
G d U .{ t-, 4 ..,.
h v:
o+' ~,~,oR''
O~ '~ ~ ~ ~
n'ri -ri~r,.aN
w ~. u> ~ 27 ~~~ .p p
t cj .r , ~ N c sr~',
~ r~ r, ~ G~ et ;..
E~
z
w
t7
n
RA
~?
O
u
C~
Y
]~
E
k
a
r~
r
K
~~
•r O
c
ri
ar I
' ' # •I
~c ~
I ,~i
47
a ~~
OE
~~
w
a;
+~ ~t
I o
U~
~ ~1
~ in
:~. ;a
~uj f7
li 3
11 U
t~
r. ¢~
(~
K [-• e
n
J ~°
~~ !I~
- f 1, ~
,~I'
.~
I, .
r".:
I'~
~;~
j r' P;l
;,~~..
q _f
x
K
C) F ~•
S t.'
~:
H .,~
w :~ :>
E~ <'s ~{
~; ~.~
¢ E'. 1i
~a
a cj
Kt, U ~.
~~
!~ I
q; 1,)
z ' `$
O Ii;
r~' i I
ci i~~
'~ ' is
U O ii'
y ~,
4 ; w <q
r,
}., r..:s
0 0~
O r rv
U ) i~0
Et llvl
ul I(1
f.l ~n
(_. IUD
~, I !
I
U
() ~ r:
E,
r
cn r'
`°' ii'; i
0
J l,.
KC u
c•
~~ `~~
a ~
G. U I
U, r r..
. r.
is
n.
ti. • i
!~ F
l7; :>
.] - ~ i
a ~'
~rc
[J c i;
G. 4 ~:
F~ vi ^i
n. z FY
W ¢ r
U F_ ij
a~ ~. n;
u.
i~ ( ~
CJ ~ '?
yl a n [-
~r[`,
r kfrc,
-~ n
`~ ~i:
Jf T' ` ~:.
)~ ~ ~ (:
1 `) [`t
E~ ~: f~.
J " ~~ o
;> > ~ ,;
rY: O
;i 'i,.
c„ ~ v
~: v4 l:
~;; ._
.~~ a
~c;
"
O
m ~, ~~
u~ ,
I ~j
~ ~ ?
~ ~• '
V
i.; (7 r~ im
l `J
yl i..
li:. STn•r`~r~,.1 ~-owi"tt?raa.~.e:~
~ ~~eo (, CU fj pc ~ f~oTs.ccY ~~r~wt ~R+~E
~ -r'~P.c, 606 PF - •$ Rrn-Aa~. l~rzw~re Z~r+J¢
u
• "'f'-QitG S 7Q ~(;. 1 2 N PC-' ~ I~oP of S+'n:Pp;
~t
~ Toao S~OC 12.,E PG 3 Po r' NP SFtt.il•
A~~ L~t-'ti.~A~L+NS.s ~„$o Ps, Pay
+.YNL.CSS O'7'riC~+2WISS S410tAlIJ
M
mA1N~l.J1E -w. GL2.p4 PJ~
Tao I~+'~2by-.-U6 -Gt/-1/AC.~~s
~ "--^~~~ _ u5tr FB •25PtD nloz Fpi2 SMR~EiS
~ ~ / ,"~.. ~ ~ '1'RE~i~. owJ 3/µ 80 Pi+ tr'OtY THRteE 4 N+T
~ ~ UrJ '~R>;,t.~ ~i.~Jp aia ~.AK45oE. Snk+IC's:s o,J+C Gr.
~ ~
~ _ t , ~'~' P4C Ar~r~:tz m~-rya. ~+RU IN 825r R•P E~.P,
l (~ I iCbJ,DC Su+-rAd'.~ CC>NrJt:4-r•~oN ~~ A1~ ~c ~uRG,Y
/ ~ \ `. '~ f''. ~i-., t _ J ~ 1 ,. 5y5-rcm FaFi W ~~1-rt:>;t•
~.
1\ ~ - ~' I
~~~ j N
,~ ~__.
~ , , t;.
~~, `. r~.
~~_ ~', ~ ~ '~-,_ ~ 3
~~
=~'•
r A ._..~
~`
4 ,~ _.._
L
__
.~
- {tir
. Y :, t. ~:. !r Sit, :.:..a ~ w ~ +'C...f •~i, _e~ ~\ +,y\ ~'• y r ~. '\
i ~ 4,~~
al.~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ \
Y j
~ ..
~•i ~ _~ ~' 1 • S
. _ -..t /
_;
~~, 't__ ~._ ,'
~I.S
Es-r,,~w-crp (Ylw,-ttelFl~.s Co sr
~.~N
0 wl9
IOYt,1'•g1`
prRIRPMI9V~ TNM_ONEOi_ ....... 1916.
d a+Tt~w ~. ~ L
AT/E61"_,__ ~
aWW _..........._
\ ~~AQ? \
~~~'
..
fiU~Vli 61121VYII0~ ft14i
~E~
A T p ~
1 "13ie
1, ...fib. E
9 u r Ar . ~ He»
6 9 9a 1 8906
~
7 91~T49 199. .i0 3
StiliVE'YOR'S CENTIFIC"~E
I, _. _~_R M9GK~H1 _._ __. do hereby c+=riily that t am a Regis
iered ProEessronal Fn ''near and
4tale of Colo. (harther cod{{p ~ for Land Surveyor, and that 1 hold
cerlffi~ie Nn 409 __ _ ,_, as prescribed under the laws of the
at by authority of the Owners !have
made a survoy of the iraal a! land shown on Ibis plat and described
below, and have subdivided said pact of land into lots and streets, here-
ahertobeknownas___....._ .9.SPEN_IE~B_~l4pl_A@EA~_
and that Ixune bass kxxm correctly surveyed and slaked on the ground
as shown nn this ptnt.
HOUNDAAV DI','L'N@170N
. 071819E ....q51, ....._..-_.__..._ PATIA~S _._._ ~..~.
A PARCEL OF t,WD LYNIB WNa;LY VgTlYN M 91/ENI/2 9EC.N,T ..
_ _ iW, flBtlW CF 7NE 9TR WMIp1At, MERpIAN. SnWTE N TIIE (btM1TY;:
OF PI7K STATF OP COLORA00 A9W MORE PARi1CWdp.Y OE9CRetlt
A9 POiltibbr
BEEHNMtb AT 7NE EUCdt OF 9Ap 960.11 ANp R1pAM9
°E4°71ItUW
-°
41&p0 Eae9lY'ti 0. POW7 N iM6 81Y R,uWa COLD STATE M91rRAY MNY
wN1EH R9wr w ~ flIH TRU[ Pa1xT o9 9C69aNNe. nLNCE
PRERL'E
N02~
6a°AK
9'EA9TERLY
19 4U'
89 00`
790.Op' __
Tp q ppRT Iry 9Aq R0.W LIRE ~ OOL6 TAi.[_~ep~P9E TREMCI
SNO ROw LINE TO A PaHC TNEN~
ALCN9_TNE ARC Oi A 296#78' flAOAI! CUME 10 THE RAiNT w SAKI
............ _._ R0.W URR. RH09E LW~_MMVQ~AR3.~1 pp'E 39910'. TO A
.._._ _. PONE yR9C11 POKff p N7 fACT TIC rR~_PO91T OF ~gNNM9.
_ _ _ fANTA,_, 1~9 E7 _9 AggE
(q_I~S$,_.
- _
-
~. .
OWNEp'S DEDICATION
Know all c~en by these pa6enb fhat.Z., the_undernigned owner f )
of the above describedi tract of land, having caused same to ba Nub.
divided into ]affi and 91rerHS b be hereafter known a the
EtacaR. sEeu
BRA9R CAR _ Amp T CLUB AR€A
THE eRCEN AREA IB AN ARK0. ~ CgAAION OWRER9NIP IN WHICH EAOH LOT
OWNER 91ALL OWH AM UA::YDEO I/Nlb INTFRE9T,
In witness whereof. have hereunto setll1~1fHNQ.__u,ia :.:
_day aLFIE'~_A.D., 19.GS
~~
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
' ~'
' K
r~
APPAOVEU TT{IS _. _.._ DAY OP -.
A U., 19,__.
DII II,1 "I nrl - CO 90AM OF NF.AL'fN
COl1NTY }71ANdiNG CpMMCSl 510N APPROVAL
APPlpppp..V~~ti~D~, THIti ~ __. IIAYU ,xn.~~~a~~.. All. i4~-Y
'PNA A1(A111_000N I'YPLANNIh., CU I6SIOIi
~:PRan,
I tc :o. n,nNNUI;r nee
F, a°~.~ .n a eni u
I HEAF:BY CERTIFY Tf WT I NAV£ NAD TTII6 ?6A'I'. AND $AIU'1'I7AGT, AS STAEPi),
F.EAMINLD BY TMS OFt1CP.; AMl lT Ui COAAEST ANU IN AfS',ORUANCH WITN IN.
FOHMATWN ON P9f. IN THIS OFn(T
)ATE __.. ("OONIY IUItVCYON
STATE OF COLO. ~ r S
County of ~.}1Sr.ee. (~"'
On the„tlri:dny of . p~k.ALu.A.D„ 191e~personally appsarrxt before
me, the undersigned Nnlray Porblic, in and for said County of .}}~.
in sale Male of Cola, the signer( ) of the above Ovmer's dc+dicatfon,
_ __in number, who duly acknowledged to me thot___.__1kF__. _....._.___
signed it freely and voluntarily and for the uses and purposes Iherem
montioned. ~ ,r, n,q _u~,N.^/1_..._
MY OOGRAIHNION FNHIAFS'. AW ou+-t3A ckf
U OT PfIii11C
-_ ___ tlA9E b MERIINAN
[iECORDL;D # _
NF'W3 T{IIS 11ALLOP OOL4 COUNTY OF /"5-<;- p{OO~gpANDFIL.DAI'PHERE-
Otli SI Ok
97ME: TIRE ,
IIATC A' . ~ ~. Q TIMF ~' } i I gn~~ ~ PA6E.:1_
') COMlA 1("F R '~ h, A M _ (JUT fY flECOADEA
..... 4: rn,ar.w ~ n a
Pain -s~
xNTer.
rwT WNex9mre wN To cexru ~ xoAaWxn
¢-xWCae'A' e'e ass xer Ixauuo W eu9evl&ax.
1-Aµ !ei LNe1 N9T AAUrixN el A9AP1YAn WANt
9' eAa«wn, uxule onlemnee 9xeNN
A~ Au wra ~» A19orves er axxeW.
N: Lon Wwrt r7' YAaeNlxn roe erexn9 eaawn
Ox WNICN lxeY AM,
API'fpVFU A; ra FOAM TI{IG _... I'1{hHFN[PU TO flD HOAAD (IF . (~eNPY COMkf9910
DAY OP -. A U t _ DAY OP - AD 19 A'P WHICH
SU-DIVI9ION WAS APPHOVF.U fiND fiGY'[PfFD.
nrnier.
_. ~(N1M Y'A'f l'OAN&Y rniv r «~ ,I~~,.:~. ,.. _.. ,.
.,
~\
~\
k. \ 1 ~
y
®~ \`
HE59NNG IN _~1.°.f 1C. vl... NMY
0.1' " r! n 1 1 r i 1t '!,^j,F lrA}~t