Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutresolution.apz.007-88RESOLUTION OF THEASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OFT HE 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the City with subgrade development rights to build a community parking facility at public expense, an offer which was withdrawn by the applicant at the Commission meeting; and WHEREAS, in its place, the Applicant requested that the Commission reviewed proposals to rezone the project to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-i) (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: 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. 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: 2e The character of the neighborhood is defined by locally oriented commercial businesses and lodging, rather than by tourist oriented residential or commercial uses. 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. 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. De 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: 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. That with Land the proposals are inconsistent with Section 7-1102 I, respect to the public interest and the purposes of the 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: J~ Carney, ~ep~y city Clerk ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION -C. ~elton ~derson RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF TEE REQUEST FOR REZONING OF THE BELL MOUNTAIN LODGE PROPERTY Resolution No. 88- Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed an application for rezoning of parcel (location described in exhibit A) (hereinafter "Applicant"); and ~EREAS, the Applicant's initial (hereinafter the the Bell submitted at a public hearing held on July 7, 1988, the Aspen "Commission") Mountain Lodge by Tony Mazza 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-l) (at a 1:1 FAR) or (0) Office (allowing .75:1 FAR) (hereinafter "Proposal"); and W~REAS, the Commission reviewed the criteria pursuant to Section 7-1102 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations made the following findings: A. That the proposals are consistent with the provisions of Section 7-1102 A, B, C, D, E, F, ~, H, and I of Cha~ter 24, Aspen Municipal Code, The Aspen Land Use Regulations for the following reasons: for rezoning and 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 -- e 4e 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." The proposed amendment will have a lesser impact on traffic and road safety than the existing use and less demand on public facilities. There would be no adverse impact to the natural environment and a "O" Office zoning use would be consistent with community character. There are significant changes to the character of Aspen making small lodge uses difficult if not impractical. and a rezoning to "O" Office zoning, which was the underlying zoning, would not be in conflict with the public interest. NOW, ~u~REFORE, 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 Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk By ~. Welton Anderson