Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.20210601Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 1 of 12 Chairperson McKnight called the regular meeting to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Brittanie Rockhill, Scott Marcoux, Teraissa McGovern, Ruth Carver, Sam Rose, and Spencer McKnight. Commissioners not in attendance: Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Michele Bonfils Thibeault, Project Manager Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Mr. Rose asked if the board will be meeting in person at some point since City Council is meeting in person. Mr. McKnight responded he is planning to discuss it with the City Clerk. The meeting space has challenges including space and technology. Ms. Simon stated City Council is meeting using a hybrid option with WebEx starting today. This meeting option will be tested out first before other boards make decisions about meeting formats. Council chambers is the only meeting room set up for a hybrid format and since P&Z meets on the same night as council, there would be a challenge for P&Z to have a hybrid meeting. Mr. Rose thinks it would be helpful to meet in person, but he also doesn’t mind the WebEx format. Ms. Carver thinks while things may be missed by not meeting in person, she also believes the meeting room is extremely small, so she is neutral. Mr. Marcoux believes the WebEx format would be good for at least another month. Ms. McGovern stated because of the space challenges and lack of ventilation in the meeting room, she doesn’t think the board is ready for in person meetings. Mr. McKnight would like to meet in person but would like to wait and see. STAFF COMMENTS None PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES DRAFT April 20, 2021 Minutes - Ms. McGovern motioned to approve the minutes and was seconded by Mr. Marcoux. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 2 of 12 PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice was made for both hearings. Ms. Johnson replied sufficient notice was provided for both hearings. 1050 Waters Ave - #13, Special Review – Stream Margin Review Standard Variance Mr. McKnight opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff for a high-level review. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault asked that the applicant present first and then she will provide staff’s findings. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Mr. Bendon, Bendon Adams, stated much of his presentation will cover both units #13 and #15. Mr. Bendon stated he would make his presentation and ask the commission to accept the testimony presented for both units. He stated the applicant for unit #13, Ms. Ivette and Mr. Andrew Rothschild, is asking P&Z to recognize an existing condition they believe has been in place for approximately 50 years, supported by the owners and renters within the building and has home owners association (HOA) approval. Mr. Bendon displayed a map and indicated the location of the property. He displayed a couple of additional maps showing the proximity of the rear of the property to the Roaring Fork River. He also pointed out the location of the Geary’s A-frame home located near the two applicant properties. He then displayed a site survey of the existing conditions of the properties. He pointed out the location of the two decks. He stated there was another survey in the packet from 2019 which shows the current decks as well. He also noted where he had added the other decks on two other stacked units and the other end of the same building. He stated there are decks on units above #13 and #15 which are smaller in size than the ground-level decks. He also pointed out the high-water FEMA line for the river. Mr. Bendon then displayed a photo of the two decks. He stated there was a permit to change out some windows on #13 and some recladding resulting in an enforcement letter. He then displayed close-in pictures of the decks of both units. He pointed out the modified areas including the recladded areas, an addition of stairs down to the river level, replacement of one of the support posts, rebuilt separating walls and a new pergola structure under the deck. On #15, he noted the existing conditions of the deck with the vintage look and feel. Mr. Bendon stated they originally submitted a request for a stream margin exemption after discussing the matters with City Staff as a replacement of existing conditions. They agreed and acknowledged the stairs added were new and did not have a stream margin approval and were to be removed. He added they had agreed everything else would be seen as a replacement and refurbishment of existing conditions. He stated Staff later came back and asked for proof of the original construction for both units. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 3 of 12 Mr. Bendon stated they searched for as much proof as possible. He displayed four aerial photos from the early 1070’s of the property. He stated the documentation in the original permits is a little sparce. He stated photos of the area from Pitkin County and the City only show a blob where the decks would be located. Mr. Bendon state they next reviewed the files on the properties. He displayed documents related to a couple of permits and stated the two buildings were originally built under two permits in 1970. The certificates of occupancy (COs) were issued in 1971 for the building not on the river and 1972 for the building along the river. The site plans with the permit do not show the decks. He stated at the time there were no limitation on decks other than setbacks and basic zoning. He displayed a public comment excerpt from the July 20, 1971 minutes showing the stream margin regulations were effective on April 20, 1971 and owner of the property obtained his building permit on March 9, 2021. He displayed a portion of a condo plat filed in 1971 showing the decks are all the same size at 4.33’ x 15’. Next, he stated they looked at the wood of the decks. On #13, the wood for the stairs going down to the river is clearly new. He stated the support structure under the deck is obviously vintage with one unpainted 4” x 4” post that appears to have been replaced. He asked a structural engineer to date place the support structure who stated the support posts were skinny and there is no cross bracing. Mr. Bendon stated they tried to piece together the history of the deck with a series of affidavits. One is from Mr. Rothschild, the applicant, who provided a couple of photos of the deck which were displayed. One picture was a marketing photo used in 2018 when he purchased #13. A second photo showed the current deck. Mr. Bendon pointed out the deck was the same dimension and the end wall was a different style. Mr. Rothschild stated when they purchased unit #13 there was no standing enforcement matter from the City or anything indicating the City had an issue with the deck. Mr. Rothschild also stated in his affidavit the deck of unit #13 was approximately 10’ x 15’ when they purchased unit #16 in 2006. The affidavit also states the previous three owners (2006-2018) did not make any changes to the deck other than normal maintenance. Mr. Bendon stated Mr. Danny Sullivan, #10, has lived in the building for 25 years and attests there has been no expansion of either deck during the past 25 years (approximately 1996). Mr. Bendon added Mr. Mark Tye, #15, stated he was aware the deck on #15 as of late 1996- early 1997 and it is the same size and color and with the same features. Mr. Tye moved in #15 in 1999. Mr. Bendon then displayed an appraisal done in 1999 by Peak Appraisal for #15. The deck is described as 12’ by 14’. Ms. Susan Ebert confirmed her appraisal as accurate and provided pictures taken during this time. Ms. Ebert stated it is her observation that no changes or extensions have been made to the deck on #15 since June 1999. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Bendon stated Mr. Sullivan was in the neighborhood during the construction of the buildings and he stated he was a few blocks away. He is in support to grandfather in the decks as is. Mr. Bendon stated the Geary family owns an A-frame home located in sight of the decks. Mr. William “Scott” Geary’s affidavit states their home was built in 1967 and as a young man he remembers the townhomes by the river being built with decks. He has spent a lot of time in Aspen over the past 38 years and remembers those decks always being larger. Mr. Bendon stated they also looked at other documents in the permit file to provide indirect information about the decks. He stated there was an interior refit permit for #16 in 2007 with a site elevation of the deck in its current context. The plan was signed off by City Zoning and City Code Compliance personnel. From those signoffs, Mr. Bendon believes the City has been in a position for the last 50 years to note an issue with deck and they have not done so. Mr. Bendon stated there are no red tags on file or any evidence the City questioned the decks. Mr. Bendon looked for other examples of a similar situation and he identified one example on 1028 E. Hopkins Ave. He provided a summary of the location of this property and situation. The property owner rebuilt the deck without a permit. It was red flagged, and the owner had to apply for a stream margin review. Mr. Bendon stated the City planning Staff recommended approval for the deck to be reconstructed exactly where the previous deck was located. Mr. Bendon stated they asked the owners of other units in the building about the decks. Mr. Mark Uhlfelder, HOA President and owner of units #11 & #14, responded he has no objection to the Rothchild’s non-conforming deck. Mr. Bendon stated the HOA has approved the decks. The following neighbors responded they are support of the application. • Mr. Beatty and Ms. Haveman, owners of unit #11 • Ms. Bronowski and Mr. Lee, owners of unit #12 • Mr. Parr, renter of unit #14 Mr. Bendon displayed floor area plans and stated they also examined if the floor area of the units would support the size of the decks. He displayed a matrix showing the calculations. They calculated about 4,100 SF of allowable deck area and the deck area for both buildings totaled 1,739.3 SF based on 16,467.85 SF of net floor area. Mr. Bendon summarized his presentation and stated to not allow the decks would cause significant harm to the property owners who purchased on the reliance of any kind of lack of enforcement for the last 50 years based on the City’s records, it would probably cause a lot more disruption to the river area than just letting it be, and everyone affected by this is in support of it. Mr. Andy Rothschild, owner of #13, thanks the commission for reviewing the application. He stated they purchased unit #16 upon retirement. He stated the deck had deteriorated, so they repaired the supports and surface along with replacing the bench which was unsafe. Their intent was to improve their home. He reiterated their neighbors are in support of the improvements. He asked the commission to approve the exemption. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 5 of 12 Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had questions of the applicant. Mr. Marcoux asked if the structural engineer stated the support structure was safe or not and was a soil report conducted. Mr. Bendon is not aware of a soil report and stated he only had a conversation with the engineer regarding the size of the posts. The viability of the deck was not discussed. Ms. McGovern asked which unit the remodel plans were for that was displayed. Mr. Bendon replied the plans for unit #16. Ms. McGovern feels that it was out of purview regarding what P&Z is being asked to review. Mr. Bendon said he brought it up because it was information that was provided to the City. She felt it was out of scope because the information did not pertain to the unit in the permit, so it’s not certain City Staff would have inspected or made a determination of the information since it was about a different unit. Ms. Carver stated she is not familiar with Mr. Uhlfelder. Mr. Bendon replied Mr. Harry Uhlfelder was the original builder of the project. He believes Mr. Mark Uhlfelder who owns units in the building is the son of the builder. Ms. Carver asked to confirm the date the stream margin review was developed. Mr. Bendon believed it was April 1971. He added the building was built under the previous code. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault provided a map showing the location of the two units as well as the stream margin review boundary. She displayed a site plan and pointed out the high-water line, the location and existing size of the decks for each unit and the approved deck sizes on record. She added the entire building is a non-conformity as it was built before stream margin regulations were in place. She then displayed a map showing the relationship between the river and the building. An overlay of the map showed a part of the building in the 100-year flood plain. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault next discussed the intent of the Stream Margin review noting the intent is not to protect anyone’s view, but to reduce and prevent property loss and to preserve and protect the watercourses. She displayed a site view from the City’s GIS system which showed a permitted sized deck and the deck for unit #13. She reviewed the criteria for the review. She noted almost the entire building is in the top of slope so no additional development can occur on the building without impeding the top of slope and the setback. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault described Staff’s response to each of the criteria, finding none of the criteria met except for the lighting which may be found to be compliant if a lighting plan were to be submitted and confirmed with a building permit. She stated a reason for this application is that unit #13 did receive a building permit for some windows and it was later discovered the scope of work exceeded the permit. She displayed a timeframe of the occurrences related to unit #13. A stop work order was issued triggering the need for the application. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 6 of 12 She closed stating Staff recommends denial of the Special Review, Stream Margin Review request for Unit #13. Mr. McKnight asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Rose wondered about the economically and unfriendly costs to remove what has been done. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault responded Staff is requiring a building permit to remove the stairs and concrete landing so the impacts for removing it can be managed. Mr. Rose feels the stairs are the biggest issue for him and the other things just don’t seem to be a big deal. He asked if this was an all or none situation. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault stated P&Z has the capability to make an approval with conditions that would require the removal of the stairs and pad or whatever else they deem appropriate. Ms. Rockhill asked as part of the permit to remove the stairs and pad, is there a requirement to add vegetation. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault stated it would be included in the permit but could also be included in the resolution if desired. Mr. McKnight opened for public comment. Seeing none, he closed public comment. Mr. McKnight informed Mr. Bendon he could now respond to staff’s presentation at this time. Mr. Bendon said he had three points to make. He stated the first was Staff’s review treated this situation like new construction which it is not. He added based on the information and affidavits provided and these decks have been there for a long time, likely from day one. His second point was the removal of these improvements would be pretty extreme with a highly disproportionate impact on the owner and much more impact on the river. His third point was that from the beginning the applicant recognized the stairs were new and had agreed to remove them since they could not be approved through a stream margin review. He added the applicant would be happy to restore vegetation upon the removal of the stairs. Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Rose stated he is comfortable with keeping everything except the stairs. Based on what he heard, the decks have been there for some time and the neighbors approve of the decks remaining. The one public comment that did not approve suggested it was a slippery slope to approve projects that didn’t have permits, but he doesn’t see this setting a precedent and sees it as an isolated case. He believes the decks should remain as is. Mr. Marcoux agrees with Mr. Rose. He feels the applicant should pay the red tag penalty fees and future permit fees and everything should be documented. He would like to a structural stamp to bring the decks current, but it may be irrelevant. Ms. McGovern believes P&Z has some very specific review criteria for basing their opinions of the application and should not be using gut feelings if a commissioner likes it or not. Based on the plats with Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 7 of 12 decks measuring 4 FT by 10 FT with existing conditions showing they don’t match regardless of when they were built and no building permits or approvals for a larger the 4.33 FT by 10 FT deck, she does not feel she has enough information to approve the application. She acknowledged the neighbors’ comments support the existing conditions, but they didn’t address any of the stream margin review criteria in any way. She is not in support of allowing the decks to remain larger than the other decks which she believes are 4.33 FT by 10 FT. She also feels there will also be an environmental impact if the decks remain as they exist for the next however, many years and having finishes wash off in the river and other impacts with a deck remaining in the stream margin. She doesn’t feel there is enough evidence to make the call. Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern regarding the lack of information and he asked Ms. Johnson for rules to be followed in this case. Ms. Johnson stated the criterion is set forth in the land use code in Chapter 26.435.040 and the applicant is requesting a variance. She continued stating as part of your criteria in granting a variance, the commission is required to look at and determine if the proposed development meets the stream margin review standards. Staff has pointed out the criteria and recommended denial. Unfortunately, the decks were built and the documentation on record does not indicate they were approved at the size as they currently exist. She acknowledged the commission is left to review the documents provided, including the affidavits, and make a determination when the decks were built. If the decks were built prior to the stream margin review, it would probably be a nonconformity. And if so, a nonconforming use cannot be expanded. These are some of the considerations, but the commission’s findings should relate to the criteria provided by Staff. In regard to the other example provided, she added the commission may consider them but is not required or bound by decisions made commissions in the past. Mr. McKnight stated he has questions regarding the basic fairness including who is responsible for this situation. Ms. Johnson encouraged them to form decisions relating to the stream margin review criteria. She added someone can’t build something and then later ask for forgiveness to circumvent the City’s code. In regard to an idea of fairness, that would need to be questioned by a court of law and is outside the commission’s purview. Mr. McKnight noted based on the criteria, the entire building is nonconforming. Ms. McGovern found the plat is the only actual documentation referencing the decks which is recorded, and it shows all the decks are essentially the same size. She stated at some point in time, the two decks were enlarged without a building permit and without an amended plat. Based on this document, she would be fine if the decks were brought back into the size as documented on the plat. She doesn’t feel the code allows for any increase to a nonconformity. Mr. McKnight agreed with Ms. McGovern but wonders how this actually happened. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 8 of 12 Ms. Carver stated she agrees with Ms. McGovern and feels it’s an opportunity to make things right. She has seen this situation before and without permits, there are potential impacts to the river and property. She does not support approving the application. Ms. Rockhill stated this is hard for her because the stream margin review criteria did not exist when the building was built and it’s unknown if the decks were built at the same time. She thinks penalizing someone in 2021 seems unreasonable. She is still considering her decision. Mr. Rose stated he believes in ex post facto and is leaning toward approving it and getting rid of the stairs. Mr. Marcoux agrees with Mr. Rose. Ms. Carver asked if Mr. Geary is the basis for establishing the decks have always been as large as they are currently, how old was he when he first knew of this and was he a part-time or full-time resident. She doesn’t feel his account establishes when the decks were built at their current size. Ms. Rockhill stated she is more in line with Mr. Rose and Mr. Marcoux. When she looks at the criteria, the whole building does not meet the criteria. She would be in favor of getting rid of the stair and pad as well as some vegetation restoration to address erosion. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault wanted to clarify there needs to be two distinct decisions for units #13 and #15 and currently only unit #13 is being discussed. Mr. Bendon commented he finds Mr. Geary’s affidavit credible. They are second homeowners, but they have been in and out from Denver for quite some time and participants in the community. He also wanted to point out the 1970 building permit image was a square on a square with no details such as parking spaces, vegetation, sidewalks or curbs. He stated the role of P&Z is to follow the criteria but also to figure out what is fair and equitable to all concerned that makes sense given the situation. Ms. Carver asked if this is approved, would the decks need to be brought up to today’s code. Mr. Bendon remarked the applicant would have any issue with a structural review by the Building Department and a report completed for the deck. Ms. Simon noted it seems the board is currently split which would be no action. She wanted to point out the pergola, side screen walls and stairs are work from last year that violate the current code. She understands the footprint of the deck is less documented. Ms. Johnson noted a split decision will be no action and the application will remain active. She reviewed the options the board which include further discussion or a request for a continuance to obtain additional information. Mr. McKnight and Ms. McGovern both do not feel there is enough information to support granting an approval based on the criterion. Ms. McGovern is not comfortable relying on people’s memory. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 9 of 12 Mr. Marcoux stated he only wants to approve for these two decks on the property. Mr. McKnight asked if there was any more documentation available. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault responded the City has located all the available information and it’s sparse. Mr. Bendon offered to conduct a site visit if that would help. He is not sure there would be any more information available. Ms. Rockhill offered to share photos from the MLS of the deck from 2008. Ms. Johnson cautioned her that staff and the applicant have not had a chance to view the photos prior to the hearing and it’s not really evidence presented during presentation portion of the hearing. Without the consent of staff and the applicant, she is cautious about allowing it to be part of the record. Ms. Carver doesn’t see how pictures of the deck would relate to approving the variance. Mr. McKnight thought it may help with the timing, but it isn’t anything to be discussed at this point. Mr. Rose stated the two units appear to be adjacent and guessed their location with more land suggests why they have a larger deck. Ms. Johnson suggested a continuance to allow the City or the applicant time to locate additional information and to allow the City to locate a new member for one of the open seats for the commission. She suggested a motion to approve or deny with a formal vote and then decide the next action to consider. Ms. McGovern motioned to deny the variance request for 1050 Waters, unit #13. Ms. Carver seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Mr. Rose, no; Mr. Marcoux, no; Ms. Rockhill, no; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of three (3) in favor – three (3) not in favor for a tie vote. The motion did not pass. Mr. McKnight suggested continuing the hearing. Ms. Johnson noted it would be a continued hearing so additional information could be provided by staff or the applicant. Ms. Simon stated the next available date is July 6th and it is also be the first available time to appoint a new P&Z member. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the hearing to July 6, 2020. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Marcoux, no; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – one (1) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. Bendon noted they may want to request a further continuation if there is still the same six commissioners and no new member on July 6th. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 10 of 12 1050 Waters Ave - #15, Special Review – Stream Margin Review Standard Variance Mr. McKnight opened the hearing. Mr. Bendon asked to make a brief presentation. He asked to reference the testimony made for unit #13 for this hearing. Mr. McKnight accepted his request. Mr. Bendon displayed a site map and pointed out unit #15. He described the location and noted the owner has been in the unit since 1997 and owned it since 1999. Mr. Bendon wanted to highlight the condition of the deck which he described as vintage and noted per Mr. Tye’s affidavit, stating it has not been updated including the color. He provided additional photos showing the walkway entrance to the deck and a view from above of the deck. Mr. Bendon stated the previous testimony including the affidavits apply to this unit as well. Mr. Bendon then introduced the owner, Mr. Tye. Mr. Tye stated he could attest the size of his neighbor’s deck is the same size to time he moved into his unit. Mr. Tye stated he has an appraisal as proof his deck has been in place for at least 23 years. He also has his affidavit stating the only thing he has done to the deck is to paint it. He added when he purchased the unit, both the listing and appraisal show the deck in place. At that time, it didn’t occur to him to check whether it was up to code or not. He also believes the Geary’s statement; the appraisal and Mr. Sullivan’s statement has a lot of weight. He feels he is in a difficult position to have to tear up a deck he bought in good faith and there doesn’t appear to be to be anything other than a plan from the 1970’s to go against his 1999 appraisal and an affidavit from the appraiser. He feels it would be a hardship to make him pull the deck out, regrade and revegetate the land. He thanked the commission for their time. Mr. McKnight asked for questions of the applicant. Seeing none, he turned the floor over to Staff. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault stated she will not repeat the same information previously provided but stated this deck also meets none of the stream margin review criteria for the same reasons. She stated this deck does not appear to have any changes from its existence and there are no current violations open for it. S Ms. Johnson asked if it was her intention to ask the commission to take into consideration the comments she previously made in the last hearing. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault confirmed that is her intent. Ms. Johnson also wanted to be clear some of the public comment was for both units and some were just for this unit. Mr. McKnight asked if there were questions. Mr. Rose asked why this one was under review. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault responded as they were researching the deck on unit #13, it became evident the deck on unit #15 was closer to the stream margin than #13. Staff research permits for each deck to determine if the current size was permitted for their current size. Mr. McKnight opened for public comment. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Peter Fornell, noted the difficulty in reviewing this application and stated if you were to look at the activities from the past half century across the community, you would be inundated to the point you would become frustrated being a part of what they do. He believes for uses that have been in place for as long as this and haven’t been changed or modified in any way should be less on the radar than new applications or newly entered nonconforming uses. He feels this use has been there so long it should be acknowledged and accepted. Mr. McKnight then closed public comment. Ms. Bonfils Thibeault noted two emails had been submitted for public comment and provided to the commissioners. Mr. McKnight opened for commissioner discussion. Mr. Rose believes these decks were enlarged some time ago. In this case, if the deck was moved back, it would be just moved back further from the river. He does not feel the owner should be required to move his deck. Ms. McGovern stated her comments are the same for this deck as previously stated. She believes whether the owner deserves to have this deck is not in her purview, but she is evaluating it based on the criterion which she does not believe it meets. Ms. Carver stated she will stick with her former comments and feels the stream margin is extremely important in this slope to the river. Mr. McKnight stated in no way does he feel this is fair to the owner but based on criterion he does not see how it leally conforms. He is baffled the commission does not have the latitude to step outside the criterion. He is sticking with his previous comments and vote. Mr. McKnight stated if the commission is again split on their decision, it would be great to get some additional information. Mr. Marcoux and Ms. Rockhill stated their positions are the same. Ms. McGovern motioned to deny the variance request for 1050 Waters, unit #15. Ms. Carver seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, no; Mr. Marcoux, no; Mr. Rose, no; Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of three (3) in favor – three (3) not in favor for a tie vote. The motion did not pass. Ms. McGovern motioned to continue the hearing to July 6, 2020. Mr. Marcoux seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Marcoux, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of six (6) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight thanked staff and the applicant. Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 2021 Page 12 of 12 OTHER BUSINESS None Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Mr. Rose. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:46 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager