Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Design Guidelines Whiterock topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crested Butte board finds proposed connector and west-window revisions at Whiterock Avenue opposed; motions to deny produce split votes
Summary
The BOZAR reviewed revisions to a previously approved addition at 319/321 Whiterock Avenue, issued findings the proposed connector and west-elevation windows "cannot be supported" under multiple design-guideline sections, and recorded motions to deny that resulted in a split roll-call; the minutes do not record a final explicit outcome of the denial motions.
The Town of Crested Butte Board of Zoning and Architectural Review reviewed a follow-up application April 28 for revisions to an approved addition and conversion at 319/321 Whiterock Avenue and issued findings that the specific connector and west-elevation windows could not be supported under the board’s design guidelines.
Planning staff Earley explained that Jonathan Augello submitted the revisions on behalf of Owen Whiterock LLC. The full board was asked to review two changes the vice chair had previously approved for permitting: removal of a step within the connector (creating asymmetrical roof pitches) and revised west-elevation fenestration that keeps window heads low relative to exterior floor expression. Earley said staff finds support for many of the previously approved changes but asked the board to weigh in on these two items.
During deliberations, Schmidt said the sum of the changes gave him pause and considered them substantial enough to reopen full review. A straw poll split the board on whether the connector revision was insubstantial; members similarly split on the west-window proposal after examining neighborhood photos and guideline language. Several board members cited guideline sections related to mass, scale, form, roof forms and compatibility (GL 4.26; 3.17–3.19; 3.36–3.39; 4.32–4.45; 4.49; 4.53–4.57) in supporting the finding that the proposed revisions “cannot be supported.”
The minutes record that Davol moved to deny the connector revision and batchman dourson seconded; the roll-call recorded Davol and batchman dourson as opposed and Schmidt and Spann Labato as in favor (Nauman had recused). Davol later moved to deny the west-elevation revision and Schmidt seconded; the recorded roll-call again recorded a split (two in favor, two opposed). The meeting minutes record the votes but do not explicitly state a final outcome for the denial motions in the written minutes.
Applicant representative Jonathan Augello expressed frustration with the process during the review. No public comment was recorded. The board then moved on to miscellaneous calendar items and adjourned at 7:41 p.m.
Because the minutes record the board’s written findings that the revisions "cannot be supported" and also record split roll-call votes on motions to deny, the written record in the meeting minutes is internally ambiguous about the formal final disposition of the denial motions; the article reports what the minutes show without inferring a procedural result not stated in the transcript.
