HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse.code amendment.Teague Code Interpretation.14A-89 ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFF
130 South Galena Sireet
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
LAND USE APPLICATION F EES
city
00113 -63250-134 GMP/CONCEPTUAL
-63270-136 GMP/FINAL
-63280-137 SUB/CONCEPTUAL
-63300-139 SUB/FINAL
-63310-140 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63320-141 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 -63340-190 HOUSING
00115 -63340-163 ENGINEERING
SUBTOTAL
County
00113 -63160-126 GMP/GENERAL
-63 1 70-1 27 GMP/DETAILED
-63180-128 GMP/FINAL
-63190-129 SUB/GENERAL
-63200-130 SUB/DETAILED
-63210-131 SUB/FINAL
-63220-132 ALL 2-STEP APPLICATIONS
-63230-133 ALL 1-STEP APPLICATIONS/
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
-63450-146 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
REFERRAL FEES:
00125 -63340-205 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
00123 -63340-190 HOUSING
00113 -63360-143 ENGINEERING
PLANNING OFFICE SALES
00113 -63080-122 CITY/COUNTY CODE
-63090-123 COMP. PLAN
-63140-124 COPY FEES
-69000-145 OTHER
Name:
Address: ~ ~
Check # . .
Additional billing:'
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
Phone:
Project:
Date:
r
x,~,
CASEIAAD SUMMARY SHEET `~
City of Aspen
~' DATE RECEIVED: 3 14 89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE;_3 ~~~8 14A-89
STAFF MEMBER'
PROJECT NAME: Teague Code Interpretation Appeal
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT:-- Harrv Teague
Applicant Address.
REPRESENTATIVE: Marty Pickett
Representative Address/Phone:_315 E. Human
Aspen. CO 81611 5-8166
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: 5100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date ~I~o PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
~~ Cit
Att
y
orney
City Engineer Mtn. Bell
P
k School District
Housing Dir. ar
s Dept.
Holy Cross Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Aspen Water
Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Consol. Energy Center
S.D_
DATE REFERRED: 3/0?0%9 INITIALS: ~~
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: S~~ S'~L:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
1 -- .~
Case Disposition
On April 24, the Aspen City Council determined that Harry
Teague's practice constituted an artist's studio and should
therefore be permitted in the SCI zone district. Council found
that the applicant's practice included hands on assembly of
internal building elements, including furniture building and
therefore did not fit into a typical office location. The
Council specifically noted that this action was not intended to
set a precedent for other, more traditional architectural offices
to locate in the SCI zone district.
,-
April 19, 1989
Cit_v Council
C/0 Alan Richmond
Aspen Pitkin Planning Office
130 S Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
llear Council Members,
1 am currently running my business at North
is my upstairs neighbor. I am aware of th
is running and have been in and around his
in. I feel his operation fits in very well
the tenants here do. As an Architect
unique. He tends to be a hands on kind of
to use his own tools and employees in the
did on his space. His space is more like a
capability to put together interior design
to do so.
Mill St. Harry Teague
kind of operation he
space since he moved
with what the rest of
Harry's operation is
Architect, preferring
painting and work he
workshop and has the
pieces if he chooses
I feel Harry is an asset to the building and 1 support whatever
is necessary to allow him to remain in his space.
i Y
~ti
John C. Gordon
P.O. Box 1948
Aspen, CO 81612
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Teague Appeal of Planning Director Interpretation
DATE: April 19, 1989
SUMMARY: Staff recommends denial of the applicant's appeal of an
interpretation of the Code by the Planning Director.
BACKGROUND: Attached is a letter from Marty Pickett, on behalf
of Harry Teague, appealing to Council an interpretation of the
Code which I have issued. The request for the interpretation and
the appeal are both authorized by Article 11 of the Aspen Land
Use Regulations.
Bob Gish, Building Official and Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer,
provide the following additional background information. About
six months ago, a representative of Mr. Teague's office met with
the Building Department and Planning and Zoning Office to
determine what would be required to convert the space previously
occupied by Frankie Stein's for use by Mr. Teaque's practice.
Bill Drueding and Cindy Houben informed the applicant that a
professional office is a prohibited use in the SCI zone district.
Approximately two months ago, a
space was being occupied by Mr.
that the space had indeed been
complaint was received that the
Teague's practice. Staff found
converted, although a building
permit application had not been made for the construction.
The owner was notified of the violation but the case was not
prosecuted. Instead, the City staff agreed Mr. Teague could seek
resolution of the matter through a zoning action. Subsequently,
the subject Code interpretation was submitted. If this appeal is
denied, the applicant will be required to vacate the space.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The attached letter from the applicant and
my response explain the basic issue being appealed. The case can
be summarized as follows.
1. The applicant wishes to use two units in the building at 412
N. Mill Street as the location for his architectural firm.
2. The property is zoned SCI. Article 3 of the Code defines an
architect's practice as a professional office, which is a
prohibited use in this zone district.
r•.
3. The applicant believes the practice can be classified as an
"artist's studio", or as a "shop craft industry", which are
permitted uses in the SCI zone district. The letter of
February 23 notes that Mr. Teague's work includes
"constructivist" design services, such as hands on assembly
of portions of interior design elements.
2 visited the building in order to better understand how
this space accommodates Mr. Teague's practice. There is
little doubt that this "loft" environment is well suited to
this practice's hands on assembly activities. However, the
architectural design aspects of the practice, including
model building, are typically accomplished in an office
environment and need not be permitted in this zone district.
4. My interpretation is that since an architect's practice has
been defined by the Code to be a professional office, it
cannot also be interpreted to have another meaning. There
are several zones in the City which permit offices, these
being the CC, C-1, Office and NC districts.
5. The applicant believes this interpretation to be "rigid" by
not allowing for the spirit of the Code to be considered.
In this respect, I would note that it is the intent of the
SCI zone district to provide for service commercial uses of
the type that are being pushed out of Aspen's core by
continually escalating rental prices. While these escalating
prices may have also pushed Mr. Teague's practice to this
location, I feel we must reserve the SCI and NC zone
districts for the "essential services" which keep Aspen
functioning. The community should create incentives to
encourage the location of such services in this area, while
continuing to closely regulate the uses permitted in the
Office zone district, so it can provide for office needs.
Given the commercial displacement we are experiencing, it is
particularly important that we make every effort to resist
further encroachment of uses allowed in other zones into the
SCI zone district. To understand the problem, one only has
to look at the erosion of this zone district which has
already taken place, as former "downtown" uses such as
bicycle shop and video store have relocated into existing
buildings off Mill Street (an activity which, incidentally,
does not even get reviewed for zoning compliance unless a
building permit is needed for internal remodeling).
Permitting professional offices in this zone district will
only make it that much more difficult for us to retain local
serving commercial zone districts for those uses which no
longer can afford the CC or C-1 zones and push such uses to
the Airport Business Center and beyond.
2
6. Because the SCI zone district permits hazardous uses (such
as welding, limited fabrication and industrial dry cleaning)
to occur, should this use be permitted, it will require
substantial building upgrades to be made (such as a three
hour fire separation). These improvements may make future
occupancy of this space by service commercial uses cost
prohibitive in the event Mr. Teague's practice vacates it.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council is inclined to support the applicant's
appeal, we suggest that you identify some aspect of this practice
which differentiates it from other architectural practices. For
example, the applicant could demonstrate that his practice either
now or in the future is intended to be more oriented towards
hands on construction activities than to basic architectural
services. Unless this is accomplished, we fear that this will be
just the first of many similar practices which will relocate to
this less expensive, but still desirable area.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "Move to confirm the interpretation of the
Code provided by the Planning Director to Harry Teague."
CITY MANAGERS COMMENTS: __ ~ i/DNGU/'. rn~yn Sp" ,/GL;' UP.f,Q ~y / i,
~° ~? I d[ f l r~/~ ~ Jw S ~S9-Na-~r a./ i ~ T~i~'~ ~~f~ ~ o
teagueappeal
3
~'
\ ~
w/
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
MARTHA C. PIC KETT
HAND-DELIVERED
March 9, 1989
Aspen City Council
c/o Mr. Alan Richman, Director
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Appeal of Decision Dated February 28, 1989
Regarding Code Interpretation
Dear City Council Members:
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8186
TELEFAX 925-1090
Please accept this letter as a request to appeal an
interpretation by Alan Richman, Planning Director, of a zoning
provision under the Aspen Municipal Code. I requested the
interpretation pursuant to §4-501(5) of Article 11 of the Aspen
Municipal Code. I have enclosed for your reference my request for
interpretation, dated February 23, 1989, and Alan Richman's
response, dated February 28, 1989.
I believe the enclosed letters set forth in detail the request
for interpretation, and Alan's rationale and decision. However,
I submit that this appeal is appropriate because Alan's
interpretation is based upon a rigid application of the zoning Code,
and does not allow for the fact that the spirit of the Code, and
specifically the SCI Zone, is being met by allowing the requested
use by Harry Teague. The Applicant will be available at your
scheduled meeting to hear this matter, and to answer any additional
questions you may have regarding this matter. If the Planning
Office requests further information prior to the City Council
meeting, we are more than willing to accommodate by having meetings,
or providing additional information to the Planning staff. Thank
you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
MCP/bw
Enclosures
cc: Harry Teague
cc: Bob Gish
cc: Bill Dreuding
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
APR OFESSIONAL CORPORATION
BOX 10001
315 EAST HVMAN AVENUE. SUITE 303
ASPE N,COLORA00 SI811
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Rrofessi~onal Corporation
By
rtha
cc: Fred Gannett
i~
Aspen/Pitk
130
aspe
~ ~. ~
~~
nning Office
,fi street
r ~ 81611
February 28, 1989
Martha C. Pickett
315 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 305
Aspen, CO, 81611
Dear Marty,
I have reviewed your letter dated February 23, 1989, in which you
request that I make a Code interpretation pursuant to Section 11-
101 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Following is my response
to your request.
The situation you have described to me is as follows. Your
client, Harry Teague recently purchased two units in the building
at 412 Mill Street, zoned SCI. Harry wishes to use this space
for his architectural firm, but the Zoning Official finds this to
be a prohibited use in the zone district. You ask that I make an
interpretation of the Aspen Land Use Regulations to find that an
architect is an artist. Since artist's studio is a permitted use
in the SCI zone district, this permits Harry's office to be
located there. You also suggest that I could find this use to be
a "shop craft industry" which is also a permitted use in the SCI
zone district.
Article 3 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, Definitions,
provides me the necessary guidance in this matter. According to
this Article, "Office, professional means a building for use by
those such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, architects,
engineers, accountants and other professionals who primarily
provide services, rather than products". It is a fundamental
principle of zoning that a defined term not be found to have
another, undefined meaning. Therefore, I find an architect's
office to be a professional office and not an artist's studio.
Since professional office is a permitted use in the CC, C-1 and
Office zone district but is not listed as a permitted or
conditional use in the SCI zone district, the Code requires it be
considered a prohibited use in that zone.
This determination is consistent with the reasoning in permitting
artist's studios in the SCI zone district. It was the intention
to permit creative individuals to live and work in a "loft" type
of environment, as is occurring in many cities across the
country. Permitting a professional office to locate in this zone
~.
February 28, 1989
Page 2
would price out these other types of uses and cause undesirable
traffic impacts not anticipated for this area.
The term shop craft industry is also defined in Article 3. This
term means "any establishment producing one-of-a-kind products
which are hand made or made with limited mechanical assistance.
This includes but is not limited to cloth and basket weaving,
pottery making, glass blowing and ceramics". I find that it is
clearly stretching the meaning of this term to include "assembly
of interior design elements" within this definition. Since, by
the definition of professional office, an architect provides
primarily services, not products, and since the products are not
arts or crafts but adjuncts to the basic architectural service,
the use is not a shop craft industry.
Pursuant to Section 11-101 F of the Land Use Regulations, you are
authorized to appeal my interpretation to the Aspen City Council.
If you decide to take this course of action, you have 30 days to
submit a letter of appeal to me, accompanied by a fee of $100.
Once I receive these materials, I can schedule you for the next
available Council regular meeting.
Should you choose not to appeal this decision and instead to look
for another solution, such as submission of a Code Amendment,
members of this office will be happy to assist you by scheduling
a pre-application conference. Please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
A1~R~chman, AICP
Planning Director
cc: Bill Drueding
Cindy Houben
Fred Gannett
Ron Mitchell
pickettltr
,-~ ..,,
°v~
W.J
OIDEON I. KAUFMAN
MARTHA C. PICKETT
kIAND-DELIVERED
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
APR OFE8810 NAL CORPORATION
TELEPHONE
RO%10001 AREA CODE 303
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305 925-8188
ASPEN, COLORADO 81811 TELEFAK 925-1090
February 23, 1989
Mr. Alan Richman
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Request for Interpretation of Provision
Under Aspen Municipal Code
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to §4-501(5), and Article 11 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, this letter is a request for your interpretation of a zoning
provision of the Code.
Under §5-211, the purpose of the service/commercial/industrial
(S/C/I) zone district, is to allow for "development of limited
commercial and industrial uses which do not require, or generate,
high customer traffic volume, and to permit customary accessory
uses, including residential dwelling units." Furthermore, permitted
uses include "artists' studios shop-craft industry and
similar uses."
Our client, Harry Teague, recently purchased Units 8 and to of
the P1cFarland Condominiums, located at 412 Mill Street, in the SCI
zone. Harry's intention in purchasing this space was to use it as a
working artists' studio for his architectural firm. The zoning
office has determined that Harry's architectural business is not a
permitted use in the SCI zone. We submit that an architect is an
artist, and falls within the SCT zoning premitted uses. Furthermore,
klarry is expanding a very unique arm of his business, which is to
offer a "hands on", constructivist design service in which he
assembles portions of interior design elements. This is a
characteristic of Barry's business which has basically zoned kiim out
of a typical office/professional zone district, and for which he
needs the SCI zoning parameters.
On behalf of Harry Teague, I hereby request that you provide an
interpretation regarding the listed permitted uses for the SCI zone
to determine whether or not Harry's business is permitted under the
"artists' studios, shop-craft industry and similar uses" parameters.
As set forth above, the spirit of the SCI zoning restrictions are
met, and Ilarry's use will not generate high customer traffic.
~~
,~
Mr. Alan Richman
February 23, 1989
Page 2
If you need any additional information, please do not hesitate
to call me. In addition, Harry and I would appreciate an
opportunity to meet with you to discuss this request prior to your
determination. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
By ~
a Atha Pickett
MCP/bw ~
cc: Narry Teague
T
R & I PATTON golclsmit~i3ng
Mongoaec Jct
Boxes Crux Bay
April 22, 1989 5t John,Vt0098Q
(809)778-Bb58
Aspen City Council
c/o Alan Richmond
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office ~ 2 4
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CQ 81611
Qear council members,
My wife and I are artisans that own an ad,loining condominium studio '-!
space in the 412 N. Mill, Andrews-MCFari in Condominium building, we wart
pleased to learn that a creative, energetic, competent, award-wlnning
architect was moving into our building replacing a costume rental operation.
The building is energizing 2nd Inspiring when creatlvltY is emanating Prom
every unit. We all benefit from each other's work.
Harry Teague is already an asset that we would miss greatly. Mot only.
has he brought much energy and enthusiasm into our building's artiatia
community, but also he is committed to improving the appearance of thY
exterior of an admittedly homely building. As h® put it during our inid°wintar
North Mill Artists Association meeting, he is our resource person. A11 tt1*
tenants expressed pleasure at his jaintns our group.
We think that a creative, or ,office such as Mr. Teague's is in
line with the intent of SCI zoning. The entire community will benefit from
such positive energy.
R8I Patton
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
March 20, 1989
Marty Pickett
Law Offices of Gideon Kaufman
315 E. Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Teague Code Interpretation Appeal
Dear Marty,
We have scheduled this appeal for review by the City Council on
Monday, April 10, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 P.M. The
Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a
copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at
the Planning Office.
If you have any questions please call, Alan Richman, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
MEMORANDUM
T0: City Attorney
FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Director
RE: Teague Code Interpretation Appeal
DATE: March 20, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Marty Pickett on behalf of her client, Harry Teague, appealing
to the City Council a Code Interpretation made by me regarding
the use of her clients property in the SCI Zone District.
Fred, this appeal has been scheduled to be heard by the City
Council on April 10th. Please give me your comments by April 3rd
so that I will have time to prepare a memo for the Council.
Thank you.
{
CASEIAAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3 14 89
DATE COMPLETE' 3 ~'i Ie
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
14A-89
STAFF MEMBER'
PROJECT NAME: Teague Code Interpretation Anneal
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT- Harrv Teague
Applicant.Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Marty Pickett
Representative Address/Phone: 315 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611 5-8166
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: S100.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED:
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP:
2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
CC Meeting Date X110 PUBLIC HEARING: YES
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption:
NO
NO
NO
NO
Paid:
Date:
~/ City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol.
S.D_
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED: 3 /oZd~~ q INITIALS: ~~
FIN/AL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: INITIAL:
~! City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
_ Housing Other'
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
R .+
M E M O
TO: Bob Gish, Chief Building Official
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official
DATE: February 3, 1989
RE: Permit #109, 412 North Mill Street
On December 12, 1988, owner, Harry Teague, applied for a building
permit to remove a kitchen from a dwelling unit. This was in
violation of the current demolition moratorium. The permit also
stated the change of use from "retail" to "office". An office is
not a permitted use in the S/C/I zoning category.
I advised one of Mr. Teague's employees of this problem. The
person subsequently met with Cindy Houben and me and was advised
of the above Code infractions.
On February 2, 1989, at their request, I met with Marty Pickett
and Harry Teague at Unit 8, 412 North Mill Street. The kitchen
was removed; walls were built and electrical wiring was
completed. Permit #109 was still in my hand. Mr. Teague would
not disclose who did the work, but stated it was done
professionally and to Code.
I have a zoning enforcement problem which I am currently dealing
with. I want you to be advised of the obvious disregard for the
building code. I will assist with information in whatever steps
you pursue concerning this matter. I am returning the permit and
plans to your department.
cc: Fred Gannett, City Attorney
Francis Krizmanich, Chief Zoning Official
Alan Richman, Planning Director
M E M O
TO: Bob Gish, Chief Building Official
FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Official
DATE: February 3, 1989
RE: Permit #109, 412 North Mill Street
On December 12, 1988, owner, Harry Teague, applied for a building
permit to remove a kitchen from a dwelling unit. This was in
violation of the current demolition moratorium. The permit also
stated the change of use from "retail" to "office". An office is
not a permitted use in the S/C/I zoning category.
I advised one of Mr. Teague's employees of this problem. The
person subsequently met with Cindy Houben and me and was advised
of the above Code infractions.
On February 2, 1989, at their request, I met with Marty Pickett
and Harry Teague at Unit 8, 412 North Mill Street. The kitchen
was removed; walls were built and electrical wiring was
completed. Permit #109 was still in my hand. Mr. Teague would
not disclose who did the work, but stated it was done
professionally and to Code.
I have a zoning enforcement problem which I am currently dealing
with. I want you to be advised of the obvious disregard for the
building code. I will assist with information in whatever steps
you pursue concerning this matter. I am returning the permit and
plans to your department.
cc: Fred Gannett, City Attorney
Francis Krizmanich, Chief Zoning Official
Alan Richman, Planning Director
~I.TNt/t i ~ `~_
~, ~~ ~
~- v~ f~
~. i ~'.
~ -~ ~`r
',y
,. ..
~ ~r,nan~~ .._._--~~..,,,._..__.r..,..
F Al ~~ ~ ~....-.-..~--_ _
1993 '._..."~Y-^ '.' '
~~ ~+......... me . ..
~a' -~~~ C~ ~~ E ; i
1/19/89
TO WHOM IT Nu'~Y ~ ~~NCF,RN
JAtJ 2 6
RE: Conversion of "ARTIST STUDIO?HOiJ~ING UNIT"
on Mill ST. at Puppy Smith intersect.ic:n (in South
metal prefab/ 2nd fl North end) :.o =rofessional
Office Space.
WHY after a great deal of concern and deliberation
by Council & P&Z has this Specially C.r.eated DWELLING
USE been allowed to be cc;nverted back into Office Use?
Does pres~>nt zoning even allow OFFICE USES around the
adjacent Art Museum & Public Open Space?
k'3dlt
WHY, wihh all the uproar about tt~e constant erosion of
employee housing ha8 a Council Created Employee Housing
Unit been allowed to covertly disappear? How can Council
criticize and legislate against developers who tear down
employee units when they do not even protect their own?
WHERE do you suggest an artist can afford to live and
work in Aspen?
WHY dines tt~e employee always get screwed in this city?
Has Councils best intentions gone awry again# because
of lax watchdogs in the building department?
cc: Mayor & City Council
Building Department ATTN: B. Druidng
A. Biggford Aspen Daily News
Chairman: P&Z
Respectfully,
an Anonymous Artist Citizen
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
MARTHA C. PIC KETT
HAND-DELIVERED
G IDEON I. KAUFMAN
APROFESSIONAL CORPOR ATION
Dox loool
315 EAST HUMAN AVENUE. SUITE 305
ASPEN, COLOflADO 81811
February 8, 1989
Mr. Bill Dreuding, Zoning Officer
13o South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Harry Teague's McFarland Condominium Unit
Dear Bill:
F E B O s 1989
BUIl1?11tiG
P ODE 303
9258186
TELEFA% 925-1090
This letter is pursuant to your request that we summarize for
you the steps which we are taking in an attempt to resolve and rectify
the zoning and building violations by Harry Teague. Last Thursday
afternoon, February 2, when we met at Harry's unit, you explained
the history of some of the problems with the building and the uses
involved. You indicated that it was your interpretation that
removal of the stove had deleted a dwelling unit, and that, although
the refrigerator and sink had been replaced, in order to comply to
replace the dwelling unit, a two burner appliance must be installed.
IJo oven would be required. You did make it clear that a microwave
would not be an adequate replacement. Harry is in the process of
acquiring a two burner to be installed pursuant to that discussion.
You also indicated that we needed to deal with Bob Gisti directly
on Building Department issues. Meanwhile, Mr. Gish provided lJarry
with a correction notice referring to his constuction without a
Building Permit and zoning issues. I immediately contacted Bob and
Fred Gannett regarding the notice, and Fred asked that I do not do
anything else until he had an opportunity to talk with Bob.
Yesterday afternoon, February 7, Fred Gannett called me while Bob
Gish was in his office to discuss how to address the Building
Department violations. Fred asked that Harry and I meet with you
and Bob Gish as soon as possible to determine what safety violations
are involved, and what would be required to bring Barry's unit up to
Code. Fred stated that the $46.80 Building Permit fee needs to be
paid, and the Building Permit Application on file needs to be signed.
He also stated that Harry needs to pay the 3% use tax. Barry will
attempt to get these items completed as soon as possible. Fred
stated that it appears there has been no Co provided for the unit.
He said that Bob Gish might be able to issue a conditional Co upon
compliance with tl~e safety issues. I immediately talked with Bob
Gish and scheduled the 10:00 meeting this morning with you and harry.
Also, after our meeting on Thursday, I contacted Cindy Houben.
She and I met Monday afternoon at 4:00. At that meeting, slie stated
that she felt the only route available to harry is to process a Code
amendment which will taY.e approximately three to six months.
Mr. Bill Dreudinq
February 8, 1989
Page 2
On Tuesday, February 7, Gideon and I had several telephone
conversations with Fred Gannett regarding these matters. Fred has
indicated that the Building Department violations are serious ones
which we need to address, and obviously Harry Teague is prepared to
deal with rectifying that situation. He realizes that he made a
mistake, and knows that he must pay the consequences. On the other
hand, Fred has indicated that he feels there may be some flexibility
in the interpretation of the zoning ordinance, or possibly an
institutional Code amendment to allow for a use such as Harry's
whereby he has an office use with a portion of his activities being
uses which are permitted in this zone.
The SCI zone has had a controversial and complex history since
its adoption in the mid-1970s. There have been a lot of
interpretations as to the intent of that zone, as well as the
permitted uses, including changes that took place as late as 1983.
There is a possibility that the use that kiarry is proposing may, in
fact, fall within the intent of the modifications in 1983, and we
are attempting to ascertain that through investigation and review.
In the event it turns out that there is no clear understanding as to
the ability of Harry's use to fall within the intent of the zone
district, then, as Fred has indicated, there may be some flexibility
in the zone ordinance or a Code modification may be necessary.
Harry's business is unique in that he is a very "hands on"
architect, building prototypes or actual items for interior he
designs. Harry intends to greatly expand this characteristic
of his business, which would render it difficult to impossible
to function in a traditional "office" building, and was a major
consideration in seeking out the McFarland unit.
We look forward to additional meetings with Fred, you, Bob
Gish, and the City Manager regarding these issues and how they
should be resolved to be in everyone's best interest. Thank
you for your continuing cooperation in this matter. I trope
this letter sheds some light on the diligence of Harry Teague
and this office to address these problems, and attempt to
resolve them in a reasonable manner.
Sincerely,
LAW OFFICES OF GIDEON I. KAUFMAN, P.C.,
a Professional Corporation
.-.
By
MCP/bw
cc: Cindy tiouben
cc: Bob Gish
cc: Fred Gannett
cc: harry Teague
C. Picket
.~,
ASPEN~PITKIN
REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT
L~ I;ORRECTION NOTICE
~ STOfP WORK ORDER
~I ~/y ;~Gvc--
Job Located at 4i2 i~ • ~i~~~--~T -
I have this day inspected this structure and these premises and
have found the following violations of City, County and/or
r,.i...~rh Rfafo laws nnvernina same:
c
~5'~crton 3o7(~J Nu Cx~=TrFCC.~zY
Off' Occ / p~t/~y l S S iJCO
~$E~rfo~ So 3 (A) ~O~~~e-M~
B/~SCCF B h D c~y d H+~ ~y ~~ T
,DCFcvt~D .
GdoeK ~dsT Bc% Co,Kr~r~ BY
!-..l~eaised Co~tn~ra.c i,v ><lsocry
Respond By ~!2 _B 9 Photos Taken: Yes ~ No f~
Please Contact ~6 ~-7/Sf-f qZ0 "S~{-.~Z
You are hereby notifiedthatn more work may be done upon the
premises until the above violations are corrected. If you do not
communicate with this office by the above date, this matter will be
referred to the appropriate authorities for enforcement. Failure to
correct the violations may subject you to a civil suit for an injunc-
tion, or a fine, or both; or to misdemeanor criminal prosecution,
which upon conviction may carry a sentence of fine or imprison-
ment, or both.
//.~1~ ~ ~/l 2<6 8
Inspector for Builds 9 Department
Building Departure t Phone 925-2020
Time of Day 3- ~ ~~ Aspen, Colorado 81611
DO NOT REMOVE THIS TAG
Detach and bring this portion to the Building Department
Location ~/Z ~ ~L~ ~Q~_~T
(yLT2F0VT 8~l( e 4 1~e-G..miT
pcau ~T ,99a! ~~rno N