HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.1039 E Cooperappeal.004-00
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL In #
CASE NAME
PROJECT ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE TYPE
OWNER/APPLICANT
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
PZ ACTION
ADMIN ACTION
BOA ACTION
DATE CLOSED
BY
A041-01
Appeal of Coates, Reid, and Waldron Admin. Decision
1039 E. Cooper
James Lindt
Appeal of Admin Decision
Don Policaro
5/17/01
Decision Upheld
6/1/01
J. Lindt
Jt-
I)1'eJd 5~{)
RESOLUTION NO. Ol-i
Series of 2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
UPHOLDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ADMINISTRATIVE
DECISION NOTICE IN CASE NUMBER ~1 ^?,RELATING TO COATES, REID, AND
WALDRON'S ALLEGED EXPANSION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE AT THE
PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS UNIT 43ABC AT THE CHATEAU ROARING FORK,
AND UNIT 30 AT THE CHATEAU EAU CLAIRE
00 - 0 tf
WHEREAS, Don policaro made application for an appeal of an
administrative decision by the Community Development Director,
dated April 18, 2001.
WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the Board of
Adjustment on May 17, 2001, and after full deliberations and
consideration of the evidence and testimony presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. Findings of Fact.
The Board of Adjustment makes the following findings of
fact:
1. The request for appeal was initiated on April 18, 2001
by: Don policaro, Aspen, Colorado.
2. Notice of the proposed variance has been provided to
the appellant and by publication to all other affected
parties in accordance with Section 26-304-060 (E) (3) of the
Aspen Municipal Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with
the City Clerk.
3. The Board of Adjustment has determined that City Staff
followed due process in issuing the decision notice dated
March 18, 2001 and issuing an amended decision notice dated
April 5, 2001.
4. The Board of Adjustment has determined that City Staff
did not exceed it's jurisdiction or abuse it's authority in
this matter.
The Board determined that findings above were satisfied and
the Community Development Director's Decision Notice dated
April 5, 2001 was therefore upheld by a vote of!2~.
Section 2. Request for Variances Approved.
The Board of Adjustment does hereby uphold the Community
Development Director's Administrative Decision dated April 5,
2001 in regards to the complaint filed against Coates, Reid,
and Waldron by Don policaro.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of Adjustment
of the City of Aspen on the 17th day of May, 2001.
Chairperson
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy
City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
copy of that resolution adopted by the Board of Adjustment of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove
stated.
Deputy City Clerk
2
Approved as to content:
Assistant City Attorney
3
CITY OF ASPEN BUARD OF ADJUSTMENT
.-
May 17. 2001
DECLARATION OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST .............................................................................................. I
CASE 00-04 -APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF
COATES, REID & W ALDRON AT THE CHATEAU ROARING FORK .......................................................... I
8
~
/'-
-.,
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD 6-/ ADJUSTMENT
May 17,2001
Charles Paterson opened the Board of Adjustment meeting of May 17, 2001 with
Jim Iglehart, Bill Murphy, Howard DeLuca and Mark Hesselschwerdt present.
David Schott and Rick Head were excused. Staff in attendance: David Hoefer
Assistant City Attorney; James Lindt, Joyce Ohlson, Julie Ann Woods, Community
Development and Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy City Clerk.
DECLARATION OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST
None stated.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
Case 00-04 -APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RELATED
TO THE OPERATION OF COATES, REID & WALDRON AT THE
CHATEAU ROARING FORK
Charles Paterson, Chairman, opened the public hearing for Case 00-04. David
Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it was important to note that this was an
unusual type of case for the Board of Adjustment to hear because it was not based
on the merits of the appeal. Hoefer said that the board was the decision making
body authorized to hear the appeal based solely upon the record established by the
body from which the appeal was taken (the documents that were in the packet).
Hoefer noted that the decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified
unless that there was a finding of denial of due process, which was not being
contested here; or that the administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction or abused
its Hesselschwerdt ration. Hoefer asked if it was the abuse of discretion that was
the issue here. Julie Ann Woods replied that she suspected that was the issue.
Hoefer stated that for there to be an abuse of discretion there had to be a finding for
no evidence in support of the administrative decision. Hoefer said that even if the
board did not agree with the evidence, or agree with the community development
ruling, if there was any evidence the way community development ruled, the board
had to rule in favor of community development decision.
James Lindt provided the history of this case with the complaint reviewed by this
board last year in May but was left open if the complainant brought forth-new
evidence, then it could be reconsidered. Lindt stated that Coates, Reid and
Waldron (CRW) was determined last year by Sarah Oates that they were a non-
conforming legal use. He said that the reason they were a legal non-conforming
use was that in 1974 the zoning ofCRW's facility at the Chateau Roaring Fork was
changed from AR-l to RFM. In the AR-I zone district professional offices were
allowed, property management offices were considered professional offices. Lindt
said that when the RMF zone district was changed it did not include professional
offices as a permitted use. Lindt said that last year John French made the offer that
CRW would just do property management out of the Chateau Roaring Fork facility
1
.
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 17,2001
for their units in the Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire. Lindt said
that was the best solution because it was hard to determine the intensity of the use
of that facility in 1974. Staff still felt it was the best solution even though Don
Policaro provided new evidence that shows the increased number of washers and
dryers since 1974. Stafffelt thatthey had to look at the property management use
in the entirety, which includes laundry, storage, bookkeeping, and an onsite
manager in residence. Lindt said that there was a decrease in square footage that
was applied to the property management use because the unit next to it was used
for property management and that it was no longer used for property management.
Lindt stated that community development felt that due process was not denied to
the complainant and that they had not exceeded their jurisdiction.
Don Policaro provided the history of the property from 1965 and provided a map.
He said that the Chateau Roaring Fork was built in 1969; in 1974 Nick Coates had
the Chateau Roaring Fork, Dumont, Chaumont and Eau Claire. Policaro said that
the Dumont and Chaumont had their own laundry facility and an on-site office.
The Chateau Roaring Fork had it's own laundry and had the on-site manager, Mrs.
French lived there. Policaro said that James Lindt came to the conclusion that they
could do laundry for 73 units; he disagreed with this because he owned one of
those units and they did not take care of his laundry. Policaro said that the way the
non-conforming code read was that if they go down in use then that was the level
but non-conformities could not be expanded. Policaro stated that in 1978 there
was a building permit that took 6 months for the gas lines, washers and dryers. He
said the original permit that showed there were 2 washers and 2 dryers and that
was what he wanted them to go back down to because the laundry was what
created the problems. He said that he had videotape showing that they did laundry
for other buildings but did not bring it with him. He said that they were allowed to
do other things from this facility. He said that the Dumont and Chaumont had their
own washers and dryers and since then Nick Spaulding took over the maintenance
of both of these buildings and Frias might have the Dumont and the Chaumont
now. Policaro said that in 1974 each building was set up to have its own
maintenance and laundry facility.
Policaro said that "the ability to restore" on page 65 in the code stated that any
non-conforming use not associated with a structure may not be restored after
discontinuance period of more than 30 days. Policaro said that right now he
believed CRW only does 10 rentals at the Chateau Roaring Fork and 8 at the Eau
Claire because Mick Spaulding said that he picked up a couple of more properties.
Policaro said that Spaulding does all of the outside common elements maintenance
out of the offices located at 600 East Main Street. Policaro stated that the
neighbors wanted CRW to keep at the level of intensity that they had in 1974,
2
,....
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD ~ ADJUSTMENT
r
......
May 17, 2001
which was a washer and a dryer at the Eau Claire; 2 washers and 2 dryers at the
Roaring Fork because there were 2 buildings. Policaro said that they had nothing
more to do with the Dumont and Chaumont as far as running anything out of there.
Policaro said that the root of the problem was the Roaring Fork because there were
maids that lived there. Policaro said that he lived in the Eau Claire unit above the
laundry that was taken out several years ago. He said that CRW didn't really form
until 1976 or 1977; Nick Coates got the deeds in 1977 and the remodel happened
in 1978. Policaro said that they believed they should be limited to the 10 units that
they manage out of the Roaring Fork and that they should manage the 8 Eau Calire
units on-site like they were in 1974 in their own laundry. He said that this didn't
come about until after 1978 and that was the proof that he has shown. Policaro
said that there was an expanded use by the level of the intensity from 1974 to 1978
when CRW was formed and expanded. Policaro stated that they felt that they
should go through the Rio Grande commercial facility. Policaro stated that the
evidence was provided with hundreds of hours of research for the level of intensity
of this commercial business in a residential neighborhood.
Policaro said that by allowing them to service the Eau Claire out of the Roaring
Fork was unfair and they didn't even have a business license until recently.
Policaro said that he felt that the code should be followed to the letter of the law.
He said that in 1974 they had 4 buildings and right now they don't manage the
outside services of those buildings, which was fine with him. He said that the city
council, community development and the mayor were supposed to protect the
neighborhood. He said that the people at the Roaring Fork didnot want them to
run the business out ofthere. He said that in 1974 the managers lived on site along
with the maids. He said that he had the building permits from the 1978 remodel
and a mound of evidence from 1974.
Hoefer stated that the expansion of use that Mr. Policaro argued was going from 2
washers to more. Hoefer said that community development based the finding on
the ordinance, which stated the enlargement of non-conforming uses by additions
to the area of the structure would be a violation. He said that even if they broke
out walls the area that would be on the interior and the board would have to decide
if that interpretation was reasonable or unreasonable by community development.
Policaro said that provided maintenance increase more than 10% and added 10
washers and dryers; said that the code included the use of non-conformities not
being changed.
Mr. French said that Mr. Policaro had a lot of facts that support the physical
evidence but he said that Mr. Policaro had incorrect guess-timates of the numbers
3
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
May 17,2001
of properties that they managed in 1974. French stated that he worked out of731
East Durant Street in 1974 in the garage and maintained the full maintenance shop
at the Chateau Roaring Fork and the laundry at the Eau Claire. French said that in
1978 the laundries were consolidated with 4 washers and 6 or 7 dryers (3 were
401b. washers and I was a 50Ib). French stated that in 1974 they had operations in
the Roaring Fork, Eau Claire, Chateau Snow, Chaumont, Dumont and a few houses
in the West End with a rough figure of96 units. French said that all the laundry
was run out of the Chateau Roaring Fork and Eau Claire for all ofthose units in
1974. French said that they moved all of the other facilities out of the Chateau
Roaring Fork and Eau Claire. Paterson asked how many units did they do the
laundry for at this time. French replied that Mr. Policaro's estimates were
incorrect, they managed over Y, ofthe 47 units at Roaring Fork and Y, ofthe 30 at
the Eau Claire at the time.
French stated that in March of 1997 there were 14 maintenance and 30
housekeeping people working out of that space. He said that from his payroll
reports in March of 200 1 there were 7 maintenance and 18 housekeeping people on
staff; a 40% reduction of staff. French stated that he and James Lindt went to that
space and there was one gentleman that works out of that on site space who drives
the van.
Hoefer reminded the board that they were only to decide in effect ifthere was
evidence to support the community development decision. Paterson stated that at
the last Board of Adjustment meeting the right was granted that the use ofthe
laundry facility had no increase in usage between last year and now. Paterson
asked if there was an increase in usage. French stated that at that hearing the
decision was that they could service 123 units out of that space because that was
what community development deemed was the level. Policaro asked what proof
was given to community development. French stated that he agreed and facilitated
it on June 15, 2000 down to 73 units; since that time that was what they have done.
Millard Zimet, attorney for CRW, stated that all work that CRW did was done with
valid building permits issued by the government for the City of Aspen and it told
exactly what they were allowed to do. Zimet said that in terms of intensity, if the
board granted what Mr. Policaro wanted (2 washers/2 dryers) and CRW took out
the washers and dryers, it would increase the amount of traffic because all of that
laundry would have to be done somewhere else. Zimet said that it would increase
the impacts on the neighborhood.
Howard DeLuca noted that the numbers from the letters and the statements were
all different and he asked which numbers were real. French replied that his
4
.--..
/
'"
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD lh' ADJUSTMENT
May 17,2001
understanding was that Sarah Oates asked CRW how many units were managed in
1974 and they gave her the names of 4 different condos: the Chateau Chaumont,
Dumont, Eau Claire and the Roaring Fork. French said that Oates went to the
Assessors' Office for the number of units in those four condominiums in 1974.
Policaro said that according to the city attorney it wasn't the number of units but
the level of intensity. Policaro said that he just wanted it to the level that it was at
in 1974.
Policaro stated that CRW no longer managed the common elements, so there was
no reason for the maintenance people to take care of the building, only the units.
Policaro said that there was an awful lot of space down there, and by allowing
these washers and dryers to remain down there, he said that they were leaving the
door open for abuse. Policaro said that the code reads that if it was expanded it
should be un-expanded. He said that they did not have a business license until
recently and at the time of building permit, the business license should be required
because then it would have been noticed that this was a multi-family
neighborhood. Policaro said that Spaulding was also allowed to open up in a
residential neighborhood and that it was never looked at. Policaro felt that it also
was an abuse of discretion.
Policaro said that he appreciated James Lindt's help but didn't agree with the
decision on allowing the Eau Claire laundry to be done at the Roaring Fork
because the Eau Claire did have a washer and dryer at one time and it was taken
out. He said that the washer and dryer should be replaced at the Eau Claire.
Policaro said that CRW became the largest property managers in the valley when it
merged in 1978.
Zimet stated that CRW met with the city attorney, John Worcester, and Larry
Thoreson from the finance department and at said that no business license was
required for this facility because no commercial transactions take place at this
facility. There were no customers at this facility or money changing hands at this
facility but the city attorney disagreed and said that a business license was needed.
Zimet said that CRW applied immediately for a business license for this facility.
DeLuca said that if the number of washers and dryers were decreased then they
might have to make up for that decrease by running the washers and dryers 24
hours a day. He asked ifthere was a law prohibiting 24-hour a day use. Policaro
said that there was because they should have never expanded from the 1974 use.
DeLuca said that it might just prolong the use. Policaro said that it was put in 4
years after the 1974 sale. Hoefer stated that "use" was defined in the land use code
as "the purpose or activity for which a lot is designated", the purpose was to be a
5
....
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
/
May 17, 2001
laundry. Hoefer said the number of washers does not constitute the use. Woods
stated that was the point that staff was trying to make here, to look at what a
property management company does is many different things (maintenance,
laundry, greet people, with a number of subsets).
Woods said that Mr. Policaro spent quite a bit oftime gathering the information as
well as community development did reviewing the information provided. Woods
said that after that review staff could not conclude that the property management
use expanded. Policaro responded that one word was left out, extended; the land
use will tell you that the use was amplified and grown. Woods said that in actuality
in reviewing the record, the space that the property management business was
located in originally was larger than the area that it was currently operating in
today.
Woods said that the physical space has shrunk and that there was no denying that
there were more washers, but that was not what we were here to discuss. Woods
said that this was a non-conforming use that had not expanded. Policaro said that
the use has expanded, not the physical but the level of intensity of use on the
neighborhood. Policaro said that he could have brought more people but he didn't;
he said there was a whole neighborhood of people. Iglehart asked if Mr. Policaro
was representing himself since the neighbors did not attend the meeting or send
any letters or complaints.
Policaro said that as far as the business license, it is the respmsibility of the
business to obtain that license and they expanded in 1978. Paterson stated that the
business license has now been cleared up. Policaro said that he wanted them to go
back to the 1974 use because they expanded in 1978. Policaro said that he would
be happy to show the videotape of the vehicles driving around and it was not fair to
the neighborhood.
DeLuca said that Worcester made some relevant statements about the number of
units serviced being not more than the 50 units, if the complainant could prove that
50 units was a greater intensity than the 1974, use then the city would file a
violation of the law. DeLuca said that we went through this at that last meeting.
Zimet stated that there was evidence that a determination was made some time ago
that no violation occurred. Zimet said that the issuance of the building permits in
1978; he said that he doubted that the permits would have been issued ifthe
government concluded that the expansion of use at this location would have
violated the zoning. Iglehart asked for clarification about the numbers of units
managed in 1974 were there 73 units, and 1978 were there 129 units? Policaro
said that they were talking about the use in 1974 of2 washers and 2 dryers.
6
,....
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD ;;) ADJUSTMENT
r- d~
May 17, 2001
Iglehart noted that the houses that he now built were requesting 2 washers and 2
dryers because they wanted to do the laundry faster, not that the families were any
bigger. Iglehart said that the quantity of washers and dryers didn't n mean that
there was any more business going out that door, as much as efficiency was being
conducted. Iglehart asked Policaro ifhe was here because of the larger number of
units run out that space. Policaro responded that that Mr. Worcester said that it
wasn't a raw number of units but the level of intensity. Policaro said they had a
building permit but not for what they had down there now. Iglehart stated that he
wanted to remain focused and wanted to get what exactly Mr. Policaro wanted and
asked ifhe knew the number of units run out of that space. Policaro answered that
the way the code was written on non-conformities, it was that the level of intensity
could not increase but if it decreased, which it has, when Mick Spaulding took over
in 1984, they only had 15 rentals and his job was to build the business, then they
were limited to less. Policaro said back then they were a "condotel"; there were 73
units and most likely they managed all of them. Policaro said the sales office and
management offices were located there with each of the 4 buildings having their
own laundry. Policaro said that he had the recorded plat maps as proof. Iglehart
stated that he just wanted a simple answer to his question and did not know that
they wanted to reduce the activity to 73 units. Policaro said that was already
reduced because after he said that he did new research, he showed that in 1974
CRW had those units but in 1978 the whole area was moved over because they
split up their company. Iglehart said that he guessed that he wasn't getting an
answer; so he said that he would ask another question.
MOTION: Mark Hesselschwerdt moved to uphold the Community
Development Director's administrative decision dated April 5, 2001, as
it relates to the CRW at the Chateau Roaring Fork. Jim Iglehart
second. Roll call vote: DeLuca, yes; Murphy, yes; Hesselschwerdt, yes;
Iglehart, yes; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 5-0.
Hoefer stated that the decision was upheld 5-0. Policaro said for clarification that
was laundry for the Eau Claire and the Roaring Fork. Lindt agned that was what
the administrative decision was. Policaro stated that he still did not agree with the
Eau Claire because it was across the street and the Eau Claire did not own the
space that the washer and dryer used to be located in, Nick Coates owned it.
Paterson responded that the Board of Adjustment had a hard time with the role of
umpire.
D.,m.
U
scribed by Jack e Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
,
7
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RELATED TO THE
OPERATION OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AT THE
CHATEAU ROARING FORK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 17,
2001, at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen Board of Adjustment, Sister
Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an appeal of an
administrative decision regarding the operation of property management companies at the
Chateau Roaring Fork. The appeal is being requested by Don Policaro. For further
information, contact James Lindt at the Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5441,jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us.
SICharles Paterson, Chairman
Aspen Board of Adjustment
Published in the Aspen Times on April 28. 2001
City of Aspen Account
130 S. Galena St.
AspenC081611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen/Pitkin
Community
Development
Department
Fax
To:
o
Cf2() ~61-Z~
From:
L,'
CI VV\. E' 5
Fax:
Pages:
Phone:
Date:
Re: ~f-e.s;< e IcJ +- uMJ
tf){) . 0 Please Comment
o Urgent It Fo~i,ew
o Please Reply
o Please Recycle
. Comments:
H J- DC!!,^I/
PI-e.ccse. g ~J 0 H-QC~ eJ -t-MQ P. uld ic i'lO+/C~.-
FvV' YOu.. V appeq/ O{! I+J-e odlM,,'V\~hroq~J'\J<L
d~/s/C){/', Ih~ he.oV'/iIl~ kJe.Pe4~ +l1e.--
~()C{vJ oP Act; tA..S~wt-e.Vlt- is h~lA~cd-\lJ(JI'i
C;d1QJ~ \'€..d t'ClV' MeA'; 17fl1 T huve a&D
Wiu,')-<,-d you CI COPy 0(' fhe t, ,,!', .cJlof'~e
R esalds;
J'Q ~ E:.S" L./I/\df
130 S. Galena St.
AspenC081611
(970) 920-5090
(970) 920-5439, fax
Aspen/Pitkin
Community
Development
Department
Fax
To:
~~ V\ r;Vf-VlC0
2f)-37&!5
From:
JOINt <2-5 L '/1\ J
Fax:
Pages:
6/
Phone:
Date:
Re:
A- Or CC:
\A1 , VI IShtO -h Ve.. e C/S /0 IA.
o For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply
o Please Recycle
o Urgent
. Comments:
f)eCli/ ;V\v: ~lN.0CW
j(~tI: rO! I'c-oli'o has Q>I<ed +CJt!' OM appeq I
of s I--o,{'(' ~ q J IN\, } ~;'s I-v^ct f-I 'u e d ec / 'so/oh
1'\1\ r~f2JO,tlJs -1-0 c:~ w rs op<etlQ~"OI1S 0,1-
r~<€- Ci1~feCiV1 !<.(}JO,V'/i/lfj r:ov/c:, We.. ho.(/~
t--€V\bhv-ely Gtlt\-ed "d~J +he- C1(1pf-cd h.eClY, V\~
\='0 V' /v1C\ '/ 171--lt, PI-eA6 e t=', '[1\ d Q Hctci1 d -M~
V\O~i'ce or C1PfJ~L PI~O-s~ cql! l^-\t ol Q;:o-5t.;-4-r
w,' 1-- h. 1/0.. Q..St/Ot'\S Ot! COMlM. eV\fs l'escwcV1 ~0
fY\a ttev,
A-esCR.vds,
.~ vy\ -es L/Vl d!- ,
;-te-h VI~ 2oV\/tJ\Cj OW~Pl/
\ '
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Board of Adjustment
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo~r\../
Joyce Ohlson. Deputy Director
John Worcester, City Attorney
James Lindt, Acting Zoning Officer <~ L--
Appeal of an Administrative Decision Related to the Operation of \ . ~ ~
Coates, Reid and Waldron at the Chateau Roaring Fork JO (L ~UJ?'~
May 17,2001
SUMMARY: The Community Development Department received a renewed formal
citizen complaint regarding the operations of Coates, Reid and Waldron (CRW) out of
the Chateau Roaring Fork on February 27, 2001 from Don Policaro. Mr. Policaro
submitted additional evidence that he feels proves that Coates, Reid, and Waldron has
expanded their non-conforming use out of Unit 43ABC at the Chateau Roaring Fork and
Unit 30 of the Chateau Eau Claire. (The use of a former laundry room at Unit #30 for
laundry di$tribution is a subset of the property management business as described later in
the report. \ Originally, a complaint was filed against Coates, Reid, and Waldron alleging
the expans{on of the non-conforming use in February of 2000 by the East End Concerned
Citizens. Former Zoning Officer Sarah Oates issued a letter of decision dated April 13.
2000.
This decision was appealed by the East End Concerned Citizens to the Board of
Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment upheld the administrative decision that allowed
Coates, Reid, and Waldron to operate property management for 73 Units in the Chateau
Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire out of Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring
Fork. In a letter dated May 3, 2000, the president of Coates, Reid, and Waldron, John
French, wrote a letter to Sarah Oates indicating that he would comply with servicing only
the units in the Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire out of Unit 43ABC of
the Chateau Roaring Fork.
The additional evidence that was submitted by Mr. Policaro has been considered by the
Community Development Staff and a decision notice was issued that was dated March
18,2001. The decision notice concluded that Coates, Reid, and Waldron should be held
to the offer that they made to service only the 73 Units within the Chateau Roaring Fork
and Chateau Eau Claire from Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork which was
concluded at the May 4th, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting as being the 1974 level of
intensity. This decision notice was amended on April 5, 2001 at the request of Mr.
Policaro because he did not think that the suggested action summary was clear enough in
stating that the 73 units serviced from the unit at the Chateau Roaring Fork were to be
only Chateau Roaring Fork and Chateau Eau Claire Units. Staff agreed and amended the
decision notice to be clearer in this respect. This applicant is appealing the staff position
on this administrative decision.
APPLICANT/COMPLAINTANT: Don Policaro
BACKGROUND: CRW has occupied Unit 43 ABC of Chateau Roaring Fork since the
project was completed in 1968. At the time, the zoning of the property was
Accommodations Recreation I (AR-l) (a copy of the zoning regulations in effect at that
time has been enclosed as Exhibit G). Unit 43 ABC has historically been used as a
laundry, office and maintenance facility for CRW. Staff contends that the operations of
CRW were legal at the time as a "professional office," which is consistent with how
property management companies are interpreted today to be allowed in the commercial
zone districts. The zoning for the property changed in 1974 to Residential Multi-Family
(RJMF), at which time the operations of CR W became a legal non-conforming use. The
Community Development Department has directed CRW to scale back its operations to
the 1974 level. The best assessment staff could provide of that level of activity is the
number of units CRW was operating at the time which was 73 units. Mr. French
essentially agreed in the letter to Sarah Oates dated May 3rd, 2000 that they would only
do property management services for the Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau
Claire out of the basement unit in the Chateau Roaring Fork.
Mr. Policaro has provided building permit files that show that in 1978, Coates, Reid, and
Waldron added 3 dryers to the facility in the basement of the Chateau Roaring Fork and
that in 1969 the original condominium plat showed that there were only 2 existing
washers. A site visit by the acting zoning officer, James Lindt, confirmed that there are
now 4 washers and at least 6 dryers. Mr. Policaro also has shown proof to staff that there
were laundry facilities of some sort at one time or another in all of the four complexes
that Coates, Reid, and Waldron were said to manage in 1974. These complexes were the
Chateau Roaring Fork, Chateau Eau Claire, Chateau Chaumont, and the Chateau
Dumont. Mr. Policaro contends that this is evidence of an "expansion of a non-
conforming use". Staff contends that unit 43ABC has always been used as a management
company "use" and the new washers and dryers are not the issue. Mr. Policaro has also
provided staff with a 1986 building permit that shows that Coates, Reid, and Waldron
added a break room to further prove his expansion theory. Again, staff feels the property
management company "use" has not changed.
In lieu of all the evidence that Mr. Policaro has submitted, staff feels that one must view
the property management use in it's entirety and not just as a laundry facility. The
property management business has several sub-uses such as laundry, storage,
maintenance, housekeeping, and offices for the maintenance and housekeeping personnel.
Over the past 30 years there may have been many different configurations of the property
management uses in the basement of the Chateau Roaring Fork. It appears that prior to
1974, Unit 43ABC was part of the management company, and since Unit 43 has been
converted to from part of Coates, Reid, and Waldron to a residential unit. Therefore, they
have actually decreased the square footage that is dedicated to the property management
use in the basement of the Chateau Roaring Fork.
In regards to determining the intensity of use in which Coates, Reid, and Waldron has
been operating over the past 30 years it is extremely hard to say what their intensity of
use was in 1974. Coates, Reid, and Waldron's intensity of use has more than likely
ebbed and flowed with the economy and the popularity of Aspen over the years. Staff
feels that Mr. Policaro has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate what the exact
level of intensity was for Coates, Reid, and Waldron's property management use out of
the basement of the Chateau Roaring Fork in 1974. Staff believes that because of the
uncertainty of the use in 1974, that the compromise that John French offered up in his
May 3,d. 2000 letter to serve the Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire out of
the basement of the Chateau Roaring Fork is still the best solution.
2
DISCUSSION: The complainant is requesting that the Board of Adjustment reverse or
modify the Community Development Director's conclusions and decision. Per Section
26.316.030(E) of the Land Use Code the Board must decide this case on the following
standard:
The decision-making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal
based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is
taken.
Further,
A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a
finding that there is a denial of due process. or the administrative body has
exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion.
CONCLUSION: Staff believes that there has not been a denial of due process, nor has
the Community Development Department exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its
discretion. The decision is based upon commonly used and applied interpretations of the
Land Use Code and the conventions of land use law. This complaint has been afforded
the same review and consideration as any other complaint submitted to the Community
Development Department. CRW is entitled to maintain the level of operation that was
occurring when the zone district changed in 1974, however, because of the uncertainty
surrounding the intensity of use, staff feels that John French's offer to serve just the
Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire from the Chateau Roaring Fork is the
best solution.
(Mr. Policaro has submitted a huge amount of information, most of which staff does not
feel is pertanent to the legal non-conforming use. Staff will make this information
available for the commissioners to review at the meeting and encourages the
commissioners to stop in and peruse the file prior to the meeting.)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustment uphold the
Community Development Director's administrative decision as it relates to the operations
of CRW at the Chateau Roaring Fork, finding that there was no denial of due process
based upon the record established.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to uphold the Community Development
Director's administrative decision dated April 5, 2001, as it relates to the operations of CR W
at the Chateau Roaring Fork."
3
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A-- Letter of Appeal from Don Policaro, dated April 18, 200 I
Exhibit B-Amended Administrative Decision, dated AprilS, 2001
Exhibit C-Administrative Decision, dated March 18, 2001
Exhibit D-Evidence Letter Provided by Mr. Policaro
Exhibit E-Board of Adjustment Minutes, dated May 4, 2000
Exhibit F-Letter from Coates, Reid, and Waldron, dated April 2S, 2000
Exhibit G-Letter of Appeal from Dennis Green, dated Apri121, 2000
Exhibit H-Letter of Decision from City of Aspen, dated April 13, 2000
Exhibit I-Letter of Appeal from Dennis Green, dated March 28, 2000
Exhibit I-Letter from City of Aspen to Dennis Green, dated March 14, 2000
Exhibit K--Coates, Reid and Waldron memorandum, dated March 10,2000
Exhibit L-Formal Complaint, dated February 7, 2000
Exhibit M-Summary of Accommodations Recreation 1 (AR-I) Zone District
c:/ Ihome/saraho/crwappeal. doc
4
Don Policaro
Box 11704
Aspen, Co 81612
970 544-9600
~xh;b;~ 1+
4/18/2001
Dear Community Development:
This letter is a formal appeal of the Community Development's April 5,
2001 decision concerning the property management businesses located at
1034 E. Cooper # 30 and 1039 E. Cooper # 43A, 43B, and 43C.
rTh~ You,
D~nP~Jrc1o \?~
R.- ~ ,,_.~ ". ~..-
...,. ..' .
.. ....';-.;;: W ~r~
APR 1 J ~n'l
I. ,
A-r::'").....~i / ')r'r'<I~
""'::""~l,-.{:;:' '... ;: :~ ~"'Ur:;"I-
t:;rn' iDlr D
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM:
James Lindt, Acting Zoning Officer
RE:
Amendment to Decision Notice Dated March 18,2001 Regarding
Complaint against Coates, Reid, and Waldron
DATE:
April 5,2001
Summary:
This memo is an amendment to the Community Development Staffs decision notice
dated March 18,2001 in regards to a zoning complaint filed by the East End Concemed
Citizens (EECC) regarding the use of a unit at the Chateau Roaring Fork for laundry and
other activities I. This memo is solely for the purpose of clarifying the action to be taken
from the decision notice of March 18,2001. This is a renewed complaint as a previous
complaint was resolved by an agreement between the complainant and the leaser of the
unit to limit activities at this location. The basis of this renewed complaint is new
evidence submitted by the EECC regarding the exact nature of the activities taking place
at the Chateau Roaring Fork. For the reasons that follow, staff does not believe that the
use at the Chateau Roaring Fork constitutes a zoning violation.
Background:
EECC's complaint in this matter is that the laundry facility and other related management
activities currently taking place at the Chateau Roaring Fork are not permitted uses in the
zone district. The owner of the allegedly offending unit has defended the use by claiming
that the use is a non-conforming use that is grand-fathered because the use was in
existence at the time the zone district was established or amended in 1974. In addition,
I The EECC has also complained that the owners of the laundry facility are not licensed to operate a
business at this location. Upon review by the Finance Department and the City Attorney, it has been
detennined that the owner of the business must obtain a business license. (A business license was not
applied for or obtained in the past as the Finance Department was under the mistaken impression that once
a business obtains a license, it does not need to obtain a license at all locations. In fact, the Municipal Code
makes clear that all locations need to be licensed.) A pre-requisite to obtaining a business license is a
referral to the Community Development Department to ensure that the proposed business does not violate
the zoning regulations. A business license application has been submitted by the owner and is pending
review by the Community Development Department on the zoning issues raised in this memorandum.
The EECC has argued that because the owner did not have a business license, that the business was not a
legally established business in 1974 when the zoning in the area was changed. The City Attorney has
indicated that a business may obtain a business license if the current proposed uses are legal in the zone
district or the use is pennitted by operation of the law (I.e. a non-confonning use.) Thus, whether a business
license may issue is dependant upon whether the proposed use is currently pennitted under the Land Use
Code.
the owner claims that the allegedly offending use is permitted as an accessory use to the
building. The parties resolved a previous complaint without arriving at any real
conclusion regarding the use, or intensity of use, of the facility in 1974. The owner of the
unit agreed to limit his activities. Since that time, EECC has come forward with what it
claims is new evidence regarding the use or intensity of use of the facility in 1974 and as
it is currently. The EECC claims that the current intensity of use far exceeds that which
existed in 1974. Moreover, it claims that even though a non-conforming use can continue,
it may not expand the grand-fathered use or increase the intensity of that use.
Evidence:
The basis of the EECC's complaint is that Coates, Reid, and Waldron (CRW) is operating
a portion of their property management business, including laundry services, for off-site
locations out of Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork. The group claims that the
commercial component (alleged commercial laundry facility) is not an allowed use in the
R1MF Zone District (Residential Multi-family). As the earlier investigations into the
operations of CRW in the Chateau Roaring Fork pointed out, the zoning of the property
changed in 1974 from AR -1 to R1MF. The AR -1 Zone District prior to 1974 allowed for
"professional offices" to be located within the zone district. Property Management firms
have been consistently considered a "professional office" which was a permitted use in
the AR-I zone district. When the zoning changed to R1MF in 1974, a "professional
office" was not included as a permitted use. Thus, the use was grand fathered as a non-.
conforming use.
Staff's initial administrative decision in response to the complaint filed by the EECC
accepted a solution offered by CRW to limit the property management activities operated
from Unit 43ABC to management activities associated with the Chateau Roaring Fork
and the neighboring Chateau Eau Claire. Staff agreed with the owner's suggested
solution to cut his operations back to 73 units because there is a shared usage between the
two complexes: they both share facilities such as the pool and recreation facility and the
property management use is accessory to both complexes. The seventy-three units is the
total number of units in both the Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire. The
EECC's new evidence does not demonstrate to staff that CRW is doing laundry for more
than just the two complexes out of Unit 43ABC.
The EECC has provided staff with a videotape showing CRW employees driving away
with laundry. However, the owner of CRW has a viable explanation for his employees
driving laundry away. CRW President John French contends that his personnel have to
drive the laundry bags across the street to the Chateau Eau Claire because it is more
efficient and safe than carrying them across Highway 82.
A non-conforming use can continue if it does not increase the level of intensity of the use
from when it ceased being a permitted use in the zone district. In this case, the
professional office ceased to be a permitted use in 1974 when the zoning was changed to
R1MF. The new evidence submitted by the EECC shows proof that there indeed has been
an increase in the number of clothes washers and dryers than existed in 1974. A legible
copy of the condominium plat of the Chateau Roaring Fork (Attachment A) submitted by
the EECC from 1970, showed that there were 2 washers and 2 dryers located in Unit
43ABC at the time the condo plat was filed. An approved building permit (Attachment
B) provided to us by EECC showed that 3 dryers were added to the Chateau Roaring
Fork on December 27,1978 after Nick Coates bought Unit 43ABC in 1977 (Attachment
C- Warranty Deed to Unit). However, the legible copy of the condominium plat for the
Chateau Roaring Fork provided by the EECC shows that there were, in fact, laundry
facilities in Unit 43ABC and not in Unit 43 as the EECC had claimed. Therefore, it is not
a stretch to say that there were property management activities occurring in Unit 43 ABC
prior to 1974. The Condominium Plat was signed and recorded in 1970. Please note
that a site visit taken on March 7, 2001 indicated that there are currently 4 Clothes
Washers and 6 to 8 Clothes Dryers.
The EECC has indeed provided staff with information showing that CRW has increased
the number of washers and dryers in Unit 43ABC. However, the laundry services that
CRW provides are only a portion of the property management services that are provided
today and were providing in the past out of Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork.
The EECC has not provided evidence that shows that CRW has increased the entire scope
or intensity of use of their property management services out of this Unit. The business
of property management includes other aspects such as storage, office, laundry, and
building maintenance. The condo plat provided to staff by the EECC shows that in 1970.
Unit 43ABC was being used for the property management services of laundry and
storage. It is unclear when some of the storage was converted to office. However, even
though the laundry sub-use of the property management services may have increased.
there is no clear proof that the square footage and intensity of the property management
use has increased. Staff finds that there has not been an increase in the square footage
devoted to the property management service provide by this Unit 43ABC. Furthermore.
a copy of the Chateau Roaring Fork Condominium Declaration provided by the EECC
states that Unit 43ABC be termed "business units".
Amended Action:
Staff recommends that the city give approval on the zoning referral for a business license
as a legal non-conforming use at Units 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork and the
basement unit of the Chateau Eau Claire. Staff finds that there is no clear proof that
CRW has increased the intensity of the property management use out of Unit 43ABC
regardless of who is the owner of the units2. During the Board of Adjustment hearing on
May 4, 2000, the City accepted John French's solution to limit the maintenance,
housekeeping, and laundry services provided by CR W for the management of the
Chateau Roaring Fork and Chateau Eau Claire out of their facility at the Chateau Roaring
Fork. Staff still feels that this is a viable solution and that CR W should be limited to
doing maintenance, housekeeping, and laundry services solely for the Chateau Eau Claire
and the Chateau Roaring Fork from Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork. The new
evidence provided by the EECC has not shown staff that the property management use as
a whole has increased nor that the property management use has stopped by a period of
2 A change in ownership does not alter the nature of a non-confonning use. The grand fathering nature
"runs with the land."
more than 12 months. Staff also has seen evidence that there was a property management
use prior to 1974 in Unit 43ABC. Therefore, pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use
Code Section 26.312.020 the Property Management Use in Unit 43ABC of the Chateau
Roaring Fork should be considered a legal non-conforming use. If either the party that
has filed the complaint or the business owner disagrees with staff s decision they may file
a letter of appeal to the Board of Adjustment within 14 days.
JPW -4/5/0 I-G:\john\word\memos\Chateau.Roaring-Fork.doc
:txhibl ~ C
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM:
James Lindt, Acting Zoning Officer
RE:
Enforcement of Renewed Complaint filed by East End Concerned
Citizens Against Coates, Reid, and Waldron
DATE:
March 18,2001
Summary:
This memo responds to a zoning complaint filed by the East End Concerned Citizens
(EECC) regarding the use of a unit at the Chateau Roaring Fork for laundry and other
activitiesl. This is a renewed complaint as a previous complaint was resolved by an
agreement between the complainant and the owner of the unit to limit activities at this
location. The basis of this renewed complaint is new evidence submitted by the EECC
regarding the exact nature of the activities taking place at the Chateau Roaring Fork. For
the reasons that follow, staff does not believe that the use at the Chateau Roaring Fork
constitutes a zoning violation.
Background:
EECC's complaint in this matter is that the laundry facility and other related management
activities currently taking place at the Chateau Roaring Fork are not permitted uses in the
zone district. The owner of the allegedly offending unit has defended the use by claiming
that the use is a non-conforming use that is grand-fathered because the use was in
existence at the time the zone district was established or amended in 1974. In addition,
the owner claims that the allegedly offending use is permitted as an accessory use to the
building. The parties resolved a previous complaint without arriving at any real
I The EECC has also complained that the owners of the laundry facility are not licensed to operate a
business at this location. Upon review by the Finance Department and the City Attorney, it has been
determined that the owner of the business must obtain a business license. (A business license was not
applied for or obtained in the past as the Finance Department was under the mistaken impression that once
a business obtains a license, it does not need to obtain a license at all locations. In fact, the Municipal Code
makes clear that all locations need to be licensed.) A pre-requisite to obtaining a business license is a
referral to the Community Development Department to ensure that the proposed business does not violate
the zoning regulations. A business license application has been submitted by the owner and is pending
review by the Community Development Department on the zoning issues raised in this memorandum.
The EECC has argued that because the owner did not have a business license, that the business was not a
legally established business in 1974 when the zoning in the area was changed. The City Attorney has
indicated that a business may obtain a business license if the current proposed uses are legal in the zone
district or the use is permitted by operation of the law (i.e. a non-conforming use.) Thus, whether a business
license may issue is dependant upon whether the proposed use is currently permitted under the Land Use
Code.
conclusion regarding the use, or intensity of use, of the facility in 1974. The owner of the
unit agreed to limit his activities. Since that time, EECC has come forward with what it
claims is new evidence regarding the use or intensity of use of the facility in 1974 and as
it is currently. The EECC claims that the current intensity of use far exceeds that which
existed in 1974. Moreover, it claims that even though a non-conforming use can continue,
it may not expand the grand-fathered use or increase the intensity of that use.
Evidence:
The basis of the EECC's complaint is that Coates, Reid, and Waldron (CRW) is operating
a portion of their property management business, including laundry services, for off-site
locations out of Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork. The group claims that the
commercial component (alleged commercial laundry facility) is not an allowed use in the
R1MF Zone District (Residential Multi-family). As the earlier investigations into the
operations of CRW in the Chateau Roaring Fork pointed out, the zoning of the property
changed in 1974 from AR -I to R/MF. The AR -I Zone District prior to 1974 allowed for
"professional offices" to be located within the zone district. Property Management firms
have been consistently considered a "professional office" which was a permitted use in
the AR-I zone district. When the zoning changed to R1MF in 1974, a "professional
office" was not included as a permitted use. Thus, the use was grand fathered as a non-
conforming use.
Staffs initial administrative decision in response to the complaint filed by the EECC
accepted a solution offered by CRW to limit the property management activities operated
from Unit 43ABC to management activities associated with the Chateau Roaring Fork
and the neighboring Chateau Eau Claire. Staff agreed with the owner's suggested
solution to cut his operations back to 73 units because there is a shared usage between the
two complexes: they both share facilities such as the pool and recreation facility and the
property management use is accessory to both complexes. The seventy-three units is the
total number of units in both the Chateau Roaring Fork and the Chateau Eau Claire. The
EECC's new evidence does not demonstrate to staff that CRW is doing laundry for more
than just the two complexes out of Unit 43ABC.
The EECC has provided staff with a videotape showing CRW employees driving away
with laundry. However, the owner of CRW has a viable explanation for his employees
driving laundry away. The owner contends that his personnel have to drive the laundry
bags across the street to the Chateau Eau Claire because it is more efficient and safe than
carrying them across Highway 82.
A non-conforming use can continue if it does not increase the level of intensity of the use
from when it ceased being a permitted use in the zone district. In this case, the
professional office ceased to be a permitted use in 1974 when the zoning was changed to
R1MF. The new evidence submitted by the EECC shows proof that there indeed has been
an increase in the number of clothes washers and dryers than existed in 1974. A legible
copy of the condominium plat of the Chateau Roaring Fork (Attachment A) submitted by
the EECC from 1970, showed that there were 2 washers and 2 dryers located in Unit
"
"
43ABC at the time the condo plat was filed. An approved building permit (Attachment
B) provided to us by EECC showed that 3 dryers were added to the Chateau Roaring
Fork on December 27, 1978 after Nick Coates bought Unit 43ABC in 1977 (Attachment
C- Warranty Deed to Unit). However, the legible copy of the condominium plat for the
Chateau Roaring Fork provided by the EECC shows that there were, in fact, laundry
facilities in Unit 43ABC and not in Unit 43 as the EECC had claimed. Therefore, it is not
a stretch to say that there were property management activities occurring in Unit 43 ABC
prior to 1974. The Condominium Plat was signed and recorded in 1970.
The EECC has indeed provided staff with information showing that CR W has increased
the number of washers and dryers in Unit 43ABC. However, the laundry services that
CRW provides are only a portion of the property management services that are provided
today and were providing in the past out of Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork.
The EECC has not provided evidence that shows that CRW has increased the entire scope
or intensity of use of their property management services out of this Unit. The business
of property management includes other aspects such as storage, office, laundry, and
building maintenance. The condo plat provided to staff by the EECC shows that in 1970,
Unit 43ABC was being used for the property management services of laundry and
storage. It is unclear when some of the storage was converted to office. However, even
though the laundry sub-use of the property management services may have increased,
there is no clear proof that the square footage and intensity of the property management
use has increased. Staff finds that there has not been an increase in the square footage
devoted to the property management service provide by this Unit 43ABC. Furthermore,
a copy of the Chateau Roaring Fork Condominium Declaration provided by the EECC
states that Unit 43ABC be termed "business units".
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends that the city give approval on the zoning referral for a business license
as a legal non-conforming use at Units 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork and the
basement unit of the Chateau Eau Claire. Staff finds that there is no clear proof that
CRW has increased the intensity of the property management use out of Unit 43ABC
regardless of who is the owner of the units2. The new evidence provided by the EECC
has not shown staff that the property management use as a whole has increased nor that
the property management use has stopped by a period of more than six months. Staff
also has seen evidence that there was a property management use prior to 1974 in Unit
43ABC. Therefore, pursuant to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.312.020 the
Property Management Use in Unit 43ABC of the Chateau Roaring Fork should be
considered a legal non-conforming use.
JPW -5/2/0 I-G:\john\word\memos\Chateau-Roaring-Fork.doc
, A change in ownership does not alter the nature of a non-confonning use. The grand fathering nature
"runs with the land."
~
v
Don Policaro
920-2365
544-9600
ajax@rof.net
Saturday, March 03,2001
Dear James Lindt:
Here is some information to be added to the case on Resort Quest and the illegal use in
our residential neighborhood. I have also talked with Sepp Kessler this morning to gain
first hand knowledge of when all this commercial activity started. Mr. Kessler was the
owner of the Kessler Lodge now known as Kessler Condominiums, next door to me,
from 1957 through 1994. He confirms 1978 is when all this activity started. This
correlates with what the building permit from 1978 in the building department files
proves.
The following Codes pertain to this case, I got them from your website. Non-
Conformities, Section 26.312.010 Purpose, states that "non-conforming uses may
continue for businesses that were lawfully established before this Title was adopted or
amended". Only a business location that has had a business license each and every year
(14.08.040 Required) can be considered a lawful business according to Title 14. Section
14.04.080 Compliance with building and zoning regulations states that no license can
be issued if that use is not allowed in the zone. The Laundry, maintenance,
housekeeping, other offices and break-room with kitchen have always been illegal
because they have been in violation of the City Codes since their inception. Coates Reid
and Waldron was formed in 1976, the aforementioned units were purchased by Nick
Coates in 1977 and constructed from October through February of 1978 and then further
work done in 1985 and 1992.
This explains how they constantly expanded and grew a very large and profitable
property management business in a heavily populated residential neighborhood.
Everyone including the City thought they were operating legally, and now the
neighborhood as well as the City knows they are not and never have been licensed or
legal to operate in the Chateau Roaring Fork units numbered 43a,43b,43c and Chateau
Eau Claire unit 30.
We do not see anywhere in the city code an allowance of an illegal business to be
"grand-fathered" in and to continue unless it met all of the current zoning laws. Due to
the fact a business license has been required in Aspen since at least the certificate of
occupancy was issued for the aforementioned units (Ord. No. 25-1970, ~ 2: Code 1971,
~ 12-28). This is to protect us everyday citizens from businesses disrupting our lives, and
the code reads (Section 14.08.0 I 0 Purpose). 'The purpose of this chapter shall be to
I
"
-;#
require the licensing and regulation of business activities" and then goes on "operating
within the city in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of its inhabitants." I
hope this helps.
Title 14 LICENSES AND PERMITS GENERALL Y*1
Section 14.04.080 Compliance with building and zoning regulations.
No license shall be issued for the conduct of any business, and no permit shall be
issued for any thing, or act, if the premises and building to be used for the purpose do not
fully comply with the requirements of this Code and any code adopted hereby. No such
license or permit shall be issued for the conduct of any business or performance of any
act which would involve a violation of the zoning code of the city. (Code 1962, S 5-1-8:
Code 1971, S 12-8)
Cross reference(s)--Building regulations, Title 8; land use regulations, Title 26.
Section 14.04.110 Denial and revocation.
Whenever the city attorney has cause to believe that any license holder is engaging or
has engaged in any activity such as to preclude the issuance of any license applied for. or
to warrant revocation of any license presently held, he shall present clear and convincing
evidence of the same to the finance committee which shall determine if such action shall
be taken. The applicant or licensee affected shall be given adequate notice of any such
hearing, and be given full opportunity to be heard. Such hearings shall be conducted as
quasi-judicial hearings and in conformance with all procedural requirements of law.
(Code 1962. S 5-1-12; Ord. No. 7-1976. p: Code 1971, S 12-11)
Section 1.04.110 Double fee for failure to obtain required licenses.
When work or activity for which a permit or license is required by this Code or any
code adopted herein is commenced without first having acquired such permit or license,
the specified fee shall be doubled, but the payment of such double fee shall not relieve
any person from fully complying with all the requirements of this Code or any code
adopted herein, nor from any other prescribed penalties. Payment of such double lee or
any unpaid portion thereof may be compelled by civil action in any court of competent
jurisdiction. The acceptance of any portion less than the entire amount of such double fee
by any officer or employee of the city shall not constitute a waiver or release of the
balance thereof. (Code 1962, S 1-6-5: Code 1971, S I-I I)
Chapter 26.312 NONCONFORMITIES
Section 26.312.010 Purpose.
Within the zone districts established by this Title, there exist uses ofland, buildings
and structures that were lawfully established before this Title was adopted or amended
2
,.,.
which would be in violation of the terms and requirements of this Title. The purpose of
this Chapter is to regulate and limit the continued existence of those uses, buildings, and
structures that do not conform to the provisions of this Title as amended.
It is the intent of this Chapter to permit nonconformities to continue, but not to allow
nonconformities to be enlarged or expanded. The provisions of this Chapter are designed
to curtail substantial investment in nonconformities in order to preserve the integrity of
the zone districts and the other provisions of this Title but should not be construed as an
abatement provision.
Section 26.312.020 Nonconforming uses.
A. Authority to continue. Nonconforming uses ofland or structures may continue in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and this section.
B. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance may be performed upon non-conforming
uses of land and structures, provided that the maintenance performed within any twelve
(12) consecutive month period does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the current
replacement cost of the structure.
C. Extensions. Nonconforming uses shall not be extended. This prohibition shall be
construed so as to prevent:
I. Enlargement of nonconforming uses by additions to the area of the structure in
which such nonconforming uses are located; or
2. Occupancy of additional lands.
D. Relocation. A structure housing a nonconforming use may not be moved to another
location on or off the parcel ofland on which it is located, unless the use thereafter shall
conform to the limitations of the zone district into which it is moved.
E. Change in use. A nonconforming use shall not be changed to any other use
unless the new use conforms to the provisions of the zone district in which it is
located.
Section 14.08.120 Separate offense for each day's violation.
The carrying on of any business, profession, vocation or occupation as provided in this
chapter, without first having procured a license from the city so to do, or without
complying with any and all regulations of such business, profession, vocation or
occupation contained in this chapter shall be deemed a separate violation of this chapter
for each and every day that such business, profession, vocation or occupation is carried
on. (Ord. No. 25-1970,95: Code 1971, 9 12-40)
3
Section 4.04.010 Purposes, interpretation of rules.
(a) Interpretation. This title shall be construed and applied to promote its
underlying purposes and policies.
(b) Purposes and policies. The underlying purposes and policies of this title are:
(1) To simplify, clarify, and standardize the law governing procurement by this
city;
(2) To permit the continued development of procurement policies and practices;
(3) To provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in
public procurement;
(4) To ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the
procurement system of this city;
(5) To provide increased economy in city procurement activities and to maximize to
the fullest extent practicable the purchasing value of public funds of the city;
(6) To foster effective broad-based competition within the free enterprise system;
and
(7) To provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality
and integrity.
(Ord. No. 46-1991, S 1: Code 1971, S 3-1)
Section 1.04.010 How Code designated and cited.
The ordinances embraced in this and the following chapters and sections shall
constitute and be designated the "Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado" and
may be so cited. (Code 1971, S 1-1)
State law reference(s) --Adopting Code of Ordinances, C.R.S. 31-16-201 et seq.
Section 1.04.130 Presumption of responsibility for certain violations.
The occupant of any premises upon which a violation of any provision of this Code or
of any code adopted hereby is apparent and the owner of any object or material placed or
remaining anywhere in violation of any provision of this Code or of any code adopted
hereby shall be deemed prima facie responsible for the violation so evidenced, and
subject to the penalty provided therefor. (Code 1962, S 1-6-7: Code 1971, S 1-13)
Section 1.04.080 General penalty for violations of code; continuing violations;
default.
(a) Whenever in this code or in any ordinance of the city an act is prohibited or is made
or declared to be unlawful or an offense or a misdemeanor, or whenever in such code or
ordinance the doing of an act is required or the failure to do any act is declared to be
unlawful, and no specific penalty is provided therefor, the violation of any such provision
4
"
r
,-"
of this code or any such ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for a period of up to one (1) year, or both
such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Each day of any violation of
this code or of any ordinance shall constitute a separate offense, unless otherwise
provided.
Section 1.04.120 Penalties not to excuse abatement of prohibited conditions.
The application of any penalty under this chapter shall not constitute the condoning or
legalizing of any prohibited condition or prevent the abatement or enforced removal of
such condition by any lawful means available to the city. (Code 1962, S 1-6-6: Code
1971, S 1-12)
Section 1.04.140 Application of Code by city officers or employees.
Whenever in this Code or in any code adopted herein it is provided that anything must
be done to the approval or permission of or subject to the direction of, any administrative
officer or employee of the city, this shall be construed to give such officer or employee
only the discretion of determining whether the rules and standards established by this
Code or by any code adopted herein have been complied with; and no such provision
shall be construed as giving any administrative officer or employee discretionary powers
as to what such regulations or standards shall be, or power to require conditions not
prescribed by this Code or by any code adopted herein or to enforce the provisions
thereof in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner. (Code 1962, S 1-1-7: Code 1971. S 1-
14)
Thank You,
Don Policaro
Cc. John P. Worcester
Julie Ann Woods
5
. ,
'.'."
'"-,
.~,
efhlo;~~
MAY 4, 2000
"
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES ..................................................................................................:.............. 1
CASE #00-04 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - OPERATION OF
COATES, REID & WALDRON at CHATEAU ROARING FORK ........................ 1
THE COMPLAINT........................................................................ 7
8
'"
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MAY 4, 2000
Rick Head opened the special Board of Adjustment meeting at 4:00 p.m. with
Howard DeLuca, David Schott, Bill Murphy and Jim Iglehart present. Charles
Paterson was excused. City Staff in attendance: Julie Ann Woods, Community
Development Director; Sarah Oates, City Zoning Officer; John Worcester, City
Attorney; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk.
MINUTES
Rick Head noted the sentence about "giving away too much" really meant the
board was to only grant a minimum variance. David Schott's name was
misspelled and Bill Murphy's statement was not complete. The minutes were
corrected to reflect these changes.
MOTION: David Schott moved to approve the minutes from April 13,
2000, with the corrections noted by Rick Head for Case #00-01. Jim
Iglehart Second. APPROVED 5-0.
MOTION: David Schott moved to approve the minutes from April 13,
2000, with the corrections as noted by Bill Murphy for Case #00-03.
Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 5-0.
CASE #00-04 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - OPERATION
OF COATES, REID & WALDRON at CHATEAU ROARING FORK
Rick Head opened the hearing. John Worcester said this was an unusual
occurrence because it was an appeal of an administrative decision by staff. He said
that neighbors complained about the uses in the Chateau Roaring Fork and Chateau
EauClaire, there was too much traffic was generated. Worcester stated that the
zoning officer, Sarah Oates, issued a letter to Mr. French of Coates, Reid and
Waldron (CRW). Sarah Oates distributed CRW letter dated May 3,2000. The
applicant/complainant were the East End Concerned Citizens represented by
Dennis Green ofWollins, Hellman and Green.
Worcester eXplained that apparently in the late 60's, early 70's, a commercial
operation was in the Chateau Roaring Fork which was zoned at that time as
Accommodations/Recreation, the AR-l zone. In 1974 the zone changed to R-ll
and the existing non-conforming uses were grandfathered with the land use code
change. The use from 1974 was increased and Mr. French agreed to bring the level
of use back to that of the 1974 level of use. Mr. French also agreed to lower the
intensity of the use of maintenance services to benefit the Chateau Roaring Fork
and The Chateau EauClaire only. Worcester noted that the last sentence of Mr.
French's letter said that voluntary decision to service those units and the units
serviced in the future, should they need to change their operating plan. Worcester
1
. CITY OF ASPEN BO..&o OF ADJUSTMENT MEET~
MAY 4, 2000
said that under the land use code if they drop below the 1974 use for a year, then
they give up that right. Worcester said that that Mr. French agreed to drop below
that 1974 level and there was nothing at this point that the city could enforce
beyond this agreement.
Don Policaro, neighbor, asked about the number of units serviced by this operation
and he noted that he has done 8 hours of research on this problem. Don Policaro
stated that he owns a triplex next to Chateau Roaring Fork and he explained that all
the laundry facilities from the Chateau Roaring Fork also service monster homes in
Aspen. He stated that there were car caravans of maids bringing all that laundry
back along with the semi trucks that bring the maintenance supplies. He said there
were also maintenance trucks. Don Policaro said that they have not scaled back,
just today there were 4 or 5 trucks. Policaro said that the operations expanded to
include Houston & O'Leary and Resort Quest properties in this residential
neighborhood. Policaro had a petition signed by 29 other people from the
neighborhood protesting this operation.
Dennis Green, attorney for neighbors in the area, noted that the photos included in
the packet depicted the congestion in the area cause by this operation. He said the
objection was that sentence in the 2nd to last paragraph. Dennis Green stated that it
was the intensity of the use, which Mr. Worcester stated very clearly. Green said
that they disagreed with Sarah Oates decision of the number of units. He said that
129 units, the size of units, and the (increased) number of employees were the
objections; the legal part disagrees with the conclusions of the number of units.
The 129 units were not managed from that Chateau Roaring Fork. He said that
each one of the Chateaux (EauClaire, Roaring Fork, Chaumont, Dumont) had it's
own management and laundry facilities, but now they were all done here at this
one facility. Worcester asked if they agreed that managing and operating out of
this unit to serve 73 units was less than the intensity of use in 1974.
Don Policaro read an ad from 1974 that the Coates, Reid & Waldron office was
located at the Chateau Chaumont. Policaro read from Sarah Oates letter to Mr.
French citing 129 units, he wanted the 1974 level of intensity for the off-season
level of intensity. He said that there 180 employees now, but doesn't know what
they had in 1974. Policaro said that Mr. French told the Boards of the EauClaire
and the Roaring Fork that activities would be limited to the Chateau Roaring Fork
and EauClaire activities.
Worcester addressed the issue with decision to reduce the intensity of use to 73
units, if CWR adds 1 more unit then they can file a complaint and the city will
have to investigate again about the usage. Worcester said that the Zoning Officer
2
,""
"
"-'" ,",""
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MAY 4, 2000
made a decision to allow the 1974 usage; the issue was accepting the zoning
officer's letter. Worcester said that the code allowed the decision to be appealed.
Policaro said that the figure Sarah came up with of 129 units managed was the
issue. Worcester said they have agreed to amend the letter to reflect 73. Rick
Head asked Don Policaro what they wanted the Board to do; what was the request.
Head asked Policaro ifhe could live with 73. Policaro replied that he could ifit
was permanent. Head asked Worcester what if a year from now 200 units were
serviced. Worcester responded that it mayor may not be a violation of the law; it
deepened upon that 74th or 75th unit raising it above the 1974 level of intensity and
then the city had the burden of finding out if they have broken the law. Worcester
stated that there were no records on the intensity of use from 1974.
Bill Murphy said that if they go above that 74th unit then you can come back an
challenge the facts, if they fail to live up to their agreement.
Green re-stated that what Mr. Worcester suggested that the finding 73 managed
within these two units was not a violation and leave the question open of74 units
being a violation. Worcester replied that was correct.
Policaro said that Mr. French stated that units 43A,B & C would be limited to the
Chateau Roaring Fork and Chateau EauClaire and those condos would never
expand more than whatever those units were there today. Green asked if the
management and operation could be limited to just these two complexes.
Worcester said that could not be agreed upon. Policaro cited figures from 1974
Chateau Roaring Fork and Chateau EauClaire regarding tax records and number of
parking spaces.
David Schott stated that he had worked for Mr. Nick Coates as a maintenance man
in 1974, but that town wasn't as busy then as it was today, things have changed.
He said that he did not know how many employees there were at the time. He said
that he didn't see that managing other units out of that location was the intended
use for this location.
Julie Ann Woods stated as a point of clarification from the staff report this hearing
was to determine if staff proceeded or if it was a denial of due process. Green
stated that it was broader than due process but also an abuse of discretion.
There were no other members of the public present.
3
CITY OF ASPEN BO~ OF ADJUSTMENT MEETTh-O
MAY 4, 2000
Howard DeLuca stated that he had a problem because there was no way to police
this situation. DeLuca said there was no way to tell the number of employees
using this unit; he said if it was established that in 1974 they had 20 employees
then if you exceed those 20 employees. DeLuca stated that he has always been
opposed to having any commercial use in a residential area. He said if there was
no documentation from 1974 using square footage, then there was a problem.
Rick Head stated that the issue before the board was of not how this would be
monitored or the number of units, but did the city or the staff violate the due
process of the applicant. Head stated that was what the board should be
considering.
DeLuca said that the investigation probably should have gone on a little longer, but
even the IRS doesn't expect you to keep books that long; the area was very gray
without information.
David Schott said that this was lacking the information to find out what intentions
were for expansion, which doesn't affect the decisions but the use was more
intense than now than it was back then. He said that he doesn't know if due
process was served. He questioned if a unit was aI, 2, 3 or 4-bedroom
condominium or was it a 20,000 square foot house; that would make a difference.
Jim Iglehart stated that he felt that he was in the same position as David and
Howard. He said that he did not have enough information to determine due
process although, whether it was 129 units or 73 units, that still doesn't manage
people and cars. Iglehart said that you could have 10 people per unit and still have
the same problem that you have today, not knowing what 1974 was all about.
Howard DeLuca said that if the neighborhood could actually prove that this has
gone far above the 1974 level, then this case could be turned around but without
the information it would be hard to make a decision.
Bill Murphy stated that there was a good faith offer, which they were willing to
accept. Murphy said that if both parties have agreed to it then the board should go
along with it and if it did not work then it could be appealed. He said without the
information, the board cannot make that determination and that issue was not
before the board. He said that they have given themselves an out and it was not
really this board's decision. The letter was a good faith offer.
Don Policaro stated that he didn't want to get Sarah in trouble; he realized that she
had a very hard job. Policaro said there were maintenance places in each building.
4
~,. ....
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MAY 4, 2000
Head asked Policaro if the board agreed with staff and find staff did comply with
the due process of the law, could you live with the 73 units. He said it did not
preclude you from filing another complaint in 6 months or a year. John Worcester
stated that if they only managed 50 units and they can prove that 50 units was a
greater intensity than in 1974, then the city will file a violation. Worcester said that
right now all that they have agreed to do was have it determined whether or not
what they agreed to do was in violation of the law. Head stated that he was for
upholding the Community Development decision.
Green stated that the key factor was the number of employees. He said that they
asked Community Development to look at that number and as far as they knew it
was not done. Green said that would be where the factor for denial of due process
would be in their favor because of lack of substantial justification, that was where
they felt staff could have done better. Sarah Oates replied that the original
complaint was on parking and traffic and evolved from there. She said that
employee generation wasn't what was requested initially. Head asked Oates how
would the number of employees be established back then. Oates responded that
Coates, Reid & Waldron would have those records; if they didn't have the records
then whatever information could be found.
Head asked Mr. French how many units were managed in 1974. French replied
there was an office at the Chateau Dumont, the same way they have the office
today at the Aspen Athletic Club for picking up all the reservations, employment,
accounting and everything else for Coates, Reid & Waldron. He said there was the
same breakup as but the only thing on site here was the laundry, housekeeping and
maintenance. French said there were about 6 or 7 maintenance guys back then;
today we have moved everybody but 2 moved from that facility as per your
request. French said that there were not more than 18-20 housekeepers working on
a Saturday to do all the stuff. He said they have tried their best to eliminate traffic
and limit impacts. French said that the maximum number of employees was no
more than 120 employees for all ofCRW, including 30 in Snowmass.
Worcester stated the only jurisdiction of this board was to uphold or deny the
appeal not to direct staff to do anything. He said that the board can do that (direct
staff) but not in the form of a motion.
5
.' crrv OF ASPEN BC"lm OF ADJUSTMENT MEEl ~)G
MAY 4, 2000
Policaro said that they would be happy ifthey limited the number to the 73 units.
Worcester reiterated that sentence from the letter had no binding effect on the city;
ifCRW cuts back on the units then there was no violation of the law. Policaro said
that they could go back to 129 units. Worcester said that the city did not agree to
that; he mentioned to Policaro that he would have to come up with evidence that
shows that they were still not at 73, but at this time the city can not go back to
them to say that they were exceeding the limit.
MOTION: Howard DeLuca moved to uphold the Community
Development Director's administrative decision as it relates to the
operations of Coates, Reid and Waldron (CRW) at the Chateau Roaring
Fork. Bill Murphy second. Roll call vote: Iglehart, yes; Schott, no;
DeLuca, yes; Murphy, yes; Head, yes, APPROVED 4-1.
DeLuca stated that he would document with video cameras showing dates and
times of the activities.
MOTION: Bill Murphy moved to adjourn, Jim Iglehart second.
APPROVED 5-0,
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
6
,.......,
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MAY 4, 2000
The Complaint: The Community Development Department received a formal citizen
complaint regarding the operations of Coates, Reid and Waldron (CRW) out of the Chateau
Roaring Fork on February 7, 2000 (all correspondence is attached and has been placed in
chronological order beginning with the most recent correspondence). Staff initiated an
evaluation of the situation. After preliminary research, and a meeting with CR W, staff accepted
the memorandwn dated March 10,2000 from CRW as an initial step to remedy non-compliance
of zoning regulations and reducing the impacts on the neighborhood. Following an appeal by the
complainant to the Community Development Director, further staff discussions and research, the
Community Development Director reconsidered and amended its decision put forth in the letter
dated April 13, 2000. This is the decision that stands, and is being appealed to the Board of
Adjustment by the complainant.
CRW has occupied Unit 43 ABC of Chateau Roaring Fork since the project was completed in
1968. At the time, the zoning of the property was Accommodations Recreation I (AR-I) (a copy
of the zoning regulations in effect at that time has been enclosed as Exhibit G). Unit 43 ABC has
historically been used as a laundry and maintenance facility for CRW. Staff contends that the
operations ofCRW were legal at the time as a "professional office," which is consistent with
how property management companies are interpreted today to be allowed in the commercial
zone districts. The zoning for the property changed in 1974 to Residential Multi-Family (R/MF),
at which time the operations of CRW became a legal non-conforming use. The Community
Development Department has directed CRW to scale back its operations to the 1974 level. The
best assessment staff can provide of that level of activity is the number of units CR W was
operating at the time. See the letter dated April 13, 2000 for the complete staff decision.
A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding
that there is a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its
jurisdiction or abused its discretion.
7
A
~
..,. COATES
REID & WAlDRON
,
E.X{IlI'!.Q it (.-
"
first in Real Estate. Rentals. Property Manal;lement
ARE S 0 R T Qu EST" COM rAN Y
April 25, 2000
Ms. Sarah Oates
Zoning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611-1975
Dear Ms. Oates:
Coates, Reid & Waldron (CRW) is in receipt of your letter dated April 13, 2000 specifying that
CRW must restrict its operation from the units Chateau Roaring Fork Unit #43 A, B, C to service
no more than 129 units.
We have actively been relocating our current maintenance, housekeeping and laundry services
for properties other than Chateau Roaring Fork and Chateau Eau Claire to our other office
locations.
At this time, all maintenance services except those directly benefiting Chateau Roaring Fork and
Chateau Eau Claire have been relocated. We believe this will reduce the traffic by our staff on
Durant Street. We do, however, continue to take care of a number of properties that are located
on Durant Street.
We have sent out several requests for proposal to provide laundry services for CRW to
accommodate servicing units from another location. We should be able to have this completed
by mid-June.
Our current business plan is to limit the use of Chateau Roaring Fork #43 A, B, C to service only
the common element and individual unit management needs for the Roaring Fork and Eau
Claire. This would be a maximum of 73 units if we managed all of the units. CRW currently
manages 50 units in Chateau Eau Claire and Chateau Roaring Fork combined. We have
voluntarily agreed to a lesser number of units to be sensitive to the citizens' concerns while still
meeting our clients' needs. We assume that this voluntary decision will not change the total
number of units that may be serviced from the Chateau Roaring Fork location in the future
should we need to change our operating plan.
I believe this addresses the concerns you laid out in your letter. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me directly at 920-0575.
.9;:~
V"John R. French, Jr.
President
JRFlkps
Aspen Office: 720 East Hyman Avenue. Aspen, Colorado 8161\ -(970) 925-14CO. fAX (970) 920-3765
Snowmass Office: P.O. Box 6450. Suite 113, Snowmass Center. Snowmass Village, CO 81615. (970) 923-4700. FA.X (970) -;J'23-419S
,...."
.....,
x" -::-
, ~xh,6tt
.&
WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN
DAVID H. WOLLINS"
JONATHAN J. HELLMAN
DENNIS B. GREEN
NfiCHAELJ.AxElRAD+
A LAW PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ASPEN OFFICE
. AoMllTF.D IN COLORADO AND NEW YOR.K
... ADMJ1TED iN COLOIlADO AND GAUFORNlA
720 SOUTH COLORADO BOULEVARD
SUITE 620-5
DENVER, COLORADO 80222
TElEPHONE (303) 758-8900
FACSIMILE (303) 758-8111
520 E. Cooper
Sui te 230
AsPEN, COLORADO 81611
TElEPHONE (970) 925-1885
FACSIMILE (970-)' 925-9398
April 21, 2000
City of Aspen, Board of Adjustment
c/o Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
530 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Amended Notice Of Appeal For Review of Actions
Regarding Traffic and Parking Problems, Use
Violations, East Durant Street
To the Aspen Board of Adjustment:
On March 28, 2000, this firm filed an Notice of Appeal on behalf of a group of concerned
citizens regarding the decision reflected in the letter dated March 14,2000, by Zoning Enforcement
Officer Sarah Oates. On April 19, 2000, I received correspondence from Ms. Oates including a
revised determination regarding the complaint involving Coates Reid & Waldron and a letter
informing me that a new appeal would have to be filed. This letter is forwarded to you as an amended
appeal of Ms. Oates' letter dated April 13, 2000.
Please incorporate as part of this Appeal all of the materials and points made in my letter
dated March 28, 2000, which for brevity will not be repeated here.
In addition, the following facts and matters should be considered. Our fundamental
disagreement with Ms. Oates' revised determination is that it incorrectly and unrealistically focuses
upon the raw number of units allegedly managed by CRW in the past and at the present time. There
are significant differences in the level of service required depending upon the size, type, and location
of the units, as well as other factors. For example, the services required for a large home located at
some distance from the facility at the Chateau Roaring Fork are far greater than for a studio located
in the complex. Consideration should also be given to the number of employees operating from the
location, vehicles and trips generated, and similar factors. In addition, and as stated previously, we
wish to see all records which support the claims regarding historic usage, and hereby make demand
for copies of same.
Further, we disagree with the interpretation given to the prior zoning by Ms. Oates. The AR-
1 zoning, in effect prior to 1974, did not allow a general commercial operation of maintenance and
1
- --.....-.--.-
,'"
....'
laundry facility but only allowed "hotel, motel, lodge [uses] including incidental businesses within the
principal use as required to serve the principal use." Thus, the use of the facility to service lodge or
other housing units off-site, i.e. not part of the Chateau Roaring Fork complex, was illegal from the
inception of the use and remains absolutely illegal today.
For these, and the other reasons already provided, we urge the Board to make a decision that
ensures full compliance and strict enforcement of the zoning regulations in the interest of the health,
welfare, and safety of the residents of the neighborhood.
Finally, given that an appeal had already been filed, and the continued urgency of the safety
issues involved, my clients insist that this matter remain on the agenda for the Board of Adjustment
for its first meeting in May, which I am informed is set for May 4,2000.
Sincerely,
.- ~.
...,...,- .....-::: ~.
~.~~ ~
Dennis B. Green - Aspen Office
cc: John Worcester, City Attorney
2
,..
, '.
[~h,6i+ ~H'
ArhulL ~ -:+':Y12J
0:=:>03
3;;;"-;AO '-U'~
}~~
53'lG
April 13, 2000
II
AsPEN . PITKIN
John French. President
Coates, Reid and Waldron
720 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
COMMli~ DE....ELOP~IE.""'T DEPARNE.l\iT
CERTIFIED MAIL
RE: Coates, Reid & Waldron Operations at Chateau Roaring Fork
.
Dear Mr. French:
The purpose of this letter is to amend the City's original decision regarding the operations
of Coates. Reid and Waldron at the Chateau Roaring Fork. Attached is the March 10.
2000, memo from George Doxey from which our original delermination was made. As
you are aware, the zoning of Chateau Roaring Fork changed in the 1970s, making the
operations of Coates,' Reid and \Valdron a legal. non-conforming use.
After extensive research it has been determined that the zoning changed in 1974 from
Accommodations Recreation 1 (M-1), which allowed the commercial operation of a
maintenance and laundry facility. to Residential Multi-Family (R1MF). which only allows
these uses as an a.ccessory use. Based on our March 2 meeting. and comments you had
made. staff has determined that in 1974 your operations consisted of managing 129
properties. It was our understanding thar at that time the company managed the Chateau
fau Claire, Chateau Roaring Fork. Chateau Du Mont and Chateau Chaumont. According
- -
to current assessor's records, the total of these four buildings is 129 units.
The City requires you to scale back your operations at the Chateau Roaring Fork to the
level of operation that existed in 1974. prior to any change in zoning. The Land use
Code does not address who your clients are or where the units you manage are located.
The Code is only concerned with the level of intensity of the operations at Chateau
Roaring Fork, and ifCoales, Reid and Waldron's level of activity has increased there
from the 1974 level. Based on the figures you gave us in the March 2 meeting~ you are
currently operating 150 units from your facility at Chateau Roaring Fork. Therefore, you
will need to scale back your operations to the level that existed when the use was legal.
We would appreciate a written response from you indicating how you iIitend to comply
with our assessment no later than April 25, 2000. This will ensure an understanding on
bOlh of our parts as to the intensity of your operation now and into the future.
130 SoLTH GALE:-<.... STREET . AsPE~, COLORADO 81611.19;5 . PHO:\E 970.920.5090 . F.~.~ 970.920.5~39
,
~~J-:ibtt'aI
WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN
DAVID H. WOLLlNS.
]ONATIlAN J. HELLMAN
DENNIS B. GREEN
MICHAEL]. AxELRAD+
A LAW PAR1NERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
ASPEN OFFICE
. ADMIT'TUl IN CoLORADO AND NEW YORK
+ ADMITTED IN COLORADO AND CAUFORNlA
720 SOUTH COLORADO BOULEVARD
Sum 620-5
DENVER, COLORADO 80222
TELEPHONE (303) 758-8900
FACSIMILE (303) 758-8111
520 E. Cooper
Suite 230
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (970) 925-1885
FACSIMILE (970-)- 925,.9398
March 28, 2000
City of Aspen, Board of Adjustment
c/o Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
530 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Notice Of Appeal For Review of Actions Regarding Traffic
and Parking Problems, Use Violations, East Durant Street
To the Aspen Board of Adjustment:
This Firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside in the area of East Durant
Street, and nearby areas, known as the East End Concerned Citizens. On February 7, 2000, a written
complaint was made to the City's Zoning Enforcement Department regarding the traffic and parking
problems caused by certain illegal uses of property for commercial purposes in the area. On March
20,2000, I received a copy ofletter from Ms. Oates, dated March 14,2000, which addresses some
of the issues raised by my clients.
The purpose of this letter is to appeal the conclusions and actions, and the apparent decision
to refrain from taking certain actions, by Ms. Oates.
The citizens who have brought this matter to your attention are extremely dissatisfied with
a number of the statements and tentative decisions stated in Ms. Oates' letter as follows:
1. The stop-gap remedial measures which apparently are to be taken by Coates, Reid &
Waldron ("CRW') are not sufficient to solve the problems involved. While my clients do appreciate
that, at long last, some attention is being paid to their concerns, the measures simply do not go far
enough.
2. Whether other traffic generation activities are occurring in the area is irrelevant to the
decision regarding whether to take enforcement actions to abate the zoning violations involved.
3. Apparently, Ms. Oates has simply taken at face value the representations ofCRW that it
is currently managing approximately the same number of properties as were managed in 1976. Such
statements are contrary to the experience of the individuals residing in the area and should be verified
I
~.
with hard data. Thus, please ensure that CRW is able to document such claims and provide copies
of the records to this office. Similarly, my clients have observed CRW personnel transporting laundry
from other locations and using the Chateau Roaring Fork facilities for off-site laundry, so the claim
that the facilities are not being used for off-site activities is not supportable.
4. As to situation involving Spaulding Properties, we are informed that Spaulding had no
operation on the site until October-November 1999, and thus there is really no issue that the use of
the property is a violation of zoning and that no defense based upon a "grandfathered" non-
conforming use can be raised. Further, the unit involved is designated on the plats, and has been
historically used (until just recently) as a two-bedroom residential unit, demonstrating that any
commercial use is absolutely without justification.
5. Overall, based upon the matters set forth above and in the letter from the undersigned
dated March 27, 2000 constitutes an abuse of discretion by the Zoning Enforcement Officer and a
denial of due process which has the effect of denying the residents of the area of their rights to have
the zoning laws enforced in a fair and effective manner.
Due to the manifest danger posed by the continuation of the problems caused by the zoning
violations, an expedited hearing on these matters is hereby requested, with the matter to be placed
on the first available agenda for the Board of Adjustment.
Sincerely,
/-.-~ ~
//_~ .c::~~
Dennis B. Green - Aspen Office
2
.r
. ~h~bJt .eT
March 14, 2000
II
Dennis B. Green
Wollins, Hellman & Green
520 E. Cooper Avenue, Suite 230
Aspen, CO 81"611
AsPEN . PITKIN
COMMti~ITY DEvELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
RE: Traffic and Parking Problems, Use Violations, East Durant Avenue
Dear Dennis:
This letter is a summary of how the City of Aspen has proceeded with the problems
related to East Durant Street. As we discussed on the phone, there are several factors
contributing to the traffic and congestion on East Durant A venue, These include the use'
of the ChateauRoaring Fork as a short-term rental property, the operations of the
property management companies at the Chateau Roaring Fork. and the curre.llt
construction of two major multi-family projects in the 900 and 1000 blocks of East
Durant Avenue. Prompted by the complaint of the East End Concerned Citizens. Coates,
Reid and Waldron (CRW) has taken the following measures: .
~ removal of the one-way sign on Cooper Avenue
~ the adoption of incentives for car-pooling and riding RFT A for the employees who
work at Chateau Roaring Fork
~ the adoption of a policy of one CR W vehicle in the parking lot at a time
~ stocking the CRW vehicles with supplies to reduce trips to and from the Chateau
Roaring Fork
. ~ examining greater utilization of the Rio Grande facility during the high seasons
~ maintaining the above policies during the off season .
As we discusses on the phone, after an extensive discussion with CRW representatives it
was determined that the company manages about 150 properties, one-half of those are
units in Chateau Roaring Fe rk and Chateau Eau Claire, and this is the same amount of
properties as was managed in 1976. There has been no measurable increase in their non-
conformity.
Further, the CRW maintenance operations of the Chateau Roaring Fork office are limited
to demands primarily on site. The laundry facility, which has been in operation since
1968, is also used primarily for the demands of the on-site properties. .Severa! other
properties CRW manages have their own laundry facilities. The laundry operations out
of the Chateau Roaring Fork service the remaining CRW properties in Aspen, as
Snowmass Village has its own facility', Staff will continue to work with CRW to
reasonably minimize the traffic and parking problems.
130 SoCTH GALE:\'A STREET. ASPE:\, COLORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . Eu 970.920.5439
Prillled(}nR~I,.,iPaper
.;!I'''-'
After a site visit to the Chateau Roaring Fork, it has come to staff's attention that a
significant amount of traffic can also be attributed to the Silverstream development
(which has recently been completed) and the reconstruction of the Day Subdivision
adjacent to Chateau Roaring Fork. The Community Development Department will be
working with the Parking Department to monitor the traffic management plan for the Day
Subdivision project.
Finally, staffwill be meeting with Spalding Properties to work with them to find a
reasonable solution regarding their operations as well. I will contact you after when have
met with them.
rr'~~
Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer
City of Aspen
cc: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney
MRR 13' '00 12:38AM CORy~S REID & WRLDRON
&h,bd~~ f<
P.l
CO~ltl~.~. H{'ld ...::. W;ddrllrl
A 1-{(,,~~OI1011f'.:t ConlrLlnv
720 E. HVlllrlll Avt>.
A"IH'Il. CO g 1(; 11
\~) ,O! ~17:,.1,IO(1
Cc:
sarah Oates
Aepen COnmlnlty 08'<81<>> ,lent
~F~,~~. ~Rdd::~
George Coxay. GenerIII Man8ger d 0
Merch 10. 200ll
Chateau Ra8r1ng Fork TllIlIIc
Tol
"...
DlIIeI
RIll
OlljedIVe:
To lIIgnlllCal4lY redUce tr8lIIC and perking on E. DuIW1t due to ColIle8, ReId & W8Idron veliclee.
Comments:
It has been the pi d the horneoY<<1en of the Ch8lIiau Ra8r1ng Fork (CRF) to mlnlmizlllnllllc and malnlaln the h1ghlllll8V8I 01
IlIfeIy farlhe CIWIIII'I, gi*ls and vllilors. This.... been -=ompilhed by providing lraIlIpOItIiion far the flo_~ CCQApellts
and by d1l1lCllng lrafIic one v.er off 01 E. Cooper In! on to E. Dunn. TIH lrafIic fta.v _In reepOI1lll! 10 1lI~ ~ 1nIIllo III
lhe I, Bt NdIon, lhe RAFTA and Chlderaumoblle bus stop on the noIlh side r:I Cooper llI1d the Ilmlllld vlllblllly whlln lining left If
exiting onto E Cooper,
eoa.. Reid & Waldron doeI not opnte any arrival or departure IIllIVIoelI at the property,
Just pilar 10 the CUlll'lnt complaint made by the EIllt End CoI.o..,...d Cltlz2na (EECC), ColIlee ReId & W8Idron hid tIUC : I 'lily
ImplllT_,led ...,...1 ~ to r.aa the trafIIc and pwldng needs in this end r:I Aspen. We provide RAFfA tu ~
iranliv_ far ~Ing and 1Irnhc1 CrN'J vehia. to OM Vehicle.. 4ime in the CRF PIIld~" 'T11iI_8YIder1t in !he
picturw provided by EECC end nolId when A8pen Community Development stan' (AC08) mEIde a Site In!PeCUOl1.
TrIrIIc on Cooper and CUrInt tllIa incmn~ dnIm8IiCIIIyv.4th construclion and inGf! III~ c:t.nsiIy. As ~ upon at CllI'
meeting, thecurent COI1lIlnICtIon actIvlllelllll1he RlverG1en TCllo'lII1IlClU! h8Ve genenIIIeCl mejOrtnJIIIC IlT4l8CtSend lClSIIof
.,.Iable I*1dng lor EaIt Durant ,eIldentI and the ~ Romtng Fork CondomInium III cd8Ilon.
OUr Plan:
CFWV '* _iAWld the 1l18intenan:e tnd hOl 'II' ""Ping ""'ice end <hpIfdling pro.: 0 II we beieve we hive ideo ,tir_lhIIl
our I11lIiI'llenll1Ce eervlce vehlcfe8 may very well be CIMltng lIllclllIonIIllnltllc due to un. lee !!IllY 11111I In and cU r:I the RoIq
Fork fac:lllty. By ~ the Rlp8ir ~ thlIl_1IlockscI1Ild l*Ii8d on th.- vehIcklaand Ihrough men tlreclive IIld
IIfficilnll'8llo ~~.Ing, WI blII...,_ WI C8I1 reclJce cxrnfllc ill'1pKt on the ~. We _ focusing (lIllhe rDJCtion
atlrllllic eepeclally bet\'.een 8 .10 am ancl3 - 5 pm, TheSetlmes appeerto be the helYleIl resident traIIIc periods.
Clffl Voill emphIIIize to our sl8lf the importance d propeI1y prepMng for daily duties to reduce cIupIiCIIlion at trips and thereby
creete lesa traIIIc on E. Durwrt.
We 11I80 reccgnize 1hlIl durlng the high ! I!I Joolll we CB'I creeIe "'*" lI'IIlllc far thoee llIlIlfOlllmalely IS weeks In the summer and
8 -a In !he winter. W_ Voilllnv........ how we might be able to make ~ utitlzallon 01 cxr RIo Gl8nde fIICIIlty durtng
1hoe time pIriods. It might be ~ble far us to ,.jj1WCll _ 01 cur inc:. : r 1 ! : vehiCle ueege d1.mg thole timet to IIldlIce our
impact,
Al""'"
,
~1--~; b It ~ L
WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN
DAVID H. WOLUNS"
JONATHAN J. HELLMAN
DENNIS B. GREEN
~CHAELJ.AxELRAD+
. ADMITTED IN COLORADO AND NEW YORK
+ ADMITTU> IN CoLORADO AND CAUFORNlA
A LAW PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
720 SOUTH COLORADO BoULEVARD
SUITE 620-S
DENVER, COLORADO 80222
TELEPHONE (303) 758-8900
FACSIMILE (303) 758-8111
ASPEN OFFICE
117 S. SPRING STREET
SUITE 1
AsPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (970) 925-1885
FACSIMILE (970) 925-8967
February 7, 2000
City of Aspen
Zoning Enforcement Department
530 S. Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Traffic and Parking Problems, Use Violations,
East Durant Street
To the Zoning Enforcement Department:
This Firm represents a group of concerned citizens who reside in the area of East Durant
Street, and nearby areas, known as the East End Concerned Citizens, whose President is Amy
Policaro. In all, a total of approximately 25 citizens and residents have indicated concerns regarding
traffic and parking problems in the area.
L DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
The traffic and parking problems are being generated by commercial uses located at the
Chateau Roaring Fork Condominium. There is a one-way entrance into the condominium complex
otTCooper Street. However, all traffic must exit out of the rear of the parking lot and then onto the
900 - 1000 block of East Durant Street.
The following commercial activities are being illegally conducted from two condominiums at
the Chateau Roaring Fork.
Coates Reid & Waldron (a Resort Quest Company) and Spalding Properties (which recently
opened its operations at the Chateau Roaring Fork) have been operating commercial businesses even
though the complex is zoned residential multi-family. These operations create an unnecessary burden
on the neighborhood. At least fifteen employees go to work there every day for the two companies.
Since the condominium complex has inadequate parking, many of these employees park on East
Durant and East Cooper streets and have been witnessed rubbing the chalk marks otTthe tires which
were placed there by the parking enforcement.
1
............
."""
WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN
Between the two companies there can be up to fifteen cars parked on or near the property on
city streets. Because the condominium complex has a one-way sign leading out to Cooper Street, all
commercial activity is forced down East Durant Avenue with as many as one hundred vehicle trips
a day. Supply trucks from various vendors bring laundry and supplies which are used to service all
of their rental and buildings which are located throughout the area. Coats Reid & Waldron, which is
the largest property management company in the valley, and which also manages properties for
Houston & O'Leary, uses their condominium unit as a laundry facility for their entire operation.
Maids load up their cars with supplies and linens and return many times daily to drop off dirty
laundry. Maintenance trucks also use the facility. When it snows the traffic is increased dramatically
because of the snow removal the companies perform.
Both companies have marked cars and trucks but have other cars and trucks that are not
marked and also use employees' own cars to perform activities. Together with all the employees' cars
and trucks, it has created an extreme safety issue in the neighborhood. Many of the employees speed
and drive recklessly and there have been many complaints to the police. There have also been several
car accidents involving vehicles owned or associated with the management companies and residential
neighbors because ofthe excessive traffic levels.
There are 44 residential units at the Chateau Roaring Fork which already generate
considerable traffic. There are also two large employee housing units on Durant Street which generate
additional volumes of traffic. The concerned residents would like to see all illegal commercial activity
in the neighborhood cease immediately and would like the removal of any commercial laundry
operations. These companies should be in the commercial core where the zoning is appropriate, not
in residential neighborhoods paying residential rents at the expense of the safety and peace of the
neighborhood.
In addition, vehicles regularly park illegally and in positions that block the flow of traffic and
visibility for other vehicles and pedestrians. The fire hydrant at the end of Durant Street is often
blocked, creating an additional safety hazard. Overall, an unsafe condition has been created,
particularly considering that the area's residential character, including hazards to young children.
Attached as Exhibit" A" is a set of photographs illustrating and documenting the problems,
showing the concentration of marked and unmarked service vehicles parked at the condominium
complex, clearly marked company vehicles parked along the residential street, a vehicle blocking
access to the fire hydrant, and signage at the entrances to the units showing the management activities
including the "laundry, maintenance, housekeeping" facility.
2
""-"'''.
"'<
.... ,/
WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN
n. ZONING VIOLATIONS
The zoning for the area, including the Chateau Roaring Fork is RMF - Residential Multi-
Family. The purpose of the district is to provide for long-term residential purposes, with customary
accessory uses. Commercial operations are not permitted, either as a use by right or as a conditional
use. An "accessory use" is defined as a use that is supportive, secondary and subordinate to the
principal use of the lot, parcel, building or structure. An accessory use shall not be construed to
authorize a use not otherwise permitted in the zone district.
It may perhaps be debatable as to the use of the Chateau units for limited accessory uses,
such as management and maintenance of the condominium units located in the complex, which
activities may fall within the definition of accessory use. However, the operations have been expanded
to cover properties across the Aspen area. For example, the maid and laundry service, as well as
miscellaneous maintenance, is being performed for properties in complexes and homes not part of the
Chateau Roaring Fork.
The objections are based both upon the precise language of the City's Land Use Code and
pragmatic considerations which highlight the reason for the distinction between on-site and off-site
activities. For example, doing laundry for a dozen or so units, all located on-site, has a certain impact,
but one which is considered necessary and appropriate under the Code. Washing and distributing
laundry for hundreds of units strewn across the area requires both a larger operation and generates
major traffic impacts as the vehicles move to various locations, all parking and driving in the area, an
area which is supposed to be residential in character.
Simply put, these activities belong in zones such as the SCI or CC zones and are wholly
inappropriate for a residential neighborhood.
III. REOUEST FOR ACTION
Attached as Exhibit "B" is a copy of the Petition signed by over twenty concerned individuals.
The concerned citizens and residents involved have seen the level of commercial use and attendant
problems increase dramatically over the last couple of years. The situation goes beyond that of quality
of life issues but extends to safety issues as well. These issues deserve immediate attention and
definite action.
Sincerely,
~. ~c.;-
Dennis B. Green - Aspen Office
3
....."
'L)lh,b,1
~v~
11-1-6,
Maximum Sign Area
1. SUS1ness aavertising, identification sign in conjunction with
permitted uses, except residences, provided each sign identify a busi-
ne.. occupying the premises. The aggregate sign area permitted along
anyone street shall not exceed one square foot of sign area for each
three teet of lot line footage ~ccupied by or projected.from the build-
ing within which the principal use is conducted. Uses fronting on an
alley shall compute their sig" area allowance by conside~ing the alley
as their lot line frontage. In no case shall the aggregate sign area
for anyone use on anyone frontage exceed twenty square feet. There
may be a combination of the following sign types including a free-
standing sign and wall signs, including cut-out letter signs, subject
to the following limita~ions:
a. Wall sign _ shall not exceed ten square feet on anyone
building wall, exclusive of cut-out letters;
b. Off:ce building registry - a wall sign or free-standing
sign iden~ifying included offices, not to exceed one
square foot of area per office; such sign shall be sx-
eluded from regular sig~ area and quantity limitations.
(0)
S~~UR3~~: Intention - as nrovided
creation dist=~ct regulation.
AR-2 ACCO~MODATIONS REC~EATION -
under the AR-l Acccmmoca~ions Re-
Uses _ Permitted - as provided under the AR-l Accommodations Re-
creat~on d~s~=1C~ regulations.
Uses ~ Condi~ional - as provided under the AR-l Acco~~odation3
Recrea~~on d13~r~ct regulations.
Mini~ Lot Area
_. One-famJ.ly d.....elling.............
2. Two-f~ily dwelli.ng.............
3. Patio house, row house..........
4. Multiple family dwelling........
2,000
,.rOJlO
-U:c
square fee':.
square feet per
dwelling ~nit with
a mi~im~~ lot area
of 15,000 square
feet
square feet
square fe~t ~er un-
limi':.ed unit with a
minimum lot area of
15,000 square feet.
15,000
7,500
.Amended by Sec. 5, Ord. ~o. 19, Series 1967.
Supplement No. 10
July 1, 1968
.._.~
--
11-l-6,
Minimum -Lot Area (cont.)
5. Board~nq house, rooming
house, dormitory.......... ..... 500
6. Hotel, Motel, Lodge............. 750
7. All other uses.................. 5,000
Minimum -Lot Width
1. A~l dwell~n9 and accommodations
units except patio and row house
2. Patio and row...................
3. All other uses..................
Minimum ?ron't Yard
1. All Du~ld~n9S except dwellings
and accessory buildings.........
2. Dwellings except patio house....
3. Patio houses on periphe~l
of project......................
4. Accessory building..............
Minimum Si~g Yard
1. All bu~ld~ngs except patio
and row house...................
2. Patio and row house on
periphery of project............
Minimum Reay Yard
1. Pr~nc~pal bu~ldinq except
patio house.....................
~. Patio house on periphery
of project......................
3. Accessory buildinq..............
Maximum Height of Building..........
*Amended by Sec. 5, Ord. No. 19, Series 1967.
.
Supplement No. 10
July 1, 1968
,~'-,
square feet per four
persons c~ total c~pa-
city, with a minimum
lot area o~ 7,500
square feet-
square feet per limit-
ed unit with a minimum
lot area of 7,500
square feet.*
square feet
7S feet
25 feet
50 feet
200 feet from the right-of-
way lines of St~te
Highways
100 feet from the right-of-
way lines of designated
Arterial Roadways
25 feet in all other loca-
tions
25 feet
25 feet
30 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
5 feet
as orovided under the AR-1
AccOmmodations Recreation
district regulations
.~
11-1-6,
US.S - Permitted
1. One-fam~ly dwelling, two-family dwelling, multiple family
dwelling, aecessory building and use, home occupation:
2. Boarding house, rooming hous., dormitory;
3. Hotel, motel, lodge, including incidental business within the
principal use as required to serve the principal usei
. 4. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices;
5. Open-use recreation site and ski lifta, recreat~on club,
theater, a..embly hall, school, church, hospital, public building for
administration,
6. Patio and row house - provided a to~al projec~ of 25,000 square
f..t in area is developed to accommodate required off-street parking,
internal cedestrian circulation and minimum setbac~s =or t~a district on
the periphery of the project:
7. R8st~uran~, te~ room - provided all facilities for preparatic~
of food are located within a building on the loti
8. Ratail and service commercial uses accesscry to ski lif~~ and
qolf courses including food and beverage service, sale, rer.ta: and r~-
pair of sports equipment to be used in conjunction ~ith the recr3a~ion
ac~ivity provided on the site;
9. Fence, hedge and wall - subject to requirements under Supple-
mentary Regulations;
10. Residential and Institutional identification sigr., directional
.i9n, for-sale sign - subject to requirements under supple~en~ary Reg~-
la.tions.
11. Business advertising, identification sign - subject to a~ea
lL~itations listed herein and Supplementary Regulations.
Uses - Conditional
12. Shop-cra~t type industry - subject to approval of the B03rd of
Adjustment.
Minimum Lot Area
l. One-fam~~y dwelling.............
2. Two-family dwelling.............
~
4.
3.
4.
Patio house, row house..........
Multiple family dwelling........
~7!:.-.
5. Boarding house, rooming
house, dormitory........ ........
*Amended by Sec. 4, Ord. No. 19, Series 1967.
Supplement No. 10
JUly 1, 1968
6,000 square feet
3,000 square feet per
ing unit .....ith a.
mwn lot caa of
square feet
1,50~. square f~et
750 square feet per un-
limited unit with a
mini~urn lot ~ea of
6,000 square faet-
dwell-
mini-
6,000
250 $qual~ feet per four
persons of tc~al capa-
city, wi~h a minDmurn
lot area of 6,000
square feet.
-....
11-1-6,
Minimum Lot .:..rea (cont.)
ij. Hotel, moeel, lOdge.............
375 square feet per limit-
ed unit with a min~um
lot area of 6,000
square feet'"
3,000 square feet
~ '
rJ tW>
\\\,1'.(1;
1i
7. All other uses..................
Minimum Lot Width
1. All dwe11~ng and ~ccommodations
units except patio and row
house.. . . . . .. .. . ... . . ...........
2. Patio and row house.............
3. All other uses..................
~mum Front Yard
1. Pr~nc~pal bu~lding except
patio house.....................
2. Patio house on periphery
of project......................
3. Accessory ~uilding..............
Minimum Side Yard
~. All ~u~ld~ngs except patio
and row house....................
2. Patio and row house on
periphery of project............
Minimum Rear Yard
1. Pr~nc~pa~ Qu~lding excspt
patio house.....................
2. Patio house on periphery
of project.......... ............
Accessory building..............
3.
"--
Maximum Height of Buildings
1. Pr~nc~pa~ bu~ld~ng except
patio house........... ..........
2. Patio house and buildings
accessory thereto...............
Accessory buildi~g..............
'tr-3.
60 fet!t...-
25 feet
30 feet
10 feet
10 feet
15 feet
5 feet
5 feet
10 feet
10 feet
5 f~et
25 feet
""C_ }------
,,<./"""\
.F,-,>1
12 :eeet
21 feet on the front two-
thirds of ~~e lot and
12 feet on the rear
one-third of the lot
Minimum Off-Street Parkina.......... as required under Supple-
mentary Regulations
*Amended by Sec. 4, Ord. ~o. 19, Series 1967.
Supplement No. 10
July I, 1968
,/
BoxE
Aspen, Colorado
mi'
J3 /I c( '2~
~1,;:l-2tt<~ ~(J,I };;/r/"
c.~ ,/ f \....
~/"''-t/ ,.) f } )
J L.-,t;/
TIlE ASP!N TIMS
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO)
) ss.
Copy of Notice
County of Pitkin )
r. Andy Slone, do solemnly swear that I am the Publisher
of THE ASPEN TIMES: that the same is a weekly newspa-
per printed, in, whole or in part, and published in the
County of Pitkin. State of Colorado. and has a general cir-
culation therein; that said newspaper has been
published continuously and uninterruptedly in said
County of Pitkin, for a period of more than fifty-two
consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the
annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper
has been admitted to the United States mails as second
class matter under the provisions of the Act of MardI 3,
1879, or any arne.'1dments thereof, and that said newspaper
is a a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal
notices and advertisements wit." the meaning of the laws of
the State of Colorado.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was pub-
lished in the regular and entire issue of every number of
said weekly newspaper for the period of \ consecu-
tive insertions; and t.'-tat t..""te fust publication of said notice
w,as in the issue of. said new'stiaper'-crated
.h\)1 i \ L~ A.D., 20 C \ and t."~t the la~~ub-
,
lication or said noti..ce was in the Ls-?ue of said new per
dated A.D.. 20 (', 1
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: APPEAL OF AN ADMINIS'ffiATIVE DECISION
RElATED TO THE OPERATION OF PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT COMPANIES AT THE CHATEAU
ROARING FORK
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing
will be held on Thursday, May 17, 2001. at a
meeting to begin at 4:00 p.m. before the Aspen
Board 01 Adlustment, Sister Cities Room Cltv
Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consid~r an
appeal of an administrative decision regarding
t~e operation 01 property management compa-
m~ at the Chateau Roaring Fork. The appeal is
being requested by Don Pollcaro.
For further information, contact James Lindt at
the As;>enjPltkin County Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St..
Aspen, CO (9iG) 920-5441
jamesl@Ci.aspen.co.us. '
sjCharles Paterson, Chairman
Aspen Board of Adjustment
Published In The Aspen TImes on April 28 2001
~5~~ . .
L----
Subscr' ed ana sworn to before me, a notary
public in and for the County of Pitkin, State of Col",rado,
on"",-a,,,'A""Y~ A.D.. >0 0\ .
I. J.J~u&-
Notary?-u. lie
My commission expires \()~a.,-Cl'"L
......,
11-1-6,
Minimum Off-Street Parking..........
as required under supple-
mentary Requlations
MaxL'TIum Siqn Area...................
as orovided under AR-l
Accommodations Rec~eation
district regulations
11-1-7: COMMERCIAL
{a) C-l COMMERCIAL: Intention - to al-
low the use 0= land for retail and ser7ice commer=i3l purposes, accom-
modations and recreational as ~ell as for residential purposes with
custo~ary accessory uses and institutional uses.
Uses - Permitted
1. Any ?e~,i~~ed use of ~~e AR-l Accomrc.odation Recreation 1istrict
except patio houses subject to all use, let area and yard requir~'T\ents
of that district re~ulation ~n~ess otherwise scecified below:
2. Retail co~;'ercial establisnrnents limi~ed to the fcllowing and
similar uses: anti~ue snap, ap?li~nce store, art sup?ly shop, ar~
gallery, autc~obile acces5cry store, bakery, book store, c~.era shop,
candy, tobacco or cigaret~e stare, catalog store, clothing store, deco-
rator shop, depart~ent store, drug store, florist shop, food ~arket,
furniture store, gift shop, hardware store, hobby shop, jewelry shop,
job printing snop, key shop, liquor store, ?e~ s~o?, ?aint and ~all-
paper store, pawn shop, phot~graphy shop, spo!~ir.g gocds stcre, sta-
tionery store, var~e~y s~ore.
3. Service cc~~ercial establishments li~ite1 ~o t~e following an~
similar uses: busir:.ess office, cate:-ing ser'lice, financial institution,
persor.a~ se:-vice including barber and beauty shop, c~stom sewi~g, dry-
cleani~g pick-up station, laundromat, tailori~g and shoe repair shop,
parking lot or garage, stud~o for instruc~ion in t~e arts, radio or
television jroadcasting facility.
4. Rental repair and whoiesa~ing facili~ies in conjuncticn with
any or t~e abO'le listed uses ?rovided a:1 suc~ activity is clearly
incider:.ta1 and accessory ~o the pe~itted use ar.d ccnducted wi~hin a
1:luilding.
5. St::rage of mat~ria:5 accessorv to an'! of the above listed 'J.ses
provided all such storage is :ocated wit~in a'structure.
Uses - Conditional
6. Anv condi~ional use of the AR-l ACCQ~'TIodation Recreation dis-
trict subject to all use, lot area and yard requirements of that dis-
trict unless other1ise specified below.
7. Rec~eation and entertainment establis~~ents limi~ed to the
following and simi~ar. uses: business, fraternal or social club or hall,
billiard parlor, dance hall, ice or roller skati~g rink - subject to
approval of t~e 90ard of Adjustment.
3. Shop-craft indust~y _ subject to approval of the aoard of Ad-
justment.
supplement No. 7
June 30, 1967
,r-6';=::-~) ,/ "'= i~Q..
\j .-' V) .\ '>,
0;-' \ '! ,
-.:.... ~ .'~ "', '.
9,. Q ~ .~~~.
3 J., '?d---- '\""~ ~'"
- I ~ <' < Ei {) aL \::)
/,''''\:J)\)\J >-1
it "---';f' J '1
'. ;;- v ----:d -D~\"
<( s:r'1 v:i~ ~. 5'n Is
-.JL ..) "" i' I -J ~::r; <().-J
'- ~ t::: .J y ~_~ v-
\ ,'; v (:1~ ~ ;- :::.,; <:) I { cD
\c:-l-. ~~-J 4'-C () 8 .';)~ <
,sf 00 ~j ~ ~ k" <:: Sf
<
~
v
<:S
<l
(}{~
<r ~+
~ ..---J. \'--
,,~ '? \S"
.......~D.......
-6 -<
" -<l
~ .~
o.s:.
'0
J,
~
...:7
u
w
C)
lit
III
III
W
~
t-
2
ct
t-
IE
o
a.
~
~~
ei
~I
9
w
~
F'
~
-'
o @::l ;J.
w z<C U
Z a::U w
o ::>0: U1
a: tuB t5
0:>- c[
:::l O::)~:J
<(2',f-0 tJ)O
O<i.w>- 1->-
...JCl2WZW
~<(<:(UJ <(w
.5: ,,"'
-
'6'
.
.'>
S
o
0::
.
1-'"
c..~
- ~
wo
C,)~
Wg
a:~
.~~
c:~..
CIl ~
cnc8
iiiW"
....-~
~~
C/lWo
::lC,)~
\
\'
~
"""
>-
~ .i
s:- <l'0
7; --- '\ ::
~ -d ~
~ :J 'I;;' ~
G..-~ :5
if~ --J
t-o..l S 7-
'-
<:J J--E,
~ U ~ ~
;J l-s
~ -( ~<
~
'I-
u-
'"
--...J2
C><:,
'<S'-
'-
~
m ~
- .
2I
~
::1
fYJ u ()
-~~
~
-~
. .
~ .
-1Jl l1.
~ &
0- 13
~ 0
::r
J!~ ft~
9-~ ~~
Cl><Ll :><ll
~~ ~~
~ ~ al ~
&g -g~
'0 0:;-8
~ &~
'", 'i
- 7-
I\) j
\r) ..-S:\
'" ~
."
---# v
<..:i ~
0 ~
uSj] 0
-.1 -\"'" -6
) ~ d~
. ,0;;
</
,....
~
~
cs--
-.....
'-s-
'<:--
"
J
.
-1l
'S
&
.
1-'"
c..~
- ~
wo
C,)~
wg
a:~
,
.
o
0::;:-;
.-..... <:
c:~..
CIl ~
cnc8
iiiW"
+-'-~
",u..<
o i='~
D.:a:ti
cnw
::iC,)~
~
.~
.
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
u
. .
~ .
f'... "--S' .
- ~\J: I"
(11 rsl * '-!
,,'}J'CI'
(fl & ~ i~--j
. ~icil<iii
~ ~ !~\:.j!
011 q,~:a :
~ ~c:;;(j:J
~ ~l" ()!~N!~
~ . ?!~N~
{!. "g ::ll :b
Cl: ii?5 io
is
~
o
rr
o
o
w
..
o
o
o
~
>
~ 2
"
,,~
o
o
"
"
LDE~ D~2D ~2DD 0090 DDDL
2
w
"
~
~ ~
- .
o I
o
~
~ C)~ f'
-
(fl
,
~ -
~ <F>
. . $" *'0 .
~ . 0
. ~ ~. ~. 0
ti n .9-~ ",5 ~
. .0 ~
~ .. ,.
e ~rr =0: .
() 0 t31: ~
____ 0 rrt' .
~. ~~ ..
~ 5~ 0
.. nO 0-
c" "
- rro _0
~ ~ on ~
.~
'" rr",
hH~ D~2D ~2DD DO
lum
i
I 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
i ~ 1 Number (Copy from service label)
17l'fY 3<(6iJ OO/t .;:'.L.PS- 9t/'l
i PS Form 3811. July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt
I
~
. Complete items 1,2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
. Print your name and address on the reverse
so ~hat we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
~ 1. Article Addressed to:
I
:~'n
I
1'/<5 f:::..,
I
~ (Ip
,~
~ 1/ (,O..fO
fI.(rh c~
n;: 1/
;Ii
.s"')s
C. Signature
>(,~ :_, i',:_~ ;r/.; it /j,t A
D. Is delivery address different frol!'l'l'item 11
If YES, enter delivery address below:
o Agent
o Addressee
DYes
D No
3. Service Type
~ertified Mail
o Registered
o Insured Mail
o Express Mail
~eturn Receipt for Merchandise
D C.O.D.
DYes
102595-00-M-0952
P'l Complete items 1, '2, ana .1so complete
:tem 4 if Restricted Deliveiy is desired. "
Print your name and address on the reverse.,;
;) that we can return the card to you.'
~ ,'\ttach this card to the back of the mailpjece,
G~ on the front if space permits.
. Article Addre~::~~~~ I~~ ~J~
7?DE: r-IytMCI/A Ave.
AsfJe~1/(()()(b( I
2. .
Number (Copy from service /abeQ
o
PS Form 3811. July 1999
3. ...S~ce Type
~Certified Mail
o Registered
o Insured Mail
o Express Mail
~eturn Receipt for Merchandise
DC.D.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
DYes
z
'f2.2-5
Domestic Return Receipt
102595-00-M-0952
. Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete
item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.
. Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you.
. Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece,
or on the front if space permits.
: '2f~e~d~"s~fe Vie VI
C.Oa.+-e.S/ Re',d, r VVC{/cIvou
720 e. HVlMcu", /~IIi/1,
(*SfJ€lI1) CO ~/0f(
o Agent
o Addressee
DYes
D No
D. Is delivery address different from ite
If YES, enter delivery address belo
3. _ ~ice Type
)gJ Certified Mail
o Registered
o Insured Mail
o Express Mail
o Return Receipt for Merchandise
D C.O.D.
4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee)
DYes
i 2.. 7oobe8COPY f'Oh'Ci)beI! CO '2~ () --Eo
I PS Form 3811, July 1999 Domestic Return Receipt
1307-
102595-99-M-1789
,.,.
UNITED STATES P0QAL SERVICE
~ First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
. dd s anci ZIP+4 in this box.
. Sender: Please print your name, a res, .
!f.lP'-"- /1v.~ lemW\.. /)hJ.
130 S. G/JLe/.J.4 ..0,
lkf'rN U J' /c, (/
"
III/II
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
UNITED STATV DOSTAL SERVICE
. Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box.
Asp-e iA./ Pl'fk~ V\ CoN !/J<pV
130 5: G-CAJeV. C{ 9
4spevl/ co '15/6/)
!
,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
/11/1
First-Class Mail
Postage & Fees Paid
USPS
Permit No. G-10
. Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box.
A<<peVl!fJ,fl<:,G CoW~lJd~{/-y ~eVe!6Ik[)-j fA,f-
f0er-o.V+M ~ I/! t 'tECE''1ED
13'0 S. 6-a/e.0 q APR 3 02001
JI/,:p i/\ /'() C'///.J A::;~l:foIl~/jKI"
(T.:=> e / L- C { V [(l;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
,'Jqll1<e-s L(~d
.
~
"
~
0>
u;
(j )( C
" ,,;
E al
a. . ~ :g.
E'O l!:! ::i"Cij
8.~~g,E
"- "
g~ c.9-S .
a:.!e ~'Eo~
("j ~e ~Tj E
'0 g? "0 Q) C'll Q)
c=-cJ:::.!J a.
C'llQ)as-Q)co
N'Cl-o E.r:.: 0
"0 C:::I- C'll
~ II) <<I a>.s g.
(l)0Q)'-
E"o:; E c "E ~
co- C'll <<Ie
~m~oo2
Q) a: ... Q).~-
j:t::5~=~
a.~>-C'll.c.-
EE'EJ::oC
o <p'c~~ 0
O:t:c..u.l<(o
. . .
m
o ~
ou
~~~~
0000
~
n
~ "ii
H
i ~
:g
!E m
u ~
~ ~
H
f~
.- '"
ow
u>-
J!2:!::
N
o:::}-~
~e:,-
Of"--. \RJ
\J -= ()
~ '-.)
<; OX '"
~-G.:.. Q -:;
~ dJ9J
~......- Q
~&"'- <$'I
:II ---L
"
"
"
.. il
u
0 ~
~ . "
~ ?- 8:
0
::; 0 Ii!
.E ~
15. ~
.. ..
::; ~
:g ~ . 3f
~ " c
~ ~ q '"
wa:() !
000
o.
~
III = ~
::?E: tll =
1l al::;"
~~.~~ i
.2 i liP ~ :g
~ () Ir e t)
Jj~DD &!.
'"
--
iY\
-
..;
~
(\j
c<:J
15.
..
~
a:
E
"
..
a:
u
!l
E
o
c
N
~
~
~ s:i
" ,~~
~ Z'~B~I!~
Q '2 ~~
t:: z -<~
~ lLi ZOO I
..........' if: ~ R ~
z 0 -< ~
~ w:j CJ,;;i
~ > :::: 0
(jJ lLi f--'
-<I'? 58
;:: lfl '
~ ~ ~
~ <
c
u
~ ,~,' "
~
-:r -
\\
-r..,
l
<:;
=
'"
~
.-'l
",
.-'l
~
x: I
c'O ~~.
~~'
J
;/if.:5/ . d
--
~ ~~
\5 R~
.0 -
-= - ()
c2 ~\j
o "
. s: c::Q ~
d~~
CJ
."
ru
CJ
."
ru
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
..D
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ
t'-