Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aspen commission hears plea to expand subgrade living space to keep family in town; staff urges denial
Summary
The commission considered a request to convert existing crawl space into habitable net‑livable area at 150 N. 8th St.; applicant argued the 2012 net‑livable cap creates a hardship that would force the family out, while staff said the proposal violates a 2012 ordinance and recommended denial.
The Planning & Zoning Commission heard an application Dec. 3 to amend a subdivision, modify a City Council ordinance and grant a net‑livable variance at 150 North 8th Street so a family can finish existing subgrade space and remain in Aspen.
Applicant representative Patrick Raleigh said the requested increase in net‑livable area is largely subgrade and has no external visual impact; he said the unit cap imposed when an affordable unit was created in 2012 produces an unintended hardship. “This common sense proposal is really an attempt to try to hold on to the concept of a living community in Aspen,” Raleigh said, noting neighbor support and that the work would provide mitigation floor area for affordable housing.
Lisa Guth, the applicant, addressed commissioners directly: “We need it and we want to stay here… We use the bus often every day,” she said, asking the commission to consider immediate neighbor support and the minimal external effects of finishing the crawl space.
Jeff Barnhill, planning staff, recommended denial and pointed to City Council Ordinance Number 20, Series of 2012 and the resolution that memorialized unit‑size limits after the property’s 2012 reconfiguration. Barnhill said increasing Unit A from 2,952 to 4,471 sq ft of net livable area would conflict with the ordinance and that the major subdivision amendment and variance should be evaluated under the code’s standards; staff concluded the application violated subdivision standards and recommended denial.
Commissioners were split: some sympathized with the family and the goal of keeping locals in town, while others emphasized that the commission must apply the current code and that a broader code amendment — rather than a variance — would be the right vehicle to address systemic issues. The packet contained a staff‑recommended resolution (Resolution 12) prepared to deny the application; the matter is expected to proceed to City Council where the final decision will be made.
