HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.rz.Bell Mountain Lodge.12A-88 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3/39.348
DATE COMPLETE: P' ' L ID AND CASE NO.
STAFF MEMBER: C\
PROJECT NAME: 711116 ,1
Project Addr-ss: i 0 MI 10d L 00
APPLICANT: 1, i f i1,_AC,' L L C
Applicant A.dress:,./501j'�N,M n�� 1*
REPRESENTATIVE: •�,,L JLJ �"' 8/(2 '
Representative Address :hone• Wi,ErignIne `:f
5 l .5-7
PAID: CPO NO AMOUNT: 146'./&'. 00
1) TYPE OF APPLICATION: /
1 STEP: 2 STEP: V
2) IF 1 STEP APPLICATION GOES TO:
P&Z CC PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1
(l 3) PUBLIC HEARING IS BEFORE:
v P&Z CC . N/A
DATE REFERRED:7J(a1 a8, l 9f o d/ INITIALS:/�
REFERRALS:
VG City Attorney Mtn. Bell
En School tnsNat Gas
District
V Cit
y gineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
�G Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ)
1-2=- City Electric Fire Chief ✓ B1dg:Zon/Int
Envir. Hlth. `/ Roaring Fork Roaring Fork
v- Aspen Consol. Transit
Energy Center
S.D. Other
FINAL;ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 4//c /c > INITIAL: -
!- City Atty City Engineer Y g neer Bldg. Dept.
Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: v �C>!/
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
BELL MTN. LODGE REZONING
TO: FILE
FROM: CINDY HOUBEN, PLANNER
RE: BELL MTN. LODGE REZONING REQUEST
The Bell Mountain Lodge rezoning request was heard by the
Planning Commission on June 7 and June 21, 1988 . The majority of
the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the request
to the City Council. A resolution with this recommendation was
forwarded to the City Council (attached) . The minority of the
Planning Commision members also sent a minority opinion in the
form of a resolution to the City Council. The City Council
reviewed the application on August 8, 1988. During the review
the applicant withdrew the application, therefore no formal
action was required of the City Council.
ch.bm112
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 88- 7
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on June 7, 1988, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")
reviewed an application for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel (location described in exhibit A) submitted by Tony Mazza
(hereinafter "Applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's initial request was to rezone the
parcel from LP to C-1 (at a 1. 5: 1 FAR) and to provide the City
with subgrade development rights to build a community parking
facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the
applicant at the Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the
Commission reviewed proposals to rezone the project to (C-1) (at
a 1: 1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing . 75: 1 FAR) (hereinafter
"Proposals") ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria for rezoning
pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
made the following findings:
A. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 B,
with respect to consistency with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, for the following reasons:
1. The Transportation Element of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as part of a
larger location for a community parking facility.
Since no public parking is provided in association with
the proposals, they are not consistent with community
plans for the site.
2 . The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as
being on the fringe of the "Central Area" land use
Resolution No. 88-
Page 2
category. The stated intention for this category is
that "ordered yet diversified land uses, such as
resident related commercial , residential and
professional office uses should be located on the
fringe of the central area. Because the applicant has
not provided specific development plans for the site,
it is not possible to find that either the residential
or commercial uses which could be built on the site
will be resident related.
B. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section -7-1102- _C-,
with respect to compatibility with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, for the following reasons:
1. The character of the neighborhood is defined by locally
oriented commercial businesses and lodging, rather than
by tourist oriented residential or commercial uses.
2 . Extending the rental area commercial zone district
intensity and uses to this area is inconsistent with
the planning concept of tapering the intensity of uses
and bulk as development approaches outlying residential
areas.
3 . Compatibility also is defined as the ability to co-
exist with and not threaten the viability of adjacent
uses. The adjacent NC zone district is an essential
part of the Aspen community, providing basic services
to residents and nearby tourists, whose viability may
be threatened by the pressure of locating new tourist-
oriented uses nearby. Given the limited amount of land
available for NC uses in Aspen, loss of this zoning
would not be in the public interest and would severely
imbalance the mix of commercial uses in Aspen.
C. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 H,
requiring that there be changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or neighborhood, for the following reasons:
1. There continues to be ample buildout under existing
zoning for future commercial or residential
development, including the potential to virtually
double existing commercial development through infill
and redevelopment projects. Lodge zoning, however, is
quite constrained and is approaching full development.
D. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 I,
with respect to the public interest and the purposes of the
Land Use Regulations, for the following reasons:
1. Small lodges are important in maintaining the mix of
Resolution No. 88-
Page 3
tourist accommodations in Aspen and the balance among
types and scale of land development in the community.
The LP zone district was enacted in order to provide a
means of preserving existing small lodges by allowing
them to upgrade and expand their facilities. It is in
the public interest to maintain the existing zoning
rather than to change the zoning to a category which is
not fully built out elsewhere in the community.
NOW, - THEREFORE,- BE - IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning ° and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City
Council deny the proposals based upon the above findings.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 5,
1988 .
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
iBY C //// 'C V J. ' Carney, D City Clerk C. Welton t.nderson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager ✓c
FROM: Tom Baker and Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision
Application
DATE: August 8, 1988
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend denial of the request to rezone the Bell Mountain
parcel to C-1 or Office.
REQUEST: Request for a rezoning for the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel from L-3 to one of the following two alternatives:
- C-1 with a 1: 1 FAR; or
- Office.
APPLICANT: Tony Mazza.
HISTORY OF PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: In 1983 , the Bell
Mountain Lodge parcel was zoned L-3 as a result of the effort to
encourage small existing lodge operations to continue in the
community. Prior to that rezoning the parcel was zoned (0)
Office. The surrounding zoning is depicted in the attached zone
district map (exhibit 1) .
The Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 7 and
June 21. A majority of the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the application pursuant to the attached resolution
(see exhibit 2) . The minority vote also prepared a resolution
which they requested be included in this packet (see exhibit 3) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The two requested rezoning
alternatives are described below. Initially, the applicant also
requested a C-1 zoning with a 1: 1.5 FAR which included a land
offer for the City to build an underground parking structure and
for which a specific development proposal was provided. The
applicant has since dropped this request due to the feelings of
the Planning Commission and initial reaction of City Council.
The applicant had an opportunity to get an informal reading on
his application from the Council at a work session when Council
was updated on implementation efforts for a parking facility.
The Council was unanimous in their comments that they were not
willing to trade bulk for parking.
The Council felt that the applicant's rezoning/subdivision
request was inappropriate because the site would contain an
additional 10, 000 square feet of above-grade space which does not
meet the special review criteria for allowing additional FAR (60%
of the additional square footage must be deed restricted employee
housing) . The Council 's main concern, however, was that the City
of Aspen is experiencing significant pressures with regard to
bulk, and the total buildout of sites is not in keeping with the
scale of the city. Council thus was not willing to grant the
additional bulk in turn for eliminating the land cost of the
parking structure at the Bell Mountain site.
The site has an existing 26 room lodge and associated guest
amenities. Specific criteria for reviewing a rezoning
application are outlined in the new Code in Section 7-1102 .
These criteria will be reviewed in detail in the next section of
this memorandum in order to allow the City Council to consider
each of the proposed alternatives in light of the criteria.
The Bell Mountain site is zoned LP and contains 20, 000 + square
feet. The Bell Mountain Lodge block was designated as a
preferred location for a community parking facility, along with
the Rio Grande site, in the recently adopted Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element. The Transportation
Element identified the Bell Mountain Lodge block site as one
which would likely be developed as a joint public/private
facility because it was totally under private ownership.
1. REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO C-1 WITH MAXIMUM 1:1 FAR
The applicant has not provided a specific development
proposal for this rezoning request; however, no community
parking facility will be provided. The possible uses in the
C-1 zone district are as listed in exhibit 4 . The purpose
of the C-1 zone district is to provide for commercial uses
which are not primarily tourist oriented. A 1: 1 FAR is
allowed in the zone district.
2 . REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO "0" OFFICE
The applicant has not provided a specific development
proposal for this rezoning request; however, no community
parking facility will be provided under this alternative.
The possible uses include residential and professional
office buildings. The allowed FAR is . 75: 1.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department comments refer
only to the initial C-1, 1 . 5 : 1 Rezoning/PUD/Subdivision
alternative, since these were the only specific plans which were
2
submitted. These comments are of a technical nature, (see
exhibit 4) .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS: In order to comment
on the applicant's proposal, the staff comments will provide
useful background information regarding the Bell Mountain area.
In order to answer the question, what is the appropriate zoning
for this portion of Aspen, we should review the 1973 Land Use
Plan and more recent planning efforts of the 1980 's. The subject
property is located on a block which borders the eastern edge of
the of the Central Area as identified on the 1973 Land Use Plan
(see attached Exhibit 4) . The 1973 Plan very clearly states that
resident related commercial, residential and professional office
uses be located on the fringe of the central area. In other
words, the intent of the Land Use Plan is to allow the fringe of
the central area to be commercial in nature, but reduced in
intensity (both bulk and uses) so that it provides an appropriate
transition between the commercial and residential zone districts.
Based upon the stated purpose of zone districts in the City Code,
four (4) districts have the potential of providing resident
related commercial, residential and professional office uses:
Commercial (C-1) , Office (0) , Commercial Lodge (CL) and
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) .
C-1 - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards
serving the tourist population.
While this zone district allows for the possibility of
locally oriented uses, it also permits a large range of
retail commercial uses which have the potential for serving
the tourist population. An example of the kind of uses which
we could expect on this site with a C-1 zoning are those in
the new Hunter Plaza, which is very clearly tourist oriented
in its retail shops. It seems to staff that while this zone
district may be able to carry out the mandate of the land
use plan other zone districts are better suited for "fringe"
commercial area locations.
O - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of offices
and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve
the visual scale and character of former residential areas
that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
This zone district provides for a reduced intensity because
the uses allowed in this district are office and
residentially oriented. We question whether this block is
appropriate for residential uses, however, since it is
3
located adjacent to SH 82 ; Office zoning may be
appropriate.
CL (1: 1) - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
mixed use commercial development and lodge units by
permitting commercial uses at street level but requiring
that all additional stories be lodge accommodations.
This zone may be appropriate in that it allows for tourist/
residential character on the second level. This location
for lodging will provide an auto disincentive for visitors
to the community. The problems associated with this zone
district, however, occur on the first level where commercial
activities are allowed which are of a tourist oriented
nature, thereby extending the commercial core into the
(fringe) area.
NC - Purpose : To allow small convenience retail
establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are designed
and planned to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation, and mitigate
traffic circulations and parking problems, and to serve the
daily or frequent trade or service needs of the
neighborhood.
The uses allowed in this zone district will service the
local population, however, the intensity of these uses is
likely to fall somewhere in between the intensity of the
Office zone and the Commercial C-1 zone. In staff's
opinion, the NC zone is functioning well because the uses,
especially City Market, definitely service a significant
portion of the local population. In staff' s opinion, the NC
service area or neighborhood extends well beyond the
immediate lodging uses and likely extends throughout the
entire community. We contend that it is critical to the
health of the local community. In staff's opinion, this
zone district can be appropriate for the area in question.
In terms of bulk or FAR, the staff feels that 1. 5: 1 is
unacceptable for a fringe or transitional area as is
expressed by the 1973 Master Plan. An FAR of greater than
1: 1 would not allow for a tapering of bulk to occur between
the Commercial Core and the residential areas. Given the
fact that an FAR of 1: 1 is allowed in the NC and RMF zones
and in the 0 zone by special review and the fact that the
Buckhorn Lodge has CL zoning with a 1: 1 FAR limitation,
staff feels that a maximum FAR of 1: 1 would be appropriate
for this property. In staff' s opinion, the FAR allowed by
either 0 or NC would be appropriate for this general area,
while the NC uses are more appropriate given the fact that
duplex and multi-family structures are allowed in the 0
zone district. Pure residential uses seem to be a
4
inefficient use of such an important location in Aspen.
STAFF RESPONSE TO REZONING CRITERIA:
Section 7-1102 of the City Code lists Standards of Review
for amendments to the Official Zone District Map.
Criterion
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response
Both alternatives appear to be able to comply.
Criterion
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response
The rezoning proposals: C-1, 1: 1 FAR and 0 - Office do not
comply with the Transportation Plan since no public parking
benefits are proposed. The C-1 zoning does not, in the
staff's opinion (see above analysis) effectively implement
the intent of the 1973 Land Use Plan.
Another comprehensive planning issue has to do with the need
for commercial versus lodge zoning in this location. Lodge
Preservation (LP) zoning was initiated in part because the
Short Term Accommodations Report concludes that the primary
concern of the community should not be the development of
large numbers of new lodge units to meet ever increasing
tourist visitation rates. Instead, in recognition of
changing economic times, it was recommended that we
concentrate on providing better quality and value in our
tourist accommodations . The report suggests that
incentives be provided to induce owners to upgrade their
facilities. The LP zone district is designed to permit
limited expansions to be made to existing lodges as an
incentive for upgrading. The LP zone helps to maintain the
community balance between peak visitation bed capacity and
available mountain ski capacity. In addition, this location
is appropriate for small lodge development in that it helps
to accomplish several other community goals such as
providing lodging near Aspen Mountain thereby creating a
situation that reduces the visitors need to drive an
automobile to and around Aspen.
The staff has recently been putting together numbers
analyzing the buildout potential in our commercial and lodge
5
development area. We have found that there is very little
property in Aspen left for lodge development for new small
lodges. This means that the existing LP lodges are a very
important resource in this community, helping to diversify
our accommodation types and provide for lesser cost lodging
as well. It seems apparent to us that there is a much
greater community need for this property to be zoned LP than
for additional commercial development, particularly since
our buildout analysis shows the potential for significant
commercial development within existing zoned areas.
Criterion
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response
While the applicant contends that C-i zoning is compatible
with surrounding land uses and existing neighborhood
character, the staff feels that the term compatibility
should, in this case, be defined as the ability to co-exist
with existing uses and not threaten the future viability of,
the adjacent NC zone. In staff's opinion a rezoning to C-1
may squeeze existing NC uses, which are already being
squeezed by the Little Nell Hotel, and may threaten the NC
zone's viability by creating pressure to rezone this area.
In addition, extending the commercial zone and increasing
the FAR in this area is inconsistent with the concept of
tapering the intensity of the uses and FAR as development
approaches the residential areas.
Criterion
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response
The applicant's proposals will not adversely impact the
transportation system.
Criterion
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
6
Response
Due to the subject property's location in downtown Aspen
existing community facilities are capable of accommodating
this proposal.
Criterion
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response
The subject property is in an urban setting and will not
adversely impact the natural environment.
Criterion
G, H, and I
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response
These 3 criteria all address the community character
question and the question of whether the conditions in the
neighborhood have changed to support the proposed amendment.
The staff feels that conditions in the neighborhood have
changed and are continuing to change. The development to
the south is creating a definite tourist/commercial oriented
pressure. This pressure is to expand tourist oriented
commercial business along Durant. This in turn puts
pressure on the area to the North zoned NC. If the City
market NC zone is lost to commercial (C-1) or to residential
then the community is left with only one NC area at Clarks.
Thus, the question of whether the proposals are consistent
with community character must be addressed with another
question. Should tourist commercial zoning be expanded to
the Bell Mountain Lodge block? The Planning Office response
is that it should not. This position is based on the fact
that there is a limited amount of locally oriented services
7
in our community and on the overall master plan for the area
which maintains that the fringe areas of town should buffer
the commercial core from the residential areas of town.
In direct response to the application, the Planning Office
feels that C-1 zoning would cause the most problems, of the
proposed rezoning requests, however, the probable use of the
property for high end residential townhome units in the 0
zone presents a problem with regard to the character of the
area. Directly to the north, the office zone district has
already been used to develop high-end residential townhomes,
rather than office oriented uses. The Planning Office feels,
however, that the development of 0 zone uses causes lesser
problems with regard to maintaining the NC area and
upholding the master plan concept for the area.
Extending this logic, the Planning Office feels that the LP
zone is preferable to either of the proposed zones in that
it maintains the balance that the community goals reflect
with regard to small lodge development. In addition, it is
generally compatible with our desire to maintain the NC
zone. Taking this analysis even further, as the community
continues to grow and more neighborhood commercial uses are
needed, the south side of Bell Mountain block could
logically become NC to address this growth. The NC zone
allows for a 1: 1 FAR which is also compatible with the
surrounding uses in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission
recommends denial of the request to rezone the Bell Mountain (see
attached exhibit 2, Resolution of denial) .
Note: Staff has attached Exhibit 6, the application and Exhibit
7, citizen letter.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"City Council moves to deny the request to rezone the Bell
Mountain Parcel to the C-1 or 0 Zone District. "
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
CH.BELL2
8
EXHIBIT 1
ZONING/FAR
r__ 7 0 0 E H i4
0 6 0 0 E PA" RuER. SFCv��
0 Illm 1110F111 , ' ■ �=Li►=.yii7��/`■•
!iiii1ii!!!! iIIII/
E. 1i0PKl AVE. * 9 _ 1111
1 i;#juii NMI IMP
- 111216091 Mita [
1
E. HYMAN 1 AVE. -, , !
4 - APIA I 11M111 [
, ‘ 4..... _ ...4,1 1 IAInhI
�, 1 0
AVE. I■ a :4 F' / */
__. I. III! !HI; s I/9111 1 (4_ , ,
_ (6,IM i . 111011 1 1 1g
� � I -
T 1 1 rte-
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 88- 7
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on June 7, 1988, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")
reviewed an application for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel (location described in exhibit A) submitted by Tony Mazza
(hereinafter "Applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's initial request was to rezone the
parcel from LP to C-1 (at a 1. 5: 1 FAR) and to provide the City
with subgrade development rights to build a community parking
facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the
applicant at the Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the
Commission reviewed proposals to rezone the project to (C-1) (at
a 1: 1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing .75: 1 FAR) (hereinafter
"Proposals") ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria for rezoning
pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
made the following findings:
A. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 B,
with respect to consistency with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, for the following reasons:
1. The Transportation Element of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as part of a
larger location for a community parking facility.
Since no public parking is provided in association with
the proposals, they are not consistent with community
plans for the site.
2 . The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as
being on the fringe of the "Central Area" land use
Resolution No. 88-
Page 2
category. The stated intention for this category is
that "ordered yet diversified land uses, such as
resident related commercial , residential and
professional office uses should be located on the
fringe of the central area. Because the applicant has
not provided specific development plans for the site,
it is not possible to find that either the residential
or commercial uses which could be built on the site
will be resident related.
B. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 C,
with respect to compatibility with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, for the following reasons:
1. The character of the neighborhood is defined by locally
oriented commercial businesses and lodging, rather than
by tourist oriented residential or commercial uses.
2. Extending the rental area commercial zone district
intensity and uses to this area is inconsistent with
the planning concept of tapering the intensity of uses
and bulk as development approaches outlying residential
areas.
3 . Compatibility also is defined as the ability to co-
exist with and not threaten the viability of adjacent
uses. The adjacent NC zone district is an essential
part of the Aspen community, providing basic services
to residents and nearby tourists, whose viability may
be threatened by the pressure of locating new tourist-
oriented uses nearby. Given the limited amount of land
available for NC uses in Aspen, loss of this zoning
would not be in the public interest and would severely
imbalance the mix of commercial uses in Aspen.
C. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 H,
requiring that there be changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or neighborhood, for the following reasons:
1. There continues to be ample buildout under existing
zoning for future commercial or residential
development, including the potential to virtually
double existing commercial development through infill
and redevelopment projects. Lodge zoning, however, is
quite constrained and is approaching full development.
D. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 I,
with respect to the public interest and the purposes of the
Land Use Regulations, for the following reasons:
1. Small lodges are important in maintaining the mix of
Resolution No. 88-
Page 3
tourist accommodations in Aspen and the balance among
types and scale of land development in the community.
The LP zone district was enacted in order to provide a
means of preserving existing small lodges by allowing
them to upgrade and expand their facilities. It is in
the public interest to maintain the existing zoning
rather than to change the zoning to a category which is
not fully built out elsewhere in the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City
Council deny the proposals based upon the above findings.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 5,
1988 .
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk C. Welton Anderson
k ,s
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 88-
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on July 7, 1988, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")
reviewed an application for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel (location described in exhibit A) submitted by Tony Mazza
(hereinafter "Applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant' s initial request was to rezone the
parcel from LP to C-1 (at a 1 . 5: 1 FAR) and to provide the City
with subgrade development rights to build a community parking
facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the
Applicant at the Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the
Commission review proposals to rezone the project to (C-1) (at a
1 : 1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing . 75: 1 FAR) (hereinafter
"Proposal") ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria for rezoning
pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
made the following findings:
A. That the proposals are consistent with the provisions of
Section 7-1102 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of Chapter 24,
Aspen Municipal Code, The Aspen Land Use Regulations for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any
portions of the chapter as required by subsection A.
2. To allow the property to revert back to its underlying
zoning of "0" Office is not inconsistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution No. 88-
Page 2
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses considering the fact that
the immediate neighborhood contains a plethora of uses
and Zoning Districts including "0. "
4. The proposed amendment will have a lesser impact on
traffic and road safety than the existing use and less
demand on public facilities.
5. There would be no adverse impact to the natural
environment and a "0" Office zoning use would be
consistent with community character.
6. There are significant changes to the character of Aspen
making small lodge uses difficult if not impractical
and a rezoning to "0" Office zoning, which was the
underlying zoning, would not be in conflict with the
public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend the City Council
approve a rezoning of the subject property to "0" Office.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 5,
1988.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk C. Welton Anderson
',471;4:‘-. 14)
MEMORANDUM �" ', /6/-a4- "e
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr. , City Manager
FROM: Tom Baker and Cindy Houben, Planning Office A4Z-
RE: Bell Mountain Lodg Rezoning/ _ - - - . 740. • .
Ala
DATE: August 8, 1988
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission and the Planning Office
recommend adenial of the request to rezone the Bell Mountain
parcel to C-1 or Office.
REQUEST: Request for a rezoning for the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel from ;L-3 to one of the following two alternatives:
- C-1 with a 1: 1 FAR; or
Office. (.7 )
APPLICANT: Tony Mazza.
HISTORY OF PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: In 1983, the Bell
Mountain Lodge parcel was zoned L-3 as a result of the effort to
encourage small existing lodge operations to continue in the
community. Prior to that rezoning the parcel was zoned (0)
Office. The surrounding zoning is depicted in the attached zone
district map (exhibit 1) .
The Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 7 and
June 21. A majority of the Planning Commission recommended
denial of the application pursuant to the attached resolution
(see exhibit 2) . The minority vote also prepared a resolution
which they requested be included in this packet (see exhibit 3) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The two requested rezoning
alternatives are described below. Initially, the applicant also
I requested a C-1 zoning with a 1:1.5 FAR which included a land
offer for the City to build an underground parking structure and
for which a specific development proposal was provided. The
applicant has since dropped this request due to the feelings of
the Planning Commission and initial reaction of City Council.
The applicant had an opportunity to get an informal reading on
his application from the Council at a work session when Council
was updated on implementation efforts for a parking facility.
The Council was unanimous in their comments that they were not
- willing to trade bulk for parking. - -
The Council felt that the applicant's rezoning/subdivision
request was inappropriate because the site would contain an
additional 10,000 square feet of above-grade space which does not
meet the special review criteria for allowing additional FAR (60%
of the additional square footage must be deed restricted employee
housing) . The Council 's main concern, however, was that the City
of Aspen is experiencing significant pressures with regard to
bulk, and the total buildout of sites is not in keeping with the
scale of the city. Council thus was not willing to grant the
additional bulk in turn for eliminating the land cost of the
parking structure at the Bell Mountain site.
The site has an existing 26 room lodge and associated guest
amenities. Specific criteria for reviewing a rezoning
application are outlined in the new Code in Section 7-1102.
These criteria will be reviewed in detail in the next section of
this memorandum in order to allow the City Council to consider
each of the proposed alternatives in light of the criteria.
The Bell Mountain site is zoned LP and contains 20,000 + square
feet. The Bell Mountain Lodge block was designated as a
preferred location for a community parking facility, along with
the Rio Grande site, in the recently adopted Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element. The Transportation
Element identified the Bell Mountain Lodge block site as one
which would likely be developed as a joint public/private
facility because it was totally under private ownership.
1. REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO C-1 WITH MAXIMUM 1:1 FAR -
The applicant has not provided a specific development
proposal for this rezoning request; however, no community
parking facility will be provided. The possible uses in the
C-1 zone district are as listed in exhibit 4. The purpose
of the C-1 zone district is to provide for commercial uses
which are not primarily tourist oriented. A 1:1 FAR is
allowed in the zone district.
2. REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO "0" OFFICE
The applicant has not provided a specific development
proposal for this rezoning request; however, no community
parking facility will be provided under this alternative.
The possible uses include residential and professional
office buildings. The allowed FAR is .75:1.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department comments refer
only to the initial C-1, 1. 5: 1 Rezoning/PUD/Subdivision
alternative, since these were the only specific plans which were
2
submitted. These comments are of a technical nature, (see
exhibit 4) . -
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS: In order to comment
on the applicant's proposal, the staff comments -will provide
useful background information- regarding the Bell Mountain area.
In order to answer the question, what is the appropriate zoning
for this portion of Aspen, we should review the 1973 Land Use
Plan and more recent planning efforts of the 1980 's. The subject
property is located on a block which borders the eastern edge of
the of the Central Area as identified on the 1973 Land Use Plan
(see attached Exhibit 4) . The 1973 Plait very clearly states that
resident related commercial, residential and professional office
uses be located on the fringe of the central area. In other
words, the intent of the Land Use Plan is to allow the fringe of
the central area to be commercial in nature, but reduced in
intensity (both bulk and uses) so that it provides an appropriate
transition between the commercial and residential zone districts.
Based upon the stated purpose of zone districts in the City Code,
four - (4) - districts have the potential of providing resident
related commercial, residential and professional office uses:
Commercial (C-1) , Office (0) , Commercial Lodge (CL) and
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) .
C-1 - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards
serving the tourist population.
While this zone district allows for the possibility of
locally oriented uses, it also permits a large range of
retail commercial uses which have the potential for serving
the tourist population. An example of the kind of uses which
we could expect on this site with a C-1 zoning are those in
the new Hunter Plaza, which is very clearly tourist oriented
in its retail shops. It seems to staff that while this zone
district may be able to carry out the mandate of the land
use plan other zone districts are better suited for "fringe"
commercial area locations.
O - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of offices
and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve
the visual scale and character of former residential areas
that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
This zone district provides for a reduced intensity because
the uses allowed in this district are office and
residentially oriented. We question whether this block is
appropriate for residential uses, however, since it is
3
located adjacent to SH 82 ; Office zoning may be
appropriate.
CL (1:1) - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
mixed use commercial development and lodge units by
permitting commercial uses at street level but requiring
that all additional stories be lodge accommodations.
This zone may be appropriate in that it allows for tourist/
residential character on the second level. This location
for lodging will provide an auto disincentive for visitors
to the community. The problems associated with this zone
district, however, occur on the first level where commercial
activities are allowed which are of a tourist oriented
nature, thereby extending the commercial core into the
(fringe) area.
NC - Purpose : To allow small convenience retail
establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are designed
and planned to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation, and mitigate
traffic circulations and parking problems, and to serve the
daily or frequent trade or service needs of the
neighborhood.
The uses allowed in this zone district will service the
local population, however, the intensity of these uses is
likely to fall somewhere in between the intensity of the
Office zone and the Commercial C-1 zone. In staff's
opinion, the NC zone is functioning well because the uses,
especially City Market, definitely service a significant
portion of the local population. In staff's opinion, the NC
service area or neighborhood extends well beyond the
immediate lodging uses and likely extends throughout the
entire community. We contend that it is critical to the
health of the local community. In staff's opinion, this
zone district can be appropriate for the area in question.
In terms of bulk or FAR, the staff feels that 1.5:1 is
unacceptable for a fringe or transitional area as is
expressed by the 1973 Master Plan. An FAR of greater than
1:1 would not allow for a tapering of bulk to occur between
the Commercial Core and the residential areas. Given the
fact that an FAR of 1: 1 is allowed in the NC and RMF zones
and in the 0 zone by special review and the fact that the
Buckhorn Lodge has CL zoning with a 1:1 FAR limitation,
staff feels that a maximum FAR of 1:1 would be appropriate
for this property. In staff's opinion, the FAR allowed by
either 0 or NC would be appropriate for this general area,
while the NC uses are more appropriate given the fact that
duplex and multi-family structures are allowed in the 0
zone district. Pure residential uses seem to be a
4
inefficient use of such an important location in Aspen.
STAFF RESPONSE TO REZONING CRITERIA: - -
Section 7-1102 of the City Code lists Standards of Review
for amendments to the Official Zone District Map.- -
Criterion
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response
Both alternatives appear to be able to comply.
Criterion
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response
The rezoning proposals: C-1, 1: 1 FAR and 0 - Office do not
comply with the Transportation Plan since no public parking
benefits are proposed. The C-1 zoning does not, in the
staff's opinion (see above analysis) effectively implement
the intent of the 1973 Land Use Plan.
Another comprehensive planning issue has to do with the need
for commercial versus lodge zoning in this location. Lodge
Preservation (LP) zoning was initiated in part because the
Short Term Accommodations Report concludes that the- primary
concern of the community should not be the development of
large numbers of new lodge units to meet ever increasing
tourist visitation rates. Instead, in recognition of
changing economic times, it was recommended that we
concentrate on providing better quality and value in our
tourist accommodations. The report suggests that
incentives be provided to induce owners to upgrade their
facilities. The LP zone district is designed to permit
limited expansions to be made to existing lodges as an
incentive for upgrading. The LP zone helps to maintain the
community balance between peak visitation bed capacity and
available mountain ski capacity. In addition, this location
is appropriate for small lodge development in that it helps
to accomplish several other community goals such as
providing lodging near Aspen Mountain thereby creating a
situation that reduces the visitors need to drive an
automobile to and around Aspen.
The staff has recently been putting together numbers
analyzing the buildout potential in our commercial and lodge
5
development area. We have found that there is very little
property in Aspen left for lodge development for new small
lodges. - This means that the existing LP lodges are a very
important resource in this community, helping to diversify
our accommodation types and provide for lesser cost lodging
as well. It seems apparent to us that there is a much
greater community need for this property to be zoned LP than
for additional commercial development, particularly since
our buildout analysis shows the potential for significant
commercial development within existing zoned areas.
Criterion
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response
While the applicant contends that C-1 zoning is compatible
with surrounding land uses and existing neighborhood
character, the staff feels that the term compatibility
should, in this case, be defined as the ability to co-exist 4—
with existing uses and not threaten the future viability of,
the adjacent NC zone. In staff's opinion a rezoning to C-i
may squeeze existing NC uses, which are already being
squeezed by the Little Nell Hotel, and may threaten the NC
zone's viability by creating pressure to rezone this area.
In addition, extending the commercial zone and increasing
the FAR in this area is inconsistent with the concept of
tapering the intensity of the uses and FAR as development
approaches the residential areas. -
Criterion
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response
The applicant's proposals will not adversely impact the
transportation system.
Criterion
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
6
Response
Due- to the subject property's location - in downtown Aspen
existing community facilities are capable of accommodating
this proposal.
Criterion
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response
The subject property is in an urban setting and will not
adversely impact the natural environment.
{ Criterion
G, H, and I
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
Response
These 3 criteria all address the community character
question and the question of whether the conditions in the
neighborhood have changed to support the proposed amendment.
The staff feels that conditions in the neighborhood have
changed and are continuing to change. The development to
the south is creating a definite tourist/commercial oriented
pressure. This pressure is to expand tourist oriented
commercial business along Durant. This in turn puts
pressure on the area to the North zoned NC. If the City
market NC zone is lost to commercial (C-1) or to residential
then the community is left with only one NC area at Clarks.
Thus, the question of whether the proposals are consistent
with community character must be addressed with another
question. Should tourist commercial zoning be expanded to
the Bell Mountain Lodge block? The Planning Office response
is that it should not. This position is based on the fact
that there is a limited amount of locally oriented services
7
in our community and on the overall master plan for the area
which maintains that the fringe areas of town should buffer
the commercial core from the residential areas of town-
In direct response to the application, the Planning Office
feels that C-i zoning would cause the most problems, of the
proposed rezoning requests, however, the probable use of the
property for high end residential townhome units in the 0
zone presents a problem with regard to the character of the
area. Directly to the north, the office zone district has
already been used to develop high-end residential townhomes,
rather than office oriented uses. The Planning Office feels,
however, that the development of 0 zone uses causes lesser
problems with regard to maintaining the NC area and
upholding the master plan concept for the area.
Extending this logic, the Planning Office feels that the LP
zone is preferable to either of the proposed zones in that
it maintains the balance that the community goals reflect
with regard to small lodge development. In addition, it is
generally compatible with our desire to maintain the NC
zone. Taking this analysis even further, as the community
continues to grow and more neighborhood commercial uses are
needed, the south side of Bell Mountain block could
logically become NC to address this growth. The NC zone
allows for a 1:1 FAR which is also compatible with the
surrounding uses in the area.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission
recommends denial of the request to rezone the Bell .Mountain (see ,
attached exhibit 2, Resolution of denial) .
Note: Staff has attached Exhibit 6, the application and Exhibit
7, citizen letter.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"City Council moves to deny the request to rezone the Bell
Mountain Parcel to the C-1 or 0 Zone District. "
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS:
CH.BELL2
8
Cw it `. ..ELua-star ,si*n..�i , C. .cY.N i-is.0 fit it$ .^ Y'w v ..f,'Svt&'4.J,e:" & Qli Liiak.
,. iitMINN 1i igiiMiiE � ° el �111!ti�altii 1��M- n ci, ; a � n ate, as- a ii is. ;�
• naGk.a r.::ti
MtiiOMM ISININ11 MM i I11 ii MIIM� a OM MMAIMMMi1 igiliteLt :A i firms"
Li- • 110,24011/1 orsaang 1 IIMMSA Ma1XMIE M ., t r 4...� -'T y .� ! i' 'IMMOlie M, f r .l 112513119 16a�% 2F�fi -
1. titer pia im'?�I4�$gangli a y i {- fit.{. �f; r Ir"'�„1f'o it, ,ii. s. _.' _ MMIN L MAIKO PIMMV'KQZa ine
! ' ' ' INMAIM 11>OMINM 7`t 4 1F T i@i i 'ON"' »t$'%.... tti-4 ?34 1,• el! I i_. 1 t I— MMIMI3IMMM�@9) NIMM $a?3 'ff"i`; r.
-t rail�a' n�4t€ n,: iz, + ..' 1_;v. M i : - „ T{'" ;•.y r I" a r I isitili gtai�dg fill iSii �3 ,M,
1� &fiAt` �iadmic usii r � X. "w'..4,4, :, , ' a a ' ' : ' €" °`-'1111.1111174161Hi111141 ; 00:151 WKW1 : a
1 ,?„.: ..� ..�, _ «trdi _,.. .�.,.. �_ 21,1,3,4 tsamelten..,«,m x* It #t M� .-1 11.111I i a4w �6 C @ U MIeaw“•.:4r ::
__Lk. •, a.�c r J�H I/4 �.2.
!-0 •M1 `-6'0 0 E r 7 0 0 E N CORNER, SECTION litlitiVI
......___
b!. 11 is
,__ „ 1 11111111ii •-• 11111111/ 1, 11m iirNE.!•111'1111111 maul
mule
. . ; ,.. 11111‘11 , �� �rfLrr-y1n.i7..�.n■grai,, _
_ _ .. ,,,66,1,.._niqiit
_ . ..,_ sum
.......r.. : -
E. HOPKI AVE.
_ _ ' 'ill
11:11;r41115 ' 11;111111 ! 111111111 .
irpm -
1 II
II
1 .
,_ . .,..., ,.
IIIA .ii Iifl! in .,.
.. .. .
. 1 ,......„..,
E. HYMAN 1 AVE. 2 _ k
. _ 11.4 1 g
11111111 �'i V mow'
1D' AVE ... ..qi.` / •j : '" "
N• lilliiiiii 1
_�t.. i 1 116_► 'to 11-2",t1-' 3t IllpigtrAll
1111401,4,A
I - -� - - - way l I .. _7 arar.;tm..,
#1-1- -' I .0 ; 'riiridul 'merlin/ALI In .1N ,p „,,,, 43,1
1 I
1-4- iiilliiiiiii , t---77,,,
III Ali!il , . _ „17:1) 0 _ 6-41), _ _ , 1 p _
r }{
1
=_:_,',.._-=, ..L. .2_,_
' .
, - , , . •
' ' _ ,--;
.
1 1 - ._. r
y
2 i ! i I s , i 1 1 t i I ; r i i +" 3^ y y' y R , ;.. ; -r + I q"-i-- ■ 1 F 1 -f
Y
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 88- 7
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on June 7, 1988, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")
reviewed an application for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel (location described in exhibit A) submitted by Tony Mazza
(hereinafter "Applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's initial request was to rezone the
parcel from LP to C-1 (at a 1.5: 1 FAR) and to provide the City
with subgrade development rights to build a community parking
facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the
applicant at the Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the
Commission reviewed proposals to rezone the project to (C-1) (at
a 1:1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing .75: 1 FAR) (hereinafter
"Proposals") ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria for rezoning
pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
made the following findings:
A. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 B,
with respect to consistency with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, for the following reasons:
1. The Transportation Element of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as part of a
larger location for a community parking facility.
Since no public parking is provided in association with
the proposals, they are not consistent with community
plans for the site.
2. The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as
being on the fringe of the "Central Area" land use
Resolution No. 88-
Page 2 -
category. The stated intention for this category is _
that "ordered yet diversified land uses, such as
resident related commercial , residential and
professional office uses should be located on the
fringe of the central area. Because the applicant has
not provided specific development plans for the site,
it is not possible to find that either the residential
or commercial uses which could be built on the site
will be resident related.
B. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 C,
with respect to compatibility with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, for the following reasons:
1. The character of the neighborhood is defined by locally
oriented commercial businesses and lodging, rather than
by tourist oriented residential or commercial uses.
2. Extending the rental area commercial zone district
intensity and uses to this area is inconsistent with
the planning concept of tapering the intensity of uses
and bulk as development approaches outlying residential
areas.
3 . Compatibility also is defined as the ability to co-
exist with and not threaten the viability of adjacent
uses. The adjacent NC zone district is an essential
part of the Aspen community, providing basic services
to residents and nearby tourists, whose viability may
be threatened by the pressure of locating new tourist-
oriented uses nearby. Given the limited amount of land
available for NC uses in Aspen, loss of this zoning
would not be in the public interest and would severely
imbalance the mix of commercial uses in Aspen.
C. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 H,
requiring that there be changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or neighborhood, for the following reasons:
1. There continues to be ample buildout under existing
zoning for future commercial or residential
development, including the potential to virtually
double existing commercial development through infill
and redevelopment projects. Lodge zoning, however, is
quite constrained and is approaching full development.
D. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 I,
with respect to the public interest and the purposes of the
Land Use Regulations, for the following reasons:
1. Small lodges are important in maintaining the mix of
.....:-ti..i . ti.t ..t )..S.55555 SLSJ 4.tIQ% lMS 61.411 t[ti4�?b SJ44tt fl. .C.tLt
Resolution No. 88-
Page 3 .
tourist accommodations in Aspen and the balance among
types and scale of land development in the community.
The LP zone district was enacted in order to provide a
means of preserving existing small lodges by allowing
them to upgrade and expand their facilities. It is in
the public interest to maintain the existing zoning
rather than to change the zoning to a category which is
not fully built out elsewhere in the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City
Council deny the proposals based upon the above findings.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 5,
1988.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk C. Welton Anderson
a
•
- RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST FOR _
REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 88-
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on July 7, 1988, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")
reviewed an application for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel (location described in exhibit A) submitted by Tony Mazza
(hereinafter "Applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant' s initial request was to rezone the
parcel from LP to C-1 (at a 1 . 5 : 1 FAR) and to provide the City
with subgrade development rights to build a community parking
facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the
Applicant at the Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the
Commission review proposals to rezone the project to (C-1) (at a
1 : 1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing .75: 1 FAR) (hereinafter
"Proposal") ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria for rezoning
pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
made the following findings:
A. That the proposals are consistent with the provisions of
Section 7-1102 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I of Chapter 24,
Aspen Municipal Code, The Aspen Land Use Regulations for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any
portions of the chapter as required by subsection A.
2. To allow the property to revert back to its underlying
zoning of "0" Office is not inconsistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
Resolution No. 88-
Page 2 _
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses considering the fact that
the immediate neighborhood contains a plethora of uses
and Zoning Districts including "O. "
4. The proposed amendment will have a lesser impact on
traffic and road safety than the existing use and less
demand on public facilities.
5. There would be no adverse impact to the natural
environment and a "0" Office zoning use would be
consistent with community character.
6. There are significant changes to the character of Aspen
making small lodge uses difficult if not impractical
and a rezoning to "0" Office zoning, which was the
underlying zoning, would not be in conflict with the
public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend the City Council
approve a rezoning of the subject property to "0" Office.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 5,
1988.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk C. Welton Anderson
J
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
March 21, 1988
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/PUD Application
Dear Cindy:
Please consider this letter an application for rezoning
(l and conceptual PUD/subdivision review for a proposed
commercial/residential project to be developed on the site
of the existing Bell Mountain Lodge. The project will
also include a public, subgrade parking garage.
The application is submitted pursuant to Section' s 24-
12. 3, 24-8 .7 and 20-10 of the Municipal Code by M & W
Properties, the prospective purchaser of the property.
Consent to the application has been obtained from the
property' s current owner, Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc. , and
is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A commitment for title
insurance evidencing Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc. 's ownership
is attached as Exhibit B. Permission for Vann Associates
to represent the Applicant is attached as Exhibit C.
Project Site
As shown on the accompanying survey, the project site
consists of Lots K, L, M, N, 0, P and the west 20.7 feet
of Lot Q, Block 105 , City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado.
The site is located at the northeast corner of Spring
Street and Cooper Avenue on the fringe of the City' s
downtown commercial area. The site is zoned L-3 , Lodge
Preservation, and contains approximately 20,063 square
feet of land area. The topography of the site is essen-
tially flat.
P.O. Box 8485•Aspen, Colorado 81612 •303/925-6958
(r: Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 2
Existing site improvements include the twenty-six ( 26)
unit Bell Mountain Lodge, an adjacent parking area and a
swimming pool. The two and one-half ( 2-1/2) story lodge
structure encroaches slightly into the alley at the rear
of the site, which is further constrained by various above
grade utility fixtures and several large trees. The
site ' s natural vegetation includes numerous large blue
spruce and aspen trees, several smaller pine trees, and a
variety of shrubs and bushes. Various public utilities,
including water mains, storm and sanitary sewers, and
natural gas and electric service lines, are located in the
alley and in Spring Street and Cooper Avenue.
Proposed Development
The Applicant proposes to tear down the existing lodge and
to construct an approximately thirty thousand ( 30, 000)
square foot commercial/residential structure and a one
hundred and eighteen ( 118 ) space subgrade parking garage
on the project site. To accomplish this objective, it
will be necessary to rezone the property to C-1, Commer-
cial, Mandatory PUD, and to obtain a growth management
allocation for the project ' s commercial square footage. A
growth management exemption or allocation will also be
required in order to construct the project' s proposed
residential units.
Typically, a request for rezoning would be submitted in
conjunction with the Applicant' s GMP application.
However, given the relatively unique nature of the
Applicant' s proposal, the inherent uncertainty surrounding
its acceptableness, and the timing considerations imposed
by the various review processes, it is necessary to obtain
an initial indication as to whether the proposed project
and requisite rezoning is viable. Should the project
receive conceptual PUD/subdivision approval, the City
Council' s approval of the rezoning would be contingent
upon the successful receipt of appropriate GMP allocations
and the completion of the PUD/subdivision process.
As Table 1 on the following page indicates, the proposed
three ( 3 ) story structure will contain approximately
twelve thousand two hundred and forty-five ( 12, 245) square
feet of retail commercial space on the ground floor, and
approximately seventeen thousand seven hundred and fifty-
five ( 17 , 755 ) square feet of residential space on the
second and third floors. Approximately eighty-five ( 85)
J
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 3
percent, or ten thousand five hundred ( 10, 500 ) square
feet, of the commercial space will be leasable. The
residential space will be divided into seven (7) dwelling
units, three ( 3 ) three-bedroom and four ( 4) two-bedroom
units, each of which will be accessible from the project' s
subgrade parking garage.
Table 1
BASIC PROJECT PARAMETERS
1. Zone District Classification
Existing Zoning L-3
Proposed Zoning C-1/PUD
2. Site Area (Sq. Ft. ) 20,063
(l 3 . Proposed Development Program
Commercial (Sq. Ft. ) 12, 245
Net Leasable 10, 500
Residential (Sq. Ft./Bedrooms) 17,755/17
3 - 3 Bdrm. Units 9
4 - 2 Bdrm. Units 8
Parking Garage (Sq. Ft./Spaces) 56,500/118
4. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft. ) 19,290
3 - 3 Bdrm. Units @ 3 , 360 Sq. Ft. /Unit 10,890
4 - 2 Bdrm. Units @ 2, 100 Sq. Ft. /Unit 8, 400
5. Maximum Allowable Bedrooms
@ 1 Bdrm. /1,000 Sq. Ft. Lot Area 20
6. Maximum Allowable External Floor
Area @ 1 . 5: 1 (Sq. Ft. ) 30, 095
7. Proposed Building Area (Sq. Ft. ) 89, 255
Area Attributable to FAR 30, 000
Area Exempt from FAR 59 , 255
8. Minimum Required Open Space
@ 25 Percent Lot Area (Sq. Ft. ) 5,016
CMs. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 4
9. Proposed Site Coverage (Sq. Ft. )
Building Footprint 15,000
Area Attributable to Open Space 5,063
Landscaped Area 8, 388
On-Site 5,063
Public Right-of-Way 3 , 325
10. Minimum Required Parking 33
Commercial @ 1. 5 Spaces/1, 000 Sq. Ft. 16
Residential @ 1 Space/Bedroom 17
11. Proposed Project Parking 118
Commercial 16
Residential 17
Public 85
(. Note: All parameters reflect proposed regulatory
amendments.
As shown on the accompanying architectural drawings, the
proposed structure has been sited so as to concentrate its
bulk adjacent to the alley and away from Spring Street and
Cooper Avenue. The street facades are extensively
articulated, and the second and third floors have been
setback in order to further reduce the structure' s
perceived mass and to create visual relief. The combina-
tion of these design techniques results in a more effec-
tive open space area, and significantly reduces the struc-
ture' s impact upon public views from the adjacent streets.
The overall height of the structure is approximately
thirty-four ( 34 ) feet.
Inasmuch as it will be necessary to remove most of the
site' s existing vegetation in order to excavate the
garage, new landscaping will be installed along the
streetfrant and in the plaza area to enhance the ap-
pearance of the structure. Awnings will be used to
provide pedestrian scale to the street level shops. Two
( 2 ) elevators and two ( 2 ) stairways will provide access
from the subgrade garage to the remainder of the struc-
ture. Access to the garage, which encroaches into both
the Spring Street and Cooper Avenue right-of-ways, has
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 5
•
been located off Cooper Avenue as close to Original Street
as possible to enhance visibility and minimize traffic
conflicts. Utilities to serve the project are convenient-
ly located in the adjacent alley and streets.
It should be noted that the proposed project' s architec-
tural design is conceptual in nature and is provided
primarily in support of the Applicant' s request for
rezoning. As a result, changes in the project' s design
and basic parameters may occur in conjunction with concep-
tual PUD/subdivision review, or in connection with the
preparation of subsequent GMP applications.
Parking Garage
The Applicant' s parking garage has been designed to meet
the parking requirements of the proposed commercial/resid-
ential project as well as the City' s need for additional
public parking. As discussed in the recently adopted
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element, the
(l development of an off-street parking structure on the so-
called Bell Mountain block is a major component of the
Plan' s parking recommendations. The recommended parking
structure is envisioned as a public/private undertaking
and is required to ease the present parking shortfall in
the downtown area. The Bell Mountain site was specifical-
ly selected for its proximity to the Silver Queen Gondola
and to the adjacent neighborhood commercial center. The
structure is expected to create desirable traffic patterns
in the immediate site area and to function as a summer
intercept facility.
The Transportation Element envisions the Bell Mountain
parking structure as the second phase in a three phase
approach to resolving the City' s parking shortfall, and as
occupying the entire Bell Mountain block. The Applicant's
proposed garage, while obviously less ambitious in scope,
nonetheless complies with the Plan' s recommendations.
Actual construction of the facility is recommended for
1989 which coincides with the projected growth in parking
demand and is consistent with the Applicant' s proposed
development timetable.
Similarly, the Applicant ' s parking garage has been
designed to provide its "fair share" of the parking spaces
which are recommended for the site, and to easily permit
{ expansion should the opportunity arise to develop addi-
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 6
tional parking on the remainder of the block. The Bell
Mountain Lodge site occupies approximately one third of
the entire block, and the Applicant' s proposed garage
would provide roughly one third of the Plan' s recommended
three hundred ( 300 ) parking spaces. Given the opportunity
afforded by the Applicant' s proposal, the prospect of
phasing the structure should not be construed as inconsis-
tent with the Plan' s recommendations.
With respect to the Plan' s recommendation that development
of the parking structure be undertaken as a public/private
partnership, the Applicant proposes to donate the land
(i.e. , the subgrade building rights) to the City, build .
the garage in conjunction with the proposed project, and
financially participate in the cost of construction. In
turn, the City would provide financing for the garage and _
-------- --fund
their portion of the construction cost. A m ore
' detailed discussion of the Applicant' s proposal is
contained in the financial analysis which is attached
hereto as Exhibit D.
As Table 1 indicates, approximately thirty-three ( 33 ) of
the proposed one hundred and eighteen ( 118) spaces will be
required to meet the parking requirements of the Ap-
plicant ' s project. Approximately sixteen ( 16 ) spaces will
be required to serve the proposed commercial development
while an additional seventeen (17) spaces are theoretical-
ly necessary to meet residential requirements. As a
practical matter, however, the parking required for the
project' s commercial space would also be available to the
general public as would some of the spaces earmarked for
residential purposes.
Rezoning
As noted previously, it will be necessary to rezone the
project site in order to accommodate the proposed commer-
cial and residential uses, and to achieve the project' s
required floor area. Inasmuch as the February 15 annual
deadline for privately initiated rezoning applications has
passed, the Applicant requests that, in view of the
potential public benefit to be derived from the project,
that the Planning and Zoning Commission sponsor the
required amendment to the zoning district map as provided
for in Section 24-12 . 3 of the Code.
C-
C
( / ) r-1 / , I//-;-;
f�
Ms. Cynthia Houben 0 1 ( , � \�� 4)
i
March 21, 1988 , /
Page 7 0 1 \ C L'_, ' ' t
Lf '. 1 , /
The Applicant has determined that a floor area ratio (FAR)
of 1 . 5: 1 is necessary in order to offset the loss of
leasable basement space which could be developed were the
garage to be eliminated, and to otherwise financially
support the project. In order to achieve this FAR, and to
accommodate the project' s proposed uses, the Applicant
requests that the Bell Mountain Lodge property be rezoned
to C-1, Mandatory PUD. Commercial and residential uses
are permitted uses in the C-i zone district, and the
Code ' s PUD regulations permit variation of the district' s
allowable FAR. No further PUD variations, however, are
required by the project.
While the benefits to be derived from the proposed parking
garage arguably warrant the required rezoning of the
property, the Applicant must nonetheless demonstrate the
rezoning' s compliance with the applicable provisions of
the Municipal Code. The review criteria of the new Aspen
Land Use Regulations, and the proposed project' s com-
pliance therewith, are discussed below. In considering a
(l request for rezoning, the P&Z and City Council shall
consider:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict
with any applicable portions of this chapter.
The Applicant' s development proposal has been
designed to comply with the applicable requirements of the
C-1 , Commercial, zone district and all other relevant
provisions of the Municipal Code. No variation in any
applicable land use requirement other than an increase in
allowable FAR which is permissable under the City' s PUD
regulations is requested or required by the project.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent
with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Two ( 2 ) elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
are specifically applicable to the Applicant' s development
proposal. As discussed previously, the recently adopted
Transportation Element identifies the so-called Bell
Mountain block as a key location for the development of a
public parking structure. The parking garage to be
incorporated in the Applicant ' s project is consistent with
the specific recommendations promulgated for the Bell
Mountain site. Approximately one third of the Plan' s
recommended parking spaces would be provided as a result
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 8
of the Applicant ' s development proposal. The development
of the parking garage would be a joint public/private
undertaking and its projected completion date is consis-
tent with the Plan' s recommendations.
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the
project site is located within the so-called "Central
Area" land use category. The intent and purpose of this
category states in part that "land uses such as resident
related commercial, residential and professional office
uses, should be located on the fringe of the central
area" . The proposed rezoning to C-1, Commercial, is
consistent with this recommendation as the purpose of the
C-1 district is to "provide for the establishment of
commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards
the tourist population" . Similarly, the Applicant' s
proposed mixed use project is consistent with the Land Use
Plan as both commercial and residential are permitted uses
in the C-1 zone district and the project site is located
on the fringe of the central area.
(l To the best of the Applicant' s knowledge, no other
element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan contains
recommendations which preclude, or otherwise pertain to,
the proposed rezoning and development proposal.
3 . Whether the proposed amendment is compatible
with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
As the accompanying Vicinity Map illustrates, the
majority of the area immediately surrounding the project
site is zoned for commercial use. The Buckhorn Lodge,
which is located east of and adjacent to the site is zoned
CL, Commercial Lodge, and contains both retail commercial
and lodge uses. The area immediately south of the site is
zoned NC, Neighborhood Commercial, and contains the City
Market food store, the Steak Pit restaurant, and the
Durant Mall, a mixed use commercial/residential complex.
The Aspen Square building, which also contains both
commercial and residential uses, is located southwest of
the site and is zoned CL, Commercial Lodge. The area
immediately west of the site is zoned C-1, Commercial, and
contains the Chateau Aspen Apartments and the Hunter
Plaza, Centennial Square and Wiener Stube commercial
buildings. The remainder of the Bell Mountain block is
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 9
zoned 0, Office, and contains the Hannah Dustin office
building, a small residential structure and a parking lot.
Based on the above, the Applicant believes that, from
a use perspective, a rezoning of the project site to C-1,
Commercial, would be compatible with the existing zone
districts and land uses in the immediate site area. The
surrounding neighborhood is unquestionably commercial in
character, and also contains numerous residential dwelling
units in various mixed use buildings. The appropriateness
of commercial and residential uses on the project site is
further substantiated by the Aspen Land Use Plan, as
discussed under the previous criteria. As a purely
practical matter, the portion of Cooper Avenue west of
Original Street presently constitutes a major commercial
corridor utilized by both pedestrians and vehicles alike,
which can be expected to undergo considerable redevel-
opment in future years.
The criteria of neighborhood compatibility, there-
fore, would appear in the Applicant' s case to pertain more
to the issue of building size than to the issue of use.
The allowable FAR in the C-1 zone district is 1: 1,
increasable to 1 . 5: 1 by special review. The principal
criteria for special review approval is that the "mass,
height, density, configuration, amount of open space,
landscaping and setbacks of the proposed development are
designed in a manner which is compatible with the charac-
ter of surrounding land uses" . Although the Applicant
proposes to achieve the required 1. 5:1 FAR via a PUD
variation as opposed to special review, the above criteria
are nonetheless applicable.
As discussed previously, the proposed project has
been designed to comply with the above criteria. No
variation in building height, residential density,
required open space or building setbacks is required. In
fact, the project is significantly below the maximum
allowable building height in the C-i zone district,
exceeds the district ' s minimum open space requirement, and
proposes to substantially landscape the adjacent public
right-of-way. In addition, the proposed configuration of
the project serves to reduce the perception of bulk and
results in a building scale which is compatible with
surrounding development.
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21 , 1988
Page 10
It should be noted that the maximum allowable FAR
under both the property' s existing L-3 zoning and its
previous 0, Office, classification is 1: 1. As a result,
an application to reconstruct the existing lodge, or to
develop a new project via a rezoning to 0, Office, could
result in an approximately forty thousand ( 40,000) square
foot development (i.e. , 20,000 square feet above grade and
a 20, 000 square foot basement) .
4. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic
generation and road safety.
While the operation of a parking garage on the
project site will undoubtedly increase traffic levels in
the immediate site area, this increase should be more than
offset by the projected reduction in traffic congestion in
the remainder of the downtown area. As discussed in the
Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan, a major consideration in the selection of the Bell
Mountain block for public parking was its ability to
(l positively influence traffic circulation patterns. The
proposed garage is expected to focus traffic on Main
Street and Highway 82, and to deemphasize traffic circula-
tion in the vicinity of the pedestrian malls, Rubey Park
and Durant Avenue. As a result, implementation of the
Applicant' s development proposal can be expected to have a
beneficial effect upon traffic congestion in general and
upon the downtown parking problem in particular.
5. Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in demands on public facilities,
and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities,
including but not limited to transportation facilities,
sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
No significant impact upon the various public
facilities required to serve the proposed project is
anticipated. Cooper Avenue and Spring Street are current-
ly functioning below acceptable capacity levels in the
immediate site area. Existing water, sewer and drainage
systems are either adequate to handle the proposed
project, or will be upgraded by the Applicant as required.
Similarly, no significant impact upon the City' s parks,
schools and emergency medical facilities should occur as a
result of the Applicant' s proposal.
CMs. Cynthia Houben
March 21 , 1988
Page 11
6. Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on
the natural environment.
The Applicant' s development proposal is expected to
have minimal impact upon the natural environment. While
the increase in automobile activity attributable to the
parking garage will probably result in higher emission
levels in the immediate site area, the availability of the
facility can be expected to reduce traffic congestion and
resultant emissions in the downtown area as a whole,
thereby positively effecting the City' s air quality.
The project will require the removal of numerous
mature trees from the site in order to construct the
parking garage. This problem, however, is inherent to the
construction of any subgrade parking structure and,
therefore, should be viewed as an unavoidable, yet
acceptable impact provided adequate landscaping is
incorporated in the accompanying development proposal.
The Applicant will donate those trees which can be moved
from the site to the Parks Department for relocation
elsewhere in the City. In addition, the proposed project
will be landscaped in order to restore the streetscape and
to help reduce the visual impact of the structure. No
other impact upon the natural environment is anticipated.
7. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of
Aspen.
While compatibility with the City' s "community
character" is obviously a subjective criteria, the
Applicant believes that the proposed project is consistent
with the character of existing such developments in
general, and with the character of the immediate site area
in particular. While obviously larger than the existing
lodge, the proposed commercial/residential structure is
lower, smaller and provides more open space for visual
relief than similar, neighboring developments. It should
also be taken into consideration that, given the cost of
the land, any private redevelopment of the Bell Mountain
block which includes subgrade public parking will by
necessity require substantial above grade development. In
the absence of considerable public subsidy, the ability to
provide parking without such development is outside the
realm of private sector feasibility.
CMs. Cynthia Houben
March 21 , 1988
Page 12
8. Whether there have been changed conditions
affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighbor-
hood which support the proposed amendment.
There are at least two circumstances which can be
construed as "changed conditions . . which support the
proposed rezoning" . The first circumstance is the
forthcoming sale and closure of the Bell Mountain Lodge.
In the absence of a viable lodge operation, rezoning of
the property to allow redevelopment consistent with
existing land uses and zone district classifications in
the immediate site area is appropriate.
The second circumstance is the adoption of the new
Transportation Element and its recommendations for
redevelopment of the Bell Mountain block to include a
public parking structure. A rezoning of the property to
accommodate commercial uses is an essential first step if
a parking garage is to be successfully developed via the
public/private partnership concept.
(l 9. Whether the proposed amendment would be in
conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with
the purpose and intent of this chapter.
Inasmuch as the proposed rezoning would facilitate
implementation of the Applicant' s development proposal,
which in turn incorporates a much needed public parking
facility, the public interest would appear to be ap-
propriately served by approval of the rezoning request.
As discussed previously, the Applicant' s development
proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the
City' s land use regulations and complies with all ap-
plicable provisions of the Municipal Code.
Conceptual PUD/Subdivision Review
The Applicant' s development proposal complies with all
applicable requirements of the C-1 zone district with the
exception of internal floor area ratio. While a FAR of
1. 5 : 1 is allowed in the C-i zone subject to special
review, sixty ( 60) percent of the additional floor area
above 1 : 1 must be utilized for deed restricted employee
housing. Inasmuch as the Applicant' s proposal requires
that all of the project ' s additional floor area be
utilized for commercial/residential purposes, the in-
clusion of the mandatory PUD designation in the rezoning
Ms. Cynthia Houben
March 21, 1988
Page 13
is necessary in order to achieve the proposed FAR. The
variation in internal FAR, however, is the only variation
under PUD required by the project.
Pursuant to Section 20-3 ( s) of the Municipal Code, a tract
of land to be used for multiple dwelling units is by
definition a "subdivision" and, therefore, subject to the
City' s review and approval. Inasmuch as the Applicant' s
development proposal does not involve the creation of
separate lots, but rather the development of a single,
mixed use structure, subdivision review would appear to
pertain primarily to such issues as the availability of
public utilities and services, access, and various plat
related matters.
With respect to conceptual PUD/subdivision review, the
specific submission requirements of Section' s 20-10(b) and
24-8.7 are addressed below.
1. The project location, existing site features,
and surrounding development and zoning are depicted on the
accompanying property survey and vicinity map.
2. The project' s conceptual design is depicted on
the accompanying architectural drawings. While prelimi-
nary in nature, the drawings should be adequate to apprise
the reviewer of the project' s exterior design, bulk, mass
and site design.
3 ., Development data for the project is contained in
Table 1, page 3 , of this application. A commitment for
title insurance is attached as Exhibit B.
4 . As currently envisioned, the Applicant will own
the project' s retail commercial space. The proposed
residential units will be sold to individual purchasers.
Ownership of the garage will probably be vested with the
City. Obviously, condominiumization will be required in
order to create the various legal interests.
5. A conceptual description of the proposed
PUD/subdivision is provided under the heading "Proposed
Development" which is found on page 2 of this application.
In conclusion, the Applicant believes that the requested
rezoning and conceptual PUD/subdivision application is
consistent with the requirements of the Municipal Code,
CMs. Cynthia Houben
March 21 , 1988
Page 14
and that the public parking garage to be incorporated in
the project complies with the recommendations of the new
Transportation Element of the Aspen Area Comprehensive
Plan. Consequently, the Applicant respectfully requests
that the proposed rezoning and conceptual PUD/subdivision
application be approved as submitted.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIA . INC.
s
Sunny .0, AICP
Attac•• 'ents
•
VANN ASSOCIATES
Planning Consultants
April 19, 1988
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/PUD Application
Dear Cindy:
Pursuant to our meeting last Friday, the purpose of this
letter is to clarify and amend M & W Properties ' request
to rezone the so-called Bell Mountain Lodge as discussed
in their recently submitted application for rezoning and
PUD/subdivision approval.
As you know, the application requests rezoning to C-1,
Mandatory PUD with a 1. 5: 1 FAR. Given the uncertainty
surrounding the City' s ability to fund the proposed
parking garage, and the likelihood that the proposal may
be revised as a result, the Applicant respectfully
requests that their application be construed to include an
alternative request for rezoning to either C-1 with a 1: 1
FAR or to 0-Office in the event their original request is
deemed inappropriate. This approach will allow a thorough
discussion of the rezoning issue, and permit the Applicant
to reasonably prepare for the City' s forthcoming GMP
competitions.
To the best of my knowledge, the property was zoned 0-
Office prior to the adoption of the L-3 zone district and
its application to the Bell Mountain Lodge. With the
termination of the current lodge operation, rezoning to 0-
Office would appear to be the minimum zone district
classification applicable to the property given the
surrounding zoning pattern. The property' s previous
zoning notwithstanding, we continue to believe that a
reasonable basis exists for rezoning to C-1, Commercial.
P.O. Box 8485 •Aspen, Colorado 81612•303;925-6958
Ms. Cynthia Houben
April 19, 1988
Page 2
Based on our discussion, we will assume that the requested
amendment is acceptable to the Planning Office. Should
there be a problem with this approach, please do not
hesitate to call. Thank you for your assistance.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES,
10(
/
Sunny Va• ,r AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Tony Mazza
EXHIBIT A
March 21 , 1988
Ms. Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Consent to M & W Properties
Rezoning/PUD Application
Dear Ms. Houben:
Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc. hereby agrees to join in
any and all land use applications submitted by M & W Properties
pertaining to the real property described in Exhibit A, Commit-
ment for Title Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated by
this reference (hereinafter referred to as the "Property" ) .
Very truly yours,
BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC.
•� l _
c - r. 7 _
Victor J. Kappeli
Attachment
I ell.. • ..•.r l aii..n ow%I]r.lr /I nd..r•..•n...,1 t:r n l r II,•
.'11.n..,in.'n,n..Ib• aq i ,,. run.•u,Hu•,.•,✓..
C 0 M M 1 T M E N T: t,,,,1,•,t lI q.. H 4,. 1 1 Coal. id C ,,,.,,.,,,...,, t,..1...,1,...,
.1 Ca>r Numb.., .a,q.• - 9 Twat Ilrv,tnuR 11 P, 'y type
EXHIBIT B
1 • 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 14
0 0 0
a 11 13
Lwyers Title Insurance Corporation •
•
National Headquarters
Richmond, Virginia
• COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
•
•
SCHEDULE A •
. Effective Date September 22, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. • Case No.PCT-1207-87
•
t Policy or policies to be issued:
•
•
(a) • Amount S 1.900,000.00-PREMM-$3,382.00
Ikl ALTA Owner's Policy—Form B-1970(Rev. 10-17-70&Rev. 10-17-84)
O ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 • •
Proposed insured: ANTHONY J. MAZZA and FRANK( J. WOODS, III •
•
(b)ALTA Loan Policy, 1970(Rev. 10-17-70&Rev. 10-17-84) Amount S
Proposed insured:
•
•
•
•
(c) _ Amount S
.Proposed insured: TAX CERTIFICATE $ 5.00
•
•
•
•
•
3. Title to the in fee simple estate or interest in the land
described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in:
•
•
•
•
BELL 1,1)UNTAIN LODGE, INC. . •
•
•
•
•
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: •
•
•
LT'S K, L, H, N, 0, P, and the West 20.73 feet of LOT Q, •
•
BLOCK 105,
• CITY AN1Z TCWNSITE OF ASPEN, •
•
•
•
• • • COUNIY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. •
•
•
•
•
•
Pitkin County Title, inc.
• 601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
'o ntersign . at .-, . ..F,.. •
Commitment No. POI'-1207-87
•
• Schedule A—Page 1
Authorized Office or Agent This commitment is invalid unless
the Insuring Provisions and Sched-
r•••... RI, 01 ter,.,eP •. -` - -
> •
-
•
Ju.yers1e Insurance Corporation
• National Headquarters
Richmond,Virginia
•
• SCHEDULE B—Section 1
•
. . Requirements •
The following are the requirements to be complied with:
Item(a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full.consideration for the estate or interest
to be insured.
Item(b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. •
to•wit:
(I) Release•by the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin of:
Deed of Trust fran : VICTOR J. KAPPELI, WERNER A. KAPPELI, and ERNEST A. KAPPELI
for the use of : ALLEN S. BRa+N. •
to secure : $10,050.00 and $100,000.00 •
dated • : November IS, 1963
recorded December 26, 1963 in Book 205 at Page 280
reception no. : 116851
•
(2) Deed fran : BELL MJUNTTAIN LODGE, INC.
to • : ANTHONY J. MAZZA and FRANK J. SCODS, III •
•
(3) Certificate of Incorporation or Certificate of Good Standing of BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC., a
Colorado Corporation, issued by the Secretary of State of Colorado, mist be delivered to and
approved by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation. •
•
(4) Evidence satisfactory to the Canpany that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance
• • • No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted.
(5). Certificate of Nonforeign Status, signed by a representative of BELL MOUNTAIN LCDGE, INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This commitment is invalid unless. "
the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Schedule 8-Section 1-Page 1-Commitment No. PCT-1207-87
airs A and B are attached.
r(rtm No 9188(0-1) - ,.... .. .. - - .
•
•
t,
• Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
C NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA •
SCHEDULE B—Section 2
• Exceptions
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company: •
• 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. •
• 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary liner, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which .
• a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im-
posed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in
the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
• proposed insured acquires of record for valve the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered
by this Commitment.
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for
water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district.
•
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Deeds fran the City of Aspen recorded in
( Book 59 at Page 78, in Book 59 at Page 79, in Book 59 at Page 111, in Book 59 at Page
180 and in Book 59 at Page-287 as follows: "Provided, that no title shall be hereby
acquired to any mine of_gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or
possession held under existing laws."
8. Any and all mineral rights conveyed by deed recorded in Book 106 at Page 482, in Book 125 at
Page 1, and in Book 131 at Page 8, and in Book 475 at Page 676.
9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Commercial Contract to Buy and Sell Real
Estate as set forth in instrument recorded September 21, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 398.
‘1)1,2s . •
•
•
• ••Exceptions numbered NCI E are hereby omitted.
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above:
. (1).The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B—Section 1, Item (b).
(2) Unpotented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance
thereof; water rights, claims or title to water.
(3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—No.
Form 91.R8 82 Rocky Mt
EXHIBIT D
C
Projected Cost of Bell Mountain
Parking Garage
0 Land; this will be a gift from M & W Properties
51 , 000 square feet Total square feet of garage (two levels)
x 29 .50 square feet* Hard cost of garage
$1 ,504,500
$ 300, 000 Guesstimate cost of relocating utilities, shoring
and paving (please note this number presupposes
that we will be able to close part of City
streets, otherwise shoring alone could be $600, 000
to $650 , 000)
30, 000 Gate, register, control mechanism for parking
$1 , 834, 500
(■ 183 ,450 10* developer fee
$2, 017, 950 (We will round this figure off to $2, 000 , 000 .
Please note we have not included a contingency) .
*Please note these projected numbers do not take into account
construction costs if tunnels and/or water are hit . Also, the
actual hard costs are $24 .58 per square foot and we have added
in at the contractor 's request 20* for general conditions fee.
It is assumed that this 20* fee will cover soft costs, namely
architectural , planning, engineering fees, contractor's fee and
overhead. Please further note we have not included the ramp
(2500 square feet + ) which we hope will be covered in the hard
costs.
It is hoped that this is a realistic cost analysis, but is
based on guesstimates as test holes have not even been drilled.
Cost Per Parking Space:
$2, 000 , 000 divided by 118 cars = $16 , 949
C
Projected Method of Paying
For Garage
* Total Hard Cost $2, 000, 000
** Waiver by M & W of 104
development fee < 175, 000 >
** Cash from M & W < 250 , 000 >
*** City of Aspen, 83 spaces < $1 , 100 , 000 >
Fees the City will receive or has
received for parking in lieu of < 475, 000 >
============__=
(l < $2, 000 , 000 >
* Please note that if this garage can be built for less,
M & W is willing to place any savings into the City's
column. Also, these are obviously preliminary numbers.
** Please note M & W would be required to provide 33 parking
spaces for the proposed new structure. The number of
parking spaces does not take into account any credit for
the existing building.
*** The money for the City's portion will come from bonding
and/or conventional financing. Also, the City might
Master Lease the 85 spaces. The money to pay the bonded
indebtedness and/or the Master Lease charges shall come
from user fees, tax revenues and/or from the City general
fund.
Lawyt,As Title Insurance Corpo><ation
C National Headquarters
Richmond. Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable
consideration,hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance,as identified in Schedule A,in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A,upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor;all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six(6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue,whichever first occurs,provided that the failure to issue such policy or policies is not the
fault of the Company.This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment"to be signed and sealed, to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of.the,Company;,all irk accordance with its By-Laws.This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule Aas 'Effeyctive.pate.
CONDITIONS.AND STIPULATIONS
1. The term "mortgage," when used herein,:,shall'include,deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,encumbrance,adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof,and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing,the Company shalt be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from.any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge.If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company,or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance,adverse claim or other
matter,the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly,but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith(a)to comply with the requirements hereof,or(b)to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B,or(c)to acquire or create the estate.or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Coh;mitment except as expressly modified herein.
•
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
Lawyers Die Insu a C9rporation
a....:�� • 07 -0.
President
Fr, i '4i \ Attest:
Secretary.
EXHIBIT C
M � W PROPERTIES
CSUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTHONY J. MAZZA ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303
FRANK J.WOODS.III
TELEPHONE 925-8032
March 21 , 1988
Ms. Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Cindy:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny
Vann of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent M & W Properties in
the processing of all applications pertaining to the redevelop-
ment of the Bell Mountain Lodge property which is located at
720 East Cooper Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado. Mr.
Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to
all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned
applications.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call .
M- &-W-PROPERTIES
' •thony J. azza
AJM:dr
VICENZI & COMPANY
June 2, 1988
Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen P & Z
Aspen, CO
RE: BELL MOUNTAIN REZONING/PUD
Dear Welton:
As an owner and manager of the Hannah Dutin Building and the Old Post Office
Building, I would strongly recommend that the request for commercial zoning
of the Bell Mountain lots be denied and that it retain the Lodge Preservation
Zoning for the following reasons:
1. Aspen's unique ambience is being destroyed partly because many of the
smaller lodges are being demolished or converted to long term housing. These
smaller lodges are more in keeping with the scale of Aspen and should be improved
and preserved or replaced with new structures of the same size.
2. This sites proximity to the gondola makes it an ideal location to accomodate
skiers because they would have pedestrian access to the lifts, downtown shops and
restaurants thus, reducing vehicular pollution and congestion.
3. Aspen doesn't NEED anymore commercial space! ! ! Many of the present
retailers are complaining that there isn't enough business. Consequently, they
are exerting political pressure on the city to approve large out of scale hotels
in order to generate more customers.
4. This and other blocks in the area have been an effective transition zone be-
tween the intensive commercial core uses and the residential and tourist uses.
By expanding the commercial zone you will adversely affect what remains
of the adjoining residential areas. By granting this request, you would set a
precedent that would encourage adjoining land owners to seek a similar change
to cash in on the economic gains of a more commercial use.
P.O. BOX 2238 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 3031925-1196
x e'
•
A i
t!'
I would greatly appreciate you considering my concerns and suggestions
in this matter since, as an adjacent land owner, I would be impacted most
by the proposed zoning change. Also, preservation of Aspen's uniqueness
and human scale should be foremost in your minds and can be accomplished
by not granting this zoning change which will economically benefit one
developer at the expense of all present and future Aspenites and visitors.
Cordially,
x'-54
George A. Vic
g enzi
GAV:mk
page 2
/3 o S. ST. JUN 2 3 :..
Gaze-- 7,14. .
7a-a
(24t, )
•
/Ji II 'tY r
w t
�I •i I� �-3f 'd
1 NI y s
i Mme.
` SSS��� 1 f �.+e Y
r DWI!. i� ' f}yk:
F
,nom .� I;,/ -'
�;� � ,' nom-- ;,
��It
'ImiZtt::. ;Mau 1 r"' ii, .,;,... /._ -AL.J. 1 .'“I'74.;.-
< , ,
ins" A _ i
.w....1,1.��. '� x' s II
LZ }1
:1\yI;N� a. 111' J•
i.I I �;<h\- �..,
. i
1 IIII
i�
arv==
°3F9,a 1 N
is T�� x :1iI'
Ci LJ ” �r. \.. ,
i
A G E N D A
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
June 7, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
REGULAR MEETING
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff ,
* Ritz-Carlton Status Update ;
II. MINUTEST ' f
;5 I,
March 22, 1988
April 12, 1988
May 17, 1988
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Hach/McPherson Condominiumization
B. Mezzaluna Outdoor Dining
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/PUD
V. ADJOURN MEETING
.72--F * tc:"I'L flat,k5cA ,36(\ .. kr:=.)kv-t' AD
i t.l<<01._ t�tAN ISccA
-kSp
'$=_ � c.--Q--Q �k
r`'' C� A■i.,vA- JUN Z 31988
, •.:A i\---iXdo ? CO. B'Jo U
O $
' ' - 1 s N\R. r-?)p..-‘ft/L)
v • NI WiS�
C�,JUO (wt.,NIiv �sS0c. ∎ (, t6 1
'k c7 NI RE c.01 P N
.r\,..Z.:\k,4 -rkni- 1-1 *.- 0M■ NI._ /F(j D ... , -1_ A -1
J A-1 E ci r
,,.,..,:,„:,
a., _.x:s k1n 1,ii w\-\-- i---0A?) ._ ,
„,,,,
.:_,,,.,
.:,,i
e-.1 --‘-\(\?-_ si.k , ,- , ,...0,,,,,J-k\ ,,, ),.t,12--c.\ 1-3
, ,..,
.Pw st„,o ;N S .
r
t)kl \k0 5106(15)
,L: yy. ,S08:*-7(\;\.\0AJ CAC62--
Ztiw
.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker and Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision
Application
DATE: June 7, 1988
REQUEST: Request for a rezoning for the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel from L-3 to one of the following three alternatives:
- C-i with a 1. 5: 1 FAR with mandatory PUD/subdivision,
- C-i with a 1: 1 FAR,
- Office
APPLICANT: Tony Mazza.
HISTORY OF PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: In 1983, the Bell
Mountain Lodge parcel was zoned L-3 as a result of the effort to
encourage small existing lodge operations to continue in the
community. Prior to that rezoning the parcel was zoned (0)
Office. The surrounding zoning is depicted in the attached zone
district map (Exhibit 1) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The three requested rezoning
alternatives are described below.
REQUEST FOR C-1 ZONING WITH A 1:1.5 FAR AND MANDATORY PUD/
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission
eview the C-1, 1. 5: 1 FAR rezoning and conceptual PUD/
Subdivision proposal at this time to give him a sense as to
whether the proposal is appropriate with regard to the FAR/
parking trade-off issue. Specific criteria for reviewing a
rezoning application are outlined in the new Code in
Section 7-1102 . These criteria will be reviewed in detail
in the next section of this memorandum in order to allow the
Planning Commission to consider each of the proposed
alternatives in light of the criteria.
The Bell Mountain site is zoned LP and contains 20, 000 +
square feet. The site has an existing 26 room lodge and
associated guest amenities. The applicant proposes to build
a 30, 000 sq. ft. commercial and residential project on the
site including a donation of the subgrade space required to
construct a 118 space subgrade parking garage which would
serve the project and the general public. (In order to
accomplish this proposal, the applicant understands that a
commercial growth management application is required for the
commercial portion of the project and a residential
allotment is required for the residential portion of the
site) .
More specifically the applicant proposes the following
square footage break down:
Commercial sq. ft. 12 , 245
net leasable 10, 500
Residential sq. ft. 17, 755
( 3 (3) bedroom /4 (2) bedroom)
Parking garage 56, 500
(118 spaces)
Exhibit 2 illustrates the proposed conceptual architectural
design of the structure. The proposed height of the
structure is 34 feet.
The Bell Mountain Lodge block was designated as a preferred
location for a community parking facility, along with the
Rio Grande site, in the recently adopted Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element. The
Transportation Element identified the Bell Mountain Lodge
block site as one which would likely be developed as a joint
public/private facility because it was totally under private
ownership. The current proposal is the applicant's effort
to accommodate the Plan and to offset the cost of lost
subgrade commercial development with increased development
rights above ground.
The applicant proposes to give the City the land for the
parking garage and intends for the City to pay for the
construction of the structure with the exception of the
applicants contribution for the spaces that he is required
to provide for the development. The City Finance Director
has told the City Council that City funds are unavailable to
finance both the Rio Grande and the Bell Mountain area
parking alternatives. Therefore the City was hoping to work
with a developer in a way that the parking on the Bell
Mountain site would not require City financing. This
application does not provide that solution and, therefore
provides no reason to support an increase in the allowable
FAR as a tradeoff.
2
The applicant had an opportunity to get an informal reading
on his application from the Council at a recent work session
when Council was updated on implementation efforts for a
parking facility. The Council was unanimous in their
comments that they were not willing to trade bulk for
parking.
The Council felt that the applicant's rezoning/subdivision
request was inappropriate because the site would contain an
additional 10, 000 square feet of above-grade space which
does not meet the special review criteria for allowing
additional FAR (60% of the additional square footage must be
deed restricted employee housing) . The Council 's main
concern, however, was that the City of Aspen is experiencing
significant pressures with regard to bulk, and the total
buildout of sites is not in keeping with the scale of the
city. Council thus was not willing to grant the additional
bulk in turn for eliminating the land cost of the parking
structure at the Bell Mountain site.
The staff feels that the application should be reviewed as
submitted, however, in light of the Council 's direction and
discussions with the applicant, the staff did not spend as
much time as we otherwise might have reviewing the specifics
of the initial proposal to rezone to C-1 PUD with an FAR of
1. 5: 1
Although the Council has indicated that they would not
support the applicant's current proposal, the applicant has
decided to continue with this application. Additionally,
the applicant has made a supplemental proposal which
includes the request to rezone to C-1 with 1: 1 FAR and a
request to rezone to "0" Office.
2 . REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO C-1 WITH MAXIMUM 1:1 FAR
The applicant has not provided a specific development
proposal for this rezoning request; however, no community
parking facility will be provided. The possible uses are the
same as were noted above. A 1: 1 FAR is allowed in the zone
district.
3 . REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO "0" OFFICE
The applicant has not provided a specific proposal for this
rezoning request; however, no community parking facility
will be provided under this alternative. The possible uses
include residential and professional office buildings. The
allowed FAR is .75: 1.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department comments refer
only to the C-1, 1.5: 1 Rezoning/PUD/Subdivision alternative.
3
These comments are of a technical nature, (see exhibit 3) .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS: In order to comment
on the applicant' s proposal, the staff comments will provide
useful background information regarding the Bell Mountain area.
In order to answer the question, what is the appropriate zoning
for this portion of Aspen, we should review the 1973 Land Use
Plan and more recent planning efforts of the 1980 ' s. The subject
property is located on a block which borders the eastern edge of
the of the Central Area as identified on the 1973 Land Use Plan
(see attached Exhibit 4) . The 1973 Plan very clearly states that
resident related commercial, residential and professional office
uses be located on the fringe of the central area. In other
words, the intent of the Land Use Plan is to allow the fringe of
the central area to be commercial in nature, but reduced in
intensity (both bulk and uses) so that it provides an appropriate
transition between the commercial and residential zone districts.
Based upon the stated purpose of zone districts in the City Code,
four (4) districts have the potential of providing resident
related commercial, residential and professional office uses:
Commercial (C-1) , Office (0) , Commercial Lodge (CL) and
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) .
C-1 - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards
serving the tourist population.
While this zone district allows for the possibility of
locally oriented uses, it also permits a large range of
retail commercial uses which have the potential for serving
the tourist population. An example of the kind of uses which
we could expect on this site with a C-1 zoning are those in
the new Hunter Plaza, which is very clearly tourist oriented
in its retail shops. It seems to staff that while this zone
district may be able to carry out the mandate of the land
use plan other zone districts are better suited for "fringe"
commercial area locations.
O - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of offices
and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve
the visual scale and character of former residential areas
that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
This zone district provides for a reduced intensity because
the uses allowed in this district are office and
residentially oriented. We question whether this block is
appropriate for residential uses, however, since it is
located adjacent to SH 82 ; Office zoning may be
4
appropriate.
CL (1: 1) - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
mixed use commercial development and lodge units by
permitting commercial uses at street level but requiring
that all additional stories be lodge accommodations.
This zone may be appropriate in that it allows for tourist/
residential character on the second level. This location
for lodging will provide an auto disincentive for visitors
to the community. The problems associated with this zone
district, however, occur on the first level where commercial
activities are allowed which are of a tourist oriented
nature, thereby extending the commercial core into the
(fringe) area.
NC - Purpose : To allow small convenience retail
establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are designed
and planned to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation, and mitigate
traffic circulations and parking problems, and to serve the
daily or frequent trade or service needs of the
neighborhood.
The uses allowed in this zone district will service the
local population, however, the intensity of these uses is
likely to fall somewhere in between the intensity of the
Office zone and the Commercial C-1 zone. In staff's
opinion, the NC zone is functioning well because the uses,
especially City Market, definitely service a significant
portion of the local population. In staff's opinion, the NC
service area or neighborhood extends well beyond the
immediate lodging uses and likely extends throughout the
entire community. We contend that it is critical to the
health of the local community. In staff's opinion, this
zone district can be appropriate for the area in question.
In terms of bulk or FAR, the staff feels that 1. 5: 1 is
unacceptable for a fringe or transitional area as is
expressed by the 1973 Master Plan. An FAR of greater than
1: 1 would not allow for a tapering of bulk to occur between
the Commercial Core and the residential areas. Given the
fact that an FAR of 1: 1 is allowed in the NC and RMF zones
and in the 0 zone by special review and the fact that the
Buckhorn Lodge has CL zoning with a 1: 1 FAR limitation,
staff feels that a maximum FAR of 1: 1 would be appropriate
for this property. In staff's opinion, the FAR allowed by
either 0 or NC would be appropriate for this general area,
while the NC uses are more appropriate given the fact that
duplex and multi-family structures are allowed in the 0
zone district . Pure residential uses seem to be a
inefficient use of such an important location in Aspen.
5
STAFF RESPONSE TO REZONING CRITERIA:
Section 7-1102 of the City Code lists Standards of Review
for amendments to the Official Zone District Map.
Criteria
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response
All three alternatives appear to be able to comply; however,
the C-1, 1.5: 1 FAR alternative does not provide the 60%
employee housing for the . 5 FAR increase and therefore does
not comply.
Criteria
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response
The applicant's initial proposal to rezone to C-i with a
1.5: 1 FAR was an effort to comply with the parking aspect of
the Transportation Element. While the Transportation
Element identified the Bell Mountain Lodge block as a
preferred location for a joint public/private parking
facility, it was the City's intention to explore potential
development alternatives with the property owners as a
group.
The current application is more limited than hoped for, in
that only one property owner is participating, and that
applicant is requesting increases in development potential
and only offering the community the right to construct
parking subgrade. This offer is not very effective from the
City' s point of view because the City is unable to finance
W work at the Rio Grande and construction of parking at this
location in the time frame needed for this application.
/J/ The other rezoning proposals: C-1, 1: 1 FAR and 0 Office do
y 'j / not comply with the Transportation Plan since no public
parking benefits are proposed. The C-1 zoning does not, in
� � ' the staff ' s opinion (see above analysis) effectively
/° implement the intent of the 1973 Land Use Plan.
/ Another comprehensive planning issue has to do with the need
for commercial versus lodge zoning in this location. Lodge
Preservation (LP) zoning was initiated in part because the
Short Term Accommodations Report concludes that the primary
concern of the community should not be the development of
6
large numbers of new lodge units to meet ever increasing
tourist visitation rates. Instead, in recognition of
changing economic times, it was recommended that we
concentrate on providing better quality and value in our
tourist accommodations . The report suggests that
incentives be provided to induce owners to upgrade their
facilities. The LP zone district is designed to permit
limited expansions to be made to existing lodges as an
incentive for upgrading. The LP zone helps to maintain the
community balance between peak visitation bed capacity and
available mountain ski capacity. In addition, this location
is appropriate for small lodge development in that it helps
to accomplish several other community goals such as
providing lodging near Aspen Mountain thereby creating a
situation that reduces the visitors need to drive an
automobile to and around Aspen.
The staff has recently been putting together numbers
analyzing the buildout potential in our commercial and lodge
development area. We have found that there is very little
property in Aspen left for lodge development for new small
lodges. This means that the existing LP lodges are a very
important resources in this community, helping to diversify
our accommodation types and provide for lesser cost lodging
as well. It seems apparent to us that there is a much
greater community need for this property to be zoned LP than
for additional commercial development, particularly since
our buildout analysis shows the potential for significant
commercial development within existing zoned areas.
Criteria
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response
While the applicant contends that C-1 zoning is compatible
J with surrounding land uses and existing neighborhood
character, the staff feels that the term compatibility
should, in this case, be defined as the ability to co-exist
J, with existing uses and not threaten the future viability of,
� at,�the adjacent NC zone. In staff's opinion a rezoning to C-i
may squeeze existing NC uses, which are already being
/ squeezed by the Little Nell Hotel, and may threaten the NC
( /Y, zone's viability by creating pressure to rezone this area.
In addition, extending the commercial zone and increasing
/ the FAR in this area is inconsistent with the concept of
tapering the intensity of the uses and FAR as development
V' di) ap. .. hes the residential areas.
:- 7
Vii,
/ id
p - is
•
Criteria
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response
The applicant's proposals will not adversely impact the
transportation system.
Criteria
E. Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not C
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
Response
/
Due to the subject property's location in downtown Aspen
existing community facilities are capable of accommodating ga
this proposal.
Criteria
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural C7
environment.
Response
The subject property is in an urban setting and will not
adversely impact the natural environment.
Criteria
"C ts iH,i and I
f/
_�) u, '0' Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
•i.9� • with the community character in the City of Aspen.4t,
Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
Cod-: subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support„_( `
? the proposed amend t.+--� ?LA c�--J c'' c-1 ct -0(41----- -v37/
1� Whether the proposed amendment endment o would be i nflict wit the
7-2 ublic interest , and is in harmony with the purpose and
1 0,intent of this chapter.
A.v �'1 , re, -[- US�8
�ti �� 9 . T
--ieoL____ 0-09",i,:,
44( 0 . s4A16.(-Acirrl
P71-: ,91 • , Ai
Response:
These 3 criteria all address the community character
question and the question of whether the conditions in the
neighborhood have changed to support the proposed amendment.
The staff feels that conditions in the neighborhood have
changed and are continuing to change. The development to
the south is creating a definite tourist/commercial oriented
pressure. This pressure is to expand tourist oriented
commercial business along Durant. This in turn puts
pressure on the area to the North zoned NC. If the City
market NC zone is lost to commercial (C-1) or to residential
then the community is left with only one NC area at Clarks.
Thus, the question of whether the proposals are consistent
with community character must be addressed with another
question. Should tourist commercial zoning be expanded to
the Bell Mountain Lodge block? The Planning Office response
is that it should not. This position is based on the fact
that there is a limited amount of locally oriented services
in our community and on the overall master plan for the area
which maintains that the fringe areas of town should buffer
the commercial core from the residential areas of town.
In direct response to the application, the Planning Office
feels that C-1 zoning (1: 1 or 1. 5: 1) would cause the most
problems, of the proposed rezoning requests, however, the
probable use of the property for high end residential
townhome units in the 0 zone presents a problem with regard
to the character of the area. Directly to the north, the
office zone district has already been used to develop high-
end residential townhomes, rather than office oriented uses.
The Planning Office feels, however, that the development of
O zone uses causes lesser problems with regard to
maintaining the NC area and upholding the master plan
concept for the area.
Extending this logic, the Planning Office feels that the LP
zone is preferable to either of the proposed zones in that
it maintains the balance that the community goals reflect
with regard to small lodge development. In addition, it is
generally compatible with our desire to maintain the NC
zone. Taking this analysis even further, as the community
continues to grow and more neighborhood commercial uses are
needed, the south side of Bell Mountain block could
logically become NC to address this growth. The NC zone
allows for a 1: 1 FAR which is also compatible with the
surrounding uses in the area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Bell
Mountain parcel remain as zoned (LP) , however, if the Planning
Commission does not agree the staff recommends that the request
//-
r
! r
to rezone to 0 is the most appropriate of the alternative zonings
requested by the applicant.
Note: Staff has attached Exhibit 5, the application and Exhibit
6, citizen letter.
ch.bell
10
EXHIBIT 1
ZONING/FAR
. . .
•
,
so 18--"I 7 0 0 PARK z•._,Rr1ER, I/S4ECTON
4 6 0 0 E E
7
.d 111h.. ''' '''kkoliii......P, • '
1111111 114,
111111111 IlliiiiiElttillill
_.....,.. ,. ili
E. HOPKI S AVE. * 9 .., II
litlithil0 ..,i.
3 1--
1LP
[
in 11;1111111 1111111111111
....._
ELFigAgt? IIIIIIII
,
i—: E. HYMAN AVE.
cr)
if Z
— I
11 i r
.
.
i IIILIIIIII II
IIINIIII L>: u
' - - -0
a.m. _
- - • to
- - _-
.
D
. , „,,. ,,, , ,, ..,
i ,,, .. . '. :, .H 11 I
I
z 11: - p,iirF
_
AVE. ,.... 1,.......4 i-
cn / /
I • - LtS ta
_ ,
- - x milanhlin •
4- IlihMill4
— - - 0 1111;1111 co
' _1(.4 ■ . -r---r--i_
r
gill 11112i111
111111131 ,+1
-
, 161L,...
r -
ow I. i...——...
i
at I
,,_---
. , . .
. -
c. ..,
•
, , , • , , ,' 'N4
13; 1
, • • , , • / ;
\ 1- 1 , •
/ ct i
/'
-
--
--• • ' 4,)( ,,. '
1
\ . ,,,./ \
N. 'ts'' 1--,
...
1
, .
,/
Illiraltiga.411)_4 24.4.1, __ , --
' 4, •L --".; ;, ,..S . +.:`..,.4 _; 1
. - , •,....„ ,, -- ' •- • ' -
•- 4' -
. 4
. .
- •. .4
„ -
•,.?
• .
. , .
- • . " - - ' . . • ' • . '
'• • ' • ' '"'-" • • ; •
, .: . - - , • .' ••• , ..,.. •. - - - -r- .. . --..-
. . , . - , - ..," - ..-•..• .
. .
. . ,
., . ,- , ' •
• ' ' • .••'..,.."-:.1=-7-"•-'1••''- -
4Lr.-
..- .
. -.... .
..-. .
-- /1 •
1 1 t. --- • -I.,
i 1 i
. . 1
!/
S■'- v•Vv•..., •i
I
•:',-.4: i,
- •-.•-
- •
..../.4.,/, i .
I •••`.....,.. 4-7,, • •:•- 1
.;.'?"?'”"1 ;•,;/.: I... /1,
,•••".'•-../.'I ;,,•'•," : 1 /77/. -,'" , A i
' • • " e:";• 1,'''2 '
evo../.
.+.114 • ma,. '
..-..:.,I ■.,--.. iimu
;,- , ..-_--,...- •
. ..... •• . ,.
I '..:, 1.. 4-
:....,:i., ■ i ofie . ..
1 t '''' •j .' . .- •- • ,
1 •/;.-I<• - I • .y. IIIIJ_
' -- - • ':;;: .. 1 .1: • . fag,, •
,• *at .
. .
•nip. _.... ,
• s!...,4
1111'... ii•
an; ' • a
, ,
,
. „. , ..„ ..., ,
z : " . .,
., .:
0 ,;..:„........... ft.., ... ..,,_ ,,
wy,...,, , %,.. ..-i-_- !,
.:..e.,, . .,,,... •,•,-.... ,,i,
.,.._.
...../ ., ii, ....
..,..,....„ , , ....,d
.
iiiit 3 1-,,, I r-
ii
. •- •\ it, M
< I;
- • '71--1
iiill ' "s >
, _, , ,
di:1;iii ,',.________.„ •, • ,, I k -,. t,
V
! ..1
-., , I'
A- . $
, .i.. ,
'-,• .:---
, .:,•, r: , ".-
:1111•
, 1
• -,11.L:x:
T. kir t ,2 :• •ii-r,-----i
_. .. , 1 . • ,,,,.
• '1,i‘, -zw..,,.,
, i.: :,
••
siv, ,4-•: , • •
0, , , . ,
,• „.. „:.,1 1
. . , , _iii _7_■11,., ,
• .1 1'f
, .
1
4
- - , 4't ;
—
1 • 4.4 atom'
;.‘-.
•
, $ ,
,
---
i
.r.i. •i,..
.....' ■ ,-._
E" ...
- ■,i-i-.-,,,,.
-,.
,. ' CI , .. . ....„.2"..„ 0
,. El, hi ..hiJ-
. .r._. ____. _ __. ___ ____ __.__. __._____. ._____ ___ ______/
ri.)/46-517EVT
I
I. . ' - • -.+._____Fif___ - 1 R. .
1 4 11!,1111 . i I 11111 -11 Am _ . ik ,-„, .
. I / "ftli:--ic , . _4______-
•
3 I I
1 I A- ki 1 '4 .s � I• 4, . .
k Q I •it .:.
4 N i i Q
.--..,..-m .
/ 17
likt'z: 7 74.V. : •;:. L. ' \ 1".1.--- :,_ Al -1'-
IF, •
,.. ., ,._ _ . (.."--.. _Y.-- \ 1--\77-7•I . • :• .. i .
\.\_:. .. .,.._ _ . •
. -, Ai .
-L ". • •• ..
4. _ . ---1--- --f---i -:-**IN
Y
'r /./it..
HI- . --11---1. ±----. ' ital • .
----- ----=,. . , ,-- - -_- - ,1_ffi. :
i_ ____ • \ . . .,.. ',.. ..-.... :,,i,._--..„-- ,-, , 1.11E .
A.
• .
x
Ti-t—, ..--. .
�- - .!
✓
i i
m tall }
Jr
06 , ' r1+� I m r
i:Rf, �•tip.., , . t m
I
Ili
i�ni D %�=`np1�N !j ,
� 1" uI _: I Z „:-..,;,.5.,,
t'oki YOU ��
_y” - rite,
�x,�j, R M. II,
0 ' N..\ '
I . '
1 i•• ,,1 ' ,,,,.
D
—=ter �; _
,,fit"
1411 10 Rill I
wal --I Ai
m , .s,
,,-....iii <_it I— ��
;1.••,,..„,..;..•.1K' g.,I i U;, m 6
111111••1041-==-;
•R/°. : Ilpe:pi_ :, liticiii . . . . il.,:.,_ iiik,iii-',
illr*-:. 't MII! - 1• .N �
*. ._ - Ir - 4 _ :
NM' 1 'I -
yY --u. -
• \\ I�-. `'
'I I j.
TiIP 1r
, I ` F
- ,
„..„
..._ .„..,:....,,
. , .
... .
,.. ,
e-,. .
,-- - -
..-...
.,
,..,,
.,_
.,-
.:-. .
-... ..-
;•-• -, -._ , _ „.
. ...„ _ . ..,.. . :.
, '• , ,...':-- ,
, :,„,_,, ,7 '.--,,_._!..'",..;':•.::-:::,:.--3:t;74: 1-?t
.• . r- -r,.....c,•••, ---.,.,„:„-4.-:.'iz--,:,;0-- -N.
,., ..„ - , -•.:, -.:--Asi- L-,,:._,
•
■'ii----,21,..
.. ...„.._ - .
11 1. .'
...,..
........
...,
r'w '
........
•
. .
-•
.. , .
W"---' irei i
•rxi.: ',--0 . • - -,;_---_,,--..,,,_;•-•.-
-
---
. .
-
..------#'-:-.
.
glitili.
•
i ■,. `
ip-
0) - F;:.'`•,--i, -1,1
r ... .. r
.,- -
11i111111-- 14111111s::
M ,
. _. .
_ —
,.....,...—.6 .,:i.i..— ,
I
I _
. ._ ,.... • ...,..„...-4:•,:„...,4_,,,
,:11•11. 11.11.-. il
. .. . . .,
I ._ _. . .. ... ... , ••
• - --• ' ,
1
.,
.i•
Cgir.1 14°1°11 II
••••1..,-.. - ; ..:•• -
0.
,
-
.'-.-`--- ...-.--. ',.ei?'=','-'-'''''.':;•.' '
I. ITI k lint 1
Z
'''..;" 1.--ig'-: ' ■ ''::::'..''.t.ij,:-.4VV:'.=.''-.-.`"'
.
4..a.' MN -
, ... •• _
Ili:07V. ,... ,
::::: !!".1.,'tl,-:: :, .". ■
---7-%, 111111:z;
. - -.*.%.
4
,.. J-,-,-, • _--.
,',!,1,,,,....,,,,,,,,,,,,-.-. .,:dr.:,
4,1/4__. ! .............: - .
, , ,
; ;t'' ... i'•.._.„„,
, . .. .
',7„.,..V
inlig t i
':,:5-rnATTli:r.c-,,,,....,
! fl !mimosa lit
.24A-',.''''-'?.‘,"./kt
.11.1 .gigiall:'
' --.--r;:-.:.-',.::::".':'
,7..,:-......... all;
ik '4. '-'-
14..W. liall'ili
. - -- 7.,,
t..,&:4, • II,
illift: 4111111 !I
..... .1.
, 1
•
I '.
. ,, l•
'1,1111114: I I I
•lir ,
le . /' •. I
••_-., t, . c
----4;■• 1 17'■ - ---- -1 ,
II-........
- ---+
1,--■...•' rr-- I
. - , ------
,. •.).-,-..--
:m..., .....___ .
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR
REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY
Resolution No. 88-
WHEREAS, at a public hearing held on June 7, 1988, the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter the "Commission")
reviewed an application for rezoning of the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel (location described in exhibit A) submitted by Tony Mazza
(hereinafter "Applicant") ; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's initial request was to rezone the
parcel from LP to C-1 (at a 1. 5: 1 FAR) and to provide the City
with subgrade development rights to build a community parking
facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the
applicant at the Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the
Commission reviewed proposals to rezone the project to (C-1) (at
a 1: 1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing .75: 1 FAR) (hereinafter
"Proposals") ; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria for rezoning
pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations and
made the following findings:
A. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 B,
with respect to consistency with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, for the following reasons:
1. The Transportation Element of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as part of a
larger location for a community parking facility.
Since no public parking is provided in association with
the proposals, they are not consistent with community
plans for the site.
2 . The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates this site as
being on the fringe of the "Central Area" land use
Resolution No. 88-
Page 2
category. The stated intention for this category is
that "ordered yet diversified land uses, such as
resident related commercial , residential and
professional office uses should be located on the
fringe of the central area. Because the applicant has
not provided specific development plans for the site,
it is not possible to find that either the residential
or commercial uses which could be built on the site
will be resident related.
B. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 C,
with respect to compatibility with surrounding zone
districts and land uses, for the following reasons:
1. The character of the neighborhood is defined by locally
oriented commercial businesses and lodging, rather than
by tourist oriented residential or commercial uses.
2 . Extending the rental area commercial zone district
intensity and uses to this area is inconsistent with
the planning concept of tapering the intensity of uses
and bulk as development approaches outlying residential
areas.
3 . Compatibility also is defined as the ability to co-
exist with and not threaten the viability of adjacent
uses. The adjacent NC zone district is an essential
part of the Aspen community, providing basic services
to residents and nearby tourists, whose viability may
be threatened by the pressure of locating new tourist-
oriented uses nearby. Given the limited amount of land
available for NC uses in Aspen, loss of this zoning
would not be in the public interest and would severely
2mbalance the mix of commercial uses in Aspen.
C. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 H,
requiring that there be changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or neighborhood, for the following reasons:
1. There continues to be ample buildout under existing
zoning for future commercial or residential
development, including the potential to virtually
double existing commercial development through infill
and redevelopment projects. Lodge zoning, however, is
quite constrained and is approaching full development.
D. That the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 I,
with respect to the public interest and the purposes of the
Land Use Regulations, for the following reasons:
1• Small lodges are important in maintaining the mix of
Resolution No. 88-
Page 3
tourist accommodations in Aspen and the balance among
types and scale of land development in the community.
The LP zone district was enacted in order to provide a
means of preserving existing small lodges by allowing
them to upgrade and expand their facilities. It is in
the public interest to maintain the existing zoning
rather than to change the zoning to a category which is
not fully built out elsewhere in the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission that it does hereby recommend that the City
Council deny the proposals based upon the above findings.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on July 5,
1988.
ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION
By
Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk
C. Welton Anderson
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben and Tom Baker, Planning Office
RE: Bell Mountain Lodge/Rezoning Request (continued from
June 7th, 1988)
DATE: June 21, 1988
APPLICANT: Tony Mazza
REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting that the Bell Mountain
Lodge site be rezoned to either C-1 or O.
EXISTING ZONING: L-3
SUMMARY: At the last Planning Commission meeting the Planning
Commission voted to table the request in order for the applicant
to supply additional information with regard to the feasibility
of running a lodge operation at the Bell Mountain site. The
applicant has submitted information that is attached to your
packet. This information is analyzed in the staff comments
below.
At the last meeting the Planning Commission also questioned the
public benefit derived from the zoning of the property to the
requested zone districts.
STAFF COMMENTS:
o The financial information submitted by the applicants
is based on a speculative purchase price which takes
into account that a rezoning of the property is
feasible.
o The Planning Staff still feels that the applicants have
not adequately demonstrated that there is a community
benefit to rezoning the parcel . In addition the Staff
is not convinced that a lodge development is infeasible
for the parcel if the parcel is sold at price
reflective of a lodge development.
In discussions, the applicant has noted that the public
benefit of rezoning the site to 0 will be derived from
cash in lieu or on site employee housing. The staff
feels however that the benefit of having the
appropriate use on the property is greater than the
possible employee housing on site or cash in lieu
payment.
o The applicant has supplied the Planning Office with a
copy of a letter to Ms. Capelli noting that those who
do not want to rezone to L-3 would not be forced to do
so (see attached letter dated October 15, 1982) .
However, the property owner did decide to rezone. The
Planning Commission must decide whether a rezoning
back to office was a guarantee that they feel was made
to the land owner. As noted at the last meeting the
Planning Office records do not indicate that this was a
condition placed on the rezoning. However, there was
definitely discussion with the applicants that this was
a strong possibility.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the
Planning Commission deny the request for a rezoning to 0 or C-1.
ch.mazza2
2
BELL MOUNTAIN
The following section contains a cost analysis for a new
lodge. The numbers, other than land which is fixed, have been
arrived at and are based upon our experience as developers which has
been supplemented by input from hotel/lodge developers.
Cost Analysis - New Lodge
Land $1 , 900 , 000
Construction Costs
( includes a 10, 000 square foot
buildout , all rooms furnished)
at $140 per square foot $1 ,400 , 000 *
Architect ' s fee, etc. , interest ,
points, soft costs $ 600 , 000
Total Cost $3 , 900 , 000
*Please note this presupposes no money spent for entitlement
programs, namely employee housing, parking and park dedication fees.
Cash Flow Analysis (Debt )
The following section shows the annual cash flow necessary
to service debt , cover operating costs and return a profit to
developer.
$3 , 900 , 000 total cost at
11% per year $ 429 , 000
Operating costs (extrapolated
from 84-86 operation income,
figured at 40% of operating income) $ 171 , 000
Profit ( 15% of income) $ 90 , 000
$ 690, 000
This section shows the permissible buildout based on a . 5
to 1 . We have not included the bonus, as the cost of building
employee housing would more than offset the benefit from an increased
number of rooms.
Rooms Available/Rates
Buildout 10 , 000 square feet
Corridors, stairs, maids '
rooms at 17% < 1 , 700 square feet >
Public area, reception area
(this is figured at 10%,
although the actual number
should be 20 - 25%) < 1 , 000 square feet >
7 , 300 square feet
This section concerns the actual number of rooms that can
be built in the 7 , 300 net square feet which would be contained in the
lodge. It goes on to show what needs to be achieved in income on a
per room basis to make the project work.
Actual number of rooms at
384 per square foot a room 19
Income needed per room on
annualized basis to achieve
$690, 000 income $ 36 , 315 . 00
60% occupancy rate equals
216 days - income needed per
day $ 168. 13*
*Please note that Aspen Square has occupancy rates of 61* for the
last three years for 550 square foot studio apartments.
Said units have an average rental rate of $85 . 00 per day. Please
note our units are only 384 square feet .
Aspen square has far superior amenities, larger rooms and is only
able to achieve rental rates of approximately 1 /2 of what we would
need to achieve. Clearly a new hotel/lodge on the Bell Mountain site
is financially impossible.
t
Aspen/PitkinPlanning Office
130 sQuth ' galenai street
aspencolora d•o�-81611
.\ ' �?' October 15, 1982
v
Nancy Capella
Bell Mountain Lodge
Box 328
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Ms. Capella:
Enclosed is a copy of the legal notice which appeared in the Aspen Times on
October 7, 1982 announcing a public hearing which is to occur before the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The purpose of the public hearing is to
rezone from nonconforming to L-3 status 30 ]odges_which were downzoned by the
City of Aspen dwin the 1970's. As the l -w acc mpaq es tiiie 1 egad'
notice indicates, your Odge is one for w 1 the L-3 rezoning is being proposed.
Although I have personally contacted all o • or another during
the process of creating the L-3 zone and initiating the rezoning action, I
want to be sure that all of you are familiar with the approach we are taking.
Based on the recommendation of the City Attorney, the Planning Office has
initiated the rezoning as a class action and is taking care of all of the
legal requirements of the Municipal Code. We have prepared a proposed zoning
map showing the 30 lodges within the L-3 zone and have sent notices to property
owners within 300 feet of each lodge announcing the pr.posed change. The
hearing is scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission at 5:00 p.m. in
the City Council Chambers on November 2.
The Planning Office will be preparing the arguments in favor of the rezoning
action and presenting them to P & Z for their review. For those of you who
wish to be rezoned, it will not be necessary to take any action on your own,
though we hope you will attend the public hearing to lend your support to our
efforts. Those of you who wish to be excluded from the L-3 zone will need to
attend the hearing and express your reasons for not wanting to be rezoned. .
is m b- i- I. ' • - •. is • • • • •- - •i -. ! ••. • .- •-ru' ed•
to remain in their present status.
Presuming that all proceeds according to plan on November 2, we anticipate
bringing the zoning action to City. Coun`cil on November 22 for first reading of
the ordinance and onLDecember 27for the second reading, which is a public
hearing. i feel con`fident'in stating that before year's end your lodge will
be zoned conforming if this is your desire. /. . --, y
If you have any questions about the L-3 zone and how it will benefit your
lodge, please call me at 925-2020, ext. 224. If not, I hope to see all of you
on November 2 as we move a eTth the zoning action.
Sincerely yours,
Alan Richman
Assistant Planning Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker and Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/Conceptual PUD/Subdivision
Application
DATE: June 7, 1988
REQUEST: Request for a rezoning for the Bell Mountain Lodge
parcel from L-3 to one of the following three alternatives:
- C-1 with a 1. 5: 1 FAR with mandatory PUD/subdivision,
- C-1 with a 1: 1 FAR,
- Office
APPLICANT: Tony Mazza.
HISTORY OF PARCEL AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: In 1983, the Bell
Mountain Lodge parcel was zoned L-3 as a result of the effort to
encourage small existing lodge operations to continue in the
community. Prior to that rezoning the parcel was zoned (0)
Office. The surrounding zoning is depicted in the attached zone
district map (Exhibit 1) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The three requested rezoning
alternatives are described below.
1. REQUEST FOR C-1 ZONING WITH A 1:1.5 FAR AND MANDATORY PUD/
CONCEPTUAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission
review the C-1, 1. 5: 1 FAR rezoning and conceptual PUD/
Subdivision proposal at this time to give him a sense as to
whether the proposal is appropriate with regard to the FAR/
parking trade-off issue. Specific criteria for reviewing a
rezoning application are outlined in the new Code in
Section 7-1102 . These criteria will be reviewed in detail
in the next section of this memorandum in order to allow the
Planning Commission to consider each of the proposed
alternatives in light of the criteria.
The Bell Mountain site is zoned LP and contains 20, 000 +
square feet. The site has an existing 26 room lodge and
associated guest amenities. The applicant proposes to build
a 30, 000 sq. ft. commercial and residential project on the
site including a donation of the subgrade space required to
construct a 118 space subgrade parking garage which would
serve the project and the general public. (In order to
accomplish this proposal, the applicant understands that a
commercial growth management application is required for the
commercial portion of the project and a residential
allotment is required for the residential portion of the
site) .
More specifically the applicant proposes the following
square footage break down:
Commercial sq. ft. 12 ,245
net leasable 10, 500
Residential sq. ft. 17,755
( 3 (3) bedroom /4 (2) bedroom)
Parking garage 56, 500
(118 spaces)
Exhibit 2 illustrates the proposed conceptual architectural
design of the structure. The proposed height of the
structure is 34 feet.
The Bell Mountain Lodge block was designated as a preferred
location for a community parking facility, along with the
Rio Grande site, in the recently adopted Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element. The
Transportation Element identified the Bell Mountain Lodge
block site as one which would likely be developed as a joint
public/private facility because it was totally under private
ownership. The current proposal is the applicant's effort
to accommodate the Plan and to offset the cost of lost
subgrade commercial development with increased development
rights above ground.
The applicant proposes to give the City the land for the
parking garage and intends for the City to pay for the
construction of the structure with the exception of the
applicants contribution for the spaces that he is required
to provide for the development. The City Finance Director
has told the City Council that City funds are unavailable to
finance both the Rio Grande and the Bell Mountain area
parking alternatives. Therefore the City was hoping to work
with a developer in a way that the parking on the Bell
Mountain site would not require City financing. This
application does not provide that solution and, therefore
provides no reason to support an increase in the allowable
FAR as a tradeoff.
2
The applicant had an opportunity to get an informal reading
on his application from the Council at a recent work session
when Council was updated on implementation efforts for a
parking facility. The Council was unanimous in their
comments that they were not willing to trade bulk for
parking.
The Council felt that the applicant's rezoning/subdivision
request was inappropriate because the site would contain an
additional 10, 000 square feet of above-grade space which
does not meet the special review criteria for allowing
additional FAR (60% of the additional square footage must be
deed restricted employee housing) . The Council 's main
concern, however, was that the City of Aspen is experiencing
significant pressures with regard to bulk, and the total
buildout of sites is not in keeping with the scale of the
city. Council thus was not willing to grant the additional
bulk in turn for eliminating the land cost of the parking
structure at the Bell Mountain site.
The staff feels that the application should be reviewed as
submitted, however, in light of the Council 's direction and
discussions with the applicant, the staff did not spend as
much time as we otherwise might have reviewing the specifics
of the initial proposal to rezone to C-1 PUD with an FAR of
1.5: 1
Although the Council has indicated that they would not
support the applicant's current proposal, the applicant has
decided to continue with this application. Additionally,
the applicant has made a supplemental proposal which
includes the request to rezone to C-1 with 1: 1 FAR and a
request to rezone to "0" Office.
2 . REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO C-1 WITH MAXIMUM 1:1 FAR
The applicant has not provided a specific development
proposal for this rezoning request; however, no community
parking facility will be provided. The possible uses are the
same as were noted above. A 1: 1 FAR is allowed in the zone
district.
3 . REQUEST FOR A REZONING TO "0" OFFICE
The applicant has not provided a specific proposal for this
rezoning request; however, no community parking facility
will be provided under this alternative. The possible uses
include residential and professional office buildings. The
allowed FAR is . 75: 1.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department comments refer
only to the C-1, 1.5: 1 Rezoning/PUD/Subdivision alternative.
3
These comments are of a technical nature, (see exhibit 3) .
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS: In order to comment
on the applicant's proposal, the staff comments will provide
useful background information regarding the Bell Mountain area.
In order to answer the question, what is the appropriate zoning
for this portion of Aspen, we should review the 1973 Land Use
Plan and more recent planning efforts of the 1980 's. The subject
property is located on a block which borders the eastern edge of
the of the Central Area as identified on the 1973 Land Use Plan
(see attached Exhibit 4) . The 1973 Plan very clearly states that
resident related commercial, residential and professional office
uses be located on the fringe of the central area. In other
words, the intent of the Land Use Plan is to allow the fringe of
the central area to be commercial in nature, but reduced in
intensity (both bulk and uses) so that it provides an appropriate
transition between the commercial and residential zone districts.
Based upon the stated purpose of zone districts in the City Code,
four (4) districts have the potential of providing resident
related commercial, residential and professional office uses:
Commercial (C-1) , Office (0) , Commercial Lodge (CL) and
Neighborhood Commercial (NC) .
C-1 - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
commercial uses which are not primarily oriented towards
serving the tourist population.
While this zone district allows for the possibility of
locally oriented uses, it also permits a large range of
retail commercial uses which have the potential for serving
the tourist population. An example of the kind of uses which
we could expect on this site with a C-i zoning are those in
the new Hunter Plaza, which is very clearly tourist oriented
in its retail shops. It seems to staff that while this zone
district may be able to carry out the mandate of the land
use plan other zone districts are better suited for "fringe"
commercial area locations.
0 - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of offices
and associated commercial uses in such a way as to preserve
the visual scale and character of former residential areas
that now are adjacent to commercial and business areas, and
commercial uses along Main Street and other high volume
thoroughfares.
This zone district provides for a reduced intensity because
the uses allowed in this district are office and
residentially oriented. We question whether this block is
appropriate for residential uses, however, since it is
located adjacent to SH 82 ; Office zoning may be
4
appropriate.
CL (1: 1) - Purpose: To provide for the establishment of
mixed use commercial development and lodge units by
permitting commercial uses at street level but requiring
that all additional stories be lodge accommodations.
This zone may be appropriate in that it allows for tourist/
residential character on the second level. This location
for lodging will provide an auto disincentive for visitors
to the community. The problems associated with this zone
district, however, occur on the first level where commercial
activities are allowed which are of a tourist oriented
nature, thereby extending the commercial core into the
(fringe) area.
NC - Purpose : To allow small convenience retail
establishments as part of a neighborhood, that are designed
and planned to be compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood, to reduce traffic generation, and mitigate
traffic circulations and parking problems, and to serve the
daily or frequent trade or service needs of the
neighborhood.
The uses allowed in this zone district will service the
local population, however, the intensity of these uses is
likely to fall somewhere in between the intensity of the
Office zone and the Commercial C-1 zone. In staff's
opinion, the NC zone is functioning well because the uses,
especially City Market, definitely service a significant
portion of the local population. In staff's opinion, the NC
service area or neighborhood extends well beyond the
immediate lodging uses and likely extends throughout the
entire community. We contend that it is critical to the
health of the local community. In staff's opinion, this
zone district can be appropriate for the area in question.
In terms of bulk or FAR, the staff feels that 1. 5: 1 is
unacceptable for a fringe or transitional area as is
expressed by the 1973 Master Plan. An FAR of greater than
1: 1 would not allow for a tapering of bulk to occur between
the Commercial Core and the residential areas. Given the
fact that an FAR of 1: 1 is allowed in the NC and RMF zones
and in the 0 zone by special review and the fact that the
Buckhorn Lodge has CL zoning with a 1: 1 FAR limitation,
staff feels that a maximum FAR of 1: 1 would be appropriate
for this property. In staff's opinion, the FAR allowed by
either 0 or NC would be appropriate for this general area,
while the NC uses are more appropriate given the fact that
duplex and multi-family structures are allowed in the 0
zone district. Pure residential uses seem to be a
inefficient use of such an important location in Aspen.
5
STAFF RESPONSE TO REZONING CRITERIA:
Section 7-1102 of the City Code lists Standards of Review
for amendments to the Official Zone District Map.
Criteria
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response
All three alternatives appear to be able to comply; however,
the C-1, 1. 5: 1 FAR alternative does --not_- provide the- 60%- -
employee housing for the . 5 FAR increase and therefore does
not comply.
Criteria
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
Response
The applicant's initial proposal to rezone to C-1 with a
1. 5: 1 FAR was an effort to comply with the parking aspect of
the Transportation Element. While the Transportation
Element identified the Bell Mountain Lodge block as a
preferred location for a joint public/private parking
facility, it was the City's intention to explore potential
development alternatives with the property owners as a
group.
The current application is more limited than hoped for, in
that only one property owner is participating, and that
applicant is requesting increases in development potential
and only offering the community the right to construct
parking subgrade. This offer is not very effective from the
City's point of view because the City is unable to finance
work at the Rio Grande and construction of parking at this
location in the time frame needed for this application.
The other rezoning proposals: C-1, 1: 1 FAR and 0 - Office do
not comply with the Transportation Plan since no public
parking benefits are proposed. The C-1 zoning does not, in
the staff ' s opinion (see above analysis) effectively
implement the intent of the 1973 Land Use Plan.
Another comprehensive planning issue has to do with the need
for commercial versus lodge zoning in this location. Lodge
Preservation (LP) zoning was initiated in part because the
Short Term Accommodations Report concludes that the primary
concern of the community should not be the development of
6
large numbers of new lodge units to meet ever increasing
tourist visitation rates. Instead, in recognition of
changing economic times, it was recommended that we
concentrate on providing better quality and value in our
tourist accommodations . The report suggests that
incentives be provided to induce owners to upgrade their
facilities. The LP zone district is designed to permit
limited expansions to be made to existing lodges as an
incentive for upgrading. The LP zone helps to maintain the
community balance between peak visitation bed capacity and
available mountain ski capacity. In addition, this location
is appropriate for small lodge development in that it helps
to accomplish several other community goals such as
providing lodging near Aspen Mountain thereby creating a
situation that reduces the visitors need to drive an
automobile to and around Aspen.
The staff has recently been putting together numbers
analyzing the buildout potential in our commercial and lodge
development area. We have found that there is very little
property in Aspen left for lodge development for new small
lodges. This means that the existing LP lodges are a very
important resources in this community, helping to diversify
our accommodation types and provide for lesser cost lodging
as well. It seems apparent to us that there is a much
greater community need for this property to be zoned LP than
for additional commercial development, particularly since
our buildout analysis shows the potential for significant
commercial development within existing zoned areas.
Criteria
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering
existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Response
While the applicant contends that C-i zoning is compatible
with surrounding land uses and existing neighborhood
character, the staff feels that the term compatibility
should, in this case, be defined as the ability to co-exist
with existing uses and not threaten the future viability of,
the adjacent NC zone. In staff's opinion a rezoning to C-i
may squeeze existing NC uses, which are already being
squeezed by the Little Nell Hotel, and may threaten the NC
zone's viability by creating pressure to rezone this area.
In addition, extending the commercial zone and increasing
the FAR in this area is inconsistent with the concept of
tapering the intensity of the uses and FAR as development
approaches the residential areas.
7
Criteria
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
Response
The applicant's proposals will not adversely impact the
transportation system.
Criteria
E. Whether the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and the
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not
limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities,
water supply, parks, drainage, schools, and emergency
medical facilities.
Response
Due to the subject property's location in downtown Aspen
existing community facilities are capable of accommodating
this proposal.
Criteria
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response
The subject property is in an urban setting and will not
adversely impact the natural environment.
Criteria
G, H, and I
Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of this chapter.
8
Response:
These 3 criteria all address the community character
question and the question of whether the conditions in the
neighborhood have changed to support the proposed amendment.
The staff feels that conditions in the neighborhood have
changed and are continuing to change. The development to
the south is creating a definite tourist/commercial oriented
pressure. This pressure is to expand tourist oriented
commercial business along Durant. This in turn puts
pressure on the area to the North zoned NC. If the City
market NC zone is lost to commercial (C-1) or to residential
then the community is left with only one NC area at Clarks.
Thus, the question of whether the proposals are consistent
with community character must be addressed with another
question. Should tourist commercial zoning be expanded to
the Bell Mountain Lodge block? The Planning Office response
is that it should not. This position is based on the fact
that there is a limited amount of locally oriented services
in our community and on the overall master plan for the area
which maintains that the fringe areas of town should buffer
the commercial core from the residential areas of town.
In direct response to the application, the Planning Office
feels that C-i zoning (1: 1 or 1.5: 1) would cause the most
problems, of the proposed rezoning requests, however, the
probable use of the property for high end residential
townhome units in the 0 zone presents a problem with regard
to the character of the area. Directly to the north, the
office zone district has already been used to develop high-
end residential townhomes, rather than office oriented uses.
The Planning Office feels, however, that the development of
O zone uses causes lesser problems with regard to
maintaining the NC area and upholding the master plan
concept for the area.
Extending this logic, the Planning Office feels that the LP
zone is preferable to either of the proposed zones in that
it maintains the balance that the community goals reflect
with regard to small lodge development. In addition, it is
generally compatible with our desire to maintain the NC
zone. Taking this analysis even further, as the community
continues to grow and more neighborhood commercial uses are
needed, the south side of Bell Mountain block could
logically become NC to address this growth. The NC zone
allows for a 1: 1 FAR which is also compatible with the
surrounding uses in the area.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Bell
Mountain parcel remain as zoned (LP) , however, if the Planning
Commission does not agree the staff recommends that the request
9
to rezone to 0 is the most appropriate of the alternative zonings
requested by the applicant.
Note: Staff has attached Exhibit 5, the application and Exhibit
6, citizen letter.
ch.bell
10
.1 ,
. . •
I ra--w
______
. .
. .tc _ .4__ _.1
.-- kis. . , -,„, , „ . , ,. ... , . 1
ami. :,,.. -.. -- • ---- . \
. 1-1.mi-.<, N - , ,, -.., ----,-. --- • , • ..
-.1t s-v•1!____ 1.,N;\' P '
_ • • a: •. 1 1 I y g sc a
. - -.' 1 t , i
_ I I H 1 IF i 1 Ltilil
. • .•. el t - . t •t T ki.
ei
, Lti T-
• • ' ;
i 1
. . . 11, .. !.i. : \r‘\ .
_ , _t_ 4-' -\\ i
• • ) .. : - it_. .i ..\ LI '.r:. ,..,e."_°S.,, ,. .z. I.. e
. air-- -Rz---r-7.--: I . ,1 .. 17.- i .::- ...gfaiiiir iiii
1
- , -,, ,.. ,. . ,, ..., ,,,_.4, .„ :,. ile:.,,a. ..,:-,,,-±, „.. 1
_ ,..,, ..
ilesio., - • 7. W Q 0_ 0. .\[__L-IL: • '.. l - ' '
I ) - . --. - .. at -'• 1 t I
- • li. ,---H,_ • t , 1 N 1.: '� n-
� � I I
. .... > . '� 1• *. -. .
. _1 ( ,1 j x
...41.1 141 b 1 t
q ,* t I
. .h 11-01 7 • ,–4–• t 1
. . -: 1---HI .4411– — Ili al. Pli_.&‘':/// '
• & litt • 111111 k 1 ,
. . . • MEM •
. r IP5IM.IW
I
i1e.92as.9NI -
I___ ____ _____ _____ _ _______ ____ _____ ____ _____ _I -
U P I i.tii -
i
.
I
/•••aw, !I ,i / --
•---- --.--
' . ii.,; _
a.. ,
11 ,
■ " t " , . r
" I • .' - -L-I
, . .
sar•" , : lc, 11 :14k-
NI) • , b!
! —
— I
2 . 1 , ,•••• —
Eli! {. —0,—._ ,.--•r
r---,:_4! - - ----, ._
:, ---_ 1,-,-.._, -_ 1
,...
;
h-___ ;1 j 7
lq:14d
[,.
., . ---4. --0
:,". - ; I. • ..
10 7 i
Z ■I It - I ■ "/
- <1 0 :" ! I; • ',II
. ■
, , - __ ,_,1•
d ._
._< E-•.,,
....
LU
—J P _ .
]
1'11111, t ! '''',- -A, w ,
!i masa- , i .-: i 1 i i, 11 11,
1.-lit - - I .. / ,,,
- : . .,- ;,. .,, / ' . , i_
, 1:4 / r— _1'4 4N1 ---
,...:C
I -117711 1: •.. ...t..)
'MI J ' 411
. 'II
i I • 'fit
, 11111-E11; i M
' Ilan, p '
•rw, •
Mosava,. , e..
' ...
tai - :
. rap , • , I,
,
, :1
.... . ' 1 I 11
1
. '
infh ;. . l '..11. .'
..... . .., ti.;/
iwir '
6
, : . 1_........:„ . ,
. „ , /. ..
-,z,
, I , --"" , .,; -.• .,1 . -"
,
■ _. --- .•t 1
•
. _ 1111 I/ •!
I .
, I .
■I I. • :
li'
, , ,„,,,_...,.•-;;.---'7,0-.,--.•"-•':'-''''
•
iranimmionlimormii 0 - I i.---_ _____J— ______
•
.,..,,,
--_,.....„....._.... ...
1 ,
., .,
I , ,
.4■ r. ' I-. .) . ' ''''-•
j ■ ,, ,1 MIS \s, .
M!, ••. '
- = = -= - - ' ' . NM i 1■- . '
i‘■ se/ 1.,at '''
ill ' 'i 1:rim ' •
It-
.11 U._
... --,
. •
UMW
T • ,. . • :i - , !_.,• ''.1
. , : ..„.„,...,
Z
i'' ; _ "1 1 MK : :_-etrif
0 !I.. III •,. 1-4-i"'l :."P
/
1— ., nalf omit gli
,
,I.- - -- , - - • . :.:- - :
-11,-..__ 2.: ,......tzta-
Ill
1
11.1 umm r-sr■fJ.10.1
1111,111 : lsiti•Wrp
.J . •
•
W
,
._•,
I. , •,11F I— I _Nu
........ ,...... Imo
WiW :k l Ill
lin i ,
: '; Halal' 1 ,,Y Ii■- 11111.02
, , s • 111.11,%:,,,.,..,.. .m.v..... Ft
• :.
t, ---. •-#,,mr-1;! owl.
• •111,■094 i—...- iii•F
SF0-
ifw
1 i. 1 ....!I, \ >
4,t's
,kt- la. , , , ,
—- i
-. .
11 011 .•.""•'",il' • •
,\,
W
, vAiik
,,
111.1,1e"• -'7'-• I
pimii
4----" .
Y.1 .,.. .Ili 1+
I. tO.1111ii
,ii.ww•
0 • -
•ti. "II .Z11: IL"
1 en .---,!!, .: 1341".
i;iistii4. 1-4.-4... ),Fismit
ilmu: aloft .0.-
, „milli Inial 4' '' Ill
OW • - tiffiti
1 .' , l'i.''C. : ,.• •,,. - •,\, ,,•',' ,
/ .'.. I -• . r .'■■N'111
1■, 1 • _..... IRA qrs.=
.:1.6,ilii:. .c...7 .a. ..1„
Z IRO. : Zi'')NI +1.4
0 i intoll ...I I 111
ell . Mel
h
< • ANNIE ...
omit i......11 ,. milli
,,,•/- :=1. 111111111 1;;Iim!sk • ,
/
,,., : LU 1 • - ' .. ,
.......01 :=.1111
...J . En ' .6.41.11,.
,,
LU ..,.......1 •....4%,—. ./ *El
. •
!. •
- . LLI
. .
•
..-1.i
1_41i
' k.lig..
', -.1;
—...
r.
4• : it ..-ti;
_
t .:
tiA
, ■ .001,
, ..„.,_ _ .
1
--Li :•%•‘- •
I ........Ici
- •:.,...-i 4\t‘,..._,
aa illi,
ii _ ,,f. I . ---■
1 IIIIIII; . anti.•
1111III .ill''
,,,, ..,77.1i,
II .M , 1411
1'i gam 1-w
elan, i4:11.1 .
i
H .I. •
Illt.2
I timum,,, .
. I '
. t ii
•,L
. -ii
I .-Tit ::•_,
al
at
11
--
1 ' I, 6,,,,•-■
i haiiiir 1:fli4•Nlit
,,,--'-','.:',;.4,4•• .•7•---,- ,
I '
li titan':
•.' ' •.. . '. / ' ,
, ■
■1
Z
I , .....-1
; ' l — •i
........;;:
24.
;,,.-".:,-,-;,...,:-.,:,;-; 40.4•,_.0,1iAl.:-
: -- ....t............,,.:;;.,..,-,::;"
'iril 4.--.
PE
, ,, , .......!
, 1
I-;,,
.,.
_
........
_ .,
_: . ■
i.,..,..:_.... .!,...,.... ..,...,...,..,. i .. 1 . .
(ir,,,.....1. -,,,..,...., .
i.
•,
.. -
I aim.
1 ,
. . i
• !lin!. 1 /Ailli
411
I I ' .
...,.-"-.;•:-„;,
' ,...zz.7..,
.,,„..
•:',..,
. .
•.
• ""'""
•<\11j-
:1-
'....----_.-,•-r!
...-••:..--
• - '
. .... --,..,. ,...
:'•,-.,.:„.,-...--,-.•,r„--4-4.•..---, -. --z----.7•.„_.•----. 4--- -
, ,, - - .. ,,,•--...,-,... ,
:,..•.'',-;4•f"...''''...--..
.
.
:.•;?.;,;•.'•'-'7'..••.'...:•-•;- j*"7.[.;`:'-';'-.,'
..--.A_,..,•••••.,..' :.-...---',..--.-.•.„. - ,• . ,
',-,:-.:',.."44...ii'-'4%•:':-„:!',.„ •-.- '
..',,.,"''-'-',•,4:1.:.?- -.•.MH:.4.:..,•'-'
1
•„=:"'•,'" ,,,,,.-„'•7.,•,;:?„,••''''''-i•'.-:',,::' ,-. ', ' ,
.. . _
. . -.
, .
-'
...- .
, ,...,..4.,•:;,4.;•,,,...;"
,-,;•....
)
•
)
•
)
i —
Ia:T a co 44:1;-'•■.._ (4) .i'OR 1 I
N In i A 4
-- ;1`
I..
I
I
ti ! Bt . re'.......1„.
!H.,4_,_ • . . ,_„
tt,ipiL,,, i _____. ;n
..1_ ill . ,_ , -
. __ _
!i-- ---- ---:41
,.:
r---ti,,i1r74------1-1 !- -
:111:1111.._,„: ..11"i:
f = fi N Q
y1 r 1'•t — y
'
_
1ry
} X111
t �r . Am• ; . iii
, .,..:. .-.- '' l' , i.h.__M___Hlef'
__ 11
I1„ ,
.� ..1
11 ( 'IMP
61/x' ,cl
rt A
y 3 s*,
'ii°'
< 4 rli: fir%r
. • ,.„:,
__. .,,...._ li
MEMORANDUM
To: Cindy M. Houben. Planning Office
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer Cie_
Date : May 23, 1988
Re: Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning/PUD
Having reviewed the above referenced application, the Engineering
Department has the following comments :
1. Adequate space must be provided on site for trash dumpsters
and utility meters . No encroachments into public rights-of-way
will be permitted for these needs . An easement may be needed for
a transformer .
2 . The applicant must check with each of the utilities to
confirm that existing, available services will meet the project
needs . Any improvements to utility services required for the
project would have to be paid for by the developer. A new
electric transformer would probably be required .
3 . Platting and storm drainage design must be provided in
accordance with Sections 20-15 and 20-17( f) . The storm drainage
design may be a complication for the subgrade parking garage .
4 . Parking -
With current zoning, the applicant would be required to provide
52 spaces for the commercial use plus the 17 spaces for the
residential use . It is not clear that 52 spaces for commercial
use should not still be required of the project, perhaps as a
variation of PUD requirements by the City. Conceptually, the
Engineering Department recommends requiring 52 parking spaces for
the commercial floor areas .
The development of page 2 of Exhibit D, "Projected Method of
Paying for Garage, " is unclear to this reviewer . If the develo-
per were to be responsible for 33 spaces, his cost would be
$559, 322 at the rate of $16, 949 per space . If the developer is
required to provide the 52 spaces for commercial use plus the
residential spaces, his cost would of course be more .
On page 1 of Exhibit D, it is unclear how the "gate, register and
control echanism for parking" are compatible with public parking
5. Access to the building for deliveries - It is not a code
requirement, but we should be sure that the building has service
delivery doors on the alley so that deliveries can be made from
the alley and not from the street.
6 . The city attorney needs to be consulted to see if water
rights need to be obtained from the applicant .
7. Parking garage encroachment - Conceptually, the Engineering
Department would recommend for approval of an encroachment
license for the construction of the subgrade parking. The
applicant understands that substantial utility relocations
probably will be required . Since the construction would require
street closures, the construction should be performed during an
off-season.
cc: Jay Hammond, City Engineer
CR/cr/memo 88 . 44
....#
7 r'
\ '. - h.l b.-f- ,s 1/
------- \41k**-14PA4I\),
r...„.„. , ,,, ,. . „,,,i,,.
w � , i ' H
I•• i. •r17 SpITAI {.� i` •`` � t' i j e -,¢ J i i iAL LA.k •� ; ,*' 'r' `� !kWh j I i 1 r 1} LAKE f �. _ k . i •
\ - •-:,,,,,•,, . .
t..,u. is;= SANITATIQ 7: a� I �. ;},"LL .i i1jAr ,.,...PS•.`. 1f 7I s„
_ \ ''' ,1",:.'. ' '')t
� J� : PLANT; `\' I� N " i 1 i
INSTITUTE f MOBILE HOME L E ow IAN
4LE
ILY f -•..•*�•••••••., • �.••• wr• 1 j
.... .• - •Q• NEIL ORHO i ' ! I
ELEMENTARY SCM!)OL •. $OP• rlG Tom" I i 1 9 1 • .\
j r ' ••••. CENT ' , r �;+ � � -
• ♦•••♦ K
E L E M E N TAR
t•••♦••••••. ,.; •i�iii+. -. .`', 4^ 2
•_•••.♦
SCHOOL _.•i•••••••• " 1 V I C .t
o5 POS $ •••••••
OFFI
'
i s ♦ x s.r
.
AR• R IS HOTEL V " � -1 r Y- ERRON AR., s , �PAR� !l { y • Lim'� 1.rap r7.7•`---- .
Y R ►`y `b+" i ^' ty-4h S, d C 'ten'. l ` f..., ..
3•s411\ n ,s . i�'.4 ,'c "#{ WHEE' %�i i* 'n } t � •k rc..
;0,.... `Y'.+Y.P' t: P .1 %tc Ya ;0•:,- y^ F „.r..1,, 3',:
hv.m `., t',` '. HODS- r i 1 ,.T 'z<"'7 t(r �t C :,'
sh,
u
4�, ,...,s 1,..-4,-,„.t t -.. 4 Yn I ti p
i C E T a: k - 1, 16' a g
``■ 4 ,a wAGNE� } ;MALL' : A 4 i Wyss .
3 :::. lfv ' ar., PARK _ - S ` '«S '
' ''?' '''' "',.-,'s4 tt k.'.1.";!' 14.)z:774:24 k,_L,,,.6.--.7)',:!_,.: . 1-''..-
`• �" „,,,,no.,-;,',,-, r .4 1 3 1 Y i,i J p^.” k '"° 4 �+h
'` ✓ '..� t Kr 14 • sa
' l rte; i ;e
E� _ • N /A C1,v1 , . HOLE ; T' 1
-,` t r L'�,AT ONS t .�k' PARK c
y
` — 7
` .. x _ 0 � •IME �' }� ' PECA CC• 'pc)°:,TIONS \ ,t }` \ , • j
NSIT1=
v
T t�
f Z
w
EXHIBIT A
March 21 , 1988
Ms. Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Consent to M & W Properties
Rezoning/PUD Application
Dear Ms. Houben:
Bell Mountain Lodge, Inc. hereby agrees to join in
any and all land use applications submitted by M & W Properties
pertaining to the real property described in Exhibit A, Commit-
ment for Title Insurance, attached hereto and incorporated by
this reference (hereinafter referred to as the "Property" ) .
Very truly yours,
BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC.
•
Victor J. Kappeli
Attachment
1 CH. ...Iwo .1 Ir,ur..pc1iVn Cridr 1 I nrlrn w..'nl Curh• rl.•1,Urin r 1 �nru.•nr,.u•.•.r.v ,
COMMITMENT: :U.nr.'Irr,,,,rr.•li.•,rprlr•r1 "" r1 Lalubiv H t II Iloyi nl L:I Jrgp wily Coll@ IA('Unm•>vr.,i 141,M ton
.1 Cafe Nundun 'rani•• 9 1 Wa1 lirvr!nurt .....
Y 1vPr1 EXHIBIT -B
• _
1 3 • 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 14
0 0 0
1.0 _._ .. ........ M ...., 8 - 11 13 M.
Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation •
National Headquarters
Richmond, Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
• SCHEDULE A
. Effective Date September 22, 1987 at 8:00 A.M. Case No.PCT-1207-87
•
2 Policy or policies to be issued: .
•
(a) Amount $ 1,900,000.00-PREMIUM-$3,382.00
MI ALTA Owner's Policy—Form B-1970(Rev. 10-17-70&Rev. 10-17-84) • • .
o ALTA Residential Title Insurance Policy-1979 •
Proposed insured: ANTHONY J. MAZZA and FRANK J. WOODS, III •
(b)ALTA Loan Policy, 1970(Rev. 10.17-70&Rev. 10-17-84) Amount $
Proposed insured:
•
(c) . - , . Amount S
Proposed insured: TAX CERTIFICATE $ 5.00
• 1
.
3. Title to the in fee simple estate or interest in the land
described or referred to in this Commitment is at the effective date hereof vested in: •
BELL ITJUNTAIN LODGE, INC. . •
•
4. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: •
LOTS K, L, •1, N, 0, P, and the West 20.73 feet of LOT Q, •
•
BLOCK 105,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN,
• . • • COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. •
Pltkin County Title, inc.
601 E. Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado 81611
'o ntersign•.+at : •-I .'-.A..• Commitment No. PCT-1207-87 .
• Schedule A—Page 1 • •
This commitment is invalid unless
Authorized Office or Agent the Insuring Provisions andSched-.
ules A and B are attached. .
r......yo" nl.oq roru IN
• JuyersTh1e jnsurence Orporation •
National Headquarters
Richmond,Virginia
•
• SCHEDULE B—Section 1
Requirements •
The following are the requirements to be complied with: •
Item(a) Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of the full.consideration for the estate or interest
to be insured.
Item(b) Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record.
to-wit:
•
•
(I) Release•by the Public Trustee of the County of Pitkin of:
Deed of Trust fran : VICTOR J. KAPPELI, WERNER A. KAPPELI, and ERNEST A. KAPPELI
for the use of : ALLEN S. BROWN
to secure : $10,050.00 and $100,000.00 •
dated • : November 15, 1963
recorded December 26, 1963 in Book 205 at Page 280
• reception no. : 116851
(2) Deed fran : BELL STAIN LODGE, INC. •
to • • : ANTHONY J. MAZZA and FRANK J. WOODS, III •
(3) Certificate of Incorporation or Certificate of Good Standing of BELL MOUNTAIN M LODGE, INC., a
Colorado Corporation, issued by the Secretary of State of Colorado, must be delivered to and
approved by Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation.
•
(4) Evidence satisfactory to the Canpany that the Real Estate Transfer Tax as established by Ordinance
No. 20 (Series of 1979) has been paid or exempted.
(5) Certificate of Nonforeign Status, signed by a representative of BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE, INC.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
This commitment is invalid unless.
the Insuring Provisions and Sched- Schedule 8-Section 1-Page 1-Commitment No. PCT-1207-87
iitr`s A and 8 are attached.
Form No 91.88(8.1)
i
lawyers Title Insurance Corporation
NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS
CRICHMOND, VIRGINIA •
SCHEDULE B—Section 2
Exceptions
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to
the satisfaction of the Company: .
' 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records.
2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records.
3. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary liner, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which -
• a correct survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are not shown by the
public records.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, im-
posed by law and not shown by the public records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in
the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date the
proposed insured acquires of record for valve the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered
by this Commitment.
•
6. Taxes due and payable; and any tax, special assessments, charge or lien imposed for
water or sewer service, or for any other special taxing district.
7. Reservations and exceptions as contained in Deeds from the City of Aspen recorded in
Book 59 at Page 78, in Book 59 at Page 79, in Book 59 at Page 111, in Book 59 at Page
180 and in Book 59 at Page.287 as follows: "Provided, that no title shall be hereby
acquired to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper or to any valid mining claim or
possession held under existing laws."
8. Any and all mineral rights conveyed by deed recorded in Book 106 at Page 482, in Book 125 at
Page 1, and in Book 131 at Page 8, and in Book 475 at Page 676.
9. Terms, conditions, obligations and provisions of Cannercial Contract to Buy and Sell Real
Estate as set forth in instrument recorded September 21, 1987 in Book 546 at Page 398.
b'
P
• •Exceptions numbered NONE are hereby omitted. .
The Owner's Policy to be issued, if any, shall contain the following items in addition to the ones set forth above:
(1).The Deed of Trust, if any, required under Schedule B—Section 1, Item (b).
(2) Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing issuance
thereof; water rights, claims or title to water.
(3) Any and all unpaid taxes, assessments and unredeemed tax sales.
Schedule B—Section 2—Page 1—No.
Form 91.RB B2 Rocky Mt.
EXHIBIT D
C
Projected Cost of Bell Mountain
Parking Garage
0 Land; this will be a gift from M & W Properties
51 , 000 square feet Total square feet of garage (two levels)
x 29 .50 square feet* Hard cost of garage
$1 , 504,500
$ 300, 000 Guesstimate cost of relocating utilities, shoring
and paving (please note this number presupposes
that we will be able to close part of City
streets, otherwise shoring alone could be $600, 000
to $650, 000 )
30, 000 Gate, register, control mechanism for parking
$1 , 834, 500
(■ 183 ,450 10% developer fee
$2 , 017 , 950 (We will round this figure off to $2, 000 , 000 .
Please note we have not included a contingency) .
*Please note these projected numbers do not take into account
construction costs if tunnels and/or water are hit . Also, the
actual hard costs are $24 .58 per square foot and we have added
in at the contractor 's request 20$ for general conditions fee.
It is assumed that this 20% fee will cover soft costs, namely
architectural , planning, engineering fees, contractor 's fee and
overhead. Please further note we have not included the ramp
( 2500 square feet + ) which we hope will be covered in the hard
costs.
It is hoped that this is a realistic cost analysis, but is
based on guesstimates as test holes have not even been drilled.
Cost Per Parking Space:
$2, 000, 000 divided by 118 cars = $16 , 949
C
Projected Method of Paying
For Garage
* Total Hard Cost $2, 000 , 000
** Waiver by M & W of 10%
development fee < 175 , 000 >
** Cash from M & W < 250 , 000 >
*** City of Aspen, 83 spaces < $1 , 100 , 000 >
Fees the City will receive or has
received for parking in lieu of < 475, 000 >
===============
(l < $2, 000 , 000 >
* Please note that if this garage can be built for less,
M & W is willing to place any savings into the City' s
column. Also, these are obviously preliminary numbers.
** Please note M & W would be required to provide 33 parking
spaces for the proposed new structure. The number of
parking spaces does not take into account any credit for
the existing building.
*** The money for the City' s portion will come from bonding
and/or conventional financing. Also, the City might
Master Lease the 85 spaces. The money to pay the bonded
indebtedness and/or the Master Lease charges shall come
from user fees, tax revenues and/or from the City general
fund.
•
•
yTitl Iuyts e Insurance Corpoi ation
National Headquarters
Richmond. Virginia
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, herein called the Company, for valuable
consideration, hereby commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance,as identified in Schedule A,in favor of the
proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest covered hereby in the land
described or referred to in Schedule A,upon payment of the premiums and charges therefor;all subject to the provisions
of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions and Stipulations hereof.
This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or
policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A hereof by the Company,either at the time of the issuance of this
Commitment or by subsequent endorsement.
This Commitment is preliminary to the issuance of such policy or policies of title insurance and all liability and
obligations hereunder shall cease and terminate six (6) months after the effective date hereof or when the policy or
policies committed for shall issue,whichever first occurs,provided that the failure to issue such policy or poiicies is not the
fault of the Company.This Commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by an authorized officer or agent.
.T
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Commitment'to be signed and sealed, to become valid when
countersigned by an authorized officer or agent of.theCompany,iall'in accordance with its By-Laws.This Commitment is
effective as of the date shown in Schedule A as "Eftectivett ate
A��S , it
CONDITIONS.AND,STIPULATIONS
•
.i
1. The term "mortgage," when used herein,;shall'include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
2. If the proposed Insured has or acquires actual knowledge of any defect, lien,encumbrance,adverse claim or other
matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in
Schedule B hereof,and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing,the Company shall be relieved
from liability for any loss or damage resulting from.any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced
by failure to so disclose such knowledge.If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company,or if
the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance,adverse claim or other
matter,the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly,but such amendment shall
not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and
Stipulations.
3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties
included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss
incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith(a)to comply with the requirements hereof,or(b)to eliminate
exceptions shown in Schedule B,or(c)to acquire or create the estate.or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies
committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and the Conditions and Stipulations and the
- Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are
hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Cor..mitment except as expressly modified herein.
•
4. Any action or actions or rights of action that the proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company
arising out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this
Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment.
Lawyers title Insu a C9rporation
• ô74e ,
President
f ei- ` Attest:
Secretary.
�•y '
EXHIBIT C
M & W PROPERTIES
C SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTI PONY J. MAZZA ASPEN.COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303
FRANK J.WOODS.III TELEPHONE 026-8032
March 21 , 1988
Ms. Cynthia Houben
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Cindy:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny
Vann of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent M & W Properties in
the processing of all applications pertaining to the redevelop-
ment of the Bell Mountain Lodge property which is located at
720 East Cooper Avenue in the City of Aspen, Colorado. Mr.
Vann is hereby authorized to act on our behalf with respect to
all matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned
applications.
Should you have any questions, or if we can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to call .
M--&—W—PROPERTIES
.thony J. azza
AJM:dr
E))--171 �f
VICENZI & COMPANY
June 2, 1988
Welton Anderson
Chairman, Aspen P & Z
Aspen, CO
RE: BELL MOUNTAIN REZONING/PUD
Dear Welton:
As an owner and manager of the Hannah Dutin Building and the Old Post Office
Building, I would strongly recommend that the request for commercial zoning
of the Bell Mountain lots be denied and that it retain the Lodge Preservation
Zoning for the following reasons:
1. Aspen's unique ambience is being destroyed partly because many of the
smaller lodges are being demolished or converted to long term housing. These
smaller lodges are more in keeping with the scale of Aspen and should be improved
and preserved or replaced with new structures of the same size.
2. This sites proximity to the gondola makes it an ideal location to accomodate
skiers because they would have pedestrian access to the lifts, downtown shops and
restaurants thus, reducing vehicular pollution and congestion.
3. Aspen doesn't NEED anymore commercial space! ! ! Many of the present
retailers are complaining that there isn't enough business. Consequently, they
are exerting political pressure on the city to approve large out of scale hotels
in order to generate more customers.
4. This and other blocks in the area have been an effective transition zone be-
tween the intensive commercial core uses and the residential and tourist uses.
By expanding the commercial zone you will adversely affect what remains
of the adjoining residential areas. By granting this request, you would set a
precedent that would encourage adjoining land owners to seek a similar change
to cash in on the economic gains of a more commercial use.
P.O. BOX 2238 ASPEN COLORADO 81612 303/925-1196
1.
T
I would greatly appreciate you considering my concerns and suggestions
in this matter since, as an adjacent land owner, I would be impacted most
by the proposed zoning change. Also, preservation of Aspen's uniqueness
and human scale should be foremost in your minds and can be accomplished
by not granting this zoning change which will economically benefit one
developer at the expense of all present and future Aspenites and visitors.
Cordially,
George A. Vicenzi
GAV:mk
page 2
X27
,s
!OARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY 0 ASPEN,COLORADO }
April 26, 1988
Cindy M. Houben
and Tom Baker
City/County Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Cindy and Tom:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "Bell Mountain
Lodge Rezoning/PUD Application. "
We would only share Sunny' s concern relating to increased traffic
levels , alluded to in his letter to you dated March 21, 1988. Of
course, the desired trade off is reduced traffic congestion in the
rest of the downtown area. With frequent public transportation
already provided on both Spring and Cooper Streets , I 'm confident
that RFTA will be able to contribute in a positive way to meet
this goal .
Thank you for considering RFTA in your planning process.
Sincerely,
4/7/7
- i%,—� _ [/r'
Paul S. Hilts
Director of Operations
20101 West Highway 82•Aspen, Colorado 81611 • (303) 920-1905
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: ►2ede,Ue,(,opme e 13a M . /..-661.7e /-
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: `�� t'�p •• , 5c , 1�LII
REPRESENTATIVE' S PHONE: u . .e V/J♦ / '51
OWNERS NAME:
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: 2e ac Y' L Y1� ueSfi
2. Describe action/type of development being requested: U.2s0v?.Q_)
,oLJ n IZ ; 1 FAQ_ ry\ 5 _) 4 -- p)
� n ry on d -two S c
L1 ��'')1 . eft'-r`� ,
'� corn m Cam er cck, Qt �t-e zon c h i C- 1 P �' SPA
G-( PuU L e'nn- c , camc�Y1 � 2 `, ••i ` 7€ '
3. Areas n wh` c pp can as been requested to re- ••nd, types or
reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
AL. akkk4-itht)-
0. % .Oefk . -
AC D -
c) _
IF-7A _ •
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC/BOCC Only) (P&Z then to CC/BOCC)
5. Public Hearing: (-----(-
YES) (NO)
6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJ . PROPERTY
OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: g : (NO)
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:4 \y9°-k 5.° �S"c° _ 441b1'°
8. Anticipated date of submission: A.
9. COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: tic. ,�/.L.-.4 it i 4Ltj,(dAill..j al!API'
• ' .t. a4 -/3 .34.5
�` •S i/ lam ✓�� /� �AV # •P 44 fV )
� / I •I
A.‘11-111•240 rdannifilligMr41-
\\\ °� S° .�. Cc w....\ ,,Q v.--�x v Se e Q-. CAA.
C?�T
Aspen/Palm•
' Planning Office
130 south galena street
aspen ;-Lecolora-do 81611
December 10, 1987
Mr. Anthony Mazza
M&W Properties
Suite 301A
205 South Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Tony,
This letter is in response to your letter to me dated December 1,
with respect to the Bell Mountain Lodge property. The purpose of
my letter is to identify some problems I see with your proposal,
as a basis for setting an agenda for a meeting between us.
As you know, the City of Aspen is interested in seeing parking
developed on the subject property. However, it has been a
consistent policy of the City that land use applications are
decided on the record by the P&Z and the Council, not by "deals"
worked out in advance. Therefore, it is not possible for me to
react to your request for CC zoning, which appears principally to
be justified in terms of your proposed "gift" to the City. The
rezoning will have to stand or fall based on fundamental land use
issues of neighborhood compatibility and impacts on surrounding
properties and community facilities.
In this respect, your letter contains an error about a neighbor-
ing property which may affect your rezoning request. While the
Buckhorn Lodge is zoned CL, a condition of the rezoning ordinance
limited its buildout to 1: 1. There has been past concern about
extending "downtown" density to this site, and I would caution
you in advance that CC FAR of 1.5: 1, increasable to 2.0: 1 by
special review may be excessive for this site.
We are also disappointed that your proposal is just for the Bell
Mountain Lodge property, and not the entire block. You have
previously been requested to work with the owners of the Buckhorn
Lodge, parking lot and A-frame to put together a site with the
visibility, accessibility and size that the community will
require. Unless this is accomplished, the proposal may not
receive a favorable outlook from the staff.
Another flaw in your concept is that of change in use. Change in
use was formulated to allow existing buildings to be modified in
use when there are minimal growth impacts, but not to change the
use of a building which is to be demolished and rebuilt as a new
project. New developments are subject to GMP allotment proced-
ti
ures, while change in use or reconstruction of existing buildings
is eligible for exemption. This limitation is being clarified in
the revised Aspen Land Use Regulations now under consideration by
the P&Z .
Another matter for you to consider is that the adopted Trans-
portation Element of our Comprehensive Plan looks to this site as
the second parking facility in the City, not the first. Given
your statement that the City would have to complete construction
by July 1, 1989 for the proposed partnership to work, we would
have to obtain voter approval to fund both projects at once.
This may exceed our bonding limitations and will certainly make
it that much harder for us to get anything approved. Therefore,
we will need to obtain guidance from the City Council if they
wish to alter their capital improvement plans and move forward
with this site at the same time, or ahead of the Rio Grande site
we are now pursuing.
While I can understand your contract deadline, you need to
respect the fact that the City has many procedural obligations it
must follow which may make construction in 1988/89 quite diff-
icult for us. One way which you could help us, and make your
project much more attractive, would be for you to develop the
parking privately and offer us a leaseback or similar option.
This leads me to my final point. Your proposal is sufficiently
unique that it goes well beyond simple planning and zoning
matters on which I can provide you clear advice. If the City
Council views your proposal as an opportunity it wishes to
pursue, then it may be possible to resolve some of the above-
mentioned problems. It is my intention to contact the City
Manager and his assistant, Ron Mitchell, to gauge their reaction
to your offer. I would hope to have their comments for you by
the time we actually meet.
I hope this letter clarifies the concerns which I have regarding
your proposal. Our next step should be to set up a meeting when
you have reviewed this letter. Please call me when you would
like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
41,erl/N
Alan Richman
Planning Director
cc: Ron Mitchell
M & W PROPERTIES DEC
SUITE 301A
205 SOUTH MILL STREET
ANTHONY J. 1VIAZZA ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 AREA CODE 303
FRANK J.WOODS.III TELEPHONE 925-8032
December 1, 1987
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning & Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Alan :
At the request of Tom Baker of the Planning Office I
am writing this letter to you concerinng proposed zoning
requests for Bell Mountain Lodge. M & W Properties has the
Bell Mountain Lodge under contract, with a closing date of
April 15, 1989 .
I feel a brief zoning history is in order . At
present the property is zoned L-3, which permits a one to one
build out. The property was previously zoned office and the
adjacent properties, as you are aware, have different zoning
classifications up to CL for Buckhorn Lodge, which permits a
two to one build out.
Our intent would be to request C-1 zoning for this
property, which permits a one-to-one build out. We feel that
the history, existing zoning classifications and the adjacent
properties would entitle applicant to said zoning. We will
tender said application in February of 1988. As part of said
request we would ask a change in use and credit for existing
tap fees.
We are aware of the fact that the City has earmarked
the Bell Mountain Lodge and the rest of the block, excepting
the Hannah Dustin Building , for an intercept parking lot. We
would offer to give the City all of our subterranean rights for
free. Obviously we would request an appropriate allocation of
valuation of these rights for purposes of gift tax. In
exchange for giving the City said rights to build a parking
garage, we request CC zoning, which zoning permits a 1.5 to one
build out. Said zoning classification would be necessary due
to the fact that we would no longer be able to build a basement
in our proposed building. Therefore , without a basement , in
order to achieve the necessary square footage and desired
height , we would need said CC zoning classification.
It is important to note that the City must coordinate
the design of the garage to be built with us so we can have the
Mr . Alan Richman
Planning & Development Director
Aspen/Pitkin Plannign Office
December 1 , 1987
Page Two
appropriate structural systems, etc., designed into the garage
so that a building could be built on top of same. The
ramifications of this concept to M & W Properties are
significant. We will have additional principal's time ,
additional architectural and engineering fees , on-going
coordination with the City to maintain and administer the
planning, etc., added insurance for the garage use underneath.
We will also have to condominiumize our building to separate it
from the garage. It is imperative that the City let us know no
later than October 1, 1988 , if it will be proceeding with the
garage structure, as we will have to commence preparation of
our working drawings at that time.
Further , as part of said rezoning change , as
aforementioned, we would request a change in use and credit for
tap fees, waiver of park dedication fees and employee housing
requirements , if any, and permission to satisfy the parking
requirement , if any, for our building in the garage to be
built. We intend to commence construction on the building in
April of 1989. Should the City desire to accept this gift and
implement the zoning change as aforementioned, we would have to
have tendered to us by July 1 , 1989 , the property with
appropriate structure in place so we could commence
construction of our building . The zoning change as requested
would be non-contingent. In other words we would be granted
the CC zoning and should the City not be able to complete
construction as aforementioned, we would still be entitled to
commence construction of our building on our time frame.
Obviously, we are requesting input from you or a
meeting with you as soon as possible, as we must prepare an
application for the February 1 deadline.
Very truly yours ,
Anthony Mazza
AJM:dr