Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20000504CITY 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 of Wollins, 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-1 zone. In 1974 the zone changed to R-11 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 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 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 nd objection was that sentence in the 2 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 if he could live with 73. Policaro replied that he could if it was permanent. Head asked Worcester what if a year from now 200 units were serviced. Worcester responded that it may or may not be a violation of the law; it th th deepened upon that 74 or 75 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. th Bill Murphy said that if they go above that 74 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 of 74 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 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING 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 a 1, 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 of CRW, 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 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MAY 4, 2000 Policaro said that they would be happy if they limited the number to the 73 units. Worcester reiterated that sentence from the letter had no binding effect on the city; if CRW 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 CRW, staff accepted the memorandum 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 1 (AR-1) (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 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 (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 CRW 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 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING MAY 4, 2000 MINUTES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1 CASE #00-04 APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION - OPERATION OF COATES, REID & WALDRON at CHATEAU ROARING FORK ........................ 1 THE COMPLAINT ………………………………………………………………7 8