HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20220120
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 20, 2022
Chairperson Sandler opened the meeting of the Aspen Board of Adjustment at 4:32 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Jim Farrey, Collin Frank, Ashley Feddersen, Andrew Sandler
Commissioners not in attendance: Tim Sack
Staff present:
Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner I
Bob Narracci, Zoning Administrator
Jim True, City Attorney
Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
Staff Comments: None
Commissioner comments: None
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: None
Minutes: Mr. Sandler motioned to approve the minutes from 11/11/21, 12/2/21 and 1/6/22. Ms.
Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr.
Sandler, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: 333 Park Ave. – Dimensional Variance
Staff Presentation – Jeffrey Barnhill -Planner I
Mr. Barnhill reminded the Board the this was approved as Resolution #5 of 2019 and the
variance expired, which is why it is before the BOA today.
Mr. Barnhill then introduced the project and showed an aerial view of the location. He presented
a slide showing the applicant as BMH Investments LTD, represented by Sara Adams of Bendon
Adams, the request of the BOA for variances to minimum setback requirements and the various
setback requirements for this size lot in the R-6 Zone District. Originally the site was historic
with 2 historic resources that were relocated leaving behind a vacant lot. He then went over the
variance requests including:
• Front yard setback variance of 6” (10’ required)
• SE side yard setback variance of 5’ (15’ required)
• NW side yard setback variance of 10’ (15’ required)
• Combined side yard setback variance of 15’ (36’ required)
Mr. Barnhill then listed the encumbrances of the property including:
• 2 access easements to the front
• Extensive Steep Slopes
• Top of Slope 15’ setback
• Stream margin progressive Height Limit
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 20, 2022
He showed a site plan showing what the applicant would have to work with without variances to
the normal setbacks. He went over the standards applicable to variances and determining factors
on whether an applicant’s rights would be deprived. He stated staff’s position (same as from
2019), that they do not support the proposed variance and went over the reasons why. He stated
that, should the BOA find a hardship exists on the property, staff has drafted a resolution of
approval, with conditions and attached Exhibit C, being the previous BOA approval resolution
#5 of 2019.
Ms. Feddersen asked to see Exhibit C and said that four of the members were on the board and
approved this in 2019. She asked if the applicant’s request had changed. Mr. Barnhill said no that
it had just timed out.
Ms. Feddersen said she still stands by her 2019 decision. Mr. Sandler agreed.
Mr. Farrey asked what the reason is for them being back today.
Ms. Adams said that when the BOA grants a variance the code specifies that is only for one year,
while the State statutory vesting is for three years. The condition of approval in 2019 said that it
was good for one year and within that one year you have to submit a permit for a single-family
home. The applicant applied for a permit for demolition and to relocate the historic landmark,
but it was not considered a single-family home permit. She asked that because of the moratorium
that they get more than the one year this time. She suggested three years in order to get through
the moratorium and not have to come back again.
Mr. Farrey said he thought they needed the three years more than ever given the current
situation. He asked Ms. Adams to get it done in the time frame permitted and not to come back.
Mr. True referenced section 6 of the resolution that talks to Land Use Code Section 26.314.070.
He said this is different than the vesting that is created through a Site-Specific Development
Plan.
Mr. Farrey asked if Mr. True was suggesting that three years was too long. Mr. True said that per
26.314.070, there is the ability to grant a one-time extension for up to another 12 months.
Ms. Adams restated that they are looking for a total of three years. Mr. True responded that he
did not think the BOA had the authority to do that. Ms. Adams said that she had discussed this
with Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson responded that she did not recall having that conversation. Mr.
Barnhill said he remembered talking about it and that Ms. Adams was landing on three years, but
he did not recall if they ever knew if that was something that the board could grant.
Mr. Farrey asked if they could issue two 12-month extensions to get the applicant to the 36
months they are requesting.
Mr. True restated that he did not think they had the authority to do that. Per the code they may
grant a one-time extension of 12 months.
Mr. Farrey said that they should grant the variance with an automatic one-time extension and that
they could come back to BOA if they needed to.
Ms. Feddersen asked if they could do that. Mr. True said yes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: none
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JANUARY 20, 2022
Mr. Farrey said they would move for approval based on the criteria that it is consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of Title 26 of the municipal code. That the project
complies with the City’s design standards and environmental regulations and that the variance is
the minimum necessary for reasonable use of the site.
Mr. Farrey then moved to approve for 12 months now and an automatic 12-month extension. Ms.
Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr.
Sandler, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
ADJOURN:
Mr. Sandler motioned to adjourn. Mr. Farrey seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr.
Frank, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. All in favor, motion passes.
_____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy Clerk