Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20220908 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 Chairperson Sandler opened the meeting of the Aspen Board of Adjustment at 4:35 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Jim Farrey, Collin Frank, Rick Head, Tim Sack, Ashley Feddersen, Andrew Sandler Staff present: Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner I Bob Narracci, Zoning Administrator Jim True, City Attorney Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Risa Rushmore, Administrative Assistant II Staff Comments: None Commissioner comments: None Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: None Minutes: Mr. Sandler motioned to approve the minutes from 1/20/22. Mr. Farrey seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. All in favor, motion passes. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 560 Spruce St. – Request for Setback Variances Staff Presentation – Jeffrey Barnhill - Planner I Mr. Barnhill started by showing a site map of the lot and mentioned that all the development was a bit tight. He then mentioned the applicant as Aspen Spruce LLC, Sandor Shapery, and their representative as Chris Bendon of Bendon Adams. He then went over the request before the board and noted the zone district as R-6 and the lot size as 3,982 square feet. He went over the required minimum setbacks for that zone district as: • 10-foot front yard setback • 10-foot side yard setback with a combined total of 20 feet on both sides • 10-foot rear yard setback. Mr. Barnhill then went over a bit of background of the property. He mentioned that the structure was a duplex in a top-bottom configuration with access via a staircase that encroached onto the neighboring parcel. In 2019 the applicant applied for a Building Code Exemption to move the stairs onto the 560 Spruce property. This was approved in 2020 based on egress building code and not as a variance. In 2021 an application to remove the top unit, creating a single-family home, was approved with the condition that the stairs were to be removed as there would be no need for egress. Next, he went over the variance requests of the applicant to legalize existing non-conformities. These included: • 5’ front yard setback variance • 0’ N side yard setback variance • 0’ S side yard setback variance • 0’ rear yard setback variance • 0’ combined side yard setback variance REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 Mr. Head asked for clarification of the front yard versus the rear yard on the property. Mr. Barnhill pointed these out on the site map. Mr. Barnhill went on to state that after looking at the requested setback variances it was determined by staff that the applicant did not need that much of setbacks to legalize non-conformities. After measuring off the survey, staff’s suggested setbacks to legalize existing non-conformities were: • 7’8” front yard setback variance • 7” N side yard setback variance • 1’1” S side yard setback variance • 0’ rear yard setback variance • 1’8” combined side yard setback variance He then showed the site map with an outline in blue of the staff suggested setbacks along with an outline (orange) of the R6 zone district required setbacks. He described the staff suggested setbacks as the bare minimum to legalize all the existing improvements on this site. He also showed on the site map the additional 599.6 square feet of buildable area within the R6 zone district setbacks (orange triangle) that the applicant would be able to build on. Next, he went over the Non-Conforming Structures section of the Land Use Code (26.312.030) and also the standards applicable to variances (26.314.040). He then went over the reasons why staff does not support the proposed variance. He stated that staff had drafted two resolutions of approval and one of denial. One drafted approval resolution included the applicant requested setbacks and the other included the staff recommended setbacks if a hardship is determined. He then opened it up for questions of staff. Mr. Farrey asked if “zero-line” setbacks already exist. He asked how one would be not non-conforming on a structure built in 1880. Mr. Barnhill responded that in a redevelopment scenario, they would have to move the structure out of setbacks. He stated again that anything within the setbacks currently is able to be maintained, but not enlarged. Mr. Farrey stated that after looking at the lot in person they are already in the setbacks based on the current zoning. Mr. Barnhill agreed and said that anything outside of the orange outline on the site map shown is currently outside the setbacks and thus non- conforming. Applicant Presentation – Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon started by introducing the applicant as Aspen Spruce LLC and the owners Sandy and Rebecca Shapery. He also introduced the owner’s attorney and the representative from Steeplechase Construction. Next, he showed a few overhead pictures of the location of the property. He then showed the site map and went over the property lines, the setbacks, and the outline of the current building on site. He pointed out the areas of the home that do not comply with current zoning and mentioned that it was built before zoning came into play in the 1950s, thus it is burdened with non-conforming status. He described the adjoining properties and owners. He then showed a few ground level photos of the property and went over some of its history. He then mentioned that in 2019 the owners wanted to remove the “rickety” stairs that accessed the upper unit and replace them with a solid set of stairs. At the same time, they expressed a desire to convert the property to a single-family home which required a land use application. He then showed a close up of the old stairs that went over the property line. He then described the process the owners took to build the new stairs including obtaining a Building Code Exemption, gathering approvals, paying fees, inspections, etc. Once the stairs were built, they went forward with the option to remove the second unit and were told by the Planning Department that they would need to remove the stairs because they were now non-conforming. He said that it seemed like staff was attempting to modify and add conditions to the variance received to build the new stairs. He said the stairs are still and will always serve as egress from the upper floor. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 Mr. Head asked why there seemed to be a discrepancy the city and Mr. Bendon’s position regarding the variance granted to the stairs. He said the City is saying there was never any variance granted. Mr. Bendon agreed that there is a noticeable disagreement. He said they appealed the decision multiple times. Mr. Barnhill explained that what was granted was an exception for Building Code compliance, which has a whole different set of criteria and is not a variance. Mr. Sandler asked for clarification on what was granted. Mr. Bendon went back to show the “Notice of Approval for an Exception for Building Code Compliance” signed by the Community Development Director in 2019. Mr. Farrey asked if the stairs that access the upper floor were built when it was considered a duplex and now that is a single-family the City is finding pause with it. Mr. Barnhill responded that it was solely predicated on this being a duplex and required for fire safety egress. Now that it is being changed to a single-family home, staff made the determination that it was no longer needed for life safety. Mr. Sandler asked for clarification on the disposition here. Mr. Barnhill, again said that if the building is changed into a single-family, the stairs are no longer needed for life safety. He also stated again that this was built on an exemption for building code compliance and was not a variance. A variance requires a hardship, and it would have had to come before the BOA. Mr. Bendon responded that in their reasoning the approval was not conditioned on the building remaining a duplex. This is the disagreement that has been going on for a long period of time and now they have decided to stop that and come before the Board of Adjustment to get a proper variance and move on. Mr. Bendon next showed an image of a screaming goat and described it as the way he was feeling. He said that after working for and with the City for 25 years he was convinced this was a wrong read. He thought the landowner was lured in and then tricked even if not intentional. Mr. Sandler asked Mr. Barnhill when a situation like this comes in front of staff how it is analyzed. Mr. Barnhill stated again that the Exemption was predicated on it being a duplex and once the stairs were built, they applied to change it to a single-family. Mr. Head asked if the City had known that the owners were going to convert the house to a single- family, would they have given them the exemption. Mr. Barnhill said he could not speculate that. Ms. Johnson recognized the disagreement but added that from the City’s perspective a variance was not granted. A variance would have had to come before the BOA. It did not in this case because under the Land Use Code there are exemptions to the setback requirements, including emergency egress from second dwelling units. When it was decided to change the structure to a single-family it no longer qualified for that exemption. Mr. Bendon then described their proposed setback dimensions, the criteria to grant the variances and their reasoning of why those criteria are met. He went on to describe other non-conforming properties that his firm is working on in the West End. He then showed pictures highlighting the property lines. He noted that with the proposed 5-foot front yard setback variance a sidewalk would still fit. He then turned it over to Sandy and Rebecca Shapery to speak. Mr. Shapery described the history of when they bought the property and said his first thought was to make the property legal. He said that they had originally decided to make it a single-family home and once they got the property legal, they applied to do such. Ms. Shapery described what she saw as major safety issue, that being having the ability to exit the upstairs due to an emergency. She was confused and disappointed that safety was not top for their family and that it was nonsensical that they would have to remove the stairs. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 Mr. Bendon then went over their proposed edits to the City’s Resolution including deletions and additions to the language. He then showed a letter of support from an adjoining neighbor, Mr. Jeff Tasse at 548 Spruce St. He then referenced a letter that was sent to the BOA members (Exhibit E) from Mr. LJ Erspamer and mentioned that Mr. Shapery had a good conversation with him. Mr. Bendon closed by stating that they are asking for the BOA’s support to establish the setbacks as requested, declare the property conforming and provide a durable variance that will not be subject to revocation by the City in the future. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Johnson noted and an email that was received by the City’s Clerk’s office from Ed Petrosius (Exhibit E). She then read it into the record. “Here’s another million-dollar project not wanting to adhere to the codes... I do not endorse the variances they are requesting. Either stay within the codes and guidelines or go somewhere else.” Mr. Barnhill asked to make a response. Mr. Sandler said yes. Mr. Barnhill said again that the application does not mention any proposed development. Staff believed it would be hard to judge a hardship when there is no development proposed. He said they are able to maintain the structure as long as it doesn’t go further into the setbacks. At no point has Zoning necessitated that the structure be torn down. Staff feels very strongly that the setbacks be for the existing improvements only because nothing in the application mentions any proposed development and nothing has been vetted by the BOA or staff. Ms. Johnson said in respect to the amendments made to the resolution proposed by the applicant, some of them are outside the BOA’s jurisdiction. She noted that the notice in this case was for specific variances in accordance with the application. Their proposed resolution would essentially grant setbacks not otherwise granted to any other in the R6 zone. She believed that they are suggesting that they could come in with an entirely new development project and not have to get a variance to develop outside what any other properties in the R6 zone would. This is outside the application that was presented and outside the noticing for this hearing. As far as the non-conformity, the only thing before the BOA today is the grant of a variance. There is nothing in the code to be able to make a non-conforming structure conforming. From a variance perspective, the standard is to grant the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. She noted that it is within the BOA’s authority to grant a variance for the stairs, though. Mr. Farrey asked if Ms. Johnson said she didn’t think these things or if she was giving a legal opinion for the City. Ms. Johnson said those proposals were just given to her right now and she has not had a chance to vet them. She stated again that what is before them is the request for variances in the application. She said making a non-conformity a conformity is outside their jurisdiction. They are tasked with granting the minimum variance for reasonable use of the structure. To grant a variance for any future development, she would caution that it would be extremely hard if they were ever challenged on that to prove that a hardship existed when they haven’t presented a development plan or explained why a hardship exists to grant setbacks not otherwise given to a property in the R6 zone. Mr. Frank explained that they are asked for a zero-lot line future development that somehow the BOA would protect and that is beyond what they are trying to do today. Mr. Bendon mentioned that their requests have been clear in the application that was submitted last December, so staff has had plenty of time understand their request for setbacks, the request for the property to be deemed conforming and the ability to develop and use the property according to the REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 setbacks established by the BOA. He said he had many examples of those things being done in town without issue. There was some discussion of a BOA case that was called up to City Council who cited that the board hadn’t reviewed the criteria. Mr. Bendon said that is why he suggested that they include in the resolution that they had reviewed and applied the review criteria. Mr. Sandler asked Mr. Bendon, per what Ms. Johnson said, what the reasoning is behind the 5-foot setback that is being requested in relation to the hardships. Mr. Bendon said for them to achieve reasonable use of the property they are asking for what anyone else is able to do, which is to use the property, maintain it, expand, and even redevelop. He went on to describe issues with the property that can result in processes that normal properties do not have to go through. They are asking the BOA to establish setbacks that allow the property to have reasonable use. Mr. Shapery said it is their hope to build a one car garage and it would be hard without the 5-foot setback. Ms. Feddersen asked to show the map with the setbacks. Mr. Barnhill brought up the site map and described the blue line as the City’s suggested setbacks that would everything that is existing on the property and the orange line as the R6 zone setbacks. There was discussion on what can and can’t be done within the suggested setbacks. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Frank started the discussion by stating that he did not see any life-safety argument here. The exterior stairs are not something that is granted to a single-family residence as a fire exit and is not supported in the adopted International Residential Building Code which is the City of Aspen’s standard. He felt it would be easy to grant the minimum setbacks to make everything fall within the setbacks and did not feel there was further argument to go to zero in this application. If they needed to come back with something, that could be on the table given the shape of the lot. Mr. Farrey stated as well that the external stair is not in the code. He asked the applicant and Mr. Bendon if the timing of the change to a single-family residence from a duplex was good intentioned related to when the stairs were rebuilt. Mr. Shapery said that they had bought the property several years ago and it was always their intention to convert it to a single-family home, but his first plan was to take steps to make it safe and legal. Once they relocated the stairs and made them safe, they would start on their remodel project. They weren’t able to do that because they received a notice from the City that they had to remove the stairs. There was never any intention to piecemeal anything, and they had never rented out either of the existing units. He went on to describe other issues with the City Building Department that have held up their eventual plans. Mr. Bendon added that the reason they are before the BOA asking for these setbacks is so that they can rely on them when it comes to any potential future plans and where they can be located. Mr. Shapery again stressed the importance of fire life-safety to them. Their plans were to include a interior spiral staircase and it would be very difficult to get a gurney down them and in the event of a fire, jumping out a window is not safe. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 Mr. Sack responded to Mr. Shapery that the exterior stairs are not guaranteed in International Residential Building Code and the spiral staircase is a decision that they would have to work with an architect to create a better solution to. He did not have an issue with leaving the exterior stair because it has done. He did not see where there is a need to go to a zero lot line on the other sides of the house to achieve reasonable use of the property. He thought that the setbacks recommended by the City would still allow reasonable use and from the site map that the City showed there is still 599 developable square feet within the R6 zone setbacks on the property. He said he would be happy to allow the back stair because of the work already done with the City and the letter from the adjoining neighbor but could not support the movement to a zero lot line as that seemed like it was pushing the boundaries of the lot. Ms. Feddersen agreed about the zero lot line and thought there was potentially a middle ground between what Mr. Bendon was asking and what the City was proposing. She thought the staircase was fine to remain. She understood that the house use has changed but had no issue with the stair being there. Mr. Sack added that he felt the 1-foot distance will not change the use of the property. He motioned to support the remaining of the rear stair and staff’s recommended setbacks. Mr. Farrey asked Mr. Bendon that according to a map shown, ¾ of the existing structure is violation of the setbacks. He agreed with other board members and thought it would be regressive to make them remove the stairs and that zero setbacks was a big ask. He thought the City’s concern was that if they gave everyone zero setbacks, which has not been done to date, is a timetable contingent on a shell permit. Mr. Sandler thought that this is a property with a 140-year history and was built in a way that you would never see today. After looking at the lot he could see where the hardships are, the history and where everyone intentions are. He also recognized the amount of time this has taken. He said the zero setbacks on three sides seem appropriate and the five-foot setback that is being asked for was ok for him. He saw the hardship there and which would save time in the future if things came back to the board. Mr. Head respectively disagreed with his fellow board members and said with all respect to the owners and Mr. Bendon, he did not buy any of this. He stated there is no hardship here that wasn’t created by the applicant. He thought conveying a variance would confer special treatment to this parcel which isn’t enjoyed by others in the zone district. He thought the setbacks proposed by the applicant is not a minimal variance at all. He stated that the applicant admitted that they never intended to keep this a duplex and got the enjoyment of adding a stairwell in a setback knowing they would convert to a single family. He said he would move to approve a denial of this resolution. Ms. Johnson stated that staff had recommended denial of the resolution and that a denial resolution could be presented. She referenced the two resolutions in the packet and the amendments that Mr. Bendon had proposed. She clarified that the primary difference between Mr. Bendon’s amended resolution and the City’s resolutions are that the City’s is suggesting that the approval be specific to the existing improvements on the structure and the variance not allow any other or future development into the setbacks. They can develop into the existing R6 zone. She said what Mr. Bendon has proposed is to bring it to straight setbacks that they could reply upon for future development, including a potential garage. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 There was discussion on how to move forward with a motion and any potential compromise in the resolution language. Mr. Bendon said the 5-foot setback on the front is important regarding the ability to situate a garage on the property and if the City’s suggested setbacks to legalize the property in its current configuration could extend and allow for a development footprint, that would be acceptable. If the blue line on Mr. Barnhill’s site map could become the established setbacks, they could live with that. Ms. Johnson clarified that the way the City’s approval resolution was written was that these setbacks would be allowed for the existing improvements and if they wanted to develop or build anything on the property outside the existing structure, they would have to come back for a variance to build into those setbacks. That resolution could be tweaked. Mr. Barnhill displayed staff’s approval resolution and Ms. Johnson questioned how the board would get to a hardship related to future development without knowing why or what they are using it for or where they would want it to be. It was clarified that they would not have to come back to BOA for a variance to build within the existing R6 setbacks. Mr. Sandler asked if there was a proposed development in the future within the 599 square feet of the R6 setbacks, would the non-conformity aspect of the property come back up. Ms. Johnson said it could be, depending on what is proposed. She could not answer with any certainty without knowing what would be proposed. Mr. Sack asked for clarity on what the variance request was. He asked if it was just to allow the stairwell that was built to remain and wondered why they were dealing with future setbacks on other areas of the property. Mr. Bendon said the variance for the stairwell is what brought them to the BOA, but that they would like the property to be deemed conforming and to have a set of setbacks that would allow the reasonable use of the property, including to build a garage. Mr. Sack responded to Mr. Bendon that the ability to add a garage is there on the 599 square feet of developable area in the R6 zone setbacks. Mr. Bendon said not in the way they have drawn it out. Mr. Sack responded that then they would need to come with a presentation of how that would impede on that setback. He said they have not seen any kind of presentation and they have only seen a request to max out their lot lines which is something the BOA is not allowed to do according to the code. Mr. Head said if they were to allow this variance to go forward, he thought the staff’s recommendation on setbacks is very generous and did not see why they would have to go to a zero variance. Ms. Johnson tried to explain staff’s recommended setbacks as they appeared in the site map (blue line) related to the language in staff’s recommended approval resolution. There was then discussion on how to word a motion. Mr. Barnhill displayed both resolutions that were in the packet identifying one as including the applicant’s requested setbacks and one including staff’s. Mr. Bendon commented that if the setbacks were just to recognize existing improvements would be a variance to not allow them to do anything in the future. Mr. Sack said they could always come back to the BOA with a plan for how they needed the setback to be impeded on. There was discussion on the reasonable use of the property related to potentially having to come back before BOA for future development. Mr. Sandler said that he interpreted this request as the applicant wanting the same rights as anyone else in the R6 zone and they don’t have that if they have to come back in front of the BOA. Mr. Frank said that was not true. Mr. Head said that it was a non-conforming REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 lot of record, while all the other lots are conforming lots of record. Mr. Bendon said that’s why they want to be deemed conforming. Mr. Farrey said it should be deemed conforming and they were there to clean up the mess. Ms. Johnson responded that the BOA does not have the authority to deem something conforming, only the authority to grant dimensional variances. Mr. Sack again stated that they have never seen a case where they didn’t have a presentation to show specifically how the lot lines were going to be impeded and why there was a hardship. Mr. Bendon stated that cases like this have come before the BOA, just maybe before Mr. Sack’s tenure. He also stated that they would be ok with staff’s suggested setbacks and if needed a proviso that says that the variance does not survive a redevelopment of the property. Mr. Sandler and Mr. Farrey said that sounds reasonable. Ms. Johnson again clarified that staff’s recommendation is that the setbacks apply to the existing improvements on site only and that Mr. Bendon’s is to recommendation is to just grant the variance and allow any future development in that setback area without coming back to the board. MOTION: Mr. Frank moved to approve a 5’ front yard setback, a North side yard setback of 7”, a South side yard setback of 1’ 1”, and a combined side yard setback of 1’ 8” but only to these improvements and if they want to do any further improvements outside the 560 square foot R6 zone setbacks (orange box) they would have the ability to come back and demonstrate a hardship. Mr. Head reiterated the motion but said he did not see a hardship here that he could rely upon and that he would vote against any proposal. He was just trying to assist the board in something they could vote on. There was continued discussion on the proper language and details for a motion. Mr. Sandler motioned to approve Resolution #2 amending the 7’ 8” front yard setback to 5’ and including a 7” North side yard setback, 1’ 1” South side yard setback and a combined side yard setback of 1’ 8”. Mr. Head seconded. Mr. Farrey amended the motion to include that the setbacks would be to legalize existing improvements on site and that the applicant would not have to come back for development in the approved R6 zone setbacks. Mr. Head amended his second to include the additional language. Ms. Johnson stated that the motion on the table is the City’s proposed setbacks with the exception of a 5’ front yard setback and what was seconded was to amend that motion to allow future development within those setbacks and are not limited to just the existing improvements on site. Mr. Farrey said yes, like anyone else in the neighborhood. Ms. Johnson said that was not accurate. That anyone else would have to come back if they were to build outside of the R6 zone setbacks. Mr. Bendon asked what the motion includes with regard to the expiration of the variance. Mr. Head said one year like everyone else. There was then discussion about the allowed expiration of the variances and what can be done in that time. Mr. Bendon said it was their position that the BOA has the ability to set whatever they see fit. Mr. Farrey mentioned that the last time they did three years. Ms. Johnson said the code allows the BOA to establish different expiration dates if they have legitimate grounds to feel that’s appropriate. Mr. Farrey made a second amendment to the motion to include a three-year expiration date of the variances. Mr. Sandler seconded. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 Roll call vote on amendment #1 to say these setbacks would not be limited to existing improvements on site: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, no; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 5-1. Roll call vote on amendment #2 to include a three-year expiration date: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, no; Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, no; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-2. Ms. Johnson clarified the motion on the table, explaining that it would approve the resolution allowing the setbacks but not limit those setbacks to the existing improvements. That basically they have an unlimited setback. Mr. Farrey said that is not what he thought they were approving. Mr. Frank said he would not vote yes to allow the setbacks for everything in the future. There was further discussion on what the exact motion was. Mr. Head said that this house is already non-conforming, and they are already enjoying encroachment into setbacks in ¾ of the property. Now the board is agreeing to allow development all the way to these new setbacks, which is much more than anyone else in the zone district will enjoy. Mr. Barnhill again displayed the site map showing staff’s recommended setbacks and the existing R6 zone setbacks. Mr. Frank explained that the orange triangle is where they can develop within and be in compliance with the R6 zone in the future. He said their motion needs to read that they are approving the recommended setbacks but, in the future, the applicant can just build in the orange triangle without coming back to BOA. He said that is not how the current motion reads. Ms. Johnson again explained that the current motion would allow them to develop within the blue lines on the site map and that would be allowed for three years. She wasn’t clear if that was the board’s intent. Mr. Frank and Mr. Head said they would not vote yes for that motion. There was discussion that this motion would allow them to develop a new home that would go to every place within the blue line setbacks. Mr. Bendon said that was not the Shapery’s intent, to which Mr. Head replied that was not his question. Ms. Johnson asked Mr. Bendon that his suggestions is that within three years the applicant could build a home that covers the entire blue triangle area without coming back to the board for variances. Mr. Bendon said yes, but that if it makes the board more comfortable, they could put in a proviso about no redevelopment of the home, only for expansion. Mr. Head said a hardship is questionable and indefensible. He thought they should table this and let the courts rule upon this issue. He said this motion would double the size of the development of the property for a very questionable hardship. Ms. Johnson again stated there was a motion on the table and seconded and said a vote needed to be taken on it. She went on to go over the motion again stating it would approve staff’s recommended setbacks, with the front yard setback amended to be 5’, it would strike the “to legalize existing improvements on site” language on all setbacks, the expiration date of the setbacks to be three years from the date of approval and other development would be allowed within these setbacks without coming back to the board. Chairperson Sandler asked for a roll call vote on the motion. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, no; Mr. Frank, no; Mr. Head, no; Ms. Feddersen, no; Mr. Sandler, no. 5-0, motion fails. Ms. Johnson asked if she could propose the motion. Mr. Sandler said yes. Ms. Johnson proposed that the board adopt Resolution #2, series of 2022 with the following setbacks. • Front Yard Setback Variance: 5’, setback to legalize existing improvements on site. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT September 8th, 2022 • N Side Yard Setback Variance: 7”, setback to legalize existing improvements on site. • S Side Yard Setback Variance: 1’ 1”, setback to legalize existing improvements on site. • Combined Side Yard Setback Variance: 1’ 8”, setback to legalize existing improvements on site. • Rear Yard Setback Variance: 0’, setback to legalize existing improvements on site. She said the rest of the proposed resolution would remain unchanged. She said if someone agrees with that they could so move, and they may want to amend exhibit A to reflect those exact setback variances. Mr. Farrey said his proposal would be to approve the three-year term and the R6 zone district setbacks. Mr. Frank said nothing had to be added regarding the R6 zone setbacks because those are standard. There was some discussion on how the amended Front Yard Setback of 5’ would affect the existing R6 zone setbacks. It was moved to strike the “to legalize existing improvements on site” language just on the Front Yard Setback Variance. Roll call vote: Mr. Farrey, yes; Mr. Frank, yes; Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 6-0 all in favor, motion passes. ADJOURN: Mr. Sandler motioned to adjourn. Ms. Feddersen seconded. All in favor, motion passes. _____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy Clerk