Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners withdraw request to expand livable space at 150 North 8th Street after council signals likely denial
Summary
After a multi‑hour hearing that included an emotional plea from the homeowners and supportive public comments, the council signaled it would not find the necessary hardship to grant a floor‑area variance; applicants withdrew the application rather than face a denial.
The owners of 150 North 8th Street withdrew their application for a floor‑area variance and related subdivision amendment during the July 14 Aspen City Council meeting after extensive testimony, public comment and council deliberation.
Applicant representative Patrick Raleigh and homeowner Lisa Guth argued the proposal would finish an existing subgrade crawl space into usable living space to better accommodate the family, and stressed the proposal would support a deed‑restricted affordable unit on the property. "This isn't just our house, it's our home," Lisa Guth told the council in an emotional statement about raising children and wanting to stay in Aspen. Several immediate neighbors and community leaders, including Mendel Mintz of the Aspen Jewish Community Center and nearby residents, spoke in support.
City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial. Planning director Dan Folk summarized staff's position that the 2,000‑square‑foot cap in the residential multifamily (RMF) zone is a deliberate tool to encourage multifamily units and that the property already enjoys floor‑area allowances that differ from the typical parcel in that district. Folk said variances are intended for unique physical hardships and that the current situation does not meet that standard.
Council members expressed sympathy for the family but repeatedly cited precedent and code consistency concerns. Several members said they would prefer a policy‑level code amendment to address systemic issues rather than an individual variance. One councilor also raised the procedural awkwardness given one council member's association with the property, and the council discussed options including denial, approval with conditions, or allowing the applicant to withdraw and rework the request.
After a motion to deny was put on the table, the mover and seconder withdrew that motion and the applicant formally requested withdrawal of the application; the council recorded the withdrawal and directed staff to document it in writing. The withdrawal preserves the applicant's ability to reapply later and avoids a formal denial that would bar a similar filing for a year.
Outcome: Application withdrawn; staff and applicants may pursue other paths (including a potential code amendment) with public notice and process.
