HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20010517CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT May 17, 2001
DECLARATION OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST .................................... ; ......................................................... 1
CASE 00-04 -APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF
COATES, REID & WALDRON AT THE CHATEAU ROARING FORK .......................................................... 1
8
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF 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 I-Ioefer
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
I-Ioefer, 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.
I-Ioefer 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 of CRW's facility at the Chateau Roaring Fork was
changed from AR-1 to RFM. In the AR-1 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. Staff felt that they 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 andthat 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 OF ADJUSTMENT 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 of there. 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 of 731
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
40lb. washers and 1 was a 501b). 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 of 96 units. French said that all the laundry
was run out of the Chateau Roaring Fork and Eau Claire for all of those 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 1/2 of the 47 units at Roaring Fork and ½ of the 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 2001 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 if there 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 of the
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 OF ADJUSTMENT May 17, 2001
understanding was that Sarah Oates asked CRW how many units were managed in
1974 and they gave h6r 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 Spanlding 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 ~he city attorney, John Worcester, and Larry
Thoreson from the ~inance 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 dryerswere decreased then they
might have to make up for that decrease by running the washers and dryers 24
hours a day. I-Ie asked if there 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. I-Ioefer 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. Hoe£er 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 of time 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 respoasibility 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 if the
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 milts? Policaro
said that they were talking about the use in 1974 of 2 washers and 2 dryers.
6
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT 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 if he 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 if he 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 j ob 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 agreed 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.
Meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Transcribed by Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
7