HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.boa.1530 & 1540 Silverking Dr.002-01
1111111I111111 ~ 1111111111 ~~:~~~;! ~0: m
SILVIA mWIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 10.00 0 0.00
RESOLUTION NO. 04
Series of 2001
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
GRANTING A VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS IN CASE NUMBER 01-02
RELATING TO PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN WITH AN ADDRESS OF
1530 and 1540 Silver King Drive, ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, James Knowlton has made application, dated May 15, 2001 to the
Board of Adjustment for a variance from the dimensional requirements of Chapter 21 of
the Aspen Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this matter came on for hearing before the Board of Adjustment on
June 21, 2001 where full deliberations and consideration of the evidence and testimony
was presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1. Findings of Fact.
The Board of Adjustment makes the following findings of fact:
1. A post-development application for a variance was initiated by: James Knowlton on
May 15, 2001 for property with street addresses of 1530 and 1540 Silver King
Drive, Aspen, Colorado.
2. Notice of the proposed variance has been provided to surrounding property
owners in accordance with Section 26-304-060(E)(3)(c) of the Aspen Municipal
Code. Evidence of such notice is on file with the City Clerk.
3. The grant of variance will be generally consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of Chapter 21 of the Aspen Municipal Code.
4. The grant of variance is the minimum variance that will make possible the
reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure.
5. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the terms of Chapter 21 of the Aspen
Municipal Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other
parcels in the same zone district, and would cause the applicant unnecessary
hardship or practical difficulty. In determining that the applicant's rights would be
deprived absent a variance, the Board considered certain special conditions and
circumstances which are unique to the parcel, building or structure, which are not
applicable to other parcels, structures or buildings in the same zone district and
which do not result from the actions of the applicant.
Section 2. Variance Granted.
The Board of Adjustment does hereby grant the applicant the following variance
from the terms of Chapter 21 of the Aspen Municipal Code by a five (5) to zero (0)
vote:
A variance to permit driveway slopes up to 28% from the edge of the pavement of
Silver King Drive to a distance of twenty feet (20') inside the property line.
APPROVED AS TO ~ Q}.JL"I
n~ ) r.
CitY Attorney ~
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of Adjustment of the
City of Aspen on the 21st day of June, 2001
Chairperson
/:tL ~
I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting Deputy City Clerk do certify
that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the Board of
Adjustment of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove
stated.
Deputy City Clerk ('h~ ;;(.~~
()
01m54
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Board of Adjustment
THRU:
Nick Adeh, City Engineer
FROM:
Chuck Roth, Project Engineer (21Z-
RE:
1530 & 1540 Silver King Drive, Driveway Slope Variance
DATE:
June 7, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a variance from the
driveway slope requirements to increase the maximum allowable slope from 12%
to 26%.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the driveway
slope variance request, finding public safety is the primary concern.
APPLICANT:
James Knowlton
LOCATION:
1530 and 1540 Silver King Drive
Lot 65, West Aspen Subdivision, Filing No.2
Aspen, CO
REVIEW STANDARDS AND STAFF EVALUATION: Pursuant to Section
21.16.070 of the Municipal Code, in order to authorize a variance from the
dimensional requirements of Chapter 21, the Board of Adjustment shall make a
finding that is consistent with City Code, which reads as follows:
21.16.60 Driveway and curb cut specifications.
(h) All newly constructed or rebuilt driveways shall not exceed a
maximum slope of twelve (12) percent within twenty (20) feet of a property
line bordering a public or private right-of-way.
The provisions for a variance from this requirement are set forth in the City Code
as follows:
21.16.070 Variations in driveways and curb cuts allowed for unusual
conditions.
Under unusual conditions of topography, drainage, existing landscaping or
improvements on city right-of-way, existing buildings or improvements on private
property, or special use requirements for the property, a variance from the
requirements in section 21.16.060 for driveways and curb cuts may be given by
the City Engineer upon filing a written application and a plot plan showing the
building site and special conditions existing thereon. Any person aggrieved of a
decision by the City Engineer under this section may seek a variance from the
Board of Adjustment pursuant to the procedures set out in Chapter 26.108 of the
Municipal Code.
1. Standard: The grant of the variance will be generally consistent with the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of section 21.16.070 above.
Response: Granting the variance will conflict with the provisions of
Chapter 21. There are conditions of unusual topography, however the
approved building permit drawings were in compliance with section
21.16.060(h). The approved building permit drawings versus the as-built
conditions are shown below:
UnitA
Unit B
Approved slopes
9%
9%
As-built slopes
26%
25%
(These are average slopes from the edge of the pavement of Silver King
Drive to twenty feet inside the property line.)
The engineering department cannot bend the City code to risk the
safety of users of the Silver King Drive. We cannot promote safety hazards
for "character" preservation. We cannot create a "killer" road or access
situation. The applicant is able to provide a safe condition.
In more moderate climates, maximum driveway slope is typically set
at 8%, which also provides ADA access to developed sites. Here in Aspen,
we are in a cold winter climate and much more severe weather conditions.
The driveways were built to steepnesses over 300% more than maximum
driveway slopes in moderate climates.
Accepting a driveway of such steep slopes directly exposes the City
to sever liabilities by promoting and approving unsafe and substandard
driveways and access ways.
We are here to minimize liabilities on everybody's parts - the City,
the homeowners, and the design professionals. To grant a driveway that is
300% steeper than a moderate climate driveway is inappropriate, and way
beyond reasonable tolerance.
ALTERNATIVES: The Board of Adjustment may consider any of the following
alternatives:
. Approve the variance as requested.
. Approve the variance with conditions.
. Table action to request further information be provided by the applicant or
interested parties.
. Deny the variance finding that the review standards are not met.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the driveway slope
variance request, finding that the Review Standards have not been met.
The applicant needs to reconstruct the driveways to the slopes indicated
on the approved building permit drawings. The design needs to be sealed
and signed by a registered engineer. The applicant should consider a
single driveway accessing the two garages, constructed at an angle to the
street rather than perpendicular, in order to achieve greater driveway
length and lesser driveway slopes.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move deny driveway slope variance request to
allow for 28% driveway slopes for the dwelling unit located at 1530 and 1540
Silver King Drive, finding that the Review Standards have not been met."
01m53
JAMESA.KNOWLTON
Planning & Consulting Services
1540 Silver King Dr
Aspen, CO 81611
970/429-0428
May 15, 2001
James Lindt
Community Development
130 E. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Request for Variance for driveways at 1540 and 1530 Silver King Dr.
Dear Mr. Lindt:
We are requesting a variance from the requirement of Section 21. 16. 060(h) of the
Municipal Code for driveways at 1540 and 1530 Silver King Dr.
Section 21.16.060(h) states:
"All newly constructed or rebuilt driveways shall not exceed a
maximum slope of twelve (12) percent within (20) feet ofa property
line bordering a public or private right of way."
Both driveways exceed the 12 percent grade.
Our request for a variance is pursuant to Section 21.16.070, which states "Any person
aggrieved of a decision by the City Engineer under this section may seek a variance from
the Board of Adjustment pursuant to tbe procedure set out in Chapter 26.108 of the
Municipal Code." The City Engineer has denied our request for a variance from the
requirement of Section 21.16.060. Their letter is attached. Please also find our request
for variance submitted to the City Engineer. We incorporate our submittal for variance to
the City Engineer as part of our request to the Board of Adjustments.
In addition to the reasoning set forth in our request to the City Engineer, we have
attached the following documents to show that Section 21.16.060(h) (I) was created to
address driveways coming from underground garages in downtown Aspen and not the
special conditions and circumstances presented by the steep slopes of Red Butte and (2)
included a variance procedure to address special conditions.
1. Ordinance No. 76 (1990)
2. November 8, 1990 Staff Memorandum to City Council regarding driveway slopes
Lindt Letter
May 15, 2001
Page 2
3. December 26,1990 Staff Memorandum to City Council regarding inclusion ofa
variance procedure in the Driveway slope Ordinance
3. December 26, 1990 Memorandum from the City Attorney regarding inclusion of a
variance procedure in the Driveway slope Ordinance.
We believe we meet all 3 criteria of Section 26.314.040 to justifY the granting ofa
vanance.
I. A variance is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the
Aspen Area Community plan as stated in the attached request to the City Engineer
for a variance.
2. A variance is the minimum variance that will make it possible for the reasonable
use of the property. The property is part of the West Aspen Subdivision approved
in 1968 by Pitkin County. Please find a copy of the Plat attached. The
Subdivision was annexed by the City in 1969, Plat Book 4, Page 34. By virtue of
the subdivision approval and annexation, the special conditions pre-date the 1990
ordinance. In essence, the approval to build on those lots at the foot of Red Butte
dates back to 1968. Since the lots contain slopes exceeding 30%, the slopes will
dictate access to any building. At minimum, therefore, the reasonableness of any
access will be determined by the location of the building in relation to the street.
The constructed driveways are the most reasonable in light of the steepness of the
lot. The fact that all other similarly situated lots have driveways similar to ours is
evidence of the reasonableness.
3. The literal interpretation and enforcement of the tenns and provisions of Sec.
21. ) 6. 070 would deprive us of rights of access, we enjoyed before the remodel
and that our neighbors now enjoy. As stated above, strict compliance is not
possible without creating a more dangerous condition. Enforcement is for the
same reason impractical and would present an unnecessary hardship and practical
difficulty. The house has been built as approved.
In summary, a variance is the only reasonable avenue to grant relief from a Code
provision that does not work on a lot with natural steep slopes. Alternative solutions are
impractical and counter to energy and planning policies of the Aspen Area Community
Plan. To force compliance would make access impractical and deprive reasonable access
to the duplex, which is an unnecessary hardship.
Lindt letter
May IS, 2001
Page 3
Therefore, we request to be placed on the agenda for the Board of Adjustments at earliest
available time. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or need additional
information.
Sincerely,
i . i~ t!vrv.d2(
~ A. KnoJ,iton
,GWyn G. Knowlton
~-_..----- ..-
,
RECEIVED
APR 1 B 2001
CITY ENGINEEF\
JAMES A. KNOWLTON
1540 Silver King Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
970/925-6488
April 16, 200 I
City of Aspen
Engineering Department
130 E. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
~._--...-.... "'''-
......,;,-... ~
-.V
APR 1 : ?f'r:
.,~.
Stephen Kanipe
Building Department
130 E. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Request for Variation in Driveway due to Unusual Conditions and issuance
of Certificate of Occupancy for building permit No. 0748
Dear Mr. Roth and Mr. Kanipe:
We are requesting a variance from the requirements of Sec. 16. 16.060 (h) for driveways at
1540 and 1530 Silver King Dr. pursuant to Sec. 21.16.070 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen ("Code"). Implicit in this request is a reconsideration of the
recommendation of the Engineering Department to deny the issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy for the subject duplex as set forth in Mr. Roth's Memorandum to the Building
Department dated April 4, 2001.
Our request is based on "unusual condition of topography" and the approval for building
a duplex on our Lot. Because of the unusually steep grade of the lot, strict compliance
with the Section 21.16.060(h) of the Municipal Code is both impractical and unsafe.
Similarly, the construction of a duplex on the lot according to other provisions of the
Code constitutes a justification for a variance from an inconsistent Code provision. A
variance allows flexibility where application of the Code creates inconsistency.
Unusual tODographv
The average grade of the lot is approximately 46%, with some sections as steep as 75%
and the section in front of the house averaging 27.5%.
The Code recognized the impact of the lot's steep slopes by reducing the size of the
approved duplex by 25% pursuant to Sec. 21.16.060(h).
If our lot were flat, the allowed square footage would have been 4,997.52 square feet.
Instead, we were permitted to build a 3748.14 square feet duplex or approximately
1,249.38 square feet less because of the steep slope.
To recognize the impact of steep slopes for building size and not to recognize it for
driveways appears inconsistent.
A variance for driveways on lots with steep slopes is supported by the grade and
configuration of the driveways of neighbors who are similarly situated. A list of our
neighbors and the grade of their driveways are listed below. Pictures of the driveways
are attached.
Existing Drivewav Grades Along Silver King Drive
1500 Silver King Dr. 16.8%
1520 Silver King Dr 21.6%
1560 Silver King Dr 19.7%
1570 Silver King Dr. 15.8%
1590 Silver King Dr. 20.8%
1610 Silver King Dr. 16.4%
1630 Silver King Dr. 22.6%
1660 Silver King Dr. 17.7%
1690 Silver King Dr. 14.3%
The original grade of the driveway for 1540 Silver King Drive also exceeded the 12%
grade with an average of 15%. To now require strict compliance with the Code ignores
what has historically been allowed in our neighborhood and on our lot due to the natural
limitations created by the steep slopes of Red Butte. See attached photo of Red Butte.
SafetY
The layout of our driveways is consistent with what has proven to be the safest in the past
for our lot and other similarly situated lots at the base of Red Butte. Similar to the
original driveway and those of our neighbors listed above, our new driveways are
configured with a steeper section off the street and a flatter section near the front door
and garage. This configuration is the opposite of what Sec. 16. 16.060(h) requires but is
consistent with the intent of the section to ensure safety.
The safety features of a flatter driveway next to the front door and garage are as follows:
. Allows a person to safely enter and exit their cars without having to negotiate
steep terrain.
. Allows for easier loading and unloading of vehicles without fighting for balance
on steep terrain.
. Allows safer ingress to and egress from the garage.
D Instead of accelerating up a steep slope into the garage and then breaking
once inside the garage, cars can enter at a slower speed.
..,
o Similarly, when exiting the garage, the attention of the driver would be
directed to looking behind them to see that the way is clear rather than
concentrating on breaking.
o This safety feature is even more important in wintertime as explained
below.
. Allows for safer exiting into the street.
o Cars, backing out of the garage or guest leaving from their parking place,
can pause safely on the flat spot to look in both directions for oncoming
traffic.
o Likewise, on coming traffic can see cars well before they exit the
driveways since their perch is above the road.
. Reduces the likelihood of parked cars sliding down the driveway on their own. A
reverse configuration with a steeper section closer to the house and a flatter
section closer to the road would not stop the momentum of a vehicle once it
started to slide down a grade required if a driveway was to meet the strict
requirement of Sec. 16. 16.060(h).
. Safer during the winter due to the southern exposure.
o In addition to the increased potential for a parked car sliding down the
driveway as mentioned above, all other safety considerations mentioned
above would be erased if the configuration were reversed by compliance
with Sec. 16.l6.060(h).
o Melting snow sheds down the steeper face to the street thus minimizing
ice build which allows better control when entering the street. (Refer to
picture of 1540 driveway
Aporoval of Permit Plans
The Engineering Department's approval of the driveway configurations for our project
was, under a strict reading of Sec.16. 16.060 (h), an acknowledgement of the limitations
of the "unusual condition" of topography on our lot. The Engineering Department
approved the driveways with a portion ofthe driveway exceeding the grade restriction of
Sec. 16. 16.060(h).
The language of Sec. 16. 16.060(h) states that the 12% grade must extend from the
property line toward the interior of the lot for 20 feet:
"All newly constructed or rebuilt driveways shall not exceed a maximum
slope of twelve (12) percent within (20) feet of a property line bordering a
public or private right-of-way." (Emphasis added)
The grades approved by the Engineering Department within the property line for Side A
were 10"10 for 10 feet and 26% for 10 feet and for Side B were 10% for 4.5 feet and 15%
for 15.5 feet.
The fact that the permit plans show a 10% grade for 30 feet beginning at the edge of the
pavement for each driveway can not be read as compliance with the actual wording of
'l
Sec. 16.l6.060(h). The edge of the pavement is 18 feet from the property line on Side A
and 20 feet from the property line on Side B.
Therefore, either the Engineering Department accepted the limitations of the lot when
approving the design of the driveway or the approval was based on a mistaken
application of the Code section. In either case, a fresh look at the unusual conditions is
warranted.
The driveways, as constructed, do indicate compliance with Sec. 16. 16.060(h) to the
extent possible, considering the existing conditions. The driveways were configured with
safety for the homeowners and public in general as the major concern. The safest and
most practical configuration is the opposite of the one required by Sec. 16. 16.060(h).
Instead of flatter slope at the bottom of the driveway and steep entry into the garage, a
steeper entry/exit near the street and a flatter section at the top is the safest for lots
affected by the steep incline of Red Butte.
Having the flatter grade at the top of the driveway near the entrance and garage also
meets the off- street parking requirements of Sec. 26.515.020. Off-street parking at the
bottom of the hill would force guests to walk up a steep incline with additional safety
concerns.
The configuration of the as built driveways do have a grade of 12% or less within 20 foot
of the property line. See the attached schematic.
A driveway constructed according to Sec. 16.l6.060(h) would leave a dangerous pitch for
the remaining 12 feet to the garage of34% on Side A and a pitch of23% for the
remaining 20 foot approach to the garage on Side B.
A table showing a comparison of the various approaches to designing a driveway on our
Lot is set forth below. The purpose is to illustrate the common sense of the driveways as
built considering the unusual conditions.
Comparison ofDrivewav ConfilZUrations
Permit Plans
As Built
Per Code
20' w/in Property
Side A Side B
10~o-28% 10%-15%
27.4%-12% 23.7%-9.9%
12% 12%
Approach to Garage
Side A Side B
28% 15%
7%-17.7% 9.9"10-5.8%
34% 23%
Relationshio to Other Provisions of the Code
Another reason for flexibility in applying the Code to driveways, other than the difficulty
of applying one rule to different conditions, is to make all provisions of the Code work.
.1
For instances, if the lot were flat, the requirement ofa 25 foot front yard set back would
pose no problem when it comes time to build a driveway according to Sec. 16. 16.060(h).
However, when compliance with the 25 foot front yard set back requires a building to be
built higher up on a hill side, then there should be flexibility in allowing the driveway to
reach the house.
Similarly, the requirement of Sec. 26.410.040 C 2. (b) that a garage be 10 feet "further
from the street than the frontmost wall of the house" requires special consideration to
allow access to a garage that is required by Code to be located up a hillside with a grade
of more than 12%.
Without flexibility, especially after there has been an approval for a duplex based on
compliance with the above Code provisions, the result could be unfair, arbitrary and
onerous to those who have been permitted to build and who did build.
The existence of Code provision Sec. 21.16.070 recognizes the potential for conditions
that cannot fit within a strict interpretation nor a strict application of the Code under
certain conditions. A variance for our driveways is consistent with the Code's
recognition of the need for flexibility for topographical challenges without compromising
safety .
Alternatives
It has been suggested that we either build one driveway that meets the strict requirement
of Sec. 16.16.060(h) or install heated driveways. These suggestions, while forcing
compliance with a strict interpretation of Sec. 16.16.060(h) or an expensive alternative,
are contrary to the nature and intention of the improvements and the stated community
policy on concentrating development closer to the urban core in order to prevent
development in ever widening circles into open space of our community.
The replacement ofa single family house of 2934 square feet with a duplex (two homes)
of3727 above ground square feet, on a lot that was approved for a duplex, is consistent
with the Aspen Area Community Plan.
The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan states, "We should discourage sprawl and
recognize its cost to the character of our community, our open spaces and our rural
resources as well as the fiscal expenses associated with the physical infrastructure of
sprawl. "
In addition to efficient land use, the project was designed without heated driveways in
order to conserve energy. Tilting the face of the driveway closest to the street towards
the winter sun takes advantage of the southern exposure of the lot and avoids the high
cost of heating outdoor space. Forcing an expensive alternative that is not only
unnecessary but also contrary to principles of conservation is punitive in nature and not in
the spirit of the flexibility that exists in the Code for addressing "unusual conditions".
"
Each duplex has a driveway, which supports the independence of each unit. A suggestion
for a single driveway serving both units would compromise the visual aesthetics of the
project and would not comply with Sec. 16.16.060(h). Because of the rise of the natural
grade from the street, a single driveway would still have to rise at a grade in excess of
12% and would be a predominate visual feature from the street. As constructed the
driveways protects existing trees on the lot and allows for landscaping to break up the
massmg.
Summarv
We respectfully request the Engineering Department grant a variance for the two
driveways at 1540 and 1530 Silver King Dr based on "unusual topography" as allowed
under Sec. 21.16.070. We also respectfully request the Engineering Department
recommend the granting of a Certificate of Occupancy based on the granting of said
variance. We believe the variance is warranted by the existing conditions of the lot and
while not in strict compliance with Sec. 16.16.060, the variance complies with the intent
of the said section for safety.
r~
f,
iji
Ul
()
!!!
r
<
111
~
~
\l
)ll
<;
_111
)>
1\1
111
7.
("\
()
r
()
~
\l
()
~ ~
II G
, z
() li\
IJl
111
("\
-I
5
z
-n
()
)ll
~
~
~
,
li\
)>
~
li\
111
OJ
N"U
~'"
~'"
an
o
~:
~'"
~<
>'"
=;;i:
'<
I
I .
I r---~-'
I \ I i
1:: I, i
I I,
Ilj "
~ l.
/'
I
I! I
l
: I
Lf
~
"
.
i
.
g' -2~ SLAB TO ROAD
-n
'"
'"
"
:j
'"
'"
.
/I /
,1,/
,f
"
I ,/
I'
/"
, ,
"
"
,
,
,
I SEfBAeK UNE
-------
,
,
,
I 2 ' FROM PROPERTY LINE
---------
,
,
,
~,
~,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I PROPERlY LINE
----------
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
>
'"
'"
co
!::
'"
'"
'"
~
'<
'"
x
Vi
-I
"
'"
>
'"
'"
..
>
'"
'"
co
!::
'"
'"
'"
'"
"
'<
5
n
>
-I
is
z
~~
r
~
, z
o (iI
lP
111
(\
-;
Q
z
11
o
}l
~
}l
<:
111
::>
)>
-{
~
(iI
)>
}l
)>
(iI
111
)>
iji
~
!!'
r
<
111
}l
1\
Z
(iI
~
}l
<:
f1I
)>
lP
;1l
z
(\
o
r
o
~
~
o
I
>
~"
.'"
.'"
on
o
~o
~'"
nO
~'"
~<
>i;!
m>
-<
11
'" '
'" '
" ,
=i ,
'" ,
o
o I ,
~j /:/
~ I'
1/1
'I
I / L SETBACK LINE
/,it ------
f,/ 1
, I
I
_ L _2.Q-.Q .fR.QM_PBOfEBT!. ~NI
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 1
I
I
I
I
>,
"',
g1,
~I
01
~I
"'I
~
~ 1 PROPERTY LINE
- - _1- _ _ _ _ --
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
i~
I
i
I
I
I
1
II
1/
- -/
'r
I
II
,
/1
II
I I
I
I
'"
x
in
c'
1
I
I
I
-i.-B.OAO_ _
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
"
9!
o
'"
9' -9" SLAB TO ROAD
00VlK7D) 'NlIdSV .., AID
t 'ON 0NmI 'NDIliJAIalIllS NildSV JSiL'A '59 .I.O'l ~ t:U::o-r::.:""
lL\llI<I DNDI1IIIA'lIS OKI 1DIIAY IMUII .15ft IE
.. JDI ....
XH'Ic:IDO NOJ.'1\\ON)l ~ l' ONOlVlMDlW
'" ("f") ~
~ u; 6
"- .
~ ~ z C""I ~
~ 13 en
'" ili
- ~
- /
/
,(
" '
"
B
'" II
M
I- 15
0
-' ~I
-
- ~f
~i .~~
5-
, Ii I t!'
L. ii~
;, /.
.:-/'>
r'/
/
\
~~
~
~
/
#
" ~
"-
"- "..~
~ V
c /
4:
on ~'y
M
I- C)
0
-'
.l
~.........._...___._.E
County of Pitkin
}
}
}
SS.
State of Colorado
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS
SECTION 26.304.060(E)
I,
.....-
--J a. w.. <-0
~?v-..o \IV t\v V'\
, being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certifY that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S.
Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated
on the attached list, on the tp"" day of -<; \JY\.t.. ,200~ (which is ~ days prior to the public
hearing date of (g \1...1 \ 0 I ).
\ \
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from
~
the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the (, day
, -
of 1:, 11\..... , 200---1, to the ]. \~ day of j\) (\-( , 200~, (Must be posted for at least
ten (l0) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
Signature
Signed before me this ~ / day of
200L by
WllNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My Commission expires:::) -I ) - 0 r3
St~-CLn_~ SkyQLltJ
Notary Public ~",'~lW3g"'II~
..$:.~~ ........l,.o/...~ .
#~'.... ..~j..~
~ ,"'OTAR"', ~
~ : " r ~ -:::
if ~!!
;; 'p ,,: ~
\;~'" VaL \ ...~/
",%:'~"h""~~~#
:l'111./: OF CO\.\I~,,~
"'''11I11I1\\\\\
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
March 11. 2003
PUBLIC NOTICE
'.,-."...
RE: 1540 Silver King Dr, Request for Variance for driveways at 1540 and 1530
Silver King Dr.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 21,
2001, at a meeting to begin at 4:00 p,m, before the Board of Adjustment, Sister Cities
Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted
by James Knowlton requesting a variance from the requirement of Section 21.16.060(h)
of the Municipal Code for driveways at 1540 and 1530 Silver King Dr, both of which
exceed the 12% grade. For further information, contact Greg Woods at the Aspen/Pitkin
Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920-5482, or
by email atgregw{al.ci.aSDen.CO.us.
stCharles Paterson. BOA Chair
Aspen Board of Adjustment
g:/planninglaspentnoticeslbavinnpz.doc
".....,
',;......
BLUEPOINT PROPERTIES LLLP
1450 SILVER KING DR
~N. CO 81611
""",",,,,,'
DALY THOMAS J & JUDITH J
1590 HOMEST ME DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
HICKAM DOW B INVESTMENTS LP
227 HEOWIG RO
HOUSTON. TX 77024
KNOWlTON GORDON GWYN
1540 SILVER KING OR
ASPEN. CO 81611
SCHWA/HZ AlAN E REVOCABLE TRUST
1575 SILVER KING DRIVE
ASPEN, CO 81611.1048
.,,'.....
IR RICHARD E
'. IRMURIEL KAY
1~ILVER KING DR
ASPEN. CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN. CO 81611
FINGERHUT BERT
1520 SILVERKING OR
ASPEN, CO 81611
HIRSCH MICHAel. R & MARY H
1590 SILVER KING OR
ASPEN, CO 81611
MILLER JOHN L & KATHERINE L
1490 SIlVER KING OR
ASPEN, CO 81611
SMITH JOAN FREI'tSLEY & SlE:pHEN 8
4033 GRASSME:RE
DALLAS, TX 15205
WALKER JOHN E & JEANNE B
C/O MILLARD ZIME:T
201 NMILL
ASPEN, CO 81611
COUCHMAN DIANE P
4416 GRASSMERE
DALLAS. TX 15205
GUTHRIE JANET UNO 44,34% INT
LEVINE WARREN UNO 55-66% INT
1525 SILVER KING DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
JOHN CAVANAUGH OLEARY JR 1955
TRUST 35%
700 LOUISIANA 35TH FLOOR
HOUSTON, TX 17002
PETRICK RICHARD K
317 MILLER
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941-2870
TAYLOR J DAVID
221 N STARWOOD DR
ASPEN. CO 81611-9724
, .
R.t~ f>t1t\-l
1500 Silver King Dr.
1520 Silver King Dr.
, ,
1540 Silver King Dr.
~ '-
1560 Silver King Dr.
/ '-
1570 Silver King Dr.
1590 Silver King Dr.
1590 Silver King Dr.
,
1610 Silver King Dr.
...-
1630 Silver King Dr.
1660 Silver King Dr.
1690 Silver King Dr.
May 7, 2001
III
Mr. James A. Knowlton
1540 Silver King Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
THE (ITY OF ASPEN
Re: Request for Variation in Driveway, 1540 Silver King Dr.
Dear Mr. Knowlton: .
I h~"e me+ "';+h th~ C',+" ~n~;ne'" ~^r.cern;r.g Y^'" letl"r of ^n';1 16 200' anrl
. !WIY II ~'I"u. V .., L...1~1I1~' VVI II V.... I I ......1 "'''''11', I, II""
your request for a variation in driveway design. .
The City Engineer cannot grant your request due to the extremely hazardous
grades of the driveway as built under building permit number 0748.1999.
The Aspen Area Community Plan would not promote unsafe building site
designs. Public health and safety are most important. The maximum deviation that
would be permitted for allowable driveway grades would be plus or minus one or two
percent. .
The driveway as constructed does not meet the building permit drawings that
were approved by the City Engineering Department. When the driveway is
reconstructed to the grades approved on those drawings, the engineering department
can approve issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
As you know from our meeting, you have the right to appeal the City Engineer's
decision to the Board of Adjustment. This right is established in Section 21.16.070 of
the City Code, a copy of which is attached.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to
call'me at 920-5088.
Sincerely,
~)~
Chuck Roth, P.E.
Project Engineer
xc:
Nick Adeh, P.E., City Engineer
Board of Adjustment
01L41
130 SOl.TH GALENA STREET ., ASPE]\i, COlORADO 81611-1975 . PHONE 970.920.5000 . FAx 970.920.5197
Printfdon Rt'Cvc!edPJP<'r
ORDINANCE NO. 76
(Series of 1990)
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MAXIMUM GRADE FOR NEW AND REBUILT
DRIVEWAYS THAT ACCESS PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREETS AND ALLEYS BY
AMENDING SECTION 5-302 "CHARACTERISTICS OF OFF-STREET PARKING
SPACES", SECTION 19-101 "DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT SPECIFICATIONS",
AND SECTION 19-102 "VARIATIONS IN CURB CUTS ALLOWED FOR UNUSUAL
CONDITIONS", OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLO-
RADO.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen has experienced a steady increase
in the construction and/or installation of below-grade garages,
parking spaces/areas and driveways abutting or adjacent to public
and private streets, alleys and rights-of-way; and
WHEREAS, recently constructed below-grade garages, parking
areas and driveways have slopes leading onto streets or alleys as
steep as 30% as measured by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the steep slope of below-grade driveways and
parking spaces require or encourage increased vehicle accelera-
tion to enter or maneuver onto the streets or alleys serving
same; and
WHEREAS, below grade driveways and parking areas present
serious and dangerous line of sight problems for vehicle opera-
tors and pedestrians alike; and
WHEREAS, snow, ice and heavy rainfall can cause below-grade
driveways and parking areas to become more difficult and danger-
ous for vehicles and pedestrians to maneuver upon, even where
such driveways and parking areas are supplied with heating
equipment; and
WHEREAS, the City council of the City of Aspen deems it
necessary to the protection of the public to regulate the ingress
and egress of vehicles to and from public and private streets and
alleys and to promote public safety for pedestrians and vehicle
traffic alike.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
section 1
Section 5-302A, "Characteristics of Off-Street Parking
Spaces", of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 5-302. Characteristics of Off-Street Parking Spaces
and Access to Street or Alley.
A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist
of an open area measuring eight and one-half (8t) feet
wide by eighteen (18) feet long and seven (7) feet high
with a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent in anyone
direction. Each parking space, except those provided
for detached residential dwellings and duplex dwell-
ings, shall have an unobstructed access to a street or
alley. No driveway shall exceed a maximum slope of
twelve (12) percent within twenty (20) feet of a
property line bordering a public or private right-of-
way. Off-street parking must be paved with all-weather
surfacing or be covered with gravel and maintained in a
useable condition at all times.
section 2
section 19-101, "Driveway and Curb Cut Specifications", of
Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended by adding new subsection "(h)" to read as
follows:
Sec. 19-101. Driveway and Curb Cut Specifications.
2
(h)
All newly constructed or rebuilt driveways shall not
exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent within
twenty (20) feet of a property line bordering a public
or private right-of-way.
Section 3
Section 19-102, "Variations in Curb Cuts Allowed for Unusual
Conditions", of Chapter 19 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 19-102. Variations in Driveways and Curb Cuts Allowed
for Unusual Conditions. Under unusual conditions of topo-
graphy, drainage, existing landscaping or improvements on
city right-of-way, existing buildings or improvements on
private property, or special use requirements for the
property, a variance from the requirements in Section 19-101
for driveways and curb cuts may be given by the City
Engineer upon filing a written application and a plot plan
showing the building site and special conditions existing
thereon. Any person aggrieved of a decision by the City
Engineer under this section may seek a variance from the
Board of Adjustment pursuant to the procedures set out in
Article 10 of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
Section 4
This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litiga-
tion and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or
proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be
construed and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
3
1"
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
section 6
!u
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the f
Chambers,
r.....l<.<..-<I , 199., in the City council
, I
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
day of
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the City council of the City of Aspen on the ~ ~
day of
!l/.'1;
, 1990.
,
./
-~-- ./
'William L. Stirling, Mayor
.... ,//---.-
..... ..':':-.....-...
ATTEST:
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this
ILl
day of
(P-~Vc~ l
, '199fl.
.;
/
/0 ./ _</ _
~ ~_:" _ l............... .
//.
/
'/
~ - '---
William L. stirling, May6r
ATTEST:
~
City Clerk
4
,J'
,",,-.'J-.
Tf:~.
'. ;i'-'l
h
Ii
i
'lJ::_~
,
,,1
FRO~~: Jt:)d C8s.....~all,
!
R~' Driveway Slope
.
,'J , .
This ordinance was init,
regular,meeting on Nove
lic hearincj"conductedfo
concern!''g"the availab!
from th12~1 slope limi
was con nued to allo";"..'
with a ,oposed amendme"
CC?Uld, se,..K"relief from;
cJ.rculr.stances.
As indiclted in the
limitation is to be J.nc,
Municipal Code, to witi"
Code, and Section 19-101
ot:1C': Public Property"".
req'..:~re!!ients as imoosed "
the Board of Adjustment"
juri~diction to grant va
(a dimensional requireme"
Chapter 19 .of the,Munid
~ :..-;; .-"t.) '" .~.~. :~:\.
Pursuant,to:;.Counci1:s cCl
an amendmen~to the1driv
which!a person aggrfeve'
the 12jr,~l.?~ limi t~ti90
variance, request to~the.
amending section 19"'102,
the 12% srope limitation
review orlan' application
cut permi t*ta person dis
variance tHerefrom by pe'
;--:'.
-4 t
EMc/m~. ""~Jlt.,, ,>};
cc: ci tY;<,Engin~er,rl,c~:
Planning DJ.rector,'
, .,tt,l;'~'
,."tc', ,;,'ii);
1,-
I
t
""t'
'f" .
;r. -.
'J"""
.....<
. .
~~:"
":
if'",'
f
T;f".,_~~~:,- ":
~ '," """',,', .
If ',': " _,":':1: _~
g at your
eading/pub-
e raiS'ed., .
ng:re1ief
rdinarice
:\later date
'~'. '-'.>.-' "'-'.
,,~;~person
peoial", :
":i}~t'----~....
"~~_'~"" !~r,~:~_'"'.('
s:' drivewa:ls10pe
hapters of' the
'er 24 j"the )'.imd Use
ts, Sidewalks and
diL,ensional
e l'lay, be g:'anted by
end the P;,ard's
Y SlOj limitation
,imp , ~~ unde"'fI~' ,
. ' .:;.'" 1f/i..;-
, , "-'IL"
-f~~~ ,.~, ~;..; ,(
.ClI1':1I.~t. oU~i'\al:>ove,
",~~~~!ttadd,es:\?und er
1.t~Engil1e:.~ to
~~~~J~{g,,~'~~, J;.o, n 3 ~
S;::,H.~J;Il<.ei1)<o'!:let!ier ~
t.. to:;..~lI111.nd'use '
.or ak:~rJyewaY/curb
irelllent'!'may.seeh a
, Adjuo;tment." '1
~','.:1;~;1~""~':Z):l,~~.L~~:;: .
""lc<,:h:tl~~.." ",'
. .i">-l.'~. ;t~~ ..~ '.
L
,j:,
If
.,t-,:/;
,
;
f
{i
1!
t;
'It
,~.'
tl
'~I
'\1
;'1
11
4
'i'
'.11
fl
"
!
+,...
~~r
~f
;t;t
-,Jk;.;:'
A-<' .'it, '--;->$~:;.'-
~,\t
:tt
''''
..41
, S
':r
.;:~!.l' i~;~.~~;-,:,~!': t,- f'.l -'~~;~:~{;:f" -~,,' -~'I' -.:;..
.:"~~t>: .... f .;.'~~i \#!'Iv
1~',\, :., ..: i,;,. ;- ":~.,:.)~_~: ~ .,
. \:,' ,..;t~. ...::, '.' J'
, ~ }{': <i""!'- . . '~, ~ '
{~KrfYr,,'~m-T'>)l~S? Fl\~
~".~;: ",,~~\,-1-i.e,~~;;:;'.,i. - ~ . - ,:;-':'
ih O:~'iljjhi:~l;:n~o t re c t,.,U
". ~"I,~ 'v "f'" i d "p 1611 :f.!,
t~"SP~~~~~ ~,.fi..p~o .E'{
i";"""" 3l\70~i},r;Z:>\l-~O . ,,',
'i,rj~ '/,:'+'", \
DA~E:. Dec'i!mber 26, .:.1:99~l", '1.fil
!. !, f;~;;' ,O:F~'" -}' ~;(\" 1.
TO: Hayo: and C i ty;couriqil' (<1
~ ., '1' ~' "~':~: ;::~, .;: -t: ,
FRO:':: J"cl' Cazwall, City,:Attorne~~L.~
RE: Driveway Slope ordfnanc:e r
"
.r ,.-,'
h".: .
J'" ,
\~;--:~
'~:;.., :
'lr
~'?:
';:f.:.; .~\
,
. .~"
'.0",
"'!
_!".
,
,
,/ I ~;.
This ordinance was initially approved on first'reading at your
regular mectir.<] on Nove~er 26, 1990., .'.+. the. se:::on)l rcad~ng/pub-
lic hearing 'conducted on 'December loth, crucst:Lons were ra:Lsed
concerning the uvailabiJ.;ity ofa;mechar.isn for,'gran:\:,ing relief
from the 12% slope limit;a:~i(m.;.Consid"ration' of the. ordinance
was continued to allow6.taffto'rret.urn to Council ati,a later. date
. with a proposed amendmen:t. providing a pro:::edure by''i!hichia person.
. could seek relief from tlje 12%p~ope lirJi tation und~;r F'P.ecial;
circumstance~ . ",t<.,." '.~j"-'" ,,'
.. .J. ~,~ (" ~'" ~"-I,""j,Y'" -, -. "-':.;r,;..:"J
., .f .c,'" ," -';gf"":" .).i_J'~__>!r -',~.~~t:-. :. \
As indicated in the proposed ordinance, the 12~ driveway slope
limitation is to be inclu.ded in,two separate chapters of the;
Muni cipal Code, to wit,'s,ection 5-302 of Chapter 24;' the ,',ancl' Use
Code, and Section 19-101\~f Chapter 19, 6str~ets, Sidewalks an~
ot;!",:, public, Prope:-ty" . ".In that ,varia!'.c!?s tcj dil~ensional
recru~rements. as imposed un~'~r th~ I,Clnd U~e C de I'lay,l:>e g'.'anted by
th~ !loard of, 1,dj'lstrn'2nt,',it makes sense ~" etend the r:.>ard'n:
jurisdiction to grant variances to the drive' ay slope limitation
(a dimension?l requirement) as the same "':':i' /i! i.n,po'Jed under
,,> 'I. 1. "J"
Chapter'19 of the Municipal Code.... ;,c:'.".
'~rsuantito\counCi1;S co;ent~~~d th~ info~~tion:1i~ out.a~bve,
...."an amendment to thedriv.eway'slppe ordinanceS has bden added!under
" 'which a person aggrieved,.';<e"by,ad'ecision of the r::ity"E:l'1gineeras to
': the 12% slopo 1imitation.Wlnay'app~al that decisi.ont1iii,ough ai
-J,. varia::ce request to the ~pard'I" fAA~j':lstment." (Se~ :I,),~:W,: Section 3
.~.: amend:Lng Section 19-:-102 :Q.f' th 1'lqn:Lc:Lpal Code.)~ HeJ:lge, wheth'i!r
the 12% slope limitation~~s i~ licated pursuant to a~~and use
,.: review or en application<to t~ ',qity E:ngineer for a id'riveway/curb
, cut permit; a person dissatis~ ed with the requirement may seeh a
variance therefrom by petitionIng' the Board of Adjustment.
~~ < ; i'
~Hc/mc ' J' f i
~.1 .~
cc:
~*
, ,,<.jlLm^~,'-
City Engineer
Planning Director
~~.~
~.~.
'j
,
:;
'~:
}'I.
.~~ "i
'*!~':'~':'.,
,.."....,';,. -",: .c.,.
, >."/$t''-
'" ",.:t, .::-,,(I.'1:~\-; -,';;"
l("J ,;~.~~~;, .:::t;[.;.
jt"""'"<l"",;~~"",,;,,~~,,,,,,
.' ",'"
~'~1~~~
.,,,,,~,..,.-:~:;i!.",,,,.-
'.,,',';:-!. ,I
:~;,'" -':: _ -.:.:,oi'
, ....~.:;;~,2~;J;',~f.
z.d~",)'~~';;1;i~1~.
.....;,l':4,,,.~Fl~~~,i+,; 11";~"..,~~-
, ~~.
'\
:'i
..;;~.
'f"'
'"
,',~~'
'.~
,.
':'~
,.
,
~. "
.~i
\;,
\~
,
~~
;
; I
j:
: I
[I
, ,
:'1
I,'
:,1
:',1
""1
'it:
I
!
1
,
,
,
" .
. ;::}~,
.;,::<.
.y
....
. .
l
J
i
I
HEHOIV\1: D'
l
~:::: :,~:~:, c;;::i~~n~d~t
J!;lr ci::h, 'f1~1;)1_: r~ \:I;i'}:~~ J)i~.,
l.'; lnc;~ n0t~1, ci ''"':' }-:n(' i nrnrf(;
'!'L~'I':~~ 1( 1':, 'l :'nq Lt.,
\
r
.~;'~',t,
,-~;';
!.::'Lo+:\" ;;;~;'1
,;t ~:' "~;'~i~.J.
~. ""':+'fi~i
';~~. ""-
~'t. ::.C
".-"jt;~t,
!-~~.\'
f--'\::.:
,
\
J
'-"
.1
i
J
,f..
c'
. '.1:
;!~;2l
~t~~,-;:;.;,
:,rJ.;~~:t :
'J\~"";~:'-'-
:~~'~_~:'{.;-r.:"
Pf 5' .'~. ;I(;'~'
;,..;/ ',~ ,~:
,";,r r1(11)'
.1
i _.~'
K\
i
'::~~l~l :
';': ~ I'U:
':.,,"l;:
i
,
,
'. I
t I '.
S-!0n('~ of c-:r:v(:v"'-<l'~ <l.nu off--:-;t'.rcct p:1.rking
1---..!- .
", I
~Ti}r.rJ'lnY: ~;t" ff, ir; r0rTll~::tinr"f 'a c:b(l;' anJ0nd~C'nt in order to addl~Q~::
1~n)',:':-'.snn~b1y ~tc'~'!1 (lr.ivr>\1~~'s,_,__C\rid ,lff..ctrcct p:trking which h~\'l-~
; .""11 con"~n1Ctec1 in tm:n ~nd. tol pu'v~nt fUl ther such.desiqn lln.j
cons<:ructlon. .'..t <If .;
comleIL GOl\LS:Goill HI - Towo;l tOgathcr with aiWpeopie in the
]~oarin')' .Fork \'~lley. Gn,,1 ~H -ITr' c1cvelnp a con5it::tent and filic'
'j0Vt:rrnnent. (;('1;\1 if]:; - '2',", protp.ct :~nd r;erVG our rcsid('nt!:.
!
}I("'Inr~. !
~ ': C~ :
}l(JV~;:~l=)(~r
! ()()0.
n
",
1~"'" :
:"'r~:"'.')tTS rC'f;': 'IT. .:'\("~'
"....'..
I ,
:~.':~otHEl: '1':: ('LY' :-::1"\'''''> 1-.'0P!1 Sf", ,~"il undocumented reports (If
""'-"'~".'~-; ;,-;' ".'~,.-, , S:.l"~) thott1 l. t.or.l:.ts have tolled bn.ck int,,::
..., '.' :'Y))-... _':.'n .1lrll"jll -i-hd si",:: are heated ~Iith enow mcltin'l
.:...... ...:cc.hn ,"j \""./ilY" "no cli4ti9ul r. jO negotidte - in the winter:
OJ~Q con<)ominiUTIl. o\;rner. h~\!:".. Sr.att'cl h .. cannot exit his drivel;'''Y
~:~-'~hotlt f0~~~ ';:~""cl drive. Tticre };::V. been reports of vol,iclc::
".)ttc.::Li ng out i:t:. i:hcy e:.:itcd'i th'ej r rivCI;,ays.. One. resident .h2."
~~~'~~~~t.e stel'" <llongsidc thedl~~r'''''>lbecause the:1\:~veway is so
T':COB~'EH DISCUSSIOll: The er:gi 'eerincj !.de;artment h~'i"'inv&stigateel
.1:!le above refcrcncec1 matter a dlfccls the problem""'is threefold.
I'irst, t~lP r::;'~,~ing r:rar:cs 0.re so :-:tccp th.:\t they_ _ arc not even
'.."_~ed. ~;ccorU,':-1 great (~c~l of adcc_:_,--~ri\tion is needed in Qrder tn
(<-:it the driv(',;;':))' <1nd cr~tcr t.het r'1..l~)lic ri<Jtyt-o[-y~y \:hich i~ ,~
; ~::,!'nJ to !:i('.'rc'ri~~ts or ped0.strian~,., ',:ho arc alrc<J.dy in the nl1('~,'
"tTee t. Tninlly, the motoris't." line of sight to the pul:>l j c
L:<Jht-of-vi'lY is obstructed by thel drivewi'lY ret,aining w<::lls.
Please refer to the attached mapiwhich locat~t;::fift~en d:dve;lays
in "\spcn for comparision. The m9st extreme slopes arc. 30%.' .The
engineering dep~rtment examined codcs.from several municipalities
~ncl founel one <Juic1eline ~ll1ich spcr cfied a maximum slope for u
n,,;jdcntj~l drlvclluy of 6% and t~~ a."comercial driveway of, :3~.
1'110::-' p~r~meters nppear to bc. ino~e .i1-igig than .are-._,necessary,
therefo,::,e staff is recom~en1ing' ~that /[11hC slope of("' thi driveways
<lnd of: street parJdngl spuces in .Aspcn be limited to 12%. ....
'" ~ - ." ,
I - '. -' , .
'J "l
'I
"~,':( .
"---''''~"";'~''';~-''
.'["
,J.
tl,
.....7.~'^"!:~.~:'::', .t~~:'f:.r>-""'..'l"..:."'".-"'.'.'.'~'''~ f,' ;,,~tc?...~_:'A"'..'."'.'.:..~'.'.....'...I~..."~.':_.._.....~...........':...-.....r:...._-....:.::;'.~........~.:.....:..~'..~.~.....,,~..,..~......':..,...,'.:.........:~.,~.. <.. ." r~.1..,..,.' I'>;~~"I ~~I'~,~,"" Nl..
'" . : ....:.. .....-~0K;jJ~:~'~~~~;;~;i;?~~j~t~~,-.
. . '.'.- --~~.~$Ni~~._'<.'.'.,;..;.....~.--~.L.~:.::....';..~~:...<,'{.:~'.:: <_.'.:4...:'...,.~..:~ ..t::'.~;.~i.':/;.;.:..!,~.',;..;.:.-~.r.~..',.,'-.~f..l....;? :t.;:,~.if.f--:._'~.:._' .:::..",~~.-r.~~~, \;,.:.;,~_:.. ~:,~,'~'n~'~~~~~:~'~~~~i'~~{~*'_:
~ . - -', - --~" " - ~ - - - - -,' - - -~::r ........~:. - .. ,.,~.:., .-~~~..,1: f'/.}',7_ ;:;.';.',~ .~:.::'> i' :-~:'''r:.:':_.'' "':-"<. ,,; :'../'
".)/ '
J,';
. ";"'---.;'
. ;..\.ji_';~r~!~,;~\~'::'
~
f
,
I
I!
II
.,
.
I
f
,
,'-
,
"
.
}:
f.
t~
'-
R.
r
~',
,I'~..
'-,l.
r
.
,.
,,'.'
;!.',
:"'~ I
:......'
.',
'.
~(-'
<
;;.
..
~:-..
.r
H
~l'
~l
~)f
fr ~
r;
f I
i
f.-. .
".t,.';:
~>;'l
. : :~~t;\~-.- ;q::.~.~.j~:1_.~};;tf.:n~::,!:y~<~:,!:,"~'-:i.-:~' -"':':>,;~~i,:...t~<H~#J~ ~ .'":~t:.~., .:,~.,tt~~t ~
. "<~,,/~~~)~:~~~.,,,.>,~ Y!','.i;':,(..:it",:1~r.,r-,~'~" .;~~,',':~, ",.2,,;f;"t~~"~,~:'IJ~j;~, ~fr.,~'~:,;'~' \",.:~~~~,::,,:,)
" ., ..!, ",\""""~"",,, ,..'j,,,~, 'iI'.,,"" .,C, 1>' "K":\t~.~ "'Il:,,' ,..~", 7~,!', f,,~,~;,,;~,,;,',",,'~,~~~,;,~,;,}~,,: .,..;i,~:":,~,~..,",:~;::;~i,l",,_;r,, _.",','",
"'" :?:':}::~:;~r'i.~if~,~~::~~~~j":i;~~:c;,~rq~::~ffjl\~";:":..u.:j;f15:'~:~3' , . -', ~,' -,-
-_.-'-~ ~._--- ,tee,"":,'.
"+:'$
~ '!
~ .
't-
I
~"P.-"".
, ,
.
.' ..-_.
FINANCIAL INPLICA'I:IONS:' None. ' ,,-,
.fl.;' , , .' i "
RECONHENDATION::' Staff recommends thati',an ordinance amend in"
section 5-3021", chapter 24 of the Mun'ici al code of the' City ot
Aspen be apprlved by Counc il. .' ~i i'iJ,
~~ rr:". _ - .( ~ ,,'
PROPOSED llOTIOl/:' ,,'I move to apDroverOrdinance No. (Scr~es of
1990) amending section 5-302.A, Chapte!'24pf the Municipal Code
of the city of ASPer' 1 ";f f
I . .
,
: __ I
CITY J.WI~.GER P-ECOl.n-lENDAT:I:Ol,S: .J- ~ ~ r --r-
I.
,
RT/rt/MC9C.1,
.
J
'f'
.,
',,'.
,
t..,:
~ .
'f"
'. ',,>
'.,.";
'i: --~..'
';~l;f:':
'i'-"
-'l-~'"
-1,.'
1
!
1
,
1
t,
I;" .
..f,
j
!
J
",
1"
(.
"
C.".-._
..
-t.,
:..
" .~ \
I
I
i
I
i
<"
"
..:.i4iJ
':'\-;'
., : "~,y
'.
L._. ,..0'
i",;~
( ,.'I~h}
. ,.''>.
l. _.. _~r"
t. .~f~~Z
t?~'~,~
l' '<
I;</~:;;:':
~'...W;,*
ii~~
~\~::~l
t:~~~~
f-:-(~';,tr
f~.l--\-"_-~
F:f"''''::
r'.';':.,l~~
t~'$!t.U
Il~.:.
;;,(
~"'tC
n~!;.
f~~"f'
t;: '.;:>
,- ,.
I:' ~,,;
;,'i);~(":
I .~~(
f :~~';
!.,.;'<{,!'
~/:::-.
,:. '
t'
( .
t
"
f
f
I
i'-
H
~.,. '-
r:~Y .
;,
l'
.'
;i/':'L,:::;;,,'::'~'C:"~~i'i}*: :
,
;
,
4
1 q"
~ ~'
~:,.!iii"";'\'"'
~ ...~' ?titt:'::':l!!",*,,_~'l' - ~,
~ii~ f~il^j:~.....--:.t~;,f;,.~~~'1I:'1': ~ '
. , ..... Olt <"'-i. \,.; ,. ,~.~ " ,,,'
'. ...... =:,,~'~" . .,' . "-
. / / -~.........-='
- ",
,. , .
. <"\
~/'VJ
..--.-:;/ "
./? Ii:
[.')
~ \~
:z: \
I
1
.. .:.; :"" .,...' ~ .' l"-
I ~ .:: " '.' c. ~ 0 ., u ., U 0 . ..
I 0 0 ~ 0"0 g 0 ~ 0 o'~ ~ ~ ~ 'J'
.. ~" ," (1 "" .~' w ~ ro 0;'" ~ ~" AJ
Ii . . ,. ~ ;; ~'''''' '" .,' '.:
. ." H W ~ ". ',' ;':,0"" ~ f:
,\ ,,22 '<" ~ - '" ,"H'" "
;' ,: ~ C~:":"" ~ is!;! ,.1"':r. V> v:
;,;, <: i;", - ~ ";! o;i'.'l.~,~ 2
~ ~ ~ ~ -~,;~. D~ ~
J . ~~~~~~~ ~~"
,'j" ~1~~r'~r~~~~~~~~
l"'1 t'l h":-' r t' ...)~] -,)-,:--
" t'11'lo<~~,."I"h~~A1H, ~~ " ()
I ~~ ~KKKKMM~ MM n
, ;:j"'KKKM
: ~.'.,,' rOo :;;
., .~'
./
::'._':::,:':'... "\
... ~ ;,> ..,. "" ;.;. 1.." '" <n (') ~ i W \,.., l.J
~r'H"";'';;;~;; ~;
ti
l
, .It.''''
'~l-'<";
",
..J
.,
"
';.- -,
".,
"
"
o
I
.'
.,
';T ~ 3:
r"l
, l>
.:t:!
'j'
(,. "
--~ 't.>w,;
',.j'
,~~\'"
\.
., '~
'*
-.
l
h\ 1
\H\'
lH ~,
~ \,:~ J
~~~ Q~
i~t H
~\1..," '~
'U'~ ~~.
~ t :.,
~ .... '- ~
'Il ~~
.~~ ~ ~
~" '''i
l~ $
:: ~~\..
;-{ ~~
Q \' ~ ~ \;
~ ~ ~,~ ~
~~ ..~
G >. ~~..
"I::i ,,'
\:lk ~}l
. ' ~,<
~ ~ ~'l
~" llll\J
0) \) ~
,.
.KiP-to
"
, t;,
~ l'} ~....~ t
:t ~i;~I:; t;" ~ l{ ~'~ ~\ ~~
~ '(~,..,~. .~:, ~ .!-
~ , 'l~'.~ ...~ ~ ~~ \~P ~~
,.~,~::~.\J"~~ "".'.1;
<., ,'H \~'.., " 'J' ~Q
l. ~:;~~t ,..~,J)~~" "I1l ~ ~I; 4'1 ~
1.\ .:\~~~~ ~.'~~ ~ 'l..' ~cii
" ,~~~~~~r ~~~ R~' ~~ l ~ ~t
{ ~~~~r~~~~' ~ t. ~~~ .~,~
f,,(,"'<::fl~ ~\ .~.. ~~'
, .;\Hi~'~'"h ~, .; ~ ~ I
" ,~,.' .' 0" ~,~ , l ~
~<:. ~~~~l~~~~ ~ ~I. ~ J ~~~
t.,<," ,,,~It)~,~~ ~ ... tl:::~ <S~l.
~. ~p"<~~"" ~ ~( ~.;j~ ~.\i~~
" Q,,"~~\a~~~l\i ~ Q:~ . , ,~\~
~ "!"" '., iq.. \, ., .. ~. .1 ~ ~ ~
'~) ~~ ~4~'\ i:{"' ~' ~~~ <..~.
~ (~ "t.,L')i~l'o ~ v,t ~'\~~~I:::i\
~ ,,~,,~~,,~~~~ 4; ~~ .~~~~l~~~
.. i(.O~~\~'..Q~~ ~ ~b~~~~ft., ~~
~t"tt1~~~~~:, ~ ~c.l~~,~l~"~t
":)~~'i'~ \I)~" ..~~I.{,~ ~~~~~
~~~~~~!~{~ I ~:~i~;~~l!~
'It:,~r.,2:..l'.tr~ ti)...~~~~~~.,.'~tt~
b..\)~~,~I~~~ 1.,,~"'''~1..''IJ~>>\tI)tS~
a~IoJ"'''-'):::.'.~ >,1"',\1):\1(....', 1:
:n'^~ ~~Ill ~U~~~~~~R~H
~ . j;~ .~::,.,... M "i
.....;;__.... .QL.JVl
... .;
;'.,i~."'..~.
I ~\.
. . I>}.#
. ." ~ .
".:~ ,,~...
t: "", .
..'j~
7~{
.]f"
.'\.~~,
:;\~;~~;;
'1;
'j;l'
~!l
,}~""j
.:~~,;
".:.w',\
:~~,~':
..~'"
, ,,,..
. ',": -';~
:',,~';.~.('
f;~~~;~
'J ".,.
:{f1:~.\"
,:~~fi,.:
.;,tw~c
1.e.-,.
:'1""
':~!~~,
',;~r:.s-:.~,
:,"LV/.':+'
"g
"ii~
.,',,"
<:
,.
~
~
,
,
'"'1'
~
~
.
t
~
~
. .
~~ ..
.~ If .
11: ~ :
IlII ....,.
li~' J: . ~
.,. ...
..lot. ..~
. 1 . ~ "
~~ ~ O;l ~
~~
~~
~~
~,
~l
~,
~.
,,~
~
.,./Ii
. 5
i:.'.:'.......
z
0'..
-.
(/')
-
>
-
o
..co.
:::>
err
-
%
!:!
..,
...
II>
..
::>
.::.
.',"',.
4'.-'"
'.'~'<:
,~::r:.:'
...
..,
.-~'. ~
ti .-
~ ::>
...
(:) U>
~
..~
...:
i~<;-:'{~ .
. .
\;> .
,.. .
.",'
..t~
,.';,;'....Z'
",OW
.. .,. a..
en
'<1
,,;."
u
...
II>
..
..,
_a.
.U>
.. i
.;;
. J
....~ ~
..
.~
".~,'
;:
. .'
H
c.n
1.1.1
.3:
.
.
~
'.,
~
"'-
.~
'z:
:1'_ ioi
'..' .:~.~~.
l
.....".
-\~{.~
,.~.; .
r.>~~:.r.I ,'.
,;..~,r:,::::; ~.t;.:
.:',::~t;::;,>
,.,'.
~~"~~$i~'~it;~2]~~1:;~:.:~':;:':~i~.<.~~..:.~i'~~'i~:l~,
.' ~;~:~t (it~:~;::'~'~:~."\"7';;~'~;:"':'
"" ,. ..;\;~,~, _:~~~;'~".lrj$~?~i";.")
u
~
l
1.l tj
~ ~~
~ h
~ ~l \
.~\ ~{t-'
, '
,.>
.-
~ ~~
t.) \J... \ ....
~ ,()
.. ~ ~i.
.' ~o~
;~d' ! r
, , ll)
> "
~\ ,10.
... ()<)
~ \. ~
~ -',
~,,\'4"
~ ,~
t ...~
. '
~ ~~
t- l~
~ l '<',
~ '..
\~p .
,
k
~
~
.
~
'S)
~
~._-,~....~,-,~.-----~,.,_... --....
.j "
~ ~ ~ ~;l
~ ~ ~~~~
~ ~ i~~ ~
~ li.~~~~
'i ~'~l~~
.' ~ ~.. ". ~
.~O( .~ l'<l ... ~
t, :' ~ ',~'.3
:;. 'o:I'~'''''j'
~'l .. ~ " "
.... . ~ ~..., ;;
,\ '~:.;:~. ~
'. J~. ~ ~.;:-
:--. t.,"-l.. ~ <' '"
" ,. . ~~ ~.
;. ~"~~;
~. '" r. '!'I
... ~ ~,
,:, c> II ~ ,
~ . % , :\, ..
,,: ,1(~ { ~
~.. 1;:;, 'j ... .., ~
~ ~~:l~ ~
<, ~,q"
\.\"ht;)~~~
"'. .. ~ lot. 'l;
t" ,,\" ~il)
. ~ ~\ ,
~ ~~,~~
,!;.'" t'l~
:: ~ '" ~ ....
~ ~~~~,
~ q ... ,,}
t" ~t(~
... \.:.
"
.
\ ,ji ~~.'
~ '.0
. 'll:l
~",r,
.. "_.I~ \l
~ - ~
". ~lIk ~
~i. "'~ ,~
1.,11'
~~ '\
~~" ~
'1' ".,
!t ^~t
. I
~~ t"j
~~. 1
f'
~~
.
.'
~~
~'~
~~
~'l
"
.
.,
~
.
~
~
~ ' .,
.~, 1),. ;;. ~.. ~ . ..',
;~:,:. H ~ ~~H::t ;~,
~. ~'. "I ~~.\
~'\. ~~.. )'\)~J~~.:~...,.;
~,t ')~"~ "'.~:'?'.! ti~~'!
'. ,,~.. - ~~"~::-~ ~...\l~~: r
l.t. \!~, .~. ::~~~}i, ,~I{"
:'J~ ~....... "i~~,""~,:" ~ ,~
l,.t: '~~ ":1..~',':..'~. f:>\>..t...,.J
'. .;:: . ~ '" ., .- If ; ~ P\ .:.
0.,. l~ ~ ~"tl;"'':~:.() :..~p.~
'it r. \~ ~~Zv;,~~ ~., ~/.
,I~ -.:. . t:t' ...:.~ j'.... ',' :} . ~ .-
" .....!I. ~ ~..., '" "~",,,.
~. ,....>;j ;.~.. ~}}~ ~~~'..tJ
<::: .'; ,~".l ~l lJ 'j...:-.;.,. ~ ~~...' ~;:. ~ ~ . . ..
('" ,,'':t.,!;:t \:.~.. .~..~:. '" ,.j;.J
~I'" .....<("'It V" ~"...:,. . l \. "
L'" 1 \"'l ~ :~; f'" ~ ~ o\~, ;;~) t
;-l .!....c:-!~f. lo:~ ~~~~q,:"I"'I..~" ".'
~l ~'~~' ~~ ~~~~'i~P.~~;~:
c..:; ~:~~ ~ '?~'. T)(Jo..~~!'t!"1' .Jo..'
"'.' .. .~ (. ~ .... <;'"i v, ~(,...: (, It.; J~
, " ~;o..... ~.. . ~ .' ," ,(,,,;~,.) 'l:. \ '\ I.
~~~ ;~~~~~~;~~~~1~~~'~~~~'
.. ~ \J.}" ~.. ,. I' . 'I .' q'll '. . ...
~ ~ ,;....l~~,..\i\;;~. ~;.:,.,-'~J7'h~I;...~..:
,~~~~~,~~~~II~'" .,'....~,.'~
~ ~~,.~')(.:i.... . ,'~t..~::f\,...~,,')rl...
~~~~~~~~~1t~~~~:~~~~I::~
'''- ....~~.'ll~ ~~..I.:'\...,~"1t,y,q,:.,~\tI...
tl:;:)~ ~~t~\o),~,:":..~l"~I>'..-l(':""'::":~~
loi "t,~),,'~ :'" i '. ,,~~~"r. "Y:~':' ',:'., ''''~
~~~5~~~~~~~;li~~.t~~~111
:{'l:..('\I~~'~'"tt""lf.~.{J'l;~ I
'-3G ~.~o::':;~'~~.~ e.'~ ~~ ;.:~(.-: < ~ ~I{",'~
l
~
~.
,
\
J
~L .
",.':.l
'.......:..
'" ~.
~;~;.'j.
'...'tc~
~ , .' {
.~ .. ~.
'.. ~ . .'
,~. .
,~: .
..;\1) .
.',~
,,;.
;
! ~
.
:I . .,/. ~
''!/' ,
.. \.
4i! ,
'" 'f..
.: ',';
0 .,
U> ".
... 0
,. ..
.. a:
CD g
.. 0
..,
! ~
....
%
:>.
~ 0
u
:>
0 %
II>
"
0 ....
0::
...
..
J
.~ "'-
t~
. ',' \
~ ~ \:
~ ~q ~..
~j ~ ~ ..
~; ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ r2
~ 9. .....
S ~.: t ~
10: ,.~" t. CI
~ , ., ~, l {.~
~ ~ \J ~o, 10 .,"
.,. ~ .,,~ ~ t ~
"~'Io ~ \: , ,
s ~.~i}~ ~~~~
~ .~~~~:. ~l;~
.~ :i ~!1, ~ <::; 't'~ \. " '"
,,~ ~'q~~'\J"'l ,d'.' ..
"'-1 ~ i . ~ ~ ~ () .~ ~ i
~~t~as"\i~
.\' ~~'q'
:: III ~;' ,"'& ~ "1);'
'.t).' ,..tt"
~. , ~ :.~ (".1 ~ ,\:. ,\ c:.
~ "':;.~ ~ 'J ~
,,~ . ','" .....
'qel>~.h,i:,
~, ":' ~,~., ''''.
.... I\i~ "'\..~"l;i
,
"
,. ."
"
;::,
or ~~ ..::
~ ~. ~',
':,~ F
i l,
,; l::t.
'.J ~ \
~~,\j:
~', to
i:' .<: l~
,. ;,~,I);
'\ <\.~'
" . \1X ;;.
~. '1' ...;;,-.
,. ~!.. !...~
~"':;
i~
I
I~
\-
I~
~.
<
", ~
,..10
'~:I~
...,. :
. .... ~
.0
.'u
~ 1-
'i
~
"
! " ': ~..
. ~ >~
,~ . "
-
"
~ ,
t~ d
, A
< ~ ~~ ~
~
'"
~
",
.
1
.
\
,
.\.
:
" :::
<
,. ,
'-'..
-"'L~
~
1>
"'i5
,.
\
....,.
...
"-
~:
0' .
? :/!
J
-..'''.....,..,.....,....-
",;:!:::,':;ift{i'
, t4tC
'~4\"~f;"'~":{~:rj~
"~',,:,,."
~'.~".,~~, ""~ ;{'~!;~.t;~~~8:i
::;9~~!:{!J(Y-( .~:.._'02'
",:~~;"",,'-':-:' \!V,f~,:r J;(,.. ':,,','>tC: -CJ
..' -,$. 155 ~
'. .., '~Ti~~:,~~.
~,.:... . . :'.~.
~~'!t~v~f0;:::W~ ~I;~~.
.:. ~l:) ~..()~.~;~;}if Mi,~L?;>'~.;;i'9iJ.,3.tiJi:3 '.' ..... c.' '. .
;'(.~' .:,,- .
..
'-0_''''
PRl'mr.I'
g
""'
~
THE CITY OF ASPEN
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
APPLICATION PACKET
DATE JfW-l7'
20{2l
CASE#
APPLICANT JOM....~ ~f\.bW(-hI PHONE rZS-~'tR~
-
MAILING ADDRESS [5"40 5dvu- iL~fo&t D.e... ~put. (.cf) <8!(py
OWNER Gw~", GC)(~(\ LUww 1.le:>V'- PHONE -:a~
MAILING ADDRESS
~M.-<
LOCATION OF PROPERTY ['5"30 '5 I \lIer lLL~ L:>L ~~
(Street, Block Number and Lot Number)
WILL YOU BE REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL? Yes No
Below, describe clearly the proposed variance, including all dimensions and justification
for the variance (additional paper may be used if necessary). The building permit
application and any other information you feel is pertinent should accompany this
application, and will be made part of this case.
')<l ~~cl\f'N,V\+S: K4'1J~ ~Vn'l ~
t:l~<("l\ut ~-<..\1:H; ~ it.... plo.V\, pfof-tf.4/ 'Pi'c..~~
A,~
REASONS FOR DENIAL OF BUILDING PERMIT, SED ON THE ASPEN
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 26. AN OPINION CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE
WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD BY THE ZONING DEPARTMENT
STAFF
DATE PERMIT DENIED
DATE OF APPLICATION
OFFICIAL
HEARING DATE
"'t;.,'"
,
"'~~~--".~'-"-.'-'- -"---~-""'-
, '
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 1530 SILVERKING DRIVE
'-'
Owner requests a variance to allow below grade structural support within a side yard set
back. There are no structures from the natural grade up. There is no yard.
The structural support is noted as a planter on the Improvements Survey attached to this
application. Also attached is a letter from the building contractor, Trautner-Long Inc.,
stating the reason for the structural support is safety.
The special condition and circumstances necessitating a variance is the steep grade of the
parcel (approximately 32%) and a talus slope. Please refer to cross-section of the
property accompanying the improvements survey.
The most effective and least intrusive measures for ensuring the safety of the building
and its inhabitants is the construction of a tiered 6 foot high curvilinear walls, 7-4 feet
below the 32 percent natural grade of the lot for a distance of approximately 13 feet
(8%) of the total length of the lot which is 146.72 feet long.
The variance does not increase the allowable floor area, height or other dimensional
requirements of the R-15 Zoning. Granting the requested variance extends no special
privileges.
Strict enforcement of the 5 foot set back requirement presents a hardship that is
unnecessary and one that can be easily and practically avoided thereby preserving the
right of peaceful enjoyment of the parcel.
Granting the variance is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the
Aspen Area Community Plan ("AACP"). Design Quality is one feature of the updated
AACP. A statement in the "Philosophy" of Design Quality applies to our variance in
that it supports design flexibility in order to the cope with the natural terrain, in this case,
a steep grade and talus slope. The pertinent language is found at page 43 of the updated
AACP:
"We wish to encourage creativity that results in design solutions that are
fresh and innovative, yet are net additions to the built environment by
being contextually appropriate and harmonious without being copies of
that which already exists."
A tiered curvilinear wall is contextually appropriate because it provides a creative
solution to the problem of additional support for a steep grade and protection of the talus
slope. It makes possible the reasonable use of the existing structure.
A letter of support from our adjacent neighbor Bert Fingerhut is attached.
.-
rKo~
,
FROM
-.
FAX NO. : 970-925-8780
Dec. 14 2000 04:41PM P1
. .
. .
TRAUTNER.LONG INCORPORATED
. .
. .
BUILDING CONTKACrORS
315 E. HYMAN. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
970.920.1414. FAX 970.')25.8780
December 14, 2000
Jamie and Gwyn Knowlton
1540 Silverking Drive
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Retaining Wall on East Side
Lot 65, West Aspen Subdivision
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Jamie and Gwyn,
The retaining wall to the east of' Side B' was constructed because when the base of the
talus slope was exposed during elCcavation it was realized that it presented a safety issue.
It was necessary to temporarily retain it with soH nailing during construction for the
safety of the workers on the project. After construction the permanent wall was
necessary to protect the house and occupants from the unstable rocks above.
.S~:Dr- _
~~~n;-""-
>>-.....,-
1
, ,
Bert Fingerhut
1520 SILVER KING DRIVE
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
~ 920-1934
J
!Y
January 29,2001
City of Aspen
Board of Adjustment
130 E. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Variance for 1530 Silver King Dr.
Dear Members of Board of Adjustment:
This letter confirms our support of the Knowlton's request for a variance to construct a
retaining wall in the five (5') foot set back adjacent to our property, 1520 Silver King Dr.
as described in their application for a variance dated January 29,2001.
&~
Bert Fingerhut
1520 Silver King Dr.
Aspen, CO 81611
,.""'......
,
-
\ ----.
'--
".
,
'''-''
'.
,
.......
I
,.,
,
'-----
-------..
----
----.--
,:
I'
~'
I t I !
, I , I
[CJ
'.
"-.......
--......,..-.
--1--
-
------
I'
, '
, i
j i
! I
-.
-----
----
I
!'I
~
--------
---- ,
~-
-----
\
-----.
-----..........
,,,.....
1.>.(. .....vo
b......'-'~
-.~
I ~ --::r> ,,,,"
<aJtQ.t..__
.~-
"""UIS~
J'
o
o
~
I
o
[\
,. <Ie.~
f' F ~ :
~,
\\ .
- '\ ~-' ,~
.~~.
J ... ~
, -
o
~
I
o
o
~t>
I
I
o
I
~..
(
v
.1" ,
"
,
o
(.....
....
I
1
~
I
,
c
0"1C/f,~('<91>/ "
"'''c e-
S' C
~~ ~"
'Z:"
H ~f
/, r;:/:~(~~
/ rn~ ~ ~r- /<cff!<"',1"
~ ~ ~ \-~)' :'><~ --.J /.~
f::: cj ~ \)~ //"/'",
2 ro I c-j_---' "f;'
C)~ ,,};,' <.
\ -.7., </
~ ~ ~
1.6~ (Jf,'1 r'r ~ /
~~ /ff~" ~~i',~Io~~&
r--\-i / ~':':? . /
\) 1/ ',:
'----./' ;/ "
:--) 1/
V /;
( 'I / /
\,' I
,\--'\,i '-::---~ ,,~
' -"-~~
\) I'l ~-'I
'-.-/ f'.( J 442
n (~~,
>-<' )'4",
I' If"
\..i J'/
'r'i it "II
/ \t~ ~/r~
'''-00" t ~
~--~tv)'t:;:'::""'&./-;-~ '-'~ I, ~C>69>
", ,'0" '~, ~~
'., --',~
'10,(01'____ ~~------ '-'./l~
d '-"'_, ~_
'-...... ~" "
~ ~ ~'X-J
<!~
. ''-i(:,
,,""'~
------.. Z 0 lli! ... :c
,.-,-
--
ll:....,
<0
""
"<
"'
/~
t7,S
o
0,
QJ;/
I
"J
nv
"J,
'01/
W>c
v"
vOl
I'
_f~C!!
v /
--
en
W
....:E
4(0
...IJ:
o..Z
>-3:
WO
6;....
::)W
enO
....:3
Zo..
We.!)
:&Z
W_
>~
~ffi
0..>
2:...1
--
en
--
-~
',-,
c
//
:ii!
~ ,
~" z
Il)~~!(~
1"'~6c!l!
:!..~~
lruci12
~=..z~i.li
"'~<l"'e
~ <lG"':j:
l!l~~;F/i
z."Oui
.~~~ .
lll:t!ootl
cllllf~~
~li)~iff
...c",~.u
~~~~ ~
oC.o::oI(ZF
M
I
"
>- ~in
- ffi"
~ ::E~
, 0-
"''''Ei1:
ffi~g:~
E<s:",
~~:;~
"....;(w
~~~~
;~~~
<(~os:
III ""iij 0
i-Nffil-
~hi~
Wooo
ets~z
-'o~",:!:;
~~15~~
~~~~~
iffi~~a
"'~"":f;~
5::'" ,,..,,,
e~~~.
e , <
<", "-Ill
~~~~~
i;;:)iil!i:ffi
~~~*~
tlg,,- 'fJl
ffi~@~~
~.~~~
~s~~'"
<>.QwO
~
<
"~
~,,~
~~iffi;::
~m~~~
~ fJl~I>'~~
~_'" 2~ri~~
1;::1: il l'it;<(
L.... < I!-~c
~~ ffi!i~~~
0$ ::tfJl:l:<,..
u '" a~~g'"
~~ 8>-t;cu!.
....'f: -,1Il~S!~~
~g ~~~~lf~
.,j ;: ~ ~i<~lIlu
~ j:!... ~:f~~~~
'" 1Il....~ <("'~IIl'wg
~ ~@ ~ ~~~~~~
<Jl III <,.., i;:!!~fb:llill
~ ~~~ ;;;i~fg~
e ~o_~ ~~~~g;!~
5 ~~~ ~o~:~
o ~~~ ~,~~a~z
ffi 1:O/X .......1:18"'3:
!l: g~~ ~~:i~li;O
~ ~~lf ~glllll..3:5j
~~~
M
g:g~
<(~i5
N ..
'0
io:"
"~"
~~ci
.~z
."~
hh
.~~~
:!!d"'9
ii:::::~8
ZOal"-
.~~~
~>-tMl;{
ID...::lii
3:~~t
.o!l!::~
~"'8:::
gg""o
z
o
......
....
a..
-
ex:
u
lJ)
UJ
o
....J
<(
19
UJ
....J
,
~
"
"
"
~ ;
6
w "
:l: l'
;; 3 ~ ~
~ :; .., ~
~: c:: ::, "
~, z '"- (r
~ ~ :j j
S s - ,
...., ''l
Pi i
Vl
QJ
~
o
Z
, ]
"
,
c ,
~ ~
,
, ,
, ~
, ,
'C , !
c: ~ ~
QJ
'" ,
QJ \ e
~ ~
'"
I-
-<
U
-
""
~
'"
U
C/l
~
>-
'"
>
""
::>
C/l
,
"'[ ~.
,
z
~
r '::
~
~ ~ ,~
~ ..: '"
"
~
~
>
~z ilX
~ ~ ~ ~
o
"
.
~
,
~ ~
@ 0
,.;
&:)'
v
'"I-; I
/
/
(
""
<0
on
w'
"'
n_
w.
.W
w
"
.
U:'
.-.r,
920.
'" ~~,
~ ~
~ ,!
o u
2 ft
,
"
),
u
"
""
I., ~<?
""6~"'~e
-"'"' I,
vCl'6",;>i
,it;
o
'- (;~'"
/F...,
,
.~
"'';',
of"'::",,
"
c, I
"
',;...;
'.........
~
,,,!!
"7'
"
~"
.' ,
, ,
'",
'.......... ..'
(~?Z !_
c;
j-"
/,
,..,
,
'-...,
'<.J
C'
,
":J
",
,
""a,
., 0
~ ;:;
g :r
<
!
/
2~
/
/
/
/
/
~
>.
<-
UJ ~ ClI~
~ ~~ ~
c:{ ....;:)"'0
Ii: ;r8~ii:
a:",.l:J
W :?:I:~I.
U cl"- a
U kl:i,,-~
<( l:J~g !
Vl ~ ~~ i I
Ct: ~aJ I~
w ;:'" I~
~ ~~~~
8ml
~ ;:)",g~",
... <11:1:0
e>u
~ ~~~~
<C ~~~;I:
~ lf~t;;-I
Cl. ~W3
ILl ",j::~ I
d ~?i.. I
~
o ,
" a
o 0
.ij ~
~ ,..:
Z "
~ ~
:.: ~
~ ~
~ 0
M
g
.
N
~
~
~
~
W
~
X
U
"
5
d
....lW
~~
~o
g g ~
;;;- ~.....
~ ~ ~
0: :l;ci
~ t ~
~ ~ ~
" -
~ g
o
.
Q
!:i
CJ
z
~
W o(f.
>",0"
<N
AlII X~M
... 0 ON
-"'-'",
~ .0_
U. 0 UO
VI 0..: ui~
Z ~~
:) :;:
CJ ~
z
Q '"
W
l:Il:
104
:I:
...
'"
"'
~
<Xl
. i
i.
.j!
hi
a~1:
.".
-'"
i~ii!!
~'E~f
"ig'l
>"
'ii,
'~~I
~~ii
ilt8
11, il
i<P
...~,,~
C'J.O"
3~b
· '>:1"
l?ai
-<
l~'E~
<Sit
~ll'Ji
!21..
b~~l
z...____
......"
..
CITY OF ASPEN B~ OF ADJUSTMENT
'-'
June 21. 2001
DECLARA nON OF CONFILCTS OF INTEREST ...............................................................................................2
MINUTES ....................................................................................................................................................................2
CASE #01-02 -JAMIE KNOWLTON, 1540 AND 1530 SILVERKING DRIVE .................................................2
1
/"'0.
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
o
June 21. 2001
~
Charles Paterson opened the Board of Adjustment meeting with Rick Head Jim
Iglehart, Bill Murphy, Howard DeLuca and Mark Hesselschwerdt present. David
Schott was excused, Staff in attendance: David Hoefer Assistant City Attorney;
Chuck Roth and Richard Goulding, Engineering; James Lindt, Community
Development 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 Silverkinl!: 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 stated that for clarity the approved building
permits would have been in compliance with the city code. Roth responded that
was true. 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 B~ OF ADJUSTMENT
o
June 21. 2001
Jamie Knowlton, representing the owner Gwen Gordon, stated the reason the
driveways exceeded the 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
it was safer now for egress; the house was built on a very steep slope, which was
impossible 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 there 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 of the permit for both driveways. Barbara Long, architect,
stated that it was surveyed.
3
--
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
o
June 21. 2001
.
Howard DeLuca stated that all driveways on that street exceeded the code; he
asked when the 12% grade went into effect because 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
building 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 coming out of a 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 if 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. Rick 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 existing 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.
4
--
"
.
CITY OF ASPEN BOwtID 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 Knowlton 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 permitted plans. The other driveways were 16% to 22% and this
5
--
CITY OF ASPEN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
o
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 there could have been a different curb cut. Knowlton said that he
didn't feel that brining in the project now shouldn't matter more, rather than ifhe
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 this 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 B~ OF ADJUSTMENT
-
J
June 21. 2001
Hoefer 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 Silver king 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