Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.boa.20010621CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21,2001 DECLARATION OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................... 2 MINUTES .................................................................................................................................................................... 2 CASE #01-02 - JAMIE KNOWLTON, 1540 AND 1530 SILVERKING DRIVE ................................................. 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21, 2001 Charles Paterson opened the Board of Adjustment meeting with Pick Head Jim Iglehart, Bill Murphy, Howard DeLuca and Mark Hesselschwerdt present. David Schott was excused. Staffin attendance: David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney; Chuck Roth and Richard Goulding, Engineering; James Lindt, Community Developmem and Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. DECLARATION OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST None stated. Mark Hesselschwerdt served as the alternate. MINUTES MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minuets from Case #00-13 and Case #00-14 from January 4, 2001. Corrections made by Mark Hesselschwerdt, Jim Iglehart seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from Case #01-01 from March 6, 2001. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. APPROVED 5-0. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the minutes from Case #00-04 from May 17, 2001. Corrections made by Charles Paterson. Mark Hesselschwerdt seconded. APPROVED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING: Case #01-02 - Jamie Knowlton, 1540 and 1530 Silverkin~ Drive Charles Paterson opened the public hearing on 1540 and 1530 Silverking Drive for a variance from the requirement of Section 21.16.050 (h) of the Aspen Municipal Code on driveways, both of which exceed the 12% grade. David Hofer stated that the notice was provided. Chuck Roth explained that when the duplex came in for Certificate of Occupancy; he inspected the site, the driveway slopes were not as approved on the building permit drawings. The city code provides for a 12% driveway slope for the first 20 feet from the property line, the intention was for a reasonably flat spot on private property for a vehicle to stop to observe any activity in the public rights-of-ways. Roth said that the slopes measured were far greater than what was stated on the approved building permits. Hoefer ~tated that for clarity the approved building permits would have been in compliance with the city code. Roth responded that was tree. Hoefer stated it was the "as built" that caused the problem, the way that the driveway was built was a self-induced hardship. Roth agreed. 2 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21~ 2001 Jamie Knowlton, representing the owner Gwen Gordon, stated the reason the driveways exceeded thc 12% grade was because the house was built on the foot of Red Butte, which makes it impossible to build at a grade of 12 % or be in compliance. Knowlton said that they were before the board for the engineer to reconsider the non-issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Knowlton stated that ~t was safer now for egress; the house was bulk on a very steep slope, which was ~mpossible to build anywhere else on the site. Knowlton said it was safer because they can see better, take advantage of solar and better for public access to the homes. Knowlton stated that was why the criteria was satisfied. Knowlton said that staff argued that it did not comply with the code and was in conflict with Title 21 but Knowlton said that he felt this was consistent with Title 21. Knowlton stated that he measured the bases of driveways along the street. He said that he was not asking for anything more but for what everyone else had; he said there was an undue hardship for building the house to begin with; they had to reduce the size of the house due to the steep grade. Knowlton asked that they be consistent with the code because they have met the criteria. Knowlton said that he didn't feel that was an appropriate decision that staff made but he said that he took full responsibility for building the driveway the way that it was done. Knowlton stated that this was not malicious; he said that the way that this was laid out in November made sense and in the way that it was built. Knowlton said that he apologized and did not feel that it was properly drawn in the first place. He said that them was a topological challenge. Gwen Gordon stated that she believed that this was safe and the best solution at that point. Rick Head said that the driveway plan showed 20 feet at 10% and then it went to 28 feet; he asked if that was in excess of the 12% grade. Chuck Roth replied that the topography as indicated on those drawings stops at about 12 feet in and that there was at least one mistake in the drawings and it needed to be drawn and certified by an engineer. Head asked if the driveway was snow melted. Knowlton replied that it was not snow melted. Hoefer asked what the mistake was on the drawings. Roth responded that the end of the road was not the 20 feet in and that one of the lines was not right. Rick Head said that what was allowed and what was permitted was different than what was built. Jim Iglehart asked if there was a permit that exceeded the code, as you know it. Chuck Roth answered that he did not believe so, the drawings were in the building permits and the topographic lines were lacking from 12 feet in after the roadway. Barbara Long stated that there was a section on the permitted planS that showed the driveway section as part ofthe permit for both driveways. Barbara Long, architect, stated that it was surveyed. 3 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21,200! Howard DeLuca stated that ail driveways on that street exceeded the code; he asked when the 12% grade went into effect bccanse none of those driveways came before this board. Chuck Roth replied that the code went into effect about 1990. DeLuca said that it seems like the city overlooked a lot on those driveways. Roth stated that in order to accurately respond to that he would have to look into the bnilding permits on each lot. Roth said that the immediate next-door neighbor (down valley) would be built in accordance with the city code. Paterson asked if there would be a difference in the code for a southern facing driveway rather than a north-facing driveway. Roth said that was a good question but the code wouldn't be written that way; the 12% came from townhomes that were built with very steep driveways to alley access (up to 28%), this was a source of concern. Roth stated that he Contacted a number of other communities with driveway standards and 12% was the consistent number. The city engineer felt that the 12% grade was. excessive because it doesn't meet the 8% ADA requirements. Mark Hesselschwerdt stated that the code was written for that subterranean garage scenario patricianly Coming into an alley; he noted that the driveways were well- spaced residential driveways coming down rather than com'mg out ora hole. Hesselschwerdt said that they might be trying to apply a part of the code that may not be appropriate here. Paterson stated that was why there was the board of adjustment. DeLuca asked if it would make a difference i£the driveways were snow melted in the code. Roth stated that was not in the code but that it might have been considered, if the driveways were snow melted and said that if the applicant had come in with those variances, it would have been considered. Roth said that this was after the driveway was built. DeLuca said that then they would have to mitigate for the energy code. Jim Iglehart said the house could have been designed a little smaller to mitigate that extraction for the energy code, if snowmelted. P~ick Head asked why the house wasn't designed lower to start with so the driveway access would not have been a problem and asked why these problems weren't considered going into the design. Barbara Long said that there were two design issues, garages had to be 10 feet from the front of the house and that the grade of the driveway cannot go above or below two feet from the set back of the grade. Ian Long stated that the driveway could not be cut more than two feet below the e×isting grades, so the driveway couldn't be lowered anymore. Rick Head stated that he had wished that the applicant had come in before rather than after; it now was a hardship created by the applicant. Head noted that this was the second time the applicant has come in after he did what he wanted to do and then asked for permission later. DeLuca asked who developed the numbers for the percent grades for the existing driveways and asked if it was inside the 20 feet. CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21, 2001 Knowlton answered that he and Ian developed the numbers and that it was inside the 20 feet. Ian Long stated that he was the general contractor; he said that the issue was safety only. Long said that there was clear visibility both right and left in the winter because the trees were leafless. Jim Iglehart asked if the driveways were snow melted. Long replied that the driveways were not snow melted. Mark Hesselschwerdt said that they probably have done the best that they could have considering what they had to work with. He said that the site usually doesn't get done until after the rough grading was done and because of the city code. Hesselschwerdt said that they ended up with what they did because of the grade of the site. Jim Iglehart said that he agreed with both Mark and Rick and needed to be convinced. Bill Murphy stated that he didn't know when the other driveways were built, before or after the code and if they had permits. Howard DeLuca stated that it would have been nice if the applicant came before the board to mitigate. He said that the problem he had was that the applicant knowingly built what wasn't according to the permitted plans. Mark Hesselschwerdt said that this was built and no one else had to go through those criteria. Hesselschwerdt said that this driveway works and the neighbors' driveways work. Head noted the safety concerns and the abuses by the applicant. Charles Paterson stated that the board had to give credence to people who built it. Howard DeLuca said that this whole neighborhood had already built with out knowing the situation. DeLuca said that to deny Knowhon the same consideration as his neighbors, even though he did what he did would not be right; DeLuca said that he did not agree with what he did. Hoefer stated that as Mark noted some of the other driveways might have been built contrary to their plan or prior to 1990. DeLuca asked to find out the number of snow-melted driveways. The board discussed continuing the meeting to obtain more evidence on the number of accidents, the number of driveways coming out of basements and historical driveways with passive solar collection from south facing. Also discussed were the mitigation factors that the applicant would have to do because of building the house on the side of a mountain and because the driveway was built against the penuitted plans. The other driveways were 16% to 22% and this 5 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21~ 2001 driveway was 28%. The city code required 20 feet compliance, which was discussed, from the property line to the roadway and what the applicant needed to comply with the code. Chuck Roth stated that garage B had the permitted driveway at the black line, which was higher than the road at the middle and that was not the permitted driveway, the permitted driveway tied into the edge of the existing pavement. Barb Long stated that on the original plans that the original driveway was slightly longer with more of a curve now. James Lindt asked Jamie Knowlton if the numbers were based on the first 20 feet. Knowlton replied that the measurements were taken with a digital level and it was a duplex on one lot; therefore they had to have 2 driveways. Knowlton replied that it exceeded the 20 feet but said that he would like to ask for the variance now. Knowlton said that they did the best that they could with the as built; they met the leniencies allowed within the code. Knowlton said that the mountain was an undue hardship and that them could have been a different curb cut. Knowlton said that he didn't fee! that brining in the project now shouldn't matter more, rather than if he would have brought it in prior to building it. Rick Head asked that on a scale of 1-10 what was the staff position for the recommended denial. Lindt responded that he deferred to Chuck. Lindt stated there were probably other driveways designs that could have been instituted, such as a single curb cut with a split off after the 20 feet. Chuck Roth replied that he could not give that answer but he heard many arguments and that it may not be safe and that the city engineer said that it was too steep at anything above 12%. Chuck Roth stated that on the house next door they were required to have a maximum driveway slope of 4% within the public right-of-way. DeLuca said that there was nothing in the code regarding what they could do within that 20 feet. Iglehart said that if there was nothing in the code for this, and then they had a hardship. David Hoefer stated that the board needed to stay focused on what the request was for in this case; they could have designed the project without creating the problem. Iglehart asked at what point in the design process did they know that the issue would have to be addressed. Hoefer answered that he assumed when they applied for the curb cut. Iglehart said that tiffs did not apply to the gray area. Hoefer restated that the issues were that the applicant could comply with the code; they obtained a building permit in compliance with the code and then they unilaterally decided that they could change that, now they are saying that they have a hardship. Hoefer asked if they really had a hardship. Hoefer said that they could comply, it may not be the best solution but it was the solution that they originally presented. 6 CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT June 21~ 2001 Hoe£er stated that the board identified the issues and it was the decision of the board if this code section was too onerous. MOTION: Rick Head moved to approve the variance for Case #01-02, 1540 and 1530 Silverking Drive from the requirement of Section 21.16.050(b) of the Aspen Municipal Code for the 28% driveway slope, finding that the review standards have been met. Jim Iglehart seconded. Roll call vote: Murphy, yes; Iglehart, yes; DeLuca, yes; Head, yes; Paterson, yes. APPROVED 5-0. Head explained that the reason he voted in favor of the variance was because of the ambiguity of the code, every other house on the block. DeLuca stated that Mark Hesselschwerdt moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:30. Jim Iglehart seconded. Approved 5-0. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk 7