The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutlanduse case.boa.Chateau Roaring Fork.004-00 AGENDA ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COMMISSION Special Meeting Thursday, May 4, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, City Hall III. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (actual and apparent) I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES (4/13/2000) IV. COMMENTS A. Commissioners Comments B. Staff Comments C. Public Comments (concerning items not on the Agenda) V. PUBLIC HEARING A. Case #00-04 - Appeal of an Administrative Decision Related to the Operation of Coates, Reid and Waldron at the Chateau Roaring Fork VI. ADJOURN CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT '-.,../ APRIL 13. 2000 COMMISSIONER. STAFF AND PUBLIC COMMENTS ..................................................................................... 1 MINUTES....................................................................................................................................................................1 DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST..................................................................................................... 1 CASE #00-01 RACQUEST CLUB CONDOMINIUMS, 1040 MATCHLESS ...................................................... 1 CASE #00-03 609 WEST BLEEKER - LARGE AND SMALL FRlES................................................................. 4 6 -.. CITY OF ASPEN B(};,..,tU) OF ADJUSTMENT - APRIL 13. 2000 Charles Paterson opened the Board of Adjustment meeting at 4:00 with Rick Head, David Scott, Jim Iglehart and Bill Murphy present. Howard DeLuca was excused. City staff in attendance were Sarah Oates, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER. STAFF and PUBLIC COMMENTS Jackie Lothian noted that Deanna Olsen stated that she chose not to serve as a member on the Board of Adjustment. MINUTES MOTION: Jim Iglehart moved to approve the minutes from March 9, 2000, Case #00-01 - Racquet Club Condominiums, 1030 Matchless Drive. Bill Murphy second. APPROVED 5-0. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST Board Members disclosed no conflict of interest. Sarah Oates stated that she had a conflict with the Large and Small Fries case and that Nick Lelack would present it. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-01 RACOUEST CLUB CONDOMINIUMS. 1040 MATCHLESS Charles Paterson opened the continued public hearing for 1040 Matchless, Racquet Club Condominiums. Notice was provided at the March 9th meeting with the list of mailing. John Howard, Willow Creek Design Studio, provided a new drawing showing the ways autos would have to have to turn around. They were already 6 inches less than the required amount. He said there would be a 5-foot "dead space" if the rear wall of the garages were built in that spot, it would create a trash collection situation. If the garage designs were flipped then there would be less sun and more of a need for cars warming up longer. He reviewed the reasons for granting these variances. John Howard said the sun exposure reduced ice build up and the garages were built into the berm, which would reduce the mass. He said that the staff had said that having a garage was not a necessary right, but he said that there was practical difficulty with the garages sitting in any other place. He felt that the board could find that the applicant had the right for these garages. John Howard added there were no negative comments from staff or from public. I CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT --- APRIL 13. 2000 Rick Head said that massing would occur in either location and would probably be more of a problem for the residents by placing them where John Howard wanted them placed. He said he could not find a practical difficulty and maybe the internal could work but the parking lot could be moved back five feet. He said that he would have been in favor of granting a minimum variance if the applicant came back with a different plan. Jim Iglehart stated that he had no problem with the side yard setback and thought everyone should have a garage; he said that he was in favor of granting the variances as designed. Iglehart noted that no one wrote or called to protest against the proposal. Bill Murphy said the garages were where they belonged and the fact that no neighbors complained, was a positive for him. David Scott said that he sided with Rick. Charlie Paterson stated that he felt that the applicant had a good case and that it did not make sense to move the garages. He noted the practical difficulties with the turns, which would not be good. Paterson said that it wasn't a dense area. Rick Head asked why the placement was needed against the property line when there was more room on the other side and that the garages could be moved. Head noted that it would give away too much and the Board was obliged to keep the garages in conformity and not promote non-conformity. Head suggested changing the setbacks on 2 of the garages, closest to the entrance of where the garages would be built. David Schott noted that it was not built yet, so it would have a little bit more landscaping with what Rick suggested. Bobbie Carson, owner of Unit #4, asked for clarification on which units Rick was talking about changing. Charlie Paterson clarified that they were the east side units (Units 3 & 4). Bobbie Carson said there would be a problem with the other neighbors, if the garages were moved. She stated that open space of 5' would be visually obtrusive. Bobbie Carson implored the board to approve the variances as proposed. Jackie Lothian stated that the City Attorney's Office said that all the board members could vote, after reading the minutes from the 'March 9th meeting. 2 - """ CITY OF ASPEN BOA;:tU) OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 13. 2000 Charlie Paterson noted that four (4) positive votes were need for the variance to pass. The board offered a compromise of moving 2 of the garages forward. Rick Head thanked Bobbie Carson for her passion, but garages were a luxury and not a necessity. David Schott said the garages could be moved back. Charlie Paterson said that he would vote for the compromised variance. John Howard stated that the massing would look larger, ifthe mass was moved anywhere else and would reduce the apparent density by keeping it on the property line. He reiterated that the current owners did not site the units original placement. Rick Head said that it was not what he could consider; he could live with the amended application but would not vote for it unless amended. Head explained to John Howard that ifthere was not a compromise, the variances would not be approved. John Howard said that this would bring another large tree down. Head noted that he did not think the garages came near the tree. MOTION: Rick moved to approve the 4Yz foot rear yard setback variance on Lot 3, Units 1 & 2, a 14 foot side yard (west side) variance of Lot 2, and a combined side yard setback variance of 15 feet on both Lots 2 & 3 (east side) to allow for the construction of 4 detached garages at 1030 Matchless Drive. David Scott second. Roll call vote: Iglehart, yes; Murphy, yes; Head, yes; Schott, yes; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 5-0. John Howard asked ifhe could come back with the variance request. Sarah Oates explained that the same variances could not be applied for again. Rick Head stated that there was a quorum tonight. 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - APRIL 13. 2000 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE #00-03 609 WEST BLEEKER - LARGE and SMALL FRIES Charles opened the public hearing for Large and small fries. Notice was received. Nick Lelack explained that the applicant, Small and Large Fries LLC represented by Mary Holley, requested a variance from the rear and side yard setback dimensional requirements in order to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) which will be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. A portion of the proposed detached ADU would encroach into the required rear yard setback for accessory buildings, requiring a four (4) foot rear yard setback variance. The proposed ADU also requires a four (4) foot side yard setback variance for the west side yard setback. The vacant lot was'located in the R-6 zone district and part of a Historic Landmark Lot Split, which created two (2) 4500 square foot lots. The variances were requested to preserve the 22" diameter spruce tree located on the southern portion of the lot, while at the same time provide an ADU that was detached and deed restricted to mandatory occupancy. Both of these objectives were consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Ernie Fyrwald said that there were 0 lot lines in that area and the livability would be much better with this variance. Alan Schwartz stated that he represents Ellen & Allen Fells, the next door owners and neighbors. The Fells said that they felt this was the best solution for an above ground ADU and the Fells would support the project. Schwartz stated that this was a dense lot with the lot split and 3 units on it with a large tree. He noted that the neighbors were not opposed. Mary Holley said that this parcel was unique because of the sizeable tree in the southern portion of the lot and the historic lot split created the small lot size. The size and location of the tree created a practical difficulty. Holley provided photos of the lots. She said that Ernie Fyrwald wanted to build a good above grade ADU. She said the building would be on piers not to disturb the roots of the tree. Holley stated that Ernie entered into a 3-year tree maintenance program for the trees. Rick Head stated that he just loved these kinds of variances; he said that he was very proud to rule on it favorably. Jim Iglehart stated that if Rick was happy he 4 - -. """ CITY OF ASPEN BOJ\1ID OF ADJUSTMENT APRIL 13. 2000 was happy. Bill Murphy said the neighbors were addressed. Charlie Paterson said that staff recommended approval. Bill Murphy noted the neighbors were a Lelack stated that staff recommended approval of the variance request finding that the Review Standards had been satisfied. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the request for a 4 foot rear yard setback variance (allowing for a 1 foot setback) and a 4 foot side yard setback variance (allowing for a 1 foot setback) on the west side to permit construction of a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit which will be deed restricted to mandatory occupancy at 609 West Bleeker Street, finding that the review standards have been met." Jim Iglehart second. APPROVED 5-0. Sarah Oates said that there was an appeal of a previous Planning and Zoning review that will come before the Board of Adjustment on May 4th. Charlie Paterson will not be able to attend. Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 5 MEMORANDUM FROM: RE: Board of Adjustment Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director -se> Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer- TO: THRU: Appeal of an Administrative Decision Related to the Operation of Coates. Reid and Waldron at the Chateau Roaring Fork DATE: May 4. 2000 SUMMARY: 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. APPLICANT/COMPLAlNTAl"lT: East End Concerned Citizens represented by Dennis Green ofWollins. Hellman and Green. 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 1 (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 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. 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: r... """ 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: There has been no 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, and the company has verbally indicated its willing to comply with the City's request to do so. 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 as it relates to the operations of CRW at the Chateau Roaring Fork." EXHIBITS: Exhibit A-Letter of Appeal from Dennis Green, dated April 21, 2000 Exhibit B-Letter of Decision from City of Aspen, dated April 13, 2000 Exhibit C-Letter of Appeal from Dennis Green, dated March 28, 2000 Exhibit D-Letter from City of Aspen to Dennis Green, dated March 14,2000 Exhibit E--Coates, Reid and Waldron memorandum. dated March 10, 2000 Exhibit F-Formal Complaint, dated February 7, 2000 Exhibit G-Summary of Accommodations Recreation 1 (AR-l) Zone District c:/lhome/saraho/crwappeal.doc 2 - . [xh,6,t it WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN DA.VID H. WOLUNS. JONAmAN J. HELLMAN DENNIS B. GREEN NhCHAELJ.~AD' A LAW PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ASPEN OFFICE . ADMITT!D IN COLORADO AND NEW YOIut <to ADMmm IN COLORADO AND c.wroRNlA 720 SOUTH COLORADO BOULEVARD SUITE 620-S DENVER, COLORADO 80222 TELEPHONE (303) 758-8900 FACSIMILE (303) 758-8111 520 E. COOPer Suite 230 AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEW'HONE (970) 925-1885 FACSIMILE (970-)- 925,..9398 April 21, 2000 City of Aspen, Board of Adjustment c/o AspenlPitkin 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 Aprill3, 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. Forthese, 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 r;<:hl bit B Mrr1fJ-L- B: :+oC(;q 0::::>03 3,J--;;;"0 ~]~ } ~ ~ 53'L G Aprill3,2000 II ASPEN . PITKIN John French. President Coates, Reid and Waldron 720 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 COMMUNm OEVELOP\lEST DEPARTMENT 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, merno from George Doxey from which our original determination was made. As you are aware. the zoning of Chateau Roaring Fork changed in t1ie 1970s. making the operations of Coates; Reid and Waldron a legal, non-conforming use. After extensive research it has been determined that the zoning changed in 1974 from Accommodations Recreation I (AR-l). which allowed the commercial operation of a maintenance and laundry facility. to Residential Multi-Family (R1MF), which only allows. these uses as an accessorY use. Based on our March 2 meetim!, and comments vou had . - ,-," made. staff has determined that in 1974 your operations consisted of managing 129 properties. It was our understanding that at that time the company managed the Chateau Eau Claire, Chateau Roaring Fork. Chateau Du Mont and Chateau Chaumont. According ~o 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 uruts you manage are located. The Code is only concerned with the level of intensity of the operations at Chateau Roaring Fork, and if Coates, 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 intend to comply with our assessment no later than April 25, 2000. This will ensure an understanding on both of our parts as to the intensity of your operation now and into the furure. / 130 SoO"Tll GA""A STREET ' AS'EN. COLORADO 81611-1975 ' 1'Ho" 970.920.3090 . F".970.920.5439 --- Please feel free t.o call me at 920-5441 if you have any questions. Regards'L /~ '\""h 7l / Sa.":lh Oates, Zoning Officer City of Aspen Enclosure cc: John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Dennis Green, Wollins, Hellman & Green /, . . , . . - . ,/' ,,' -. ( ~;l-h ,b, I '--- WOLLlNS, HELLMAN & GREEN DAVID H. WOWNS. JONA'IHAN J. Hw..MAN DENNIS B. GREEN M10lAEL J. AxELRAD. A LAW PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ASPEN OFFICE . AoIolll'T!D IN COLOllADO AND NEW' YORK . ADMITTED IN COLOlADO AND CI.uFoRNJA 720 50urn COLORADO BOULEVARD SUITE 620-5 DENVER, COLORADO 80222 T~HONE(303)758-8900 FACSIMILE (303) 758-8111 520 E. Cooper Suite 230 AsPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE (970) 925-1885 FACSIMILE (970-r 925,..9398 March 28, 2000 City of Aspen, Board of Adjustment rio AspeolPitkin 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 1 - -- ,. """.... ""'- ."".. ,_ __... caw"....'" --""" """" "" ,..,... '""" ""...-do",...""",. s_.""""""__caw..........--- ...._1_"''''''''' """"" .."mg'''''' """'"" fu< off.... _. ",,,,- that the facilities are not being used for off-site activities is not supportable. 4. '" '" _ _\W>g S,- '-"'" w. "" --' ... S........ Jw\ no ."....... no...... umiI ~-N_ 1999............" """ no............. '" ... """'" \. . .- '" ......... "" ... no .- ..... upon · .,.............. non- _ ... ... be....... ,............. -""" " .......... "" ... ...... ... ... '"'" __ .... (umiI.... -) .. · -"""""" """",,, .... -- ... .., commercial use is absolutely without justification. 5. <>=ill.......,........................,.... In ... -.... ................ ""'" ""'" 21.2000 _.. ..... "'....."" by'" ZooInI!'- 0fIk<<'" · ""'"' '" duo """" w"""...... _ '" _'" -- "'... "" ",- rigbU "'- the zoning laws enforced in a fair and effective manner. "'" ",,,, __ """"..... by'" __ "r... """'''''...... by"'''''' ",,,Uti..... ........... ....... no""''''''''' """" ""..-d. """... -" '" be ,- on the first available agenda for the Board of Adjustment. Sincerely, ~~c~ /".~ L-. ~'<<- DemUS B. Green - Aspen Office 2 - ,0hrb,t D March 14,2000 . Dennis B. Green Wollins, Hellman & Green 520 E. Cooper Avenue. Suite 230 Aspen. CO 81'611 ' AsPEN ' Prn<lN COMMUNITY DEva.orMENT 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 f.actors contributing to the traffic and congestion on East Durant A venue. These include the use' of the Chateau Roaring Fork as a short -term rental property, the operations of the property management companies at the Chateau Roaring Fork, and the current construction of two major multi-family projects in the 900 and 1000 blocks of East Durarit Avenue. Prompted by the complaint of the East End Concerned Citizens. Coates, Reid and Waldron (CR\V) has taken the following measures: ' , , ,. ;,. rernoval 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 CR W 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 Fcrk 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. ,Several other properties CR W manages have their own laundry facilities. The laundry operations out of the Chateau Roaring Fork service the remaining CRW properties in Aspen, as Snowrnass Village has its own facility'. Staffwill continue to work with CRW to reasonably minimize the traffic and parking problems. lJOSoL'THG^Lc,^Srmr ' AsPEs.CoLOR.\oo81611-19T:i ' l'HoN,970,920.5090" F,u91O.920.543'1 -.. - After a site visit to the Chateau Roaring Fork, it has c'Ome to staff's attention that a significant amount of traffic can also be attributed to the Silverstream developrnent (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. }!,~~ Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer City of Aspen cc: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney MAR 13 '00 12:3BAM COATES REID & WALDRON &h'olc.lo L P.1 \:O;IlP~"" KCl(l ".::.. W~lidltln .A 1-{(,~(,H1Qll('<.~.t Conlp;lny 720 [. HylTl..lil Avt:- A~pPIl. co (\1(;11 19 '01 9)~,-1.10(l Cc:: Snh Oates Aepen Camrru'itY 0eI.~ ,... << Jd11 F~ ~dert. ~ Red ::~ George 0cDlllV, General Me. IIg8I' of 0 M81C1'110.2llllO ChlieIIu Raalg FOlk T~c 'nil ,..... .... .. otlject\Ve: To IlgI ~lICanlIY recllC8 tramc andl*ld~ on e. 0II'lri due 10 CoIIIee. Reid & WaIdnln vehlcIee. CClmmenls: It '- been the SlQIIl of the ~ 01 the ChIleIu Ro8ring FOlk (CRF) 10 minirnla 1nlIIIc and ITlIIlnIaIn the h1ghellleVeI of I/IIr!tf for the -. gu.is IIId vlailln. 'Tl1ia n. been ac:compliahecIl7i providing lrIhepcltlllio., for the .,.~ 0CQlIlIIllI and I7i d1ll1Cllng lnltIIc one ~\<lI'f oIf of E. Cooper IIId on ID E. 0IIrld. ThIs lnIIIlo flow_In reeponae to 11I~ ~, 1IIIIllc tll ..lrDI-.L. ~ the RAFT A and Cl1ateunobiIe buI step on the north side of Cooper lIld the Hmialld vfllbillty whlIn tIIni~ left if eldlIng onto E COOper. eo... Reid & WaIIdron doeIlllll cpenI\e any anivaI at deIlartW'e llllIYicell at the fllllIl8l\Y. JuSt pnarlollleCUlTel'1t campIIInllTllde I7i the Eaet End CoI.o.nI.ed Cltlzl!nll (EECC), Cotllea Reid & Waldrall"ed IIUI:: "JJy Impl.-r...'*l""'" rr--.IO rUlce the lraIllc and paIId~ neads in this end of Aspen. we providI RAFTA tu ~ incII1tivw for _~ rd IIrnbd CfWoI V8hla.1O one vehicle.... -time in the CRF 1*Ici~'" TIW _evidel1t in the pIctww provided by EECC lIIId nalId \Wlen AIpen CommLllily Devetopnent!lalY (AC08) mIde a sll8 ill~. Tr'IIllc on COOper and CUrInlIW ina! I nU dIIrnIlicIItf v.th <XlIlIUuclion and ina j d.-rsity. ,.. agr.-d upon. QUI' meetlnv. the curenI CllIllIlIUCtIan'acllvlllell tll1l1e RIver Glen T~ nave gell1!1l11lld I1IljaI'l/IftIc ilT4llldSencllae of .,allallle pIIlcIng for SaIl Olnl1l,~," and the Chateau RolIring FoIlc CoI.a...,'.un m II a oI8lIon. 011 Plan: CfWoI '- _-.cl..lI18i'....lClIaM hoo '"""Ping 8l!IIIice and chpItc/Ing ~ we believe we hive ideo llifi<<l thIII our meil'lllell8l1Ce 8l!IIIice vehIcleB may very WI!II be CleIllng addIlIcIllllnllllc due 10 lA.1e( ! 1 Y lItpa In IIId cU of the RoerIng Fork fIciIlty. By GlCI*ICIng the I1IplIir Il(JIInn that n 8locIuId n ~ on ~ whIcIIIand1h~ _..h:tive and -'Iic:iInt ~ ~.ng, ... t.IIeve... CWI ra- QUl'hfIIc imI*i onlhe r",;,,}obw.lloCld. We.. focuIlng on lhe rmlClWl ofll'llllc eepecIlIlly beOJ_een 8-10 am IIId 3 - 5 pm. TlIese\lmes __10 be the Ilelr.lleIt reeldentlnltllc periOClS. CRIV v.iII ~ ID QUI' *If'1he impoltIIlOe of propelty llIeplIli'lQ for daily duties 10 reduce d1~ of frips 8ld thereby CN8te 1_ trllIIIG on E. DunI1l. we aI80 recllQIlile _ ciJItng the I'ifll! 111l1'8 we CII'I creIIIe plllertraftlc for tIlOIle 8IlIlfllll/n1Il e weeks In the Sl.IT1Il1eI' 8ld 8 -'c5ln 1M wInlw. We will invllllu.... hew we might be able to II1ilIce grelIIer ~ of CllI' RIo Gl8nde fdly during 1haIe time I*iodS- It m9d be ~ ..,.. for U810 l*lire ane 01 CllI' i..... 1 veI*::Ie ueege d\.mg 1hoee til1* 10 reduce QUI' llT'4l8Ct I"'" '- WOLLINS, HELLMAN & GREEN - [1--~' bit t:' DAVID H. WOWNS' JONAlliAN J. HELLMAN DENNIS B. GREEN MIOiAEL J. AxELRAD+ A LAW PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS . ADMITTED IN COLORADO AND NEW YORK + ADMI1TED IN COLORADO AND CALIFORNIA 720 SOlITH COLORADO BOULEVARD Sum 620-5 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 FAcmMaE(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 off Cooper 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 off the tires which were placed there by the parking enforcement. 1 .-t..,- 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 be<-"''''''' 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 of the 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 oftraffic. 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, panicularly 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 II. 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 pennitted, 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 pennitted 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. IlL REOUEST FOR ACfION 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, ~..?~ Dennis B. Green - Aspen Office 3 rag\: I 0[ I EXHIBIT A 2/2100 I file://C:\Mv DocumentsIA Our PicturesICRW+SpaldI00002368.JPG - ~, file:l/C:'"\ly DocumenlsIA Our Pictures\CR W+SpaldI00002369.JPG :!/2100 file://C:\My Documents\My Pictures\crt\O0002370.JPG 1112/00 - - file:l/C:\My DocumentslA Our PictureSlT emp PhUlo's 3IP::!070040.JPG 217100 file:lfC:'.My Documents,,", Our Pictures\CRW+Spald\crw truck tire hydrent.jpg 2/7100 -. - file:l/C:\My DocumentsIA Our PictureslCRW+Spaldlcrw employee car blocking hydrenLjpg 2/7/00 file:lIC:IMy DocumenlSlA Our PictureslCRW+Spaldlcloseup Spalding door.jpg 2/2/00 ,..., -- file://C:\My DocumentsIA Our PiClures\CR W+SpaldlCoats Front sign.jpg 212100 2/2/2000 As East-End community's concerned cit17:en~, we, the undersigned, request that the City of Aspen take action against two property management companies illegally operating large commercial businesses in our residential neighborhood. We request that the City force them to move their operations into the commercial core and never to operate in our neighborhood. Coates Reid & Waldron a Resort Quest Co. 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. We feel that this is an unnecessary burden on our neighborhood. /r"5PC"N ])A-j ~ T~E-f~.S:li-lr7 \~,/;"" . \ /I'l-4' J L.~~ 1.- f~ '):Jc L !~ . \\\~ ~ \ \ ~.. ...- L.- <----.,- ,.... -.. 2/2/2000 As East-End community's concerned citizens, we, the undersigned, request that the City of Aspen take action against two property management companies illegally operating large commercial businesses in our residential neighborhood. We request that the City force them to move their operations into the commercial core and never to operate in our neighborhood. Coates Reid & Waldron a Resort Quest Co. 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. We feel that this is an unnecessary burden on our neighborhood. Ihnffl J f~c~ ~O(JVj ?~ ~~/~ ~~ul _/'~~~ ~ JJ;;:;J;: D~~ fiv W (K~:~\)Wo) ~;:I, ~~ t1":::1 t:I:)1 ..~"t1 .40. ':It) ::lC;;J.':::::IOO;.J"+::I _ fMIr 'er. "....,w~~.y w........~V"It~'... w...,.ll"1.........., Uu.:"iJOI1'.N HIM: W~:~4- , .- .... r.....'....' 21'2/2000 As East-End community's concerned Citil.ens, WC. the UDdersiw-i, request that the City of Aspen take action "8'" mst two property nianagemcnt colDpllDies illegally operating large commercial businesses in our resideIItW neighborhood. We request that the City force them to move their opcratioris into the. commercial core and ne\o'er to operate in our neighborhood. Coates Rcid& Waldron a Resort Quest Co. and Spalding Properties (whicbreccntly opened its operations at the ChAtea'l Roaring Fork) have been operating commercial businesses even . though the compleX is zoned residential multi-family. We ~tbat this is an unnecessary burden on our neighborhood. I 4ulaAA-- WLtU-UA. ~ ' . ~ ).7 r1lA-~c-A;J 9;{ C. ~~/ . I;"a:::z-<:. ff5/hl}- - 93'5 L,..']UW1-#1{ -~~ (: /-- ~~~ - -, .- '= - ........ 'L)'--h ,bti G- 11-1-6. M~ Sign Area l. 3us~ness advertisinq, identification sign in conjunction wi~ permi.t:tec:J. uses, except. residence., providec1 each. siqn ident.ify a pusi- n... occupyinq ~~e premises. The aqqreqate sign area permdtted along any on. street shall not exceed one square foot of sign area for each ehr.. teet of lot line footage ~ccupi.d by or ?rojecte4~from the ~uild- inq within which the principal use is conducted. Uses fronting on an allay shall compute their si;n area allowance by considering ~he alley a. their lot line frontage. In no case shall the aggregate sign area fer anyone use on anyone frontage exceed twenty square feet. There may b. a combination of the following sign types including a ~r8e- standing sign and wall siqns, including ~~t-out letter signs, subject to the following limitacions: a. Wall sign - shall not exceed ten square feet on anyone building wall, exclusive of cut-out let~~rSi b. Office building registry - a wall sign or free-standing sign iden~ifying included of!ices, not ~o exceed one square foot of area ?er office; such sign shall be ex- cluded :rom regular sign ~rea and quantity limitations. (0) SUBURBAN: Intention - as orovided creation distr~c~ regulation. AR-2 :\CCOMMOOAT!OSS RECREATION - under the :\&-1 Accommodations Re- Use~ - ?ermitted - as ~rovided under the AR-l Accommodations Re- creat~on d~str~c~ regulations. Us'es -- Condi<:.iona1 - as !Jrovided under the AR-1 ACCOl'!Ul'!odations Racrea~~on d~atr~c":. regulations. Mini:num Lot :\:'~a 1. One-::aJl'U.ly a..Helling............. 2. Two-family dwelling............. 15,000 7,500 square feet square reet per dwelling unit with a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet squar~ feet square feet ?er un- limited unit with a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet- 3. Patio house, ::ow house.......... 4. Multiple family dwelling........ 2,000 :l-~ -r~ *Amended oy Sec. 5, Ord. No. 19, Series 1967. Supplemant No. LO July 1, 1968 11-l-6, Minimum "Lo'tArea. (cont:.) ). SO&rd4nq nou.e, roominq house, dormitory............... 500 6. Hotel, Motel, Lodg.............. 750 1. All other uses.................. 5,000 Minimum !.at Width 1. ~~ QweLL~nq and accommodations units except patio and row hou.. 2. Patio and row................... 3. All ot..~er uses.............................. Minimum ?ront 'Yard 1. All ~u~lQ~nqs except dwellings and accessory buildings......... 2. Dwellinqs except patio hous..... 3. Patio houses on periphery of project.......................o.......... 4. Accessory building.............. Minimum Side- 'lard 1. All ~u~d~nqs except patio and row house.................................. 2. Patio and row house Qn periphery of project............ . Kin"imwn Rear Yard 1. ?r1nC1pal bu~ldinq except patio house................ _ . . . . . 2a Patio house on periphery of project.............. ........ 3. Accessory bui1dinq.............. . Maximum Hei'qh"t ot Bui1dinq.......... *Amended by Sec. 5, Ord. ~o. 19, Series 1967. . Supplement No. 10 July 1, 1968 square feet per four persons of total capa- city, wi th a minimum lot area o~ 7,500 square feet* square feet per limit- ed uni t wi th a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet* square feet 75 feet 25 fee1: 50 feet 200 feet from the riqht-of- way lines of State Hiqhways 100 fee'!: from the riqht-of- way lines of designated Arterial Roadways 2S feet in all other loca- tions 2S feet 2S feet 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 feet .s -orovided under the AR-l Ac~ations Recreation district regulations _. ....... "* 11-1-6, 0... - Permitted 1. One-fam11y dwellinq, two-family dwellinq, multiple family dvellinq, accessory buildinq an4 US8, ~ occupation; 2. Boarclinq house, rOCllllinq hou.., dorm.1 tory; 3. Hotel, motel, lodqe, including incidental business within the principal u.. as required to serve the principal use; . 4. Medical and dental clinics, professional offices; s. Op.n-~. recreation site and ski lifta, recreation club, ~..t.r, assembly hall. school, church, hospital, public buildinq for administration: 6. Patio and row house - provided a total projec~ of 25,000 square f.et in area is developed to accommodate required off-street parking, internal ~.d.strian circulation and minimum setbacks =or the di~tric~ on the periphery of the project; 7. Restaurant, tea room - provided all facilities for ?reparatic~ of food are located within a ~uilding on the loti 8. Retail &nd serliee commercial uses accesscrj ~o ski lixts and golf courses including food and ~everage service, sale, rental and r~- pair of sports equipment ~ be used in conjunction ~ith the recreation activity provided on ~~e siter 9. Fence, hedge and ~all - subject to requirements under Supple- mentary Regulations; 10. Residential and Institutional identification 3iqr., directional sign, for-sale sign - subject to requirements under Supplemen~ari aeg~- lation!l. 11. 3usiness advertising, identification sign - subject to are~ limitations listed herein and Supplementary Regulations. Uses - Conditional l~. Shop-craft type industry - subject to approval of the Soard of Ad.juatment. Minimum Iiot Mea l.. One-nmJ.ly awelEng............. 2. Two-family dwelling............. 3. 4. Patio ~ouse, row house.......... Multiple family dwelling........ ~7.!:.-. 5. Boarding house, rooming hou.., dormitory................ *Amended by Sec. 4, Ord. No. 19, Series 1967. Supplement No. 10 JUly 1, 1968 6,000 square feet 3,000 squar9 feet per dwsll- inq unit wi~~ a mini- mum lot area of 6,000 square f9:et 1,50q.square feee 750 sauare feet ~er un- limited unit~with a minimum lot area ~f 6,000 square feet~ 250 saua~~ feet ~er four persons of tc~al capa- city, wi~h a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet- -",' 11-1-6, Minimum Lot Area (cant .J 6. Hot.el, moee.!., .lociqe............. ) , t~tl.> ~ 7. All other uses.................. Minimum Lo~ Width 1. All dwelhng and ~ccommodations unit.s exce~t oaeio ~nd row house.....".. ................ ..... 2. Pat.io and row ~ouse............. 3. All other uses.................. ~imum :'ront Yard 1. Pr~nc~pal ~u~.ldinq except patio house..................... 2. pat.io ~ouse on ?er~~he~l of project................. ... ... 3. Accessory ~uildinq.............. Minimum sid~ Yard ~. A~_ ~u~~Q~nqs excspe patio and row house.................... 2. Pa~io and row house on periphery of ?rojec~............ Minimum Rea:' Yard 1. pr~nc~~al ~u11dinq except patio house..................... 2. Pat~o house on per~;he~l of ':Iro'iect............. ... ...... Access~rl bu11ding.............. 3. "-- Maximum ~eiqht of 3uildi~qs 1. Pr~r.c~?al ou~~a1ng ~x=ept patio house..................... 2. Patio house and buildings accessory ~~eret.o............... Accessory building.............. '1r3. 375 square le.e ~er limit- ed unit .....ith a m:i.nimum lot area of 6,000 square feet.-' 3,000 square feet 60 f.ultt- Z5 feet 30 feet - y--- 10 feet ~ 10 feet f''''b'j 15 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 5 t"!!et 25 feet 12 feet 2l feet on the front two- thirds of the lot and 12 feet on the rear one-third of the lot ~nimum ot~-St=eet ?arkina.......... as required under Supple- mentary Regulations -Amended by Sec. 4, Ora. ~o. 19, Series 1967. Supplement No. lO JUly 1, 1968 "---. --. """ .-. 11-1-6, Minimum Off-Street ?arkinq.......... as ~equired under Supple- mentarj Regulations Maximum Sign Area... .... .... _....... as or~vided under AR-l Accommodations Rec~eation district regulations 11-1-7: COMMERCIAL (a) C-l COM.~RC:AL: Intention - to al- low the use 0: land for retail ~d ser7ice commerci~l 9u:?oses, accom- modations and recreational as ~ell as for residential purposes Nith customary accessory uses and institutional uses. Uses - Permitted 1. Any per.nicced use of the AR-l Acco~~odation ~ec=eaticn jistrict except patio houses subject to all use, let area and lard requirements of that district reaulacian un~ess othe~~ise scecified ~elow; 2. Retail commercial establishments li~ited ~o the tollawing and similar uses: antique shop, appliance store, ar~ su?ply shop, ar~ gallery, auto~oQile accessory store, bakeri, ~cok s~~re, camera 3hop, candy, tobacco or :igarette store, catalog s~~re, clcthi~g store, deco- rator shop, depar~~ent store, drug store, florist shop, =ood ~arket, furniture store, gi=t shop, hardware store, job by shop, jewelry shop, job printing shop, key shop, liquor st~re, ?e~ s~o?, pain~ and wall- paper store, pawn shop, photography shop, s;o=~i~g gocds store. sta- tionery store, variety store. 3. Se~lice commercial establishments :~~ited ~o the following an~ similar uses: business ~f=ice, catering ser/ice, financial institution, persona~ service including barber and beauty shop, custom sewing, dry- cleaning pick-up station, laundromat, tailori~g and shoe repair shop, parking lot or garage, studio for instruction in ~he ar~s, radio or television broadcasting facility. 4. Rental repair and ~holasaling facili~ies in conjunction with any of the above li3ted ~ses ?rovided all suc~ ac~i7i~y is clearly incidental and accesso~l to the ?ermitted use ar.d ~onducted within a buildinq. S. Sto=age of materials accessory to any of ~he above listed uses provided all such storaqe is located withi~ a struc~ure. Uses - C~nditional 6. Anv ~onc~t~onal ~se of the AR-l Accommodation Recreation dis- trict subject to all use, lot area and yard requ~=ements of that dis- trict unless other~ise speci=ied below. 7. Recreation and entertainment establishments limited to the following and similar. uses: business, !raternal or sccial club or hall, billiard parlor, dance hall. ice or roller skating =ink - subject to approval of the Board of .Adjus~~ent. 3. Shop-craft industry - subject to approval of the Board of Ad- justment. Supplement No. 7 June 30, 1967