HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.052.1986 ��:,�, .
, .
�
�,W;�.,, . . ,
' , �� FiF�� ? r`� ;L � � � rr��'
��4 j n�' �� ' 'Y3r.�..;..,r`L"a' � Y,`�' !� �7.w7 3 �.� ' �� .
�.i . ��;•.�-.r ����' . . . - �i�; �,_:,t�� �
G 5`^'.. .
- f';�:%..-". ..
Q�COK �}�.4 ?;GE�!Jl�
� �tESOLOTION OF THE $OARD OF (700NTY COMMISSIONERS
' � �p
' �, x o � OF PITHIN CODNTY, COLORADO `
i
�p m� �° DEN7lING THS POMEGRANATE INN
.�
O) �� N GENERAL SOBMISSION AND REZONING REQQSST �
. ti �= oo Resolution No. 86-52 z-`"-�'
- (V �� 'a .t.
n. �
iiHEREA3, on May 27, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners
�
� (hereinafter "Board") held a publzc meeting to review a rezonin9
• ,� from AF-2 to AR-1, a Scenic Foreground Special Review and a
i ,
',�� General Su6mission application for a 30 unit expansion for the
existing 56-unit Pomegranate Inn, made request by the AZl Seasons
:� Resort, Inc. (hereinafter "Applicant"); and
;:� W9EREAS, on March 11, 1986, the Pitkin County Planning and L.'.`�:
„�� Zoning Commission reviewed the above application at a public ;;' ..
:yjj hearing and gave consideration to ublic comment �% >
p given at the,
>� public hearing; and
�'! WHERSAS, the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
>�� recomnended denial to the Board oE the Pomegrattate Inn General _�
^ ,; :;
~,-,� Submission, Scenic Foreground Special Review and Rezoning '
request; and
�•'� WAEREAS, at the public hearing before the Board, the Boaid , ,,,:.;
�°� did consider public comment given at the hearinq.
, � NOW, THEREFORE, BE ZT RESOLVED by the Board, that it does �
.�� 4-
hereby deny the Pomegranate Inn Rezoning, Scenic Foreground
;�.� �
:� Specia2 Review and Genera2 Submission request based on the
� following reasons: �
� s'
- � 1. Two legal tests foc a rezoning are a change in the "
a� existing conditions of t�e neighborhood and conformance
with the Master Plan, neither of which are apparent
. °:� from this application.
-� f ' .
_ _ �� i,;'
....._ �
.�
����� _ _. __ _ _
' ---... .
� � �
} �. . � . . . . .
`�ti.�.r.�::� - ' .
�'Y:}:45�"'_ . . ' � . . .
a� . - . . - . . . , ..
..:r�..,:. . .. .
. ...,µy�w::' . . .
tsfl. ,
�� .
� � .
:��.�. 1 . � � .
T� �
n
��
rf7��
Px ,�r� . . . � ..
�yr . .. - . -.. .
�. .� I
�,
„r�'
:��,�';r . ,
. . *; - �:. � r�yt � t �, ,
:i'��"?��C�'y�� ' `�`� � � 4*1tY `�'.{V�'°i�"al��Y��'������t�”
4:, F .
� �t�
1� ���•1 'TS
- � .. .. ��x�Y,. � '�' < A �.,'�. � .. i�h�. rdt .,.�,��.RY��`.'�,eASt. .
. .._ _. a. _ :r���'�LI.'�,..,,., ., ..
ecoK �?.4 �r,�:7�1
' Resolution No. 86-52
Page Z
2. The rezoning of the State Highway 82 Corridor in the �
1970's was instituted because the Planning Commission f' •
and Board of County Commissioners recognized at that
- ° � time that additional density was inappropriate for the
:� entrance to Aspen. Current plans indicate no change in
� this community attitude towards this important policy !
.� issue. ! ' .
� 3. In 1982, the Planning Office undertook a Short-Term j;
Accomnodations Report, which gave the County a chance i
'i:� to look at whether the subject property should be i.• "' :
rezoned to allow er.pansion of lodge #acilities. Within '
;_ry.
the City the outcome of the study was the creation of " `
-�-� the L-3 zone district which made small lodges conf orm- '
�.. ing uses and pzovided f or their limited expansion. By =� '
;�� comparison� in the County after consideration, a + �, •
�^`- decision was made to create a mechanism for short-term `� �
accommodations to make major structural improvements ,
{Section 7-1.20) but the P�Z and Board of Couttty
Commissioners consciously decided not to rezone non- : '
'M: conforming lodges such as the Pomegranate Inn, Holiday �
inn, and Park Meadows to conf orming status because of
�;���L':� the inappropriateness of providing for potential �
?. � expansioe. The County found that due to the larqe
'�:=:.� quantities of vacant, pasture land on othec parcels
•:�r� around the short-term accomo�odation uses a rezoning to
conforming status would create the precedent for
'.;?`..� significant additional new lodge development on -�
- adjacent land. The deve2opment patterns for short-term
'� facilities in the County weze found to be distinctly 4';
different than those along rlain Street and in the east �
and west Aspen neighborhoods in which the L-3 lodges
= were located and accounts for the different strategy '
•`,- which was adopted by the County.
!;.`;.
��;`� 4. In 1965, the State Highway 62 Cocridor 1Naster Plan was
`.�!:l� adopted in ocder to accomplish the following:
'�`'�# a. To plan the most visually pleasing entrance to the
`';� Aspen resort.
'� b. To encourage additional growth to occur in
'L specified areas designated Skiing Acea Support �
'' � Facilities (SSF), Cluster Residential (CR) and Low
;:,q Density Cluster Residential (LDCR) while dis- �
"`,� cauragiag significant additional growth in the
_ areas designated Resource Conservation (RC1 which
;"� is the designation of the Pomegranate inn property
on the Master Plan.
,r� , _
c. The Master Plan recognized that the Park Meadows
•�
::�
....._ ,~:,�.� �4. -
t '
�
5 lr,�Kl...._-....�....�. ... .. .... ...... ... . . . . . .. . . . � �
�nu _ ,. .
-� � ' • .
� - .
'�:; ,
y,.y
3 .: �
✓�:.... � �
fM.' . .
1i;?'i:•
a
1��
�..:::.�..�i' ',. . .•'. .
Yt ,
v - _
;'.,%,� i
{.,t•.:.'` ' .
��. _ .
���� .
�
�'ar�,l;t; . , .
. . ' _ a� -s -��fl'. e'��'ii�" �r,�S"Y^ �, �F
, �, . . � ��I '� �n h i Jy�r.7}i
� : f yca
. . .��i' ~ h', �y� . �I-+ T• 'fi �,� `,���14..r .
> �ps��hy .�.
�ir:.. . ..t :.��' ... . . �'°,' .. . ... . ..�.� . .
i
ecox .`�'�.4 �:,c,7�.�1
, Resolution No. 86-52
! Page 3 �
i �
Y and Pomegranate Inn were located within the RC .
district and made a conscious decision that �- '
although the uses would continue to exist they
� would not be recognized on the future land use map
nor would expansion of such uses be permitted.
� Therefore, for the above stated reasons the Board i
� determined that the expansion of the Pomegranate Inn is
'' inconsistent with the recently adopted State Highway 82 ` �
. .:y Corridor Master Plan. �,` ,
�... ..°_.
�°�•� 5. The existing development is inconsistent with the `� �
Pitkitt County Land Use Code's review criteria for the
�'r Scenic Foreground, therefore, it would be inappropriate _ -
�� to expand the use. The property is almost totally
r:� within the Scenic Foreground area as designated on the .
� officially adopted County Zoning Maps. The proposed -
areas of expansion are placed more towards the back of
the site, however, the entire development has not been
;I✓� located to be the greatest possible distance from State ? ,
Highway 82 through the relocation of the existing ; 3
building.
;r.l ;,
,`-�?� APPROVED by the Board at its continued regular meeting on ;� �.
-,
June 9, 1986. t
..�� ;.: .
zfi ATTEST: BOARD OP CODPTY CO!!!lISSIONBRS ''
OF PITICIN RADO " .
. :;:�
By
`.,� Lew Scanlan, Deputy County lerk 2en . anderad, �
� Chairwoma '"�
Y'.� y
�-�:� APPROVED AS TO FORliI• RE(70MME ED FOR APPROVAL: �
;
;:� �s°.�.,.�.��, ..�4 �--=�-
`,?5 Thomas F. Smith, County Attorney Alan Richman, Planning and �'
"'� Development Director
�:`
� CH.15 `
� �; �
� � .
,:�
.� ,3• '
.�._� .�� �
� .� .._.-.� �,:—.._..._. . . .. . ..
<< '
:.,�. _ w _ ,
L �r _i'.' "
�,
. .�,.N.�;r=�':.�"- . . .
ai . .
i � -
ga .
+�:;!(:�i.! _ . . 1. ._ ' , . .
E:�;."`.
��
3
iR
�j�' : � . ... . ... .
.;+:vq'.�. ' . .
"-f '
..�� 'Ij ,
ia
i•