The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutadditional.exhibitsADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT THE MARCH 23, 2005 PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING Exhibit Agenda Item Exhibit Date No. A Grace Church Memorandum from 03-22-2005 Richard Russo to BOCC B Grace Church Letter from Terry 03-22-2005 Koladish to BOCC C Grace Church Jan Haugen 03-22-2005 D Grace Church Letter from Dana 03-22-2005 Strong to BOCC E Grace Church Letter from Joel 03-15-2005 Haas and Christie Haas to whom it may concern F Grace Church Email from Pam 03-23-2005 Wood to BOCC G Grace Church Letter form Anne 03-21-2005 Helmich to BOCC H Grace Church Letter from Paul 03-21-2005 Eliot Helmich to BOCC I Grace Church Letter from Carolyn NA Arnold to BOCC J Grace Church Letter from Gredig 03-17-2005 Family to BOCC K Grace Church Letter from Bo 03-19-2005 Helmich to BOCC L Grace Church Photographs from NA Liz Newman re: Emma Road at Highway 82 M Grace Church Maps and list of NA churches for Aspen, Basalt and El Jebel/Mid Valley N Grace Church Letter from County 03-18-2005 Attorney John Ely to Robert A. Lees O Grace Church Email from Jason 03-23-2005 Hasenberg, Deputy Director of Facilities Management for Eagle County to Terry Maner, Grace Church Pastor re: lease P Emma Caucus Letter from Pam 02-26-2005 Wood to BOCC Q Rural/Remote Rezoning in Photograph from NA the Express Creek and Lynn Mace re: Express Creek Road area Leininger property R Rural/Remote Rezoning in Email from Attorney 03-15-2005 Aspen Mountain/Castle Creek James C. Bull on area behalf of adult children of Maco Stewart, Macol Cerda (Stewart), Maco Stewart IV and Stewart Stewart (Park Tunnel Properties) to Cindy Houben and BOCC S Rural/Remote Rezoning in Email from John F 03-15-2005 Aspen Mountain/Castle Creek Coughenour on area behalf of Pfister Group, Art Pfister, Nick DeWolfe, Richard Fitzgerald, Steve Vance and John Coughenour (Park Tunnel Properties) to Cindy Houben and BOCC March 22, 2005 MEMORANDUM TO: Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Richard Russo - 155 Spring Creek Road CC: Ezra Louthis RE: Grace Church Special Review My wife and I own property in Sopris Mountain Ranch and are in the process of cunstmcting a house at the Ranch. We currently live in Greenwood Village, Colorado, where I served for ten years on the Planning and Zoning Commission, including several years as Chairman and Vice Chainnan. Special Review or use questions are always very difficult but I urge you to keep in mind the following: The Special Review use requested will drastically change the character of the property, contain an inordinate amount of paved parking and not be in harmony with the low- density residential and agricultural uses in the area. For the reasons listed above, the proposed facility is more properly seen as an urban type development and should be located within the Urban Growth Boundaries and not on the site ora former sheep farm where it is not a use by right. When property is purchased for an intended use that is not a use by right, but only by Special Use Review, the price is generally lower than would be paid for a parcel where the intended use would be a use by right. The Special Review pm~ei costs less becanse there is no right to construct the proposed project and the projects' proponents must convince the appropriate authorities that the legitimate expectations of neighboring landowners (which are consistent with existing zoning, comprehensive plans and Urban Growth Boundaries) to have the rural character of the area preserved with either agricultural operations or consistent low-density residential development (rather than 12,500 square foot buildings and 89 space parking lots) should be overcome. While it is difficult to calculate the value to all the users of Emma Road of limiting the use of this parcel to those uses that are permitted by right, there is definitely a value to those usars and it is the value we all sought in choosing to live in this non-urban, residential and agricultural area. By granting the Applicant's Special Use request you will in effect take this value away from all the users of Emma Road and trm~sfar it to the Applicant, which will have paid a discounted value for a parcel that the Applicant will then be allowed to urbanize. For all the reasons set forth above, my wife and I urge you to deny the Applicant's Special Review request. Thank you for your consideration. ~12~3~1.DOC Terry Koladish PO Box B59 Basalt,CO 81621 March 22,2005 Board of County Commissioners c/o Ezra Louthis Pitkin County PlanningOffice i3o South Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 R~CEIVED ~AR ~ 1 BOCC OFFICE To Whom it May Concern: My name is Terry Koladish and I reside at 0296 Sopris Creek Road, Basalt. CO 8162i in an area known as Emma~ I first came to Aspen ion 1967 and in those early years spent a great deal of time enjoying the skiing, the back country and ,spending a good deal of time discovering the surrounding area around Aspen. One of my favorite places was the area in which I now live, then reached by Emma Road.... Emma, a place not too different from then, agricultural in nature .. a perfect place to be able to raise our ivestoclc At this point I will mention the increased traffic on the once quiet Sopris Creek Rd and Emma Rd. Traffic coming fi'om Aspen and Old Snowmass via East Sopris Creek only to face the dangerous entrance and exit to Hwy 82. It's a wondrous thing that no one has been killed trying to make a left hand turn onto Hwy 82 at the Emma Rd/sopris Crk Rd turn. There is no turn lane to turn into. Up valley cars whip around an almost blind curve and downvalley cars are going so fast around the upvalley curve, it's hard to find an oppommity to turn unto Hwy 82 before they are in the left-hand down valley lane. What will happen ifso or more cam try to enter and exit? Do we then urbanize and have another traffic light? This is only one major reason NOT to allow a non-conforming, very public entity, Grace Church, to a residential/agricultural neighborhood. An entity whose parking needs alone of 9o to ioo parking places with a major parking lot. not to mention obnoxious lighting and a very realistic notion that more than a Sunday morning but perhaps at all hours use will really happen. The project is just too big, out of place and commands too much of an impac~ Landscaping sounds good on paper but let's be realistic. How fast do trees grow? In the mean time what to do with overhead lights and headlights? Head lights from cars turning onto Sopris Creek Rd already shine into our house. What will happen if the proposed entry on Sopris Creek Rd. exists. Jan M. Haugen PO Box 1359 Basalt, CO 81621 March 22, 2005 Board of County Commissioners c/o Ezra Louthis Pitkin County PlanningOfiice ~3o South Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it May Concem: My name is Jan Haugen and I reside at 0296 Sopris Creek Rd. Basalt. Subject: Grace Church There is a conflict here, not only with the people that live dose to this property but with the long range intent of keeping the agricultural nature of the area. The county saw fit to spend a large amount of tax payer money to buy the land across the mad for open space. The purpose being for people to experience the feeling of open country space that is becoming less and less and offer habitat for the animals whose migration parterres have been there before most of us. A large building as a church with over ioo space parking lot with very large all night overhead lighting would not only lose this feeling for people but the deer, elk and coyotes will feel it's effect as well. The lighting will take it's toll - the valley will not see any difference between day and night. Last night I observed a nice herd ofdcer feeding in the field next to the property. Our wild animals we try so hard to help in their space to live is getting much smaller. Don't help it get worse. Respectfully, March 2.2, 2oo5 ~he ~mma area is considere~ a ~ral an~ a~ficulb~ral envlronmcnt. will continue ~o cxpcrlc~cc such. Thi, i- p.~ i, a~, ~ thc Ola E~-~ ~a. propc~ic~ bcln~ un~cvclop¢~ p~opc~ic~ co~i~ to a ~5~ of ~cvelopment. At th~ ]~asalt mcet/n~ it was F. olntecl out how hi~toricall.~j, reskJents anti visitors hav~ usecl thc olg ~__mma K~I. to take casual w~lk~,jo& walk thclr c~o$ or clo8~, bicscl¢ with orwlthout thc chile[ran, ang rlclc horses or~lk to a neighbors home. ~om~one spoke up ~nc~ said that thc n~w "bike path" could[ bc u~cd For that. Well thcr~ b a measur~ of ~ruth to that, but onl~fl a ~mall measure. countecJ over 8~ resicl¢~ccs between thc two ~ccess points, on~ bein5 b~fl thc propos~cJ 0[~ ~mma ~., tha~ coul~ be over one m/lc ~un~ tdp. trave]. ~n~ one mi~h~ ask when wou]~ bc thc h~avi¢st p¢no~ of pcd~s~dan an~ animal ~ra~{¢ on [~ ~hou]g ~u~rls¢ ~o o~c ~h~t i~ is ~o~ llkcl~ when p~ople are a~ hom~, morning5, Cv¢nln~ , ~o if ~hc commissioner5 feel ~ha~ b~ a~in~ v~hi~ular tm~ic in ~ke nature o~ ~ozens comin~ nci~hborhoo~ an~ rural a~mo~hcr¢ then vote to approve it. ~ck~, thc ]umber ~rucks, thc excavation contractor, the insuJato~, thc laborers, ~n~ the othcr ncces~ar~ entities for const~ction travelin5 ~own 01~ ~mma ~d. a~ addin5 to thc ~ral atmosphere ana 5afc~ o[ tho~c u~/n~ ~hc roag to access ~hc bike trail then ] bcllc~c 9ou ~hould approve it. Th~ Comm!~sloners have ac~clitional responsibilit9 to speculate about Future srowth consic[eratlon s. this wcrc tO become historoq: what imF~act would it have. /~,[~o, there is thc marl:ct o[ ~¢rvlccs. -I-he properS51 as a residential propPr¢51 cJoc~ have an~ sewer. ~o~cvcr, ~hc ncca~ oF a structure ~uch a~ thc ~hurch will have vcr5 What pressure will this place on thc Count5 ? Theju~ctur¢ oF Old [: mrna Rd- and H~ *z will onl~ phBslcal[~ permit 5 or possibl~ + small The hlstor~ o~ Old ~mma ~. [nclu~¢~ a ~atalie5 duc motorcycle at thc Orchard ~statc* intersection. Thc Coune~ ~i~hin a ~a~ o~ ~o hag c~s cu~ b~ck ~h~ ~ro~use~ alon~ the irri~atlon ~itch~s ~_~easonabl¢ winter conditions occurand narrow the road dramatlcall~ at times , causin~ peclcstrian traffic onto the ~rivin~ lanes . 5houlct ~ou b~ some means approve this ctevelopn, ent, I woul~J urse ~ou to post si~na~ ~cslcJlng at 0'"t'00 j"-Jor~,cshoc March 15, 2005 To Whom It May Concern: EXHIBI~ ~OCC OFFICE I We are writing on behalf of Grace Church in Basalt. We are current members and would like to express to you our finn belief that the proposed church will be a wonderful addition to the valley. The property is so lovely and peaceful that it will be a stunning place to worship and to serve others in the community. Our family has lived in the valley for sixteen years. We have watched and appreciated most of the changes. My husband works in Basalt and Aspen for Paragon Technology. I work in Aspen at Dear John retail store and our three children go to school in Basalt. We love this valley and know in our hearts that our new church will be a positive asset. We are very impressed with Terry Maner, Wayne Starr, and Martin Mata's commitment to this project. They have spent hundred's of hours of their personal time to make sure that the church will blend in beautifully to the environment that surrounds it. When you look at some of the junk that borders this property, I can assure you that the proposed church will improve the area. It has saddened my husband and I to hear the objections of some of the neighbors. They were extremely petty and irrational. I am surprised that there are people who have nothing better to do with their time than attack the plans of a small church trying to make a home. We feel like our church has more than adequately addressed all of the neighbor's concerns and made all the changes to the design plan that they requested of us. Yet, it was still not enough. They are not looking for a compromise, they just do not want any church on that property! We would just implore all of you on the planning committee to move quickly in your decision and to allow us to build our dream. The church has a lot of plans to help others in the community - including our seniors which are largely ignored. We want to be a place where people come together - not tear each other apart. We appreciate your careful consideration of all the factors involved. We just wanted to say how much Grace Church means to our family, our church family and to the community. Sincerely, ~ocl and Ct~dstie H~ms Page I of 2 Subject: Message from Contact Us form To: county_info@ci.aspen.co.us Message from Contact Us form Directed towards department: Commissioners Description of question/comment: Question/Problem Name of sender: Pamela Wood Email: aboveall~sopris.net Phone: 963-6232 Message: March 23, 2005 Dear Pitkin County Commissioners, I am writing this letter to you with deep concern that others will convince you to deny the Grace church special use application. Grace Church will be coming to you this afternoon requesting special use approval for the old Gredig property located on Emma rd. and Sopris Creek rd. I urge you to please approve this special use of a church on that property. Churches have been located within rural and neighborhood areas for many years; why should this change? This area is zoned to allow a church here with a special use review. Unfortunately, the Emma caucus has misrepresented this special use application as being an actual zone change. The Emma caucus, which is requesting recognition by Pitkin County today, has been created to derail the church's approval, the caucus is not fully representing the area. Please, approve the Grace church special use request. I would like to add a few things regarding the oppositions' concerns. Traffic danger to pedestrians, I can honestly say the bikers, runners, walkers, and horseback riders, are in more danger with the various construction traffic up and down that road all week then any Sunday driving church going family! Traffic at the intersection of highway 82 is already dangerous, so many people travel in the left lane even when not necessary through that section of highway it makes it difficult to exit Emma road. A large parking lot would not only prevent on street parking in the future but would also provide additional parking for pedestrians that like to use the trails in the area. I can provide maps and lists of churches within Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt, and the Mid valley, this would show where our churches have been located in the past and present, in addition to showing the short supply of churches in the Mid valley area. Please, help our mid valley community by approving this! special use, and allow the Grace Church to build a much needed beautiful community asset. Thank you for your time! Best Regards, Pam Wood End of Message Printed for Susan Murphy <susanm~co.pitkin.co.us> 3/23/2005 March 21, 2005 Dear Pitkin County Commissioners; Please vote favorably on the development proposed by Grace Church of the Roaring Fork Valley. I dearly love this little church. It has been a wonderful place for our family to worship, grow and learn. However, without a place to call home, many of the privileges that come with being "church" are not able to happen. This limits our ability to serve others in our congregation and our community. Weddings and funerals seem the most obvious events that will never happen in our present location. Other events are just made more difficult by having to set up and tear down each time. I hope that you will honor our desires and allow us to proceed with this project. I know that it will be a blessing to many people in our valley over the coming years. Sincerely, Anne Helmich Grace Church Member 1815 Ouray Rd. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 OFFICE } l~.OCC OFFICE P. O. Box 282 De Beque, CO 81630~0282 17 March 2005 Pitldn County Board of Commissioners 530 East Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know, nearly three years ago, Basalt Bible Church began the plans and negotiations to purchase our property at Emma for their new home. It was no secret in the area that they wanted to build a new church to replace their property on Highway 82 which was being taken over by Alpine Christian Fellowship and Academy. The plans they developed for the property included preserving and enhancing the rural and historical character of the property, and the church itself was designed to bring back the character of the original barn which we had to replace in the 1970's. It was our understanding that these plans were already going through the approval process when Grace Church oftbe Roaring Fork Valley, the successor to Basalt Bible Church, began anew to acquire the property early in 2003. Shortly before the scheduled closing with Grace Church, we received an offer fxom another entity which would have required no special review and little of the frustration which both Grace Church and our family have gone through. We very nearly accepted that offer, but after studying the two offers and the plans of each party, we felt that Grace Church would be the better fit and better neighbor for the Emma community. Grace Church had included the benefit for the neighborhood in its planning, whereas the other party had just begun its process. A fifteen thousand square foot building is very small for any facility, especially a church. That will be about one-third of an acre of the eighteen-acre parcel-just 2% oftbe total land. It certainly would not be a reproduction of a Gothic European cathedral nor would it be a big box type church which would take up a full city block. It should also be noted that their plans include parking on their own ground, not on town or county maintained roads, with adequate screening to retain the rural atmosphere and not invade the privacy of the neighbors Too many times, the most vociferous objectors are the NIMBY's and ,their buddies who already have what they want but do not want others to benefit as they have. Some of these people have no right to object, because they are not even members of the Emma community. Even Emma residents should have little say about how that property is used and what is built there, because their neighbors did not have the privilege of approving or rejecting what they did on their own land. Finally, to those who say that a church does not belong in Emma-services were held there early in the life of the community. Emma was a town site with a post office and plans for expansion before some oftbe other settlements in the area. We trust that you as a board and the objectors will consider the overall advantages of this plan and approve it without further delay. cc: Basalt Town Council and Grace Church Pitkin County Commissioners Dorothea Farris Patti Kay-Clapper Michael Owsley Jack Hatfield Mick Ireland Courthouse Plaza 530 E. Main St. 3~ Floor Aspen, CO 81611 19 March 2005 Bo Helmich 1815 Ouray Road Glenwood Springs, CO 80601 2 ? nn[ BOCC OFFICE Honored Commissioners: A~ an Aspen native and long-time valley resident, I want to encourage you to approve the Grace Church land use application. Whatever one thinks of religion, it is a simple fact of American life that churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship provide valuable social capital to the communities in which they are situated. They become meeting places and centers for education, personal growth, and community service. It seems likely that Grace Church's plan will benefit the valley in these ways. There are also some aesthetic issues to be considered. The chance for the county fueling depot and its light pollution to be relocated to a less visible location is surely a good thing for everyone in the Emma neighborhood. Also, I note that under the proposed plan, most of the property remains undeveloped and rural in character. I have attended some of the mid-valley meetings where the church's plans were debated and discussed,.and I have listened closely to the objections brought forth by those who are'opposed to the, project. Upon closer examination, most of these complaints mm out to be empW rhetoric. Take., .for examplg, the oft-repeated notion that allowing a church to be built somehow opens the door to industrial development on adjacent properties. Even a neophyte with the barest sense of how zoning law works can see - if his eyes are churches are au allowed use under AFR-10. By contrast, all commercial uses such as strip malls are prohibited. One wants to ask: what about this is so hard to understand? I cite this example only to suggest that much of the opposition to this project is highly irrational and, indeed, unconnected to reality; I hope you will use sober judgment in assessing the facts surrounding the church's application. One final note: it was at a meeting of the Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission that I first heard of a federal law that related to churches and zoning issues. Inla-igued, I did a search on the intemet and within perhaps 30 minutes, I had a rudimentary understanding of something known as RLUIPA. This is a federal statute signed into law by President Clinton and suppor~l very widely across the political and ideological specma-n (Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were co-sponsors). In essence, it says that municipal and county governments cannot use zoning regulations to deny religious groups their first amendment right to freedom of worship. Interestingly, for the purposes of this law, building a sanctuary is considered au expression of one's first amendment rights. With a little footwork you will find that dozens of cases across the state and country have been settled in favor of churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious groups who sought to build where government officials would deny them. Many of these eases bear au uncanny resemblance to the present application. However you may feel personally about a church being in the proposed location, it would seem like dereliction of your duty as a public servants were you not to inquire whether this federal law pertains to the present case, and if so, what its implications might be. If Grace Church has a legal right to build on their property, then fairness and common sense dictate that you should not hinder them from doing so. Why waste hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on lawyers and lawsuits when the final outcome is not in doubt? You owe it to your constituents to investigate this matter thoroughly, and to make a just and reasonable decision. I sincerely hope you will do so. Respectfully yours, Lerner GRACE CHURCH PROPOSAL Count,/ State Zip Code CHURCH DRIVEWAY at EMMA RD red truck is turning onto 82 EMMA ROAD AT HIGHWAY 82 white truck traveling on 82 Form LPIC3X5 --"TOTAL fo~ Windows" appraisal software by a la mode inc. -- 1-800-ALAMODE PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM GRACE CHURCH PROPOSAL Lender Coun[,/ ~pCnde HIGHWAY 82 at INTERSECTION view WEST from inside car trying to turn left onto Hwy 82 HIGHWAY 82 at INTERSECT!ON view EAST from inside car trying to turn left onto Hwy 82 CANq' TELL IF ROAD IS CLEAR~ Form LPtC3XS-- '~rOTAL for Windows" appraisa] software by a la mode, inc, -- 1-800~ALAMODE GRACE CHURCHPROPOSAL Counh/ state Zip Code HIGHWAY 82at INTERSECTION vie~ from inside car Still trying to turn onto Hwy 82 HIGHWAY 82 at INTERSECTION difficult to see what lanes oncoming cars are traveling in Form LPtC3X5 TOTAL for Windows'* app~sal software by a la mode, inc, -- 1 ~800.ALAMODE PHOTOG~PH ADDENDUM County State Zip Code HIGHWAY 82 at INTERSECTION View west from inside car while trying to turn onto highway -- how many cars are coming? HIGHWAY 82 ~ INTERSECTION view west; cars travel fast up and around this curve THERE IS NO SAFE LANE TO ENTER G01NG WEST AFTER MY CAR CROSSES IN FRONT OF THESE CARS Form LPIC3X5 -- ,'TOTAL for Windows" appraisal software by a Ia mo(:ie, ir~. -- I*80O-ALAMODE ,Address GRACE CHURCH PROPOSAL Lender ~pC~e 99-CAR RFTA PARK-N-RIDE LOT with 90+ cars parked 99-CAR RFTA PARK-N*RIDE LOT with 66 cars parked THIS IS STILL A VERY BIG LOT Form LPIC3X5 -- "TOTAL for Windows" appraisaJ software by a la mode. inc, -- 1-800*ALAMODE GRACE CHURCH PROPOSAL CounN State Zip Code RFTA 99-CAR PARK-N-RIDE (66 cars parked) RFTA 99.CAR PARK-N-RIDE (66 cam parked) Fenn LPIC3X5 -- "TOTAL for Windows'* ~praisaJ software by a la mode, inc, -- 1-800-ALAMODE GRACE CHURCH PROPOSAL County State Zip Code KOA LIGHT LESS THAN 1/2 MILE WELCOME TO PITKIN COUNTY to all cars coming from West, THIS SIGN IS LESS THAN .10 from the Emma Turn Form LPIC3X5--'q'OTAL for Windows" ~prasa[ software by a la mode, inc, -- 1-800-ALAMODE Churches (This information was found in the Dex phone book): AsDen / Snowmass has 12 churches: Messiah Lutheran- Jehovah's Witness- First Baptist Church- St. Mary Catholic Church- Christian Science- Church of Jesus Christ- Aspen Community Church- Christ Episcopal- Aspen Chapel- Aspen Christian World Outreach- Snowmass Chapel- Unitarian Universalist Fellowship- Basalt has 4 churches: St. Vincents Catholic Church- St. Peters of the Valley- Basalt Community Methodist- Grace Church- El JebellMid Valley has 4 churches: Alpine Christian Fellowship- Mid Valley Baptist Church- Christ Community Church- Jehovah's Witness- 1235 Mountview Drive. 0055 Pyramid Rd. 726 W. Francis 533 E. Main St. 734 W. Main St. 0500 Maroon Creek 200 E. Bleeker 536 W. North 0077 Meadowood Dr. 455 Rio Grande 5307 Owl Creek Rd. PO Box 2181 250 Midland Ave. 0200 Elk Run Dr. 0167 Holland Hills Rd. 1776 Emma Road 20451 Hwy 82 16472 Hwy 82 20351 Hwy 82 0097 Lion's Ridge Rd. Street Map 3 Aspen Street Map 2 o 2004. De~ b~dl~ ~ Snowmass Village Street Maps Map 2, Aspen Glen Street Map EAGLE ¢OmNTY MN' Basalt ! John M. Ely County Ario~rney Christopher G. Seldin Assistant Counly Agorney PITKIN COUNTY ATTORNEY Courthouse Annex Building 530 East Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tel: (970) 920-5190 Fax: (970) 920-5198 Legal Assistants: Lisa MacDonald Jane Achey March 18, 2005 Robert A. Lees Robert A. Lees & Associates 7437 Village Square Drive, Suite 210 Castle Rock, Colorado 80108 RE: Grace Church of the Roaring Fork Valley, Inc. Development Application Dear Bob: It is nice to hear from you again after so long a time. From your letter dated March 4, 2005, it appears that you may be laboring under some misunderstandings concerning Grace Church's development request. The property, which is owned by the church, and is the subject of its application, is located in unincorporated pitkin County. As such, Pitkin County is the sole decision-maker with respect to the development request. Due to the site's proximity to the Town of Basalt, the application was referred to the town for h recommendation. Although, the Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission did consider the application and did make a recommendation, neither the town Planning and Zoning Commission nor the town trustees will share in deciding the ultimate disposition of the church's development application. The church's original application was submitted to Pitkin County's Community Development Department in February 2004. It was set for fi heating before the Board of County Commissioners May 26, 2004, but was continued at the church's request. Since then the church has requested repeated continuances which have led us to the date of March 23, 2005 for a hearing on their application. I believe these continuances were requested so that the church could meet with people who were opposed to their project, including a second meeting with the Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe these local meetings were an attempt to gather support for the church's development request. I do know that the church's application has been amended during that time. Finally, your request for confirmation within fifteen (15) days that the church's application may successfully proceed is difficult for me to understand. I am sure now that the church has completed its amended application, a fair and impartial hearing will be conducted to listen to the concerns'of the community as well as the desires of the church. From my ROBERT A. LEES 2~' q ~ MARCH 1 $, 2005 PAGE 2 perspective, this is the measure ora successful hearing. The result of the hearing is something that I can neither "verify", guarantee, nor predict. I assume your statement was not a desire to withdraw the application and simply request a building pe.rmit or to somehow avoid the scheduled heating. After reviewing the developing case law surrounding RLUIPA, I cannot see where any reviewing court has determined that going through a local government application process is a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the members of a congregation. If there is law to that effect, please let me know. Otherwise, I Will look forward to seeing you at the hearing on March 23. JME/ja cc: Jody Edwards, Esq. Pitkin County BOCC From: "Jason Hasenberg'<Jason.Hasenberg@eaglecounty.us> Subject: Grace Church Date: Mamh 23, 2005 10:07:45 AM MST To: <g racechurch rfv@ sopris.net> Terry, The statement in the memorandum that you went month to month at your request is incorrect. Eagle County denied another year lease but approved a month to month lease at the El Jebel facility and agreed that your church could · continue using the site on a temporary basis until you got your building going. Its my understanding that the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners did not want to do another year lease because of increased demands for use of the community canter facilities by others. That being said, from a landlord-tenant perspective, we have had no problems of any kind and Graca Church has been a good tenant. If there is anything else I can do or any more clarification can assist with, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Jason Hasenberg Deputy Director of Facilities Management 970.328.8882 jason, hasenberg~eaglenounty, us Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: cindyh~sam X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:13:52 -0700 To: susanm~co.pitkin.co.us From: Cindy Houben <cindyh~ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Fwd: Re: Rezoning Rural and Remote/Park Tunnel properties Cc: lyndeed~co.pitkin.co.us X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Susan, will you please pass this public comment along to the BOCC; This pertains to the Aspen Mountain rezoning from AFR-10 to RR. Thank you, Cindy To: Jmbul~aol.com From: Cindy Houben <cindyh~co.pitkin.co.us> Subject: Re: Rezoning Rural and Remote/Park Tunnel properties Thank you and I will pass this along to the BOCC and for the record. At 12:45 PM 3/15/2005, you wrote: Board of County Commissioners, Attn. Cindy Houban Dear Ms. Houban, I am writing on behalf of my clients, the adult children of Maco Stewart, Macol Cerda (Stewart,) Maco Stewart IV, and Stewart Stewart who collectively own through a trust 40% of the Park Tunnel Properties, less an interest deeded to their attorneys, the undersigned and David Savitz. We represented Maco III years ago in perfecting the title to his interest. Macol and Maco IV and Stewart are aware of the rezoning and I have discussed the fact that the rezoning will result in the vesting of some number of Transferable Development Rights yet to be determined. They believe the property should be rezoned to Rural and Remote. It is in the best interest of the county and, it allows their property to receive some value, due to its location and limited development potential. We understand there is a second reading before the BOCC on March 23, 2005, and if there is any need for me to appear, I will be happy to do so. Otherwise I will not appear but please place this email letter in the official record. Both Mr. Savitz and I, personally, support the rezoning. Thank you, James C. Bull Attorney at law. 5575 DTC Parkway, Ste. 225, Greenwood Village, Co 80111 303-778-8822 file://C:\DOCUME-1 \LYNDEE-1 .ASP\LOCAL S- 1 \Temp\eud7.htm 3/15/2005 In To: susanm@co.pitkin.co.us Subject: Fwd: FW: Rezoning Rural and Remote/Park Tunnel Properties Page 1 of 2 Susan, will you please forward this second letter to the BOCC regarding the RR rezoning on Aspen Mountain. Thank you! Cindy Subject: FW: Rezoning Rural and Remote/Park Tunnel Properties Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:42:19 -0500 Importance: normal Priority: normal Thread-Topic: Rezoning Rural and Remote/Park Tunnel Properties thread-index: AcUplY 1K5vYCJz8/SfifCF/hfKOFMAAAMCvQ From: "Coughenour, John (CHERRY CREEK, CO)" <john_coughenour~ml.com> To: <cindyh~ci.aspen.co.us> X-OriginalArr/valTime: 15 Mar 2005 19:42:20.0300 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A00FCC0:01C52997] X-MultipleTo: 1.3.1.850 X-Processed-By: Rebuild vl .50-1 X-Spam: [F=0.0005793659; B=0.500(0); HS=0.500(700); S=0.010(2005020401); MH=0.550 (2005031503); R=0.044(s586/n12486)] X-MAIL-FROM: <j ohn_coughenour~ml.com> X-SOURCE-IP: [199.43.54.101] X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Board of County Commissioners, Attn: Cindy Houban Dear Ms. Houban, I am writing on behalf of the Pfister Group; Art Pfister, Nick DeWolfe, Richard Fitzgerald, Steve Vance and John Coughenour. We collectively own 60% of the Park Tunnel Properties. I am the representative of the group and we are aware of the rezoning to Rural and Remote. We fully support the decision to rezone the properly to Rural and Remote. We understand there is a second reading before the BOCC on March 23, 2005, and if there is any need for me to appear, I will be happy to do so. Thank you, John F. Coughenour Representative 200 Josephine St. Denver, CO 80206 (720) 941-2074 Disclaimer: CAUTION: electronic mail sent through the intemet is not secure and could be intercepted by a third party. For your protection, avoid sending identifying information, such as account, Social Security, or card numbers to us or others. Further, do not send time-sensitive, action-oriented messages, such as Printed for Susan Murohv <susanmt~co.Ditkin.co.us>