Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20250619 REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 19TH, 2025 Chairperson Sandler opened the meeting of the Aspen Board of Adjustment at 4:42 p.m. Commissioners in attendance: Rick Head, Ashley Feddersen, Tim Sack and Andrew Sandler. Commissioners not in attendance: Jim Farrey and Collin Frank Staff present: Sophie Varga, Zoning Administrator Jeff Barnhill, Senior Planner Kate Johnson, City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk Staff Comments: None Commissioner comments: None Minutes: Mr. Head motioned to approve the minutes from 3/6/25; 4/17/25, 5/8/25; 6/5/25. Ms. Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest: None PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution #2, Series of 2025 – 835 East Durant Avenue – Dimensional Variance Request Applicant Presentation – Chris Bendon – Bendon Adams Mr. Bendon began his presentation by describing the property and introducing Mr. Joe Spears from S2 Architects, who is the architect on the project, and Ms. Nathalie Crick, who is on the HOA. He continued by describing more details of the building including layout and square footage. He then described the existing conditions, noting that it was originally built slightly askew to the property lines. He mentioned that they were not sure why this had occurred. He showed a diagram of the building on the property and pointed out the difference between the building and property lines. He said that one of their proposals was to square off the existing roof forms that currently extend further into the setback. He mentioned that if the proposed third floor was made to conform with the current property lines and setbacks it would end up being askew from the existing first and second floors that were not built in line with them. He noted that the application requested two variances. One 26-inch side yard variance along the west side, creating a 34-inch setback. The other is a 46-inch side yard variance that would create a setback of 14 inches. These both mimic the existing conditions going straight up and would not further encroach into the setbacks. Mr. Bendon moved on to the three criteria that a decision would need to be based on and noted that these were included in the application and the staff memo. He went over each of them and explained their reasoning that they had all been met. Mr. Bendon then turned the presentation over to Mr. Spears to go over the design. Mr. Spears mentioned that there were locals living in the building and they had a real budget and did not want to scrape and replace. He noted that part of the existing roof forms would not be removed and were to become part of the new third floor. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 19TH, 2025 Ms. Crick said that she felt the design was consistent with the structure. She also noted that they had been in the design and planning process for about seven years and were very pleased with what Mr. Spears had produced. She felt it was very logical to do what was proposed and reduce the amount of demolition. Mr. Bendon finished by confirming that the board members had received the public comment emails that were sent from neighbors. The members all confirmed this. Mr. Sack asked if there was any additional square footage planned on the existing first or second floors. Mr. Bendon said no. Ms. Feddersen asked if the residents and HOA were ready to move forward with this design. Mr. Spears said yes. Staff Presentation – Sophie Varga – Zoning Administrator Ms. Varga began her presentation by going over some background of the building as well as the application proposal to add the third story. She then showed a few pictures of the existing conditions of the proposed new design. She reiterated that in the proposed design, the third floor would be in the setbacks. She reviewed the zoning setback requirements. She noted that the proposal will reduce the required 5-foot setbacks to a 1 foot 2-inch setback on the east side and a 2-foot 10-inch setback on the west side. She then went over the three review criteria for dimensional variances and noted that all three must be met to be granted. She reviewed staff findings on the criteria as outlined in Exhibit B of the staff memo and noted that staff find that all three criteria are not met. Ms. Varga concluded by stating that staff is recommending denial of the application as it does not meet the criteria. Mr. Sack felt that the applicant team had done a very thorough job in finding solutions to update this building. He also felt the new design was in line with the community and that with the efficiency and low demolition percentage of the project it was worth approving. Ms. Feddersen felt the support of the neighbors was important. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. John Newhouse introduced himself and noted that he was a member of the HOA. He described the process of collecting feedback from all members of the HOA to help guide the design and proposal. He said that the HOA felt the requested variance was within reason. Before the board discussion, Mr. Sack asked if there had been any other buildings that had been in a similar situation being set slightly askew to the setbacks. Mr. Bendon felt that with how old town is, there were probably numerous other similar examples. BOARD DISCUSSION: Mr. Sandler began the board discussion by saying that he felt the code was very important but there was also the spirit of the code. He felt that this request was within the spirit of the code and where we want to go as a town regarding esthetics and reducing the amount of waste in the landfill. Mr. Head noted that he always tried to support staff and that he was not in support of the variance request. He did not feel the applicant had demonstrated that they have been denied any REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 19TH, 2025 reasonable use of the property or that their rights have been denied as compared to other similar properties. He felt that zoning laws had been created, in part by Mr. Bendon, and that they have been charged with abiding by them. He also felt that this was just a convenience to the applicant to use the existing structure which currently encroaches in the side yard setbacks. While he felt that the design looked great, they were not charged with aesthetics. He felt that this was just a proposal to expand a non-conforming use. Ms. Feddersen liked the proposal and agreed that many buildings in town will need to be updated. She also felt that if there was a stack of letters from neighbors opposing the proposal, she might feel different, but since they only had letters of approval, she was supportive. She appreciated the reduction in demolition and recycling most of the materials. Mr. Sandler again spoke about the spirit of the code and felt the applicant had demonstrated that with the time and effort that was put into this. MOTION: Mr. Sandler motioned to approve Resolution #2, in approval of the variance request, Mr. Sack seconded. Ms. Johnson noted that under the Code an approval from the Board of Adjustment had to be at least four votes in favor. If less than four votes are in favor, there is no action, but it is not considered a denial. She noted that it seemed that an approval of four votes was not possible at the moment and she suggested that the item be continued to a date certain. Mr. Sack asked Mr. Head if there was any way of adjusting his perspective on this. He reiterated his thoughts of why he was in support. Mr. Head appreciated Mr. Sack’s comments but said that he was not changing his mind. Roll call vote: Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, no; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 3-1; Motion fails. No action taken. Mr. Sandler motioned to continue the hearing to August 7th at 4:30pm. Ms. Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-0; Motion passes. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution #3, Series of 2025 – 202 Lone Pine Rd. - Setback Variance for Trash Enclosure Applicant Presentation: Ms. Allison Agley – Mocklin Homeowners Association, LLC Ms. Agley introduced herself and said that she would let Mr. Barnhill make the presentation. Staff Presentation: Jeff Barnhill – Senior Planner Mr. Barnhill began his presentation by going over some of the details of the property and he detailed the variance request to construct a new trash enclosure. He noted that the current property has two roll away dumpsters sitting in the parking area. He showed some pictures of the current conditions. He then listed the required setbacks for this type and size property as outlined in the staff memo. Next, he noted the variance requests of a 3-foot front yard setback where 15- feet is required and a 1.5-foot side yard setback where 5-feet is required. Mr. Barnhill addressed the variance criteria and noted that staff felt that the proposed enclosure makes the existing condition better. He mentioned that the enclosure of trash is a reasonable use of the property, and the request was the minimum variance necessary to enclose the trash. REGULAR MEETING ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT JUNE 19TH, 2025 Mr. Barnhill finished by stating that staff recommends the BOA approve this request. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None BOARD DISCUSSION: The members did not have any questions for staff and were in support of the request. MOTION: Mr. Sandler motioned to approve Resolution #2, Series of 2025. Ms. Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4- 0; All in favor, motion passes. ADJOURN: Mr. Sandler motioned to adjourn the meeting. Ms. Feddersen seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Sack, yes; Mr. Head, yes; Ms. Feddersen, yes; Mr. Sandler, yes. 4-0; All in favor, motion passes. _____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy Clerk