The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.716 S Galena St.5-81G alt.(r * :./.' 1 '': -Â»t-1--4 (1>e. 5- 9,\ ri, Al , - Christopher Hemmeter -, 6 t 8040 Greenline (Special - Reviet <le*j~agl 06 fiÂ« j . 1 . --14 *t.46-â€¢- ' . 1 ' rel' .:44.-'Â·4.14. I ./ ./ ':./ .. - ...4947.3: 4%. D Â·: U.J.... #fei-Â· Â·Â· I Â· : 96,4,5,/'01/fiti- 1 ~- Â·U, 9~. .., - %.40.p...Â·*7 1- :.: 1:.' - Y#%47; 54Â·Ff.Â· I.P ..: ,r. ' . f..I.........1 , , ..... 1â€¢'h I i..*42*427.241.~.i:.4. .4-1 3.2-,.: 1, :1:.% ~le*4..:47.1592â€ž.1. '. ....b' - 1 .Â·*-//421/44*Â·g..Â·3 ' # .6:.g...: . .790: 1.'de-Al". .1-10 ..1 I. ec.,fÂ« . f 1- Â·..Â·fâ‚¬-Irr ... f...:. .- ' 1, ./ Ak t v % ... . I .~ ;",2,Â¥ ' ... .., - 1:,1.--'.4 . r.56 . JA,lot'9Â· 9 Â· ~ Â·Â·.t.1. . 7 Â·2 , Â·â€¢ fill~ â€¢ 4 , , t k , tâ€¢ .,6 . I I â‚¬. 'Wâ€¢ Â£1:/ 1.. 4/:\-1: . I. rf ./.'t. . 4: di.' *.. 4., .. . 4-19, ,*/40u 12 ..2 /7. '.- *iÂ¢J .67 1 - 1 .... .U..h 51 . 1 A.| ~,|t.N.22 - 1 122 Ull-----I.&..../p6Â£,7' ....12--Z-Â·MMG'M~/C.EWm.MI---WE,-Ir-..--------I-----; . .--3'........-C. eA e . 7 4/546=.I -.3//Ill.-Â·./.. â€¢-'ll --- :/9-*-~ <4â€¢(-/f/16*~aG-re~... .*.- ..-Ill./'#I.~~1â„¢~0. .p~-~-~Â«~â€¢4â€¢L-e_Irl......... . A. .- .e- . _.. *hr --------.---------.--/V..----*.----i . 1 - -. . . ...147 ....4-t 1 1% ..: ~f ~t â€¢. â€¢Newr * i 4% â€¢ f *?. 0 4 4 14 1. 'y f* t "11 41 h. I 1 - Â¥ -r .1 0 910 e 4 1 2 e ;k -h ...... .. 0 0 0 I e >Â· Â· I :.23 4:*.2 & la $ , IA ./. 7 + 4. I 'e. Â·:4 Ry) f p: 51 C 1---. . 5 /5- 30' W : f , S030 Â¥0+0 10.50 FOG o .. . - "+ *.5 ./ - I \ - w 7 - - N - \ - ' 1 1 - . il' L - ./ . 4 - 1 4 0 f ./ -..... - + . - I - - Al - - 1 + 1 ' .I . 1 -- . - I . I \ I + , 1 -- . - # A 1 1-- -- ..0 -I I. $ # . \ I , I 1 I & .. , - - 10 0 I - - Il - I- - I f -I -1 - I I 4. I \ . I. I. ./ I. . I . \ I , . \ N \ 0 .. . I /1-- 1/ - I . I ------- % I . - . I I - . LaT. -14 - * - 0. I - - - I - - - I . . 0 - - A .. 1. --- --'ispat~ - .Ece. E S SUB. \ 4% I C . N - \ - . 4 . . I . I -I-- - - \ ---- - - I - . . E-,3 - - - -- - - , U - I. . - - '- I -- *-- . I I \ --- - - -- -. I C> - - -- + 0 2 /4 - 0 - -- 0 X - - Â£ I - -4 . I I . - - % I 8019 '.O - + . $ I.- I \ . - . / - - . - - - I - -- 15- + - ---- - - -- - - . - -> 0 -- . . * . I. --- I . . . ./ I /1 --- -- - -- - - -.-- -I - --- - --di - - . . . - - - . I % I - . I . . - . .O A - - - -- -- .. -- - . 1 - - ----L ---- --- -)% ./.- - 3 - . - - - I 2 - - 1 - - - - N \ -- ------- . b . 0 - Gal -- I \ \ . - . I ----------------- ----- . - I. - - --I -- ... - I. . ./ j - - %- -- - ../. Il \10 -\- - - - --- - I . I -*i - -- - . - \ ~ -4 + - -2-9 - \ % -- .- -- - 0 I . . - . 0613 ./ $ I -- - -- -----------0- -9-- k - 8000 -% - - \ \ * + - - - - -- I - \ I - N -1. - - - -9- - - - - 4 --- . -\ 0 - â€¢ * - h - . .. . - - & . I *, - I - - - - I $ -- - . * i . - . I *. &. .. I - - e 090 - \ - - I -/. I - - - - CS, , N \ i - I -. -- I *.-I '.-0.- - - - - 01: -' .. - - - -- . 1 15- - - - . 1 I -- N. -- 1 & - I . - - --- \ - N I -- I I . . . ----- - .N \\ . 1 - I \ - I --- I i . - - - I - 0 - . Â·cy, -4 -16' \ --- - 5 .=)8 - I -- & . . - I I L % 1 - - I I I 7990 . . -- - C , I . + .<59\ I N.4 JS- I . . & I - I . - I - -- - - ------ I -- -- . & - \ - - N - 0 . - \ + . . . I . I 9 - - .- I .. I \ I b -- - - - F I - . - I . - * - I .2, - * -- - I - . I-- - I \ \. - - N 4 I \ I + N - - I I - . - I 4% - .... . I. I - I <23 . .. / ---- . . I \ \ , I \ . I - I . . . --, .75, .S,% ~ - I /- . I . . , - 0 \ I . 1 . - . I I . - - -- 25 â€¢ I + I.* -----, / \ - ~ ~ ~ % % .. . 4 I I . I . I \ . I N 0 - \ . 073 - - . k - - U \ . . I- \ - e \ - I 7400 - - - . \ \ -â€¢ . - . 5.. - I - ..1 - I . 1 - . I I \ %0% ...1 I. N I I N . - I . . * . . -1 4-1 -s~ N N . I . - I N . - I $ 4 I t I \ 4. 00 .0 ---- , ---1 \- - N a ... ...' 0 / 2 . AQ + - ' 0 - 0 -\. I I. I . \ I I I . I . I I. ---- -- -- 4 \ \ -- -- 0, ... %4 . & . . . , 1 * pp - -1 - -IT .A . . Â£ 1- - \ 4 I . / I . I 0 . I I . 1 - I I . , 4 , I + 1 I \ I , --4 d .---- 1 ' I-- 1 1 --- 0 j i -- i .A.. ..3,10 1970 4 - . I . Â« *| + 4 I . *. I & I 1 , 1 %\. lili, 0.4 - \ 0- -/- *- I. --- ---- - - 0--- ~ 1 , f / 1 1 , - .-- -- \ \ -4 \ I 0 --Ii---- - 6 - , / H . I , 1 1 , ' 2 - I.. - I . 1 - \ / . , \ 1 , CA \ NO,\N N \ 1 / / .\ 1 , 1 1 1 / lili \ I. , f I I I . I \ \ - . I \ - - It . , I \ ~1 0 , \ \ \ ' 1 1 ' I - . , 1 1 1 0 143 1 \\ 1 1 \\ 1 1 1 I I \ \ \,\ 11 I \I' I 1 . 4% I . \ 1 1 1 ' 1 \ 1 1 I .\ \ / I I , \ I 1, itt \ 1 . .. I I I \ . 41''I e \ .' 1 \\,\1 \ 1 1 .. i I t ,\ ' , 1 N 2 5~ 0 0' E ,<04.5.5 \3> ar~ e~ ~ , . ./4/.926 0 -Â£------I-- .-C. 1 ........... . ... ...1 - .1. ' .., ' . \ . - 1.1. 27 1 ... . 1 1 - \0 Irl / 0?/ 1 0 GaLEÂ» A ST. 14' - 1 - J -7-OPOGRAPHY ONL-i A fiff- Aspa,40 CLJOâ€¢.O PA 2.7- OP 'LOT '4, A,ed* Actas tiae,visto- SCALEÂ· / // = 2 <3 ' APPROVED BY: DRAWN BY â‚¬33Â£/*- DATe. /<5,1/ 4 /68 REVISED -7-bpo ,# Soui-Haas>T /42EA aDDED, -71 231'69. Aâ‚¬Go Co DRAWING NUMBER 56 SO E E VAN J Ava ,pGuVER 22, Cols. )0a 0-2829 PA 756-2220 8.er vv. p 30 tSXZ4 PRINTED ON NO. 10<JOH CLEARPRINT . 1 . 6 , J . ' =Â£2; ./ , .- .I .4 1 ., ,6. 1. -2-5 , 720 122 0â‚¬9. i t.0 . - 9.r 1,444- '' f p '-h ' N 7-4 9,3 0 ' - 90 -Â·5 N E Er., 62. \3 1 , 1. 45 /4 7 10 2 A $55 8 *PAâ€¢ 1334.9 5OUTH Al/LL 37-REE--1- N 14'5â€¢ L - - - 7 - + -lia-+ --F _ 40,49 GO .// 7832 4 /5 I ./4 30 LE ' ' , /20.37 Â· GO' rl 1 &0.00 20 0 .J ,9, Ok. N 14 SIE /2 25 N /405! E o Â· %3 .0~'-%6: u 5 in -4 (Ntivs! EL,EÂ°' n/V/5~14'30"E ri ------ -------- 2<.73 7Z 92 60.55 ' /20.00 ----- ---- ---1 \9 ~si .3: ID 00 1 9 m f 4.â€žÂ»9 Â¥ L J- 1 ~ 3 - 1 & 6-1 I -- E --- - 25 25 (3 k k * 3 6 'O 1 64 777/344 - - 0 - 9 1 7,3 SCALE. .7 i 4 -0 4 92 94 u F - 1 1 0) m Nn Z ING,1 = 30 FLE.-r 1 LoT /1 - 060 LoT /0 LOT 3 03 . LOT 8 k / //,3/4 z Â£ 0 1 /4 02, r fiz R R Gooo 3 W //,845Â·t fit 1 A, A Dr- 4 kt 2 2 / 1 0 \ 0 0 + 7770 N /4 5043 E N /5 00 E .3 --*,rt - 4 41 20.ZI . e.. I %601 GO.56 ,/4 09 N /5~00'E 0 //343 \ /00.65 /20.00 0 GO & e M *. w 4/39.70 N/5008 - N/5Â°00'E /0/.00 60.00 1 01 i LoT "4 (We~tÂ»') 3 -k 0 /40.37 6 7.5-12 0 5 4 -lt.4- - - . - - ec> e I : . -1 1 ~ 5 *N 16:8 Â·E 4, Ill 5 9.0 .0,.,i. CN,p,c I Li' ie 1 i 6 z o c ,< 1 0 / 20 45.501 : ~-&. # 0 +4~ ~ ~ d 1 ! 1 - 1 1 8:>wa - P 493 2 1 1 1 1 .9 1 k 1~t__ 4212 6 - ~04Â¢-0/2 --4-19280.-_ +62 c -_- <2 1 9~ ZoT 7 0 0 00 -- - --~~---- 1 21 lu Ch -- I -T. 1 1 0 0% . /2,54<2 fe- .It.194 A b 3,307 i ff- 2 { (,UT, 1 5 0 fl 3, 1 0/ |6~ 1 - 1 L Uto 1 1 ---1 - 03 k P .3 1 -2 .4 g A OA rte 47 1 1 1 . 1 - Go 0 1 1 1 1 -------- 1 /4207 * 1 I! I le ---' i~ -z~Â· 0.79 4- 0 1 - A r 1 1 1 - ' 0 - b 9 I 1 L' I 034 g f \- 7/.00 60.00 0 .. N /5 '00' C -I \x _--_- ---4 2 '1 4\ -1 4 LoT /3 91 61\ /3 472 2 /0 2 1 (21 1 . ...... \ w 0 1 0 Ql| 1 k t 0 . t\'40~~ -,~ 0 3,0(/7-4 6)]LE/VA STâ‚¬Â£Â£7- 0 u f \9 ./9 \9 u/G n //0 OIl 1 / Fl- 7. 9~.- 1 r--, . 0 9 1/ 9 . 4 0 b . / f / 90.00 r 234.SS \ 1 - t , / ' , r Â· N /4200' E 359.51 4 (4.55- 6454 \ Cor' 8 - 4 .spe ~ 03 \ -<1 - iÂ·-t 1.- 0 5 0. f 7own 4/ te 1 1 5.17 \ e 6< . 41 1 \ a Â£ o cK 2 /00 25- 1 25 ~ Oppe. 4 4 w jud or \ \T.3 ----4-----I--- 1 ZXG 11 -4 \ .01 03 4 4 2 3 Z o i /5 0 La T /6 1\ E 7 39â‚¬ i 7430 t ff Z \2 v 92'FÂ§,S/e 9-\ ~ A 31 ,â€¢9 r a C fi l. OiL ~Â· JOUTH GALENA 3T -4 2 --0 2 01 ' 6 6 2 I I \ h'02 ht - Â¥ I. . f \ .1 - ..0 "'I- - k p 1 - Zor /4 01 k - 4.-i 0 k NI - 2.14 Â¥ Acrts I 4 b /1 931/8,40 6 1 9 920,0 Â¤ N 44 5 (24.54 /40,00 1 , 3 3 9. , 7y I w v 7 1 30 00 1 1-09/ \ k, 1 50 $ 3,5'30' W . C '1' C BA/ .0 1 1 N , , ..,- "COZ~2 c-,L'90/V/1 1/0,Â¥.3, '200 {\ 47~~~~pa~ k~ Id , O - ,-, 1 3273[.a 0 90902 .Z:,r â‚¬ .O/ ./ C /0. _ 11 - \ 2 Â£ GENo d N 07 El \ 4 / 1---- /Â¤LA T OF 1 ~-~-- - ~- - --1 | @ 23'233 wp /77â€¢ne,"en 0 - 590 by us. 8.1./41 /95-4 O 1 h 7 , <"f â€¢ City Monurner?Y tound ,r, place 60*87,3>-/'0 gut 4 ELOCK 1 AND Â£2 w l o *0 5,20 n red. .set Zy 5 6/ As-,9 n. w,4 .7 0, ep i\ + Lp,kt - se by 5.N.p LOTS G THRU IG 0. 1 0 \1 1 0 0 F -7-HE 0 64 ANT,]ONY ACRES SUBDIVIBION \ survey made m Dec /964 - 2 U. of snew tem Speraturt corrut,on r,st spelitd ASPEN - PITKIN COUNTY - 6040. 25â‚¬.arings oritnfed wrfil city '7)ori found 1 I @ Co, 3 - Re fere.nce- /1404 on Dian Ave-. and calc 6,4 cor 8-3 4,spen SCALE: 1 INcH = 30 FEET / 08 N'thly Â£ 175 w,+rly of ~By Towns,+e. 3975 0 47Â£-FARD H PEJMAN 11 cir of c.14 fILÂ·,p,J.,1/.,7 ~ 7// No. 7,w - GZANO Jc-r. -COLO 5/5 ~30' 4 Found ap,11 - repjaced w,+4 1 4 19 1 64 - * i U \1.h 'i k J-Â¥20 /e to.9 -/ 7/c~m cap . 0 5 , 1- 4oo 6/5~30 W , ta i 440 of bey.r/7/>79 - de,cy,p//04 80012 137 - Page '548 2\ \ APPROVALJ DED/CAT/ON - 2 0J Jor 3 - A Joe, 70*,yaje >OVOW ALL MEN BY Tâ‚¬52 PR E.SEN TS : That the- under.stprzed, being -the owners of a portioewf--1*E W,4 Al w,4 (9 0.7 ' dow. f.rer>-1 9,01~r,d Sur Fate. Passed by the PI-tkin Coun-ty Zoninc~ Cornrn; aa, 0,1 -7-4,1 -9 fA day of 1/5.~- /36.5. Sat je,TIOS, R8494,1PM., have la,d out, aubdiv,ded and platted- a portion thereof >n to /ofs, two bjoce and one stred unde -the marni and style of tiocK I and 2 Lo-ns â‚¬ thru /6 of the ANTuoNY AcKES ~~~Â¥+ t~ _'-Cha>rinarl SuaD/vls/oN, and do hireby Corn/Xy -to Pitkin Cour,ty, for pub/,c. U.se, 50<)+ h Cia/q.na Siree-1- as platted. -4,1 E.Ki-<.8.44Â«.Â¥ I.â€¢c.,19 Co.-c. Coar ' Ourle-r 04*-1 Ale*. â€¢4-4*.Audul 3 ecretary o?Â£67'- 4 44,6,â€¢ir, /9 ATI81Tt .- 64*-* . - .1 Tht forâ‚¬90''m pjat is ecupted for f)149 and conveyanch~ of -the road- -therem ,<s accepted by the Board of Pitkin County Comm, sal-oners th/ailltk day of ...,A,0 19(05 aubjfc-t NOTARY.3 ACKNOWLED EMEN +0 the prov>sion *hat thi County shall not undertake ihe ezaint-enance of =c,ch ~ read until satisfictory construction thereof by autdividec 1-hoar pc}r-tions of the STATE OF COLORADO) - '. 60 f.t radius cul- de- aac as shown on -fte plat 9(\Anthonv Acrea Jubdiv>wori 60*TY op- A TKINJ t \X Â·â€¢ 4; lei M D/tch gook ZA - Page 311, 7,401 fa// ,>7 L,ta G. 7,4 )4 a s_jhoâ„¢WA~~bercon 4 1* : SPE-hereby vacated and revert /0 the aubdivictur. The forgo'nq p)&+ arnÂ· ded LOCK J ead 2, LOT.3 2_thru 16 of -the ANT#voRY ACRE_z> 5 u a c; n// 1 1 0 N . ... .4 .. 1 (6' 9 1 1% 1 was acknov,/le-cjged 6.fore- da,7 of'~ 1964 t'j Luke. U An thorl./ and Carrnin An thony al <,- rÂ·/ 1 Tihâ€¢â€¢-6 90~ Chairrnan 0*91QrS. 7 4 IL j j AAY Comm,ss,or; expiks WiÂ»,ass /77,1/ %2~ 'llf~/hoal Jeal ' taRM li La- 6---U-, Clerk JJJ 3-'&4 E- 4., +A \4 1\~Notary Public Accepled for fil,49 in the Pit k,rt County Clark and Recirde.ra off,te fh,aU day ofJT) 79 /9â‚¬E , 1 - 1 2 in no 4 1 - A- e w - - -Chtrk 4 Recorder JURVEN'ORS CE*â‚¬7/A-YZATE 0 1 _--_J)eputy I Gerard H Pes,na)~ do hereby certify that thâ‚¬ accompanyirÂ·,i~ plat of 84-ocK 1 and 2, Â£075 6 +Aru 16 . - ANT+*oNY AcRE_a S.(.TO,\/ja/ON, a aubcl,vision of a par-t of the- Count v of P,fic,n, has beÂ¢,3 P/at Book 3 Ft~e / 5- Recephor? No, I l l C t 4 pripar.1 by rrpe ahâ‚¬ accurately repre sent.s a field .surve y of zar-77Â« 1~ By *-â€¢4-cl k/Â· T jÂ»-+m 11 ;;9 Co/o. Re-7. Prof. Er,gr f Land Ourveyor 237â‚¬ i . 1447 1 7 1 4 . , t.7 . , .... . i 1 - N 75*09'W )14.29 N 75Â· 00 W W. - . L-) PÂ« t/ga OR L f-:.1 11 +Af/9 ~MA -1 l l .A/-0-1 7-6-k <2 e./ e eÂ«L 7- C 0-7 Â»n. W jol- c-(-c -, 64 3 . 0/7 3 -279 4 63 9 0. /3 Dr rj / 3 1 .1 -r j r- 1 1 1- r *---'-----1. - I M - - k -4:1 - 1 J - 4 - U 1 1 1 I 1 , 1 r., 1 1 - 1 - t", . 1 1 . . - Il- - ilf 3 -- , . r - r.- U= â€ž L . 1,1 1 â€ž. a Â· . ..aff:.. A I. 4 1 0 11 1. U l 1 1 â€¢ 1 h' -r r / - 1 --- - 1 P 1 - - -~121- r -1- -'/,2 4 \ / 1 11/ 1 11 r \ 1 ' 1-Il 1 // '/1 1 / i i 1, f J t\*. 0 , 1 i , 1 )/ // - GAS METERS 11 --1- 1 . 1// \ C 465 -- 1 li 11 els Â¢ 1 11 4 425Â·0 e" / 1 4/ -- ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ,h 01 1 4 v/6.0/2 /*-0.2 r\\ \\ // 1 1 /Â»- 2f~-l-4 l--jf-N-i-ki--/ *(~~~,~~vn -- , I /1 3-, / 1-0.5 All /1 If /7 ) 1 , / 1 , OPEN / /////////1// ///1//////* 6-7. . i\ 1 NDERNEATH /////////// 1lllllll \ 2 11% - 46 11, / / If \ ..14 4.1 j /0 \ ,9 \ 979 - \ \ 1 j 1 (-1-1 4~ 1 DURANT CONDOM)NIUMS W THREE STORY HOUSE ) 00 1 3 RD. FLOOR ELEV. 8047Â·13 / R om O - 7- -1 *.-5524-6 511 7232 \ / PARKING AREA A W, 0 1 18 / j 1 1 00 / 1 / - P \f, l('t dfji - I . 1 lilli / 1 11 1 , 1 ' / 1 I Wi i jl i lip I , 1 607 *1 At</0 1 Â» 1 /8 6.15 / 1 1 / ~ ~ i~ PGUY WIRE ANCHOR / - - 8 T All/// / 0< 1 . 11.1 . 11 ./ , 1 1 ----,/41 // ,//1//1 . % 19//// SPIRAL STEPS - ~ 7983Â·4 lk*Â·951 5 4 lili 1 j , IiI 19'L/'/ #97 # I &11 @11111111111 lilli 1111111 lili'11111111 4 / - 4/ . 9 -j iffji-~f ) 3 j-~ff-i~ 5 CONC. PAD - _4CCESL- Â·2 4 0.4 - $ 8 -- h \ AND U LITY 1- / 12"ASPEN / 1// 1- EASE:94;4)0 7981Â·2 .7984.5 M 7988Â·I ANCHOR/ ~ / ~ 8 ASPEN PARKING AREA ,7-1- -41 7983Â·1 35 H. 8 S. C .4 1 . 1 3 gig) 243/ 1 3 4 \ / 79833 CONC. PAD + 3 <8028 / : u-1 IL (lt/(r/\ GAS UNE. , ROCK / 44) *Of* *0 ff))00 / Â¥ 4 Â¥ - 1 014 ASPEN 01 1 6"ASPEN / 5 75*00'E 1 41 40'H. 15'S. ~~35'H. 6'S.~ / , 33.3 53-31 6.3 4 I / '' , / N ,/0 / t / ~ 8 ASPEN / ~ $ 1/A ./ i 1 I--~Ltihz =L-------- --- ------ , 1.1/ f ) \\ \C'' 1 111 ~ -- ' 1 0 t -aâ‚¬.96-BA-<%-- 9 ~35'H. 8'S. 0. O , ' It 4 O ' ' 0 tÂ·~ . / / / '1 /0 / 1 *-* , / 7 + 1 4 / /--A, 831 . 99 /61/ 1 )/ 1 1 c l f ( f.\ / 3 . r.r' -. 11 6 42 14 -- 10 f~ f ~ ~ ~ ' jlP\\HYDRANT \ Mt / \ 0.6 4/ - 1 / /4/' S I f // 0 1 02. \-4 <%6 1 1 DURANT CONDOMINIUMS_- ,# ./ / 00 05 / O/ + / 2 1 / ----CEZZI~~ISL-BUILDING C - 44 ' O / 44 --, \1 1 / /1 -1 Â» Age#2221/-1(/60 / -63 / 2 A 1 7/ Â¥1 /91-44~- -\ 1 N 9 1< - 'l j/1 11 1 1-41 1 1 i C , / f , i 47, %1\ 1% 1/1/ i l'I\t 1 19 /// / ~ Al/141\ / ) 3\\ C I <ic//1\ 1 9.- e 0\ 2 4 4 -ge 20 //94/96/0// 400//0// 72' 9.4 A e 0 0 lili 9 4 24 4 9 + 4/ 0 5 10 20 30 40 4 TRANSFORMER LU 1 ~1//\\ 9\\ C C / // /f ) -~ l 1/ -/ 1--1--1 lili,3 8 0 Or e. SCALE : 1" = 10' 4 0 toÂ»6 ////9// f~/ff f 0) BASIS OF BEARING : S 15Â°00' E BETWEEN NW AND SW CORNERS Q Â© OF LOT 15, ANTHONY ACRES SUBDIVISION. 05 DATUM PLANE : U.S.C. 8 G. BM. SW CORNER COURT HOUSE. 7906Â·80'. S. SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1, JAMES F.- RE5EK HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP REP'RE5ENT$ A A FIELP SURVEY MAPE UNPEK MY SUPERVISION ON MARCH 23 KK 1961 OF FART OF LOT 14-, ANTHONY ACKE5 SUBPIVISION. t e - 0, -- -=Â£2--.11. 1 ALi'INE SURVEYS PY ' / CjAMEÂ¥ F-KE5EK AFFUL 8,1981. L,5.9184. 40 1 REVISEP AVRIL 13, 198I. G.L. APRIL 16, 1981. G.L. APRIL 28, 1961. G.L. SURVEY PLAN SCA L E 1" = 10' TE: SEWER LINE FOLLOWS CENTRE LINE OF STREET SE-OF PAVEMENT 0'.0Â£ \ CONCRETE W AVAAM1VM ,0661 ,\ % 1 t \. 91. 3 , \M 1 t ~ i DURANT CONOOMINIUMS Al Ill r-,1.1,2 A ~ ~~ -- . D .F 1 . 1 .. . I .AN RTH jl Ad Xsk >y / / 1\\11 1 ~ y #...96 1 5\17 / 04* 1*ASÂ¢ i?2~~~1 i \* t*,234#IM/46*Rb,+652qqi' 4 / .- *f.il/â€ž,H#,7.t>.:1.-,~-- I /'/Ice:el +I'. 2~fal#d *41 *5Â¢1. Aillillillilil~~12/''I 1 - . 0% \ ?69-0/ , - A' Â»*1 9 00-!00 1--- 0 ,"460 6. e 1101.,â€ž10 I 1 ,# P . ' .. I- #lu' ' 1 T 1 - Â»t~'14 I . P 1, 4.19 Irilili' 1.1 =1 1 ' r \ lit; #dhe'll'll//41"01~/Fli/1/1 a....9 ..1 - , it . 94'7'll//IL.J -11/1/.1 4~ i.:.4 - i./WI ~ . Rt - 9 4- . ... .- W.87Â£:= , 59 ~.~~ - 1, -#,88;-% ti /.~-+<4/////H/////// - . - u,ji \*bi ,/Ill'llial/06--.---. 1.7/ Â»i 1 3 - L . - -.- , ., $2= 3&21Ifi= Im#~ 41 I 416*.LA:al& A,Pel""6,1 .- - 4,4//I.31'.7//7 :1~1 1 Nl 4281.,LIl'l iiiiiiiiul MiligilligIIIV 1 , &-1.~,All,willrillilvalilillillililia'i.hill %L 1 -- 4/.B' ,~. Wip..........................4 .i 4, i 9- - , "F ./.-'~i4ii.Al . ..!~ P .. 4 t lilli.Ii - Irp. - - %\ 14114,-=f-*=9--V,0 4.~~1.xve,9. ~/ v# . 4 .1 4 + I. tiw#/20 1 ' ..ti Itti#* / 4 4 / a 2, * V V.â‚¬ - 4~ /........8/......di, ...e- 4 , U. -44 . lili aill'll'llill'll..~ airr91Iiale.IZ1"LUBIIISIIIIPSIIIIII:mailiz2lillillilib kiti- flillilligillilli~~milillillillmlilmlzimellivul4ilimil ir IldilillimilillillillwmAz/:5920 4:*A,4/"Pi<#. \ 4 ,~ â‚¬,ar ..4 -.A 1,Â«*â€¢A AillmE~lii~19/lizill:::::li'rllillillai/* ..F4llilim,Lililillimiry'llillill' Almil ./MI' AI~ f m - 9 1 +0 ; 1\ ~m~ / - *A,j--17 C. / 00'f,bo-%0-f~01*.*~ m -44* L&-- . / I#IllinIHN- .01,1WS-/- - ~ 4/:PT Jaill/py ........./4/1/&,bAN,"Fill ../Fl . . 4(*114.- ... ..#2*,Ird" , 1- /~ A.~&<C#04#*MAk~*~~- 4,1*1%4%' v~~d~/-*~091 8----.<. i S \~ I -9**f- 4 44 *,4/-- 111/ A 4. , \ /1/ .Â«7,41'w/-.*~~,f~f* #*~~p,~~)v~~. 19â‚¬ 1 1 . f.,1 4.Laic#~~r~e~,-. , 4- .A.-r 0 - , ' 4. , DURANT CONDOMINIUMS BUILDING A -%-----46--- \h , t 4 1 0, \ 2, 431\\ Aze.Â»22224Â«44342Â«Â« 1 t \ \ \\ 464Â«44Â» -- :I . '% . U h \ /1 / -2---90--Â»diessÂ©I- \.1 ' ---ht_ -~ NC> It, N Â¥ : i --. 1 ~ , 3\ Tj / ' 96\ 1 H D. i if, ///, /// i ho I N... . hÂ» \\\1 1 1 Al L 2, Ctik--r i //// //i t\\\\ Ill 1 1 1 ,lilli i al 11 1 ' 2 1 -- ~ O, Â¢ 41 1 \ \\ 1%\ \t .- \ 1 F // .\4.\ 2.14 \41\\\1 449 , 111 1 3\. 6\9\\\ 4 3, Nk 2.- lili 1 11 1 & il, .1 21 09 4<*1%,2.YX#*4#< : 40 I L==F /'// 2 43\ Â«11 Â«19 4914.Mll/ / -- / /f C U 2 441 Â¢ TRASH -. 44~ 4Â«6>2>.716 NEÂ«-*4Â£ - , //4 7/ . 4 azziE=aMEE=F a--t-< -----ti<--- l / / 0 ' t.4. Â» 4 STOFI E \ t== 0 --- 2~ -4.7- Â»22-3.4-2~ / / //3/ , / ' .1-/*.f --I .A-Â« 7 297..9-TX<----4 / 1 / '9/ 0 \\30% /LION~ 2 4* Unop-Â«CÂ»cÂ» Â» 0 â€¢ 1 -1.----I--------- --r-- - . 2Â».Â«. E / r,/ DURANT CONOOMINIUMS I -an/----ZE . BUILDING B t-L----922Â»*..-+.rb#423*--- P#1 -/ Â¢ 44 1 1 j N 1 -1322%292Â«23.......-% 411(~ / / / / --UE=e===EEE W-Lag / LOWER LEVEL PARKING --=~-~--- -~ZE~=4=Ezq Â¥ 18===2 E%%--ta#*43--id \ -Â»RÂ« b f 4 4 6 1,1 a yl / .24 4 -.---B--4=t-.-4-- - -1)-.- ===Fzb..>24~.1 --Â« Â«Ind 1 ':/1 1 1/ 1 2 2 -2-- ----..rrer:~FM.,Ir-2 1 -IFâ€ž/t k -- +2 - IST- r 4 0\ A 0*14\ 1 \\\\1 '1 111 1 \\~-\3\ \\11{111-}Thilift{ , 64\-\\41*1\1\1Â»44 ir* Â»> .3:144 ig 'J' '4. p i ..~ 2,0.11 - 0 '11 -- m.m.- 1 - - 11; 1 1 11't 111 1 - A Â«-9- -V-e~ 4 4 3/7 1.44\11-\31Â« <1 -A-Â¢4~Â·2%* 1 =; D ,â€ž. 44' U 9, 9, 7/ 7. 1.-) . 1/1 1-- -1 ., 31.,AF' k, ' -rÂ»< NÂ»fi-ims,Lp,Mi . 3* .4~ /41'â€¢A 1' / -l-Li 'f...01 - Cr \1 ; 349-: -4 ~.-2.3 64\\~ k 't ~ ~06~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ \.,/ 1,1 1 , il A. -0~C\Â« N~ ~,\ - . , J - ~ 1 -NES \ 60 . 624<*4&86#22.,44%--%-. - P/7/ 7 f>,/ // /0 . --<:2 -W~\\ . X -45.,y 1 -- U *fit- 31-/1/; i // / /, hlil 4\ \N\: REL 1 1 1/1 11 , -- I b -- 1 - 6 +41 , If ~ Mil -9-I'll -Â« 1 / 07 UPPER LEVEL PARKING 4 22 NEW 11 1 !1 1/1111 11 -=62 AAEA / EELEV OR 3,1 f Off '1 Â» d / A> 4 1 11' / h .k - I ,\ 1 y Â« - *0Â«22 - / . 41Km 1 11 1.1 1 /479 // .. 3 -4- /2 \ h ,- \ 1 4: Ami -\A ll/\ k... t 1 11 11} 1 - ---- 1 H \ A 1 .44\ I ~ t{~ Ijffl i \ 44 --22-< h.-22.Meac'KILE \ / - 2 \ \ *Ftc 1 04/1 Â«Â«\4 N > ...4 U\- 7Â« 1\\ . 44.1 Â» 4 0112- 1 0-9- .\ \ 6% . 144-Â«Â«Â» 1~0 - n -N X h.a \4 tx . 1 - \ 8 - n l-\\\44'\Â· /7 /4/ r \ \90 - 1 %690Â· 96.06949 , . -IÂ»\ /~,j ~ /~ DURANT CONOOMINIUMS -0 ~4 li 4 4/744/ BUILDING C .4. /. . . 049~ 4.g>tl,k, b~.0Â» mÂ· , 47,wi / ~IÂ»0 34\ '. .:0 *#Â«fy *24-112\- 946\4 34\Â«... 14 - - ~40/ ~4=943 LkyÂ· p 24 -t 1/ V/139%94 \\\ 49\ 12Â« -;42$6~5-,4*9 . 5* Â»1 - ...r. / 1.17 'OF \\ Afflisma~#2 2~I.0 7...... \ /\ 1 --=%31*134 44Â©to L I. -\----~.> 1\20 ~0\ \ ~N N +=y .. 42>h ; 19 7\~ 2Â»ze. 25*~ \ 11\\ 1 /. \\I C ''1 , i . 73:24 94 92~4 1 \ \2049 % 48~ - 2>4Â»Â§99Â·24\ -f \ \ 40 1 X4 I \l/9 AF.2-7:EliMis/Er:E##gr/,diffs<EEE#r. A-..'Â»Ng / 1// LA \\\ N~ds:5:55Â¥ \ '99\ . /21Â«,lit#Mes,SE#+ ,~.43/*VE .\ f f) ,Â«3Â»~~-220-41#AlpfzSW&7 Â»U.,j.<~4. 44 A g~Q,>Â·*.0.A\~RÂ» Max=0*xy=:- f Â¥ 11 1~ -X- \ \ 1\ ii,Tr , b, O\j\\ U N;/ 4 1 \P# 2~ 4% u Â¢ Iog 4 3 PRO SEC) SITE PLAN 41 43. El" 1~0" M .Al/\ IN:J I : 14 / NORTH \0 .9 Â» r STREET I 1/1 1 1 1 1 1 /1 1 lilli 1 1 - py' ~1711 1 + ' l Â·. 1 ~ /2/ 1 7 h A l, YU DURANT CONDOMINIUMS DURANT CONDOMIN IUMS 1 <4--1_1 *Â« ~, ~ ~ f \1 1// c NE=083 11 1 //-3 BUILDING B BUILDING B j = 1-7 1 -*------- V J 1 1 \/ lf i / / 1 j / 1 1 11 1. t. 1 11 ' / 1 11; 11 ' 1 ----1 1 1 1 111-1 --- -- 1. . 1 \ fil c 1--449 - 1 // - i l 1 /6 . Ul \ 1 IÂ« - I i .. f / -\ 1 Illi < 111 - /NAN 1 1 j 2 It/ELEA! . ///foÂ© i 1 1 1 ELEVATOR ~ 0//f ff ff / :~~ *C-TOWER / 1/ /j TOWER 9 <31:-~ 7.2341~ - / ~ \ \1 / 1 1 j 41 4/ 1 1241Â«41Â«4Â«0>4243 / *\ -. 031270.---1*.~<-T-~.-- rhu 2*rÂ·.Â· Il k /)/ )1 \ il ilii ill i j ' j.1 '-il i \0\/ // 4 c t //// E\N Ill Â«ffJACUZZIh Z--- fil) ECK - -- Acuzzl /~{4 / ECK .f \\ \ i i - - / / 1 4 70 / f / 1! I /1 ',ilit/ ;1 1 / 11 - :1 / f ? 1 1 j / / </2/4 . / 1 1 -JIA 3/4 - I' ll i i -- -, f / 3 i ) 2 1/ i f ././ , , , // 1 1 i ill'11' -49- / /// 1/ / /9 ./. i 41Â®110,1 - , \ I 1 1 111 ,/AX~2bC>< ,Â·-9-G~~Alix+~ . , f i l j / S j / ./ /t/ DURANT _-_--- / iti / //f/// / â‚¬797 / "-49Â«. . / DURANT---.. CONDOMINIUMS 1 r. \ i Ii'! t, 11 4 //3//f///// i :Â·i!'11 1 CONDOMINIUMS 2 ./. f Â«1--*ir.*04*X i i / C ' 1 ' 1 & BUILDING C L C ? -- 4. ix, 1 1 ./ / /.St :.. ft -Vil I l , 1 1 1 1-L-jil < 1 1 il h / ~ / l / 1 / / 4. rk:i// li . 1 /1 11 9 lÂ«11 1 1 I 72 1234 i '0 ~ 1 j[\1\\ / V.3.=02 1 /if / 1 - \\F \ -Nt 1 1 / . - 1 1 . 1 I / 1 - 1 > t\l 4. t EXISTIIUG/ PROPOSED / ELEVATOR PLAN ~IOR-nÂ¢ ELEVATOR PLAN./ .-3 FIRST LEVEL FIRST LEVEL x 1 .- SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 71\ 1 1 1 11 4 2 1 41 2 .-/ t 9 4 02/ -%252/ I, 5/ %----*odi -tj.---armsu iII - ,Â»07 1 1 -11 . 1-1. ' ( Li 1 1 NX 6/ // .-r e . Vfl 1- Â·; C jr a ' 1 0 t-#.p. . 1 0 liLli4' : 040 Â· 4.'4#4 24,0 0- - ~ Ar Lpil. 1 t.. , 1 , 4 4 - 4 GLUC ' , 1 . .r cli ... , ~ uÂ·---- ' '-: f'JÂ£: Wit-- 4-24 -" -L_J r -1 '-lit- f L . .> J. if % -1 p#b.--~.Â·-1 '41 i . It . i !/4 /7-; ul t/ .. > , 6%5 j., , , , 'A ):il Â¥ - 1 ... 4 --,4 4< r r 1 ?, D r :1 .. .t 1/ 11/1 ./ 0 E[fr 43 - -- 3, - U El ----- ' -- - 11: 11 = -EL- 1 - i Li 1~ ill 6 1 --,---4 lau ~ 1 - [-3 n %-3Â·11 1 -77= 7 E-"1 =-=/ -2 L 37-~ -- -- , P 111 '1 7.-=TB#t 1 111 11 ---=g ~ 11 1 ful-1 - -- ----1 . ISKIER PATHI -... ELEVATOR BRIDGE ANO STAIRS HEMMETER RESIDENCE . 1 - Exts_TING_ELT_E_EECTIoN SCALE 1/8"=1'-O" ri=vt dI " â€¢4 1,ill# \ 9 1/ .: . br f '1 11'10 1 ... f *,9 n L Il,%11 . lbE....r '40,5 4, C J 4.,14 1 l /4 4 1 ~râ€žht/94 / 1 4 11/QPJ: 1 Al, 1 4 r 0 - -- Â»Ax 11.24 \A#? w 113 1 \Cl #i~ ~,vewk . . , 1 I.-1 - 1 1 . 11 1- 0 /111- e 40 / - 4 0 - 0Â£ CD 0 - , 20 ' . NA --- -- i-. 00 ' 0 0 \ 0 , \ K \ 1 7 444.0 .+Ill' ilÂ®j . .,\, 1., r - 2:3 ' 0 -~e -- / 1. 4,I .::4 7 - 14 0 4/ It k ** 3 39 ,Â·,>9; 21 0:llâ€¢â€¢ $~Â·44 4- -- . th'll . k;Ill i LAP\~. . _ ; , 1 1 I '' // 382 /45/ / 'ir 67 1 1 7 ~ 1.1 , z -22-1- --I .r 2 - 1/ 1 2 2 -1 -22-- 74.1 4.. --. " 11 l. 3 V PdÂ¢.@:AD:Â·' 1 AAE 51 f ...6 ' P; b /* f~i'- 1.11 1 --- V . .,9Â¢#/1,1.1.1 1 1)* 1''V4441\4.Â·1 - 1 11 00-- 1 1 W + __-u.-4 JUL- : * J,J 'b'Â· " , 44* , i.4 . I. .// - - --- - .ilt Â·~h. / Â·Mk' - 'r q ~ F 1 w * - 44 1/ 1110'ir 2 4 0 1 '' ~ 1==ui ~21 - 1 --- 1. '1 WAA' ---__ 'UFf 1 -- - -- - ill. / . JI E- Ul ./. 2\ 4 1 _ 4. , -~ - - - Al/,4 - 1 1 44 7. 1 i 4 " / - - . ZE[El --- 9 LSKIER PATH . . 1-lOT TUE LEVAT[JR BRIDGE HEMMETER RESIDENCE C OWN VIEW 1 PROPOSED SITE SECTION SCALE 1/8" = 1' - 0"- li /4, i / 4*<Affi:/ - --- -- - I 3 .0- 1 , 1 U , /1 - I 0/71111 rup * 0 3 /4 Lidl~/- 4- -%\ 11 f it + -11 1-,4 11 . .... 1 P llc 17 It-3\ All 2 -- 4 1 p -1 '/ 1 +--I i .I Â· ~~ ~,;P-9 1261 1[-4. be. 74 714 YL%-5.19 Ff-/i~j-L ~f-- -1 r i # .--.4 1-Unlili--20--- \-3 1.-' .li 1 6 + --___-_- a.,bÂ»-9--0--21.f -ijf-n Â«--7--1 4 W I b' N - iÂ·i 1,1 11 ill i 1 - f j i. 1 E- L , r Iii ,1 1 14 1 1, ~1 1 - I - -- 11 1,1 4 4 -.- f L 41 ./1 4- 4-F -1 -.--1 ' --- - -- - I Â·; ' .. 1 1149 r -- - 1 n f -1 P - f a.. . ---+ 1 '>: 4 . r,ki 13 9 ' A. 1 i I i >11 - 1 "11 -:2 L -1[ _1 - 1 1 5 -- )1 1 21 ELI ' # T -----I- Of 43 4,1~ :wh. / 11-, + 41- ..1 - . 91 f 4 -2 . J. 1 r - \ -' I- ---p L J f, 11Â©f,31;kfu h, ' rÂ· - - C. t., "1%, l 441 41)..19)13 19 . 11 1 Ik / t~,- 9 ~ 119 1 Â»R vi 1 1 1 %7)1Â·,4..0-.i fli~ ffÂ¥) 3 01 - L .1 1 '' U..J ~ 4) ' 11~' "~ jiÂ· it 1 Vk~AR- . 1 , 1 -1 1 /,fl 1 : 2 M ,-/ Il \4Â· 3 lili . 1 11 11 1 44'.1 4---1 -=ST' ~\ 7==1[ r -1 1 --- , 1 4-P 1 --lib 1 .-- R Ll : 0 - 1 - 44&*' i t. . ' HOT TUB \ / PAAKING AREA WA L K VVAY ELEVATOR BRIDGE and STAIAS to RESIDENCE 1 --- 2 - / d - EXISTING ELEVATOR ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 r . . 4,4 1 ..111 4,44/*10 Â«/abi,W# 44*P -- F 99 9/ Â· 4 MY #*rill1110 4tg?Ey .#. "011 98' . I "44*"AlfUrL#~7,! 't,44'll, 1'' 4 1, itt,11 k K o . I . 9 +4,Â· '7' D . 453?81 ht,9 4 544' 1 - 0 'a .1 44 +2Â·. ,Â·A Nm - ' :,Â® f p?i }i 'til 1 . U:'1'9':.Ill It,1 - , ' /1 If b 4 1 ..1 1 1' ' V %*44%1 7 . w j 1 fuN: t 1. , , l,; f 'Nt 1*W ihts , 61~~ ' ; I , '14 j,; 11 2 Fit, 5. . 1 f f (4. Â¥,6.~4\K~ 64 .1 1,4~~ d Â£ I -W#19 '0 j * #ikpi . ' , "44?r, J ''.,~i , Plit' : 26' Al?1111 j ' 1 41,1 AL :,!jit *1 1 1 . 9 1 91 #,4 4, , '41# -- _ _ 2.4 , -- UL-...--F: - w ---f#* \ 'Le 41 11 1 ' i I i 1 fli," - - -1 *11:f' .-- ITI./Fl 4* 1 2 ow#b ' 'il : 111'*.... 1 1 li '41,=i __ _..____..,.44&.4~ i Â· #1 1Q'Â·p 0 ! I 04111.0,1 7 Al 11 . 4~ 1 3 #/ r 1 07--71 1 1 t 1 - % . 1 W N ' 1 i ti '70 1 '1 11 -1 10 14..1 6 r ;111~117. 1 - -----I- Wi.*'pfliti 1 ..1/ fl ' Ual i . I -1.- , Jf. iNA ..1. . 1 0 111 e 1. .64.Billi ':i iF . 151' u'Al,At 111!D'!111 'tofE),)., 1 .4. 4.1 \ l.- .t) - r i 1 ,1.Up. 1 110â€¢ /111 f 4 i,Hlill'11;,0 / /4 f *:swilÂ».L.4- 4 1 lili ~__~~___ __ Y. 3 I :IN (0.,+1 ' ~~<Kmimi~ 4&: i-x-2--b~110Â·J I v 2 4'fli' - 'PL+JNA ; wir/. 5 - 4&- . 11,1 1. . LÂ·-;-~- - ' ~ ~ ' -----1 li 1.4,1 1 ,& 11,/Iffllitlp "1 -- ---i. 1 :74 7 1 , i f 1 't- - 0 . $ 0 Fi.,2,TA Â·-. 11 11 u-- ---â€ž u k Â·w _ ilim ~;4+Nfli,,h 1---/ ---/-- . 'HI i' *r *.U, Illt 1 . -- 1 , -- .... , 181Â¥61 2---3-77-3_'~~ 4, i 4- ' *lij , Alli u,lue --- 19 7 -- 1 1 1 1 -- 316-'-, 7.49 - -. '3,01 1" , dt #1*r ' U> - --- p~ ; Uhf ' IÂ·i 10*1- F 44/69Â£ 1 1% I . - - *442 9 2 1 .~ A~ ' .. iÂ¥,h 1 i 4 , I 1 -' 774/.42 Ze?:1 *=- 1- - 6= r /,2 - I. 8 SKIER PATH PROPOSED ELEVATOR ELEVATION SCALE 14"=ir-i5" HOT TUB ELEVATOR BRIDGE TOVVN VIEVV] I - f f - i i - - f :1 1/ / / 4 f 1, i ji 1--*-i 1 3 1- fll. C , 3 1 1 1 .1 1 1 l. i~ / 1 1 . 1 + 1 Â·71.1 --- 1 1 1 1 i f / /4 la j i . i lil 11 : lili // / f .1 4 fi ' j / 1 1 1,1 j 4/ 1.11 1 - 1 / , 11 f 1,1/.~ . 1 \ 11 f f / / / A , P i/, 0 f / r 1 1 - 1 1 J i i j //1.-// 1 1 111 4 1\ / Z, J 17 / r /. f 1 0 ~~~/-ff~; & 1 1 # , .1 . 11 V 1 / f /4 I 14Â·Il:t lit , 3 /1 . 1 1 31 f l I , f. f ''1 /0 1 4 4 1 t \ 1.~ 1 1 11 li 't , 1 1 1 4 5 f 1 1\ < : 1 41 // 2 // t i 1 1 .1 1 11 ' , t f < i 92]\ti, it !1~litt" ip I 1 II --- 1 -.I : .Iii 11 1, . \%-:Si r , 2 li. fl lilli (1 1 ---F j f o f i -; 4 - 1- 1.1 1:1111;1111.11111:lilli 1 1 . --.--- #i.+. ------0---- + - ----.. -- %...- I - -- /1 111 '- :11 Ill /// - 1.- 1 1 , ill'' ./ lill i. i, i li jl 1 1 1 , -foffÂ»/ 4 4. / 2// '\ i / / 1 1 ///0 // /-19,4515Â£(221 , r ,/lf -, Rew - 1 7-- - 2~~ 1 /4/ ff, /ff 14Â« 1 ; // . 1 1 2> 4 , \ 93 , 4 la f // 19-Â·j-- *.11 '' 4/7 , 4,4/ 4 3 \ 4/Â£ I l ; 3 3/, /,; ; f NX 11 ilil 21 14 - 4 J 391 #9.3.. - / i it 6: i i f / // 1. .0d , , 4 1 i 11 . 1 '1 4 i Â· tÂ·M! I. 51/1 1 :11'/ Ifi 00 I .//r, -:II$ ~ ~ lilli '1 1 .Tr N , . ./1/ 1 , , . . i 7 / /'' / C/, 7 1 - / 'r, / / // i ...1 l I . i ll /// I/1 f ll;Â· . \ iii , 1 4 / i /*li ' , 1' 1 11. 1 1 1 .1 i.\ t,\11 ji 11 1 (1 \ lid , \ 1/11' , I. ./3/,til 2. Ict . 1 . i -14, '71 1 ' 1 ./ / \ J ~319* 1 1 t. -13~ .vaLL â€¢ 1 - ./. 1 4\41/// / // 1 0 BASIS OF BEARING : S 15Â°00' E BETWEEN NW AND SW CORNERS LL OF LOT 15, ANTHONY ACRES SUBDIVISION. Wt res 4 1 l//-1 1/ / f ,)\ i DATUM PLANE : U.S.C. 8 G.S. BM. SW CORNER COURT HOUSE. 7906Â·80'. V e 0 / , 1 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE .tfutÂ» 9 1 i.: 1, JAMES F. RESER HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP REFRESENTB A 1/ ~ r ... A FIEL> SURVEY MAVE UNPER MY SUP'ERVISION ON MARCH 23 RP D i !981 OF FART OF LOT 14- , ANTHONY ACRE5 SUBPIVISION. 3 8 %62 0. 00\/ ALANE SURVEYS PY e / LIAMEâ€¢5 F KE5EK AFRIL 8,198). L.5.9184. @0 53Â·5Â·82. REVISEP AVRIL 13, 1981. G.L. APRIL 16, 1981. G.L. P APRIL 24 1961 . G.L. SURVEY PLAN A 2 SCA L E i = 10' 1 / 4...1.1. - 0 1 1- 1 W 0 . 1- .: I ' 1 . 7 9. F..1111#Ime..WE elcil 0. l 1 1- U 1 . . 1 4 , 3 I 4 1. 0 0 0 . 1- 0 , . D. .. D I. .... 0 0 - ;500-I----: 0. '.-0 1100111 \ 111.1 . f ~ do . C . 2 W I . <B . 1 0 .. ..... 7 0 .... .. . . I . -0 -A.- . /4 ./ I .... I - Iii 1 ''vq I 0 W : 0 . I . t. -:I -' 14. e ... 2 I $ *Mt-- /9..44~ - .. 4 4 t.:. .. f 0 .. ..4 % I 2.~- 14> J . e a 0 - 442 M.ZE,Il / 0 *:' yi,51 1/ U 4444:-.x.- . ' /,0. -.....&lilli..% 7.,1//')- --a-- e- 4- al# - -- ......1 .*,64 , - .- .ill'*.. 1 ts. -:4*Â«14210-*I. , / . 0. w 6' I. 15 A~/90-04*00$#I- ,-FAV~74~'~< - , A Nimm==Eum-P.- f 4 4,4 W . 2 a . ., Il ... I- 0&0-000502IdF=001-01-0-Ft#0.0/T<9~ 2 Al'll-- . -#./6,;:I'lip V. 4 0% iii 4 , . . .. I. f .. Ulo 9 J . . ... U12 .. 4 . I, 1-.P-$000)00~~ -- . Ul a 0/ :lE 5 . ..re' 0 Ul . Z . L . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 , 4 h. , 0Â·~ 15: ' r 10 xy{ 4.. 1 Â©/9/5 1 No. 1 a 44.f_. 24 i i i CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE SUBMITTED: STAF F : Nr\,14 R{(kff,01/5 / l t Oil 2. APPLICANT: (,11,111< 10.1~~44/ D; 1 ~7itllt'02~4/ 3. REPRESENTATIVE: l)(CL.. ld<~(Valk Alot-a (V\C (,2?Idl~ 0 3<41.14 6,4.7Â« 46& (41- Aft,0Â» 1 79 - -4,Bal 4. PROJECT NAME: I karri.k-Â« <(hQrAnd Eflglebi 5. LOCATION: F) 1 , r E / I'..Fll. A '1.2~ / 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning Subdivision Stream Margin P.U.D. Exception %<f 8040 Greenline - Special Review Exemption View Plane Growth Management 70:30 Conditional Use HPC Residential Bonus Other 7. REFERRALS: X Attorney Sanitation District School District >< Engineering Dept. Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks State Highway Dept. r t. 114 -wa te r 6â‚¬4*oar.<i~ 20.4mc: &01) Holy Cross Electric __Other City Electric Mountain Bell 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: ' Fr/, Oi\,1 1 . i 9. DISPOSITION: Approved ~ Denied Date 2-19-91 LÂ© Â·v.-1 .4 .0..5 o E *pt u 1-1 '. 1. Installation of the fire safety measures described in the Engineering Department's memo dated February 4, 1981, - attached for your review. 2., Mitigation, by the applicant, of the impacts associated - with grading and construction activities. Said measures should include erosion controls and temporary and perma- nent landscaping of the site. 3 . 6\Â«- Aj> p\. uÂ«:t Â»to\41 1 A Y (to ca Lut-* &-ee.*41Â· .jec, 5 4 4, 0, 1 6\-L- c.al 444 L.k- 40 P ,1,0 J . 12<_.- 2-497 Ar CALL,l, c.1 go L 9 i ~~_ 6 fkfuÂ·~7 Av-~ 4 Lo Lil_ LA 4.- - 01 4&*_, POK GL 614-Â· 64- A.hA dL 40 f (4< Council Approved Denied Date 93-2 \7\ O A vule ; 94 -1 2,c,vceÂ»,1 <1- Cs A-,PL,Ale . A te. c:-CL A AUL 4~ 014#2- A - A -eull) Ayf ' ICAt~C -- I 5--12 $ A k.4- c. 0 L.Q. 1 1 \ o Li % 4.-9 4-8 u C e. d.1 .1 !\~ . \9 , 1 <1 9 1 10. ROUTING: J 1 Attorney v Building Engineering Other Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galen a street aspen, colorado 81611 MEMORANDUM TOW: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department Willard Clapper, Fire Chief FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Christopher Hemmeter - 8040 Greenline DATE: March 16, 1982 Attached is an 8040 Greenline Review application submitted by Christopher Hemmeter for approval for an upgraded access to the Hemmeter House (Lot 14, Block 2 of Anthony Acres Subdivision) above the Durant Condominiums. He also requests review for a landscape plan. April 20, 1982 is the agenda date for this item at City P & Z; -therefore I need comments no later than Thursday, April 8. Thank you!1! *ty-/nÂ»0 7 4 ULa -2 leta--- 21 4 26 emyhyÂ»j yde_ tuy- d44 V\,O /4 344 UNTA f+.m.-*i 62*1,03- Gr~QL 3 - 2 W ova AL Â«4 -Â»-4 18--07*6 Xi t-- A-94 ~ 622.841 -Â¢- gfÂ«- fora 44 DÂ« /4 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 10 March 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Christopher Hemmeter Residence Elevator - Application for 8040 Review Dear Commission Members: Following 8040 Greenline review and approval for an extensive renovation of the former Blitz residence, the present owner, Mr. Christopher Hemmeter, has completed the major portion of the construction approved by P&Z and the Planning Office. The finished work and that remaining for spring finish have and will be completed with strict adherence to the representations made and accepted during the Greenline review. Since the initial construction by Mr. Blitz, the only available source of pedestrian access to the house has been by means of an existing elevator tower located between the Durant Condominium buildings which connects to the house by a complex series of bridges, stairways and pathways. Because the various elements of this access route, particularly the elevator, are unsafe, visually unattractive and in a general state of disrepair, we seek 8040 approval for an upgraded access system. Additionally, we seek 8040 approval for a landscape plan to include an evergreen buffer area and related revegetation above the house (to the south and west), and a loop path system connecting the house to the remainder of the site (see sheet 3). The land parcel on which the improvements would be constructed is des- cribed as Lot 14, Block 2 of Anthony Acres Subdivision, and is located adjacent to and above the Durant Condominiums and borders the Little Nell portion of Aspen Mountain. Mr. Hemmeter proposes to replace the existing elevator tower and its extensive system of interconnecting walkways, bridges and stairs with a new, relocated elevator tower and a simplified single bridgeway for safer and more direct access to the house. The new elevator tower and connecting bridgeway are designed to considerably reduce the visual and functional complexity of the vertical system necessary for pedestrian 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303â€¢925â€¢2867 /Al' TIll . &*CUC'=:1./.II.-/I- 121_ 'OFF"rf'i~//#/2//b HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 10 March 1982 Page Two access to the house, as well as creating useable open space between the Durant Condominium buildings. In addition to approval required under the 8040 Greenline review, a similar review and approval is required from the Durant Condominium Association on whose property the existing elevator is located. Although application for both levels of approval were submitted at the same time, the Durant Condominium Association review will necessarily require a longer period of time in order to contact individual owners, etc. In order to contain the entire approval process within a time frame which can reasonably anticipate spring construction, we would like to first complete the 8040 review, with its approval and recommendations condi- tionally subject to approval by the Durant Condominium Association. Although the majority of the new construction (except the elevator entry area) will be located on the Hemmeter property (see sheets 1, 3 & 4), an appropriate Agreement with the Durant Condominium Association will be necessary for the elevator relocation. Final Greenline approval can be made subject to the submission of this document. Along with the elevator construction, the existing jacuzzi and deck, which are the property of the Durant Condominium Association, will be replaced, enlarged and land- scaped by Mr. Hemmeter (see sheet 4). The accompanying drawings indicate both the existing configuration and those proposed for Greenline approval. The drawings are referenced in the following response to the 8040 review criteria set forth in 24-6.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. 1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development. Response: The elevator requires no water and the house has sufficient water pressure. Other utilities required for the elevator currently exist and will be easily relocated to the new elevator site with minimal impact (see sheet 4). All existing and relocated utilities will be underground. 2. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. Response: All related issues in reference to the house were approved and committed to in the initial 8040 approval. The relocation of the HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 10 March 1982 Page Three elevator will not adversely effect roads, snow removal, road main- tenance or fire protection. Previous fire protection requirements as described in the memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning Office, to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission are scheduled for spring installation. 3. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. Response: The new elevator location encroaches on the slope toe above the Durant Condominiums, but the new construction, including retaining walls, curbing and new landscaping, will stabilize any hillside disturbances. This will be done in accordance with the recommendations of a licensed Soils Engineer's analysis and all disturbed areas will be revegetated. The elevator base facilities are recessed into the bank and will stabilize the soil covering and surrounding the building. Retaining walls adjacent to the elevator entry are designed to provide more slope stability than currently exists, and stepped planting areas will enhance both the site appearance and its stability (see sheets 3 & 6). The new evergreen tree buffer area (forest) will provide increased stability on the embankment above the elevator and to the south of the house. 4. The affects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The elevator will have minimal effects on the watershed, runoff and drainage since the majority of the construction is under- ground and adequately waterproofed to provide ground water drainage around the structure. Surface drainage will be rerouted around the tower and over the construction below (see sheets 4 & 8). Soil erosion will be prevented by complete revegetation and retaining walls as described above. The new evergreen trees and related vege- tation will control soil erosion at the top of the embankment. Any and all preventative measures necessary to minimize and arrest erosion related problems incurred during the construction phase will be taken. Construction is anticipated to be completed within a six week period and is scheduled to start after the spring snowmelt. 30.A A .'.. mI Inha HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 10 March 1982 Page Four 5. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide. Response: No affects on air pollution are anticipated by the electrical traction type elevator to be installed. 6. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways, or trails and their compatibility with the terrain. Response: The new elevator will significantly lessen the impact of the existing vertical access system on the site and surrounding area. The visual impact from the neighbors and especially the Durant Condominiums is considerably reduced, especially from the existing jacuzzi deck (see sheets 5 & 7). The existing elevator tower rises directly over the jacuzzi and the connecting bridgeway hangs directly above it. The new elevator plan eliminates these visual obstructions from the Durant Condominium area and will not be visible from town (see sheet 6). The new proposal also simplifies and raises the bridgeway above the skier path, eliminating possible clearance problems. 7. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: The new location of the elevator at the toe of the slope was chosen to create the least amount of disturbance to existing grade and vegetation. The existing vegetation consists primarily of scrub oak. Minimal excavation is planned, with replacement of soil and vegetation above the elevator base facilities. The only visual loss of existing scrub oak vegetation will occur when the tower penetrates the hillside (see sheets 6 & 8), and this will be replaced by evergreen trees. The bank around the entry and jacuzzi will be retained and landscaped as previously described. 8. The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The elevator and support facilities are grouped together for minimal site obstruction. Their placement will preserve and create new valuable open space above and between the Durant Condo- miniums. Most important, the new proposal will visually clear up the area and thus enhance the scenic resource. Also, the new HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 10 March 1982 Page Five vegetation, evergreens and path add to the visual amenity of this particular area of the mountain which is currently characterized by diseased Aspen trees and scrub oak. 9. The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain. Response: The height and bulk of the elevator are at minimal size to providing adequate space for functional and equipment requirements, both vertically and horizontally. The height of the elevator tower is necessary to provide a level, easy access from the upper elevator landing to the house (see sheets 3 & 6). The direct brideway accessalleviatesthe need for stairways, etc. such as currently exists, from hampering access by elderly, handicapped or luggage carriers. The height increase of the elevator will not block any views from the Durant Condominiums or surrounding area not already limited by the house site (see sheet 6). Respectfully submitted, Hagman Yaw A/chitects, Ltd Larry YaW j A. 1 ;A. Princ i pal,~ ~ LY:sd n-t -4. U.: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado 81611 09/ j MEMORANDUM ~ ~' / / -37 -U j J TO:: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department Willard Clapper, Fire Chief FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Christopher Hemmeter - 8040 Greenline DATE: March 16, 1982 Attached is an 8040 Greenline Review application submitted by Christopher Hemmeter for approval for an upgraded access to the Hemmeter House (Lot 14, Block 2 of Anthony Acres Subdivision) above the Durant Condominiums. He also requests review for a landscape plan. April 20, 1982 is the agenda date for this item at City P & Z; therefore I need comments no later than Thursday, April 8. Thank you!!1 L < 801-0 - arcr_ 03- +- 3Â«n 62 Ake, 0-63 0.r,-f~ . 24 -6,2 -flo w - 04hiÂ« _. Â¢444- -Chi 5 54otter- ~ thou i rwl_ L le u odor t.kre,40Â¢Ae, 9,035Â¢0- â‚¬61,~ - alle-$5 2 b(62 oul-Ced < 6 <-5 l.â€¢-,~.1 | .-ffire lites-31= ar(445 t.j , 41 40â‚¬ Cl# i~ C %14 04- --trit cli o Mi k (*4(2?lf < c /to - AVE? 9 LAÂ·FE>5 =#IL( _56- O-01 0(ricd i rlÂ© 1 7 / QUi- 00(143 \15 - Â£10 LO olect_ u.-4 (l (crdc < --3 6~-2< ~ 1 026)55- sect-(-O,-. ag . _ 000 l + olect (po Acil. 4) 62_ 6 49 ~*44 2â€¢ 1 - P i n 39-- ov-- $ #W-. A quu V ~-Â«~ >j ~ fro P maÂ« 8030 9 A 0 (y41__ 0-0- + uÂ«-60 4.- coak_ --* 4 (60Â«for - 7 -/1 b ces - Stock> C -Sc 000 9 - 1--13Â«t--3 cuock_Lk)4{/- 2036 (1) u..) 40 (-,0~ 43Â«5 4 r-r *re - poo I 7 -- emb Oaul - tar- - 91Â·0-4 - no catic- 11 4 - extan Rf- F- Â°{(ff < 94 4 fa- _ Bou- 9 eD 3 1 1~ ,<43 /49 3 1*4. --L i MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Amendment DATE: August 12, 1981 Zoning: R-15 Location: Lot 14, Block 2 of the Anthony Acres Subdivision, on the lower portion of Aspen Mountain above the Durant Condominiums near the top of Galena Street. Lot Size: 78,408 square feet (1.8 acres) Background: On February 10, 1981, you granted 8040 Greenl ine approval to Chris Hemmeter to remodel the Blitz House. The conditions of your approval were as follows: 1. That the applicant install the following fire safety measures: - exterior stairs at both the northeast and southwest ends of the structure to allow access to the fire hydrant on the northeast property line; and - A fire box in the vicinity of the fire hydrant on the northeast property line supplied with one (1) - two and one-half inch (2-1/2") to one and one-half inch (1-1/2") grated wye, 200 feet of one and one-half inch (1-1/2") single jack hose, two (2) - one and one-half inch (1-1/2") adjustable nozzels and one (1) - forceable entry bar. 2. That the applicant mitigate the impacts associated with grading and construction activities through erosion controls and temporary and permanent land- scaping of the site. 3. That the applicant execute any documents deemed necessary by the City Attorney to provide a hold harmless clause for the City with regard to fire protection. Since the time of that approval, the applicant has pre- pared several alternatives which have been discussed informally with the Planning Office. The applicant then made a formal presentation to you at your meeting on July 21, 1981. You determined that the amended building proposal did not meet the criteria of 8040 Greenline Review in that the apparent mass and bulk of the building was excessive, due particularly to the exten- sive decking which was proposed. You therefore denied that amendment. The applicant is now returning with a subsequent amendment to the original approval which is designed to meet your previous objections to the residential remodel. Review Criteria: Section 24-6.2 of the Code establishes nine criteria which an applicant must address in an 8040 Greenline request. These criteria include the following: 1. Existence of sufficient water pressure and other utilities. 2. Existence of adequate roads for fire protection and snow removal. Memo: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Amendment July 14, 1981 Page Two 3. Land suitability as reaards slope and ground stability. 4. Impacts on runoff, erosion and water quality. 5. Effects on air quality. 6. Design quality and compatibility with the terrain. 7. Impact of grading on terrain, vegetation and natural features. 8. Minimization of new cut and grade, preservation of open space and scenic value. 9. Reduction of building height and bulk. During the previous review, as well as during earlier reviews, the issue of fire protection has consistently been a major point of discussion as regards this house. Your previous conditions of approval would appear to have taken care of this concern, as well as those criteria involving erosion and grading. Therefore, the major issues pertaining to the current amendment involve criterion 6 - design quality, and criterion 9 - reduction of building height and bulk. Planning Office The Planning Office has reviewed the applicantts latest Comments: submission and finds that it is a considerable improve- ment upon the previous design you rejected. The major changes which have been made include: 1. The exterior decking has been reduced by approxi- mately 1300 square feet, to a total of 2400 square feet of decks (as compared to 1200 square feet of existing decks and 1600 square feet in the proposal you approved last February). 2. There is a lowering of the roof line, including a 2 1/2 foot vertical lowering over the rear of the building. 3. The exterior treatment of the buildings including new wood siding, lichen rock, sliding glass doors and railings offers relief from the barn-like appearance of the existing residence and "creates an architectural horizontality"' whichwill visually break up and thus reduce the apparent mass of the building. 4. Fire safety has been improved by the addition of on-grade steps and sliding glass doors replacing the non-conforming windows. The Planning Office also feels that you should know that the applicant has submitted a landscaping plan which envisions an extensive program of planting as a visual buffer around the residence and as a means of enhancing the open space character of the mountain and minimizing construction impacts. Finally, the appli- cant has provided drawings depicting the building from the north, east, west and south directions, which will be available at your meeting for your review. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that you approve the Recommendation: amendment to your previous 8040 Greeline review of the Hemmeter residence, and that you let your three existing conditions of approval stand as they are currently written. Â¢ Copland Hagma v Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colo 81611 303 925 2867 13 July 1981 Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hemmeter Residence Renovation (formerly Blitz residence) Dear Alan: In February of this year the Planning and Zoning Commission approved an extensive renovation proposal for the Hemmeter Residence under the 8040 Greenline Review. In addition to conforming to specific technical criteria, the design proposal was approved based on reno- vation measures which reduced the appearant height and bulk of the building, and a landscape plan which further softened the visual appearance of the building from both the town and ski slope viewpoints. Subsequent to the approval our firm completed design development and cost analysis for the project and have determined with Mr. Hemmeter that the costs involved in the extensive nature of this renovation were in excess of the benefits which would be derived by the Hemmeter family. Therefore, while conforming to both the design intent and specifics of the Greenline approval, we are going to reduce the scope of the project to a level of manageable economics. In addition to utilizing the existing building envelope and floor plans as the basis for interior modifications, the subgrade addition will be significantly reduced as will the exterior deck area above it. The renovation measures affecting the exterior appearance will be in accordance with the enclosed architectural drawings as follows: Copland Hagm iw Ltd Architects Letter to Mr. Alan Richman 13 July 1981 Page Two a. The building will receive new wood siding on all exterior surfaces. b. New decks will be extended from the existing ones around the North and West building elevations. In addition to providing upgraded fire egress and fire fighting access, the decks create an archi- tectural horizontality which will visually break up and thus reduce the appearant building mass. c. The roof over the North elevation (town face) will be extended 10 feet to protect the deck and to break up the severe building mass that currently exists. For similar reasons, a 7 foot roof extension is planned to the South over the master bedroom. The existing roof height will not increase as a result of this renovation. d. Sliding glass doors will replace non-conforming windows in all occupied spaces such as bedrooms, for purposes of providing up- graded fire egress. All design changes to the building have been carefully evolved to remain in conformance with the approved criteria in the February Greenline review. Although this letter and the attached architectural drawings are transmitted to the Planning Office to keep your staff current on development aspects of the project, we would appreciate your review and comments prior to initiating further architectural work. Very truly yours, Ha~an Yaw Arc:t,i tects ~td Lar,7 Yaw, Â¥\. 1. A~. Principal , J t LY:sd Enclosures LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN MI TELEPHONE 92 S-2601 - August 12, 1981 8. LEE SCHUMACHER Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hemmeter -- 8040 Amendment Dear Commission Members: You will recall you approved Mr. Hemmeter's then plan some months ago for the remodel of the Blitz barn-like dwelling on Aspen Mountain; and that a subsequent revision to the plan was defeated several weeks ago. The architects have now revised the design substantially to ameliorate the concerns you expressed at your July 21 meeting, such as substantially reducing structural decks, and the like. Mr. Hemmeter is anxious to proceed with some remodel to improve the building this year and hence this is probably our final opportunity to convince you that this design is substantially better than the existing building. I should add, in case there remains any confusion, that the choice is not between the current design and the design you approved several months ago. That earlier design is not going to be built, and hence that limits our choices. As the letter in your package of the architectural firm indicates, the deck area has been reduced approximately 1,300 square feet from the proposal that was denied on July 21; the total gross square footage of this proposal is less than the total gross square footage of the previously approved proposal; and aesthetically it should result in a more attractive building than presently exists. Mr. Hemmeter and his architects believe the modified design meets all of the 8040 review criteria set forth in paragraph 24-6.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. The same conditions .. * .~- AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Planning and Zoning Commission August 12, 1981 Page 2 of the prior approval, namely certain fire safety conditions and the landscaping condition remain acceptable to Mr. Hemmeter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, AUSTIN, MeGRATH & JORDAN By k.41 AA'C~.1 J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMjr/dw Copland Hagmai , Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colo 31611 303 925 2867 10 August 1981 Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Planner City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hemmeter Residence Renoivation (formerly Blitz Residence) Dea r Alan: / < In February of this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved ~~ an extensive renovation proposal for the Hemmeter Residence under the 8040 Greenline Review. In addition to conforming to specific technical r.,14* 10'V criteria, the design proposal was approved based on renovation measures which reduced the apparent height and bulk of the building, and a landscape plan which further softened the visual appearance of the building from both the town and ski slope viewpoints. Subsequent to the approval our firm completed design development and cost analysis for the project and have determined with Mr. Hemmeter that the costs involved in the extensive nature of this renovation were in excess of the benefits which would be derived by the Hemmeter family. On 21 July, a proposal was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission which was denied based on the apparent size of the building, primarily as a function of exterior decks. While con forming to both the design intent and specifics of the initial Greenline approval, and in conformance with the reduced renovation budget, we have completed architectural drawings which address and reconcile the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission and reg uest an amended Greenline approval on this basis. With the objective of enhancing the exterior appearance of the building, we are enclosing architectural drawings which incorporate the following design and renovation measures: a. The building will receive new exterior surfaces on all elevations. The upper level will be new wood siding, while the lower levels will be primarily of stone facing. b. The roof over the Master Bedroom addition has been lowered by approximately U vertical feet as a result of this extension. Copland Hagm w Ltd Architects Letter to Alan Richman 10 August 1 981 Page Two c. The existing railings on the intermediate and upper levels will be removed to reduce exterior deck area and so that no decks visually connect to create a false perception of building mass. d. To further reduce the apparent building mass of the North (Town facing elevation), a small ( 4 foot wide) deck has been extended from the building envelope at the upper level. Similarly, a roof extension is planned to protect the deck which is also designed for use as a means of fire egress. The material on the building face below the deck has been changed to lichen rock to create a visual relationship with the natural site elements, thus further reducing the apparent scale of the facade. e. The only remaining exterior deck on the West elevation has been reduced in width by 2 feet, but lengthened to provide fire egress from adjacent bedroom spaces. f. The total deck area of this proposal is approximately 1,300 s.f. less than the proposal denied on 21 July 1 981. g. Including a second level subgrade addition, the total gross square footage of this proposal is less than the gross square footage of the building design previously approved by Greenline review. h. On grade steps have been provided on the North as requested by Mr. Willard Clapper (Fire Marshall) for fire fighting access. i. Sliding glass doors will replace all non-conforming egress windows in bedrooms and other occupied spaces. While the budget simply does not permit a renovation of magnitude that was previously approved, we feel this proposal represents a vast improve- ment over the existing structure in terms of both occupant safety and as an element of the Aspen city-scape and on that basis request an ammended Greenline approval. Please call if I can clarify any issues to the Planning Office prior to the Planning and Zoning meeting. Very truly yours. Hagman Yaw Architects, Ltd 4 4,41 Larry Ya~ A.~.A. Principal \~ j LY: Im . - .4... 1 LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI 600 EAST HOPKtNS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, (OLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. A=EA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN III TELEPHONE 925-2601 August 12, 1981 B. LEE SCHUMACHER Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hemmeter -- 8040 Amendment Dear Commission Members: You will recall you approved Mr. Hemmeter's then plan some months ago for the remodel of the Blitz barn-like dwelling on Aspen Mountain; and that a subsequent revision to the plan was defeated several weeks ago. The architects have now revised the design substantially to ameliorate the concerns you expressed at your July 21 meeting, such as substantially reducing structural decks, and the like. Mr. Hemmeter is anxious to proceed with some remodel to improve the building this year and hence this is probably our final opportunity to convince you that this design is substantially better than the existing building. I should add, in case there remains any confusion, that the choice is not between the current design and the design you approved several months ago. That earlier design is not going to be built, and hence that limits our choices. As the letter in your package of the architectural firm indicates, the deck area has been reduced approximately 1,300 square feet from the proposal that was denied on July 21; the total gross square footage of this proposal is less than the total gross square footage of the previously approved proposal; and aesthetically it should result in a more attractive building than presently exists. Mr. Hemmeter and his architects believe the modified design meets all of the 8040 review criteria set forth in paragraph 24-6.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. The same conditions . AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI Planning and Zoning Commission August 12, 1981 Page 2 of the prior approval, namely certain fire safety conditions and the landscaping condition remain acceptable to Mr. Hemmeter. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, AUSTIN, MeGRATH & JORDAN COPY SIGNED ORIGINAL j NICHOL.AS MC GRATH JR. By J. Nicholas MeGrath, Jr. JNMjr/dw r / /,~\\\ / Â»5'111;Pl.%~ *14 \\ 1 -1:1 11.:lilli - % M 11! ,~1,Â£ / t.41'N ':1 Cir, 76---- - --1 . . 1.11111." / / -4,1 11,11.. #44 $':1'tilt:.1" 1L1TurnÂ»- Ni i 1 /4: lilliÂ·' /5,4/ 111 1*nbr\,4 .r. 2. 1.,il!'/ 1 I Â·' 11Â· Â·9~ 140 .4. "h, 9,1 I rid %-1-Â»~~--3-.*7'"-C-~. ~411, ~~A'- A\ 0-; 1 T fl: bil Ral 1 . 1.Iii M : ER t , 4,1 K.U' 19:.L_ 1.21 1 1' 2-3 !1 i: ..,0 . il.''W N mi-4 1pit!'4' 24~ ..El n ' 1 11!i "1:.. :11 'liI 41 : . 7 7 1 1 16 Mill; 1 11 1 1 11 '1 11 .i 0400 4 13l-6 Unt-. 21-l d n['4 1 1 1! A 1:1 '7 1-Â·p-1*; !, fl- 11 1 1 1, 1- :. 1 + L. L, L.: .-1 - iL . i u. . 1- _ 1 1. L u 11 u ELEJ'I '/'1'~'~i~'i~+1'~it 'll' 7f :,! '411.:1 : ; it IR ' ii Â·i'r ': !,1:1~,111;,1:,19,U-K"9 :'.p y '~ 11111 K 1# ' 1.-Z..:Â£ bÂ·,::FUL itijil,Yi;~'t:~1~-'f:-IniiI!fi-2',6,1144Ut:28 E Â· , ...3 r,11, 4, b.4.1/1/.4 M .: J Â» ' 41.. : =a*sh-5.ifiia l{ Eni'He 411- 9.-45 31 [il Ifitt~9-i{ 11- I t ~ : i Lf ; 1 ; 6 41111 p i iit * iti jim * fi l l i g fi:- 101 ;i' b-Â·t : 1 .'14. 4 14,1 02!! ' 2,2321}fil:il;.itilfil,Knw 2:,f...:.Ii:Litii[,0. 4.-4. :,-,Â·id, :31Â·Â·;.. Ii:,4:i, :-i,IÂ·,:rdbi. i:: Jpi!.1, -; ~il Â·~-- , , 1,!1., 1,1-1,1.61 17!, ':11111:1:1;111,1.1 ;Â·11'111.11:Â·Â·''Ii,~'â€¢'i'~ t'I;ili.lrl"I'!411'IiÂ·I,Ii'.11,~Â·9.111_16Â·.1.11;:., .- ~ ~11,11, 1.lit- Il : 1 1 1.TI- i 1~-ir --111-1-.-T -7-9--1- f--i- -p~ 3-~I 649 40Pf- '1 1: A 11 4 :i iiI 1 â€ž4,* i d-1-" ;L]-54* 321 4-- lili: ;1 .,4 1,1 :1 1 H , U 2 I! 1~ 1 I ll i 1 lilli l !! -t''t-1 3_1].LUJU-]1111 DELY.fELLUEL MUL.1 22 -4*-& UU--U=.-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ lilli 1./41 lili '. 1 1 1 4 1 1'11 ' /' L: i 3 137. ' Â·Â· r Â·.7 -1 U 1 V.1 *PIrÂ·h.,L-J'' 40,Â·i,i ''lf'-i "4~r'4,411''Sl[I. EM P '1 L- -- 40 04< a - ~1 L_ i Â»01-40 </4.-; ~-7 - LJ-J in . 9Â¥2-0 Fo CO=4=> 1,2 />ft, il'Joi.#/ 1 4 I 11 d / Ii -CU::2:fr' 11 3400-miht, i 1 1 i '[rhh \ , Oh + , i | i I i', t*>h '4%*ir,if * di, h I i i 1 11 f ~1,~ 12% \% : i I i j 1 1 111! 'Â·14 1 i 1 I I I + 1 0 /,rpl \ , 1 i- *Emin---- Ii" I i 11 7-374 1 1 r : . .13 -23 ..,1 1 1 111! 1.: iN 1 1! : 11, 11 1 1 1 .b ' .11 f , 1 1 IIi 1 1 2 . f 1 " iÂ·p ._-.7 Iii i 11 1 4 -.:7'-9-- .' 1 2; 0 1 H iL--1, .,i tf H 9 i:' lili .iti : i 1 i i Â® ' 'i-~1~: i - ~' 4 It 11 H ; III 4,1 ' 'R, IIi.1 1 1 Â· iii: , 1 ,!1 1 -7'rT-Â¢74 i 11!Ii 1,1 1 h miml '14,47 U 4 . M 1 1 'i Ii~~ , 11 ' 1 !: 11 It . 4 â€¢' f 1, 1Â· Iii 1 1 21 1 1 1 !1 1 1 1 1 11 11 lili 11 1 . ; .r-â€žr ......â€ž.'.+- i 1 ' ' 1 1 1,11,1 1 1! ' 2 1 1 1 i i i 1 1 K U 1 5 L 011111/ i.ililill iii 62 .i ' iii i ' 1 2 1 1 Â£ i! I 1 , i -11; 4 3 1!1 1, , 11 .1 1 1111 Ii , : i! 1 1 1 1 .1 Â¢ 1 - 1 -2-,% 11 --, 1 -7-Â·-Â· 03 .7 - '- 1-- R li C O -2- U k ti N 3239: er, 90 4 , 24\ 1 fÂ·) Â»rÂ«> 1\l'r f *, 2 24\/ Â·5''i 9 1/IN , h (9 2,7 1, id'r Â£ y - <?Al N 'Fl' 1 / i ,- - -.-, '44 ,/ 1 .7// h.â‚¬4~ --\ .fell AN fr =41=Jac- --- -==.,-- ..=-i=~ - - + -2,1 b .4 / \ _ . It 1 !4 ~.4 7: 1 <\ / - I.* I - 1 N / 1 .- \ .%* /.91... fu . - - i 11/r , 0 - -1.. 1 V.: A 1 1 1 \\ T (3 1 1 , I \ <f .1 - - 1.4 > \\.~ ~ -gil - L-- *=1#te--ZZ> r.--- Irj '.A--4-- -1 -- -222.~<~~-Â«7'~' 4- -143 XU----. .% .N HEMMETER REMODEL view from N -E-4<47- %1 41 t-&_ B VI 9 + 1 -1 -10 - 9 1 9,9 -4)4)(10/) 42 -n 14 July 1981 ,1 JUL 14 1981 1 ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hemmeter Residence Renovation (Formerly Blitz Residence) Original New Existing Residence Proposal Proposal Interior Level One 2018 sq ft Level Two 2021 sq ft Addition of 1035 sq ft Level Three 2065 sq ft Addition of 90 sq ft Total 6104 sq ft 7725 Sq ft 7230 sq ft Exterior Deck Level One 250 sq ft Addition of 460 sq ft Level Two 300 sq ft Addition of 975 sq ft Level Three 650 sq ft Addition of 1035 sq ft Total 1200 sq ft 1600 sq ft 2500 sq ft TOTAL with decks 7304 sq ft 10325 sq ft 9730 sq ft MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Review (Blitz House Remodel) DATE: February 5, 1981 Zoning: R-15 Location: Lot 14, Block 2 of the Anthony Acres Subdivision, adjacent to lower Aspen Mountain above the Durant Condominiums near the top of Galena Street. Lot Size: 78,408 square feet (1.8 acres) Applicant The applicant is requesting an 8040 Greenline Review to per- Request: mit remodel of the Blitz House, which the applicant has recently contracted to purchase. Under provisions of Section 24-6.2 of the Code, nine criteria must be addressed by the applicant and considered by P&Zin reviewing the develop- ment. These nine criteria are briefly identified for your information: 1. Existence of sufficient water pressure and other utilities. 2. Existence of adequate roads for fire protection and snow removal. 3. Land suitability as regards slope and ground stability. 4. Impacts on runoff, erosion and water quality. 5. Effects on air quality. 6. Design quality and compatibility with the terrain. 7. Impact of grading on terrain, vegetation and natural features. 8. Minimization of new cut and grade, preservation of open space and scenic value. 9. Reduction of building height and bulk. History: The subject property and house have twice previously under- gone 8040 Greenline Review and received approval. The property was condominiumized in April, 1979, at which time an issue was raised by City Council regarding the City's ability to provide fire access. The approval of the condo- miniumization was conditioned upon the granting by the appli- cant of a hold harmless clause for the City concerning fire liability. The minutes of this City Council meeting have been attached for your review. Attorney's The Acting City Attorney states that the application addresses Comments: the ordinance in specificity and recommends no conditions upon the approval of the application. Engineering The Engineering Department, following a meeting with Department's Willard Clapper, Fire Chief of the Aspen Fire Department, Comments: recommends that the application for 8040 Greenline Review be approved with the condition that the following fire safety measures be installed: 1. Exterior stairs at both the northeast and southwest ends of the structure to allow access to the fire hydrant on the northeast property line. Memo: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Review February 5, 198 Page Two 2. A fire box in the vicinity of the fire hydrant on the northeast property line, supplied with the following equipment: a. One (1) - Two and a half (24) to one and a half (14) inch grated wye. b. 200 feet of one and a half inch ( 14") single jack hose. c. Two (2) - One and a half inch (Pill) adjustable nozzels. d. One (1) - forceable entry bar. The Engineering Department also makes the comment that the Hold Harmless clause obtained by the City with regard to fire, discussed above, should be made a covenant on the property so that all future owners are made aware of the deficiency in access for fire protection. Verbal contact with the attorney for the applicant indicates that this clause has already been recorded by the owner of the Blitz house. Planning In reviewing the applicant's request, the Planning Office Office has determined that the proposed remodel meets the purposes and Review: intent of Section 24-6.2 of the Code. The remodeled struc- ture should lessen the visual impact of the building, par- ticularly in terms of the height and slope of the roof, since the proposed roof height will be 1.2 feet lower (at its highest point) than the present structure. There is some reason for concern that the bulk of the building will increase. However, since 996 square feet of the 1621 square foot expan- sion will be an underground exercise room off the second floor, the expansion should not affect the open character of the mountain to any great degree. Design features also tend to reduce the apparent height and bulk of the building. The Planning Office would recommend, though, that the applicant take all steps to minimize the grading associated with the remodeling, including temporary mitigation measures to include erosion control devices and temporary landscaping. The applicant should also provide permanent landscaping of the property to replace, at a minimum, any vegetation dis- turbed during construction. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that P&Z approve the appli- Recommendation: cant's request for 8040 Greenline Review for the purpose of remodeling the Blitz house, subject to the following condi- tions: 1. Installation of the fire safety measures described in the Engineering Department's memo dated February 4, 1981, attached for your review. 2. Mitigation, by the applicant, of the impacts associated with grading and construction activities. Said measures should include erosion controls and temporary and perma- nent landscaping of the site. 5 0 14 e A ge\,Â£Aâ€¢.3. 0,1, â‚¬#1*7 11-1 & 9 Â¢ V - e _3 1/el-'t accer'AAY 6 -1 601Â« (243 441 --9.~*.-7 46 Q,Qv,4 e.-4--7 ,-Ll Al (trS E.& 9.-1- C,Agre L-,1 A wil- A L ollÂ· l,a. A--lr~:5 c C A q V ,- o 4 d\-* c 11 w * 'fl At) A ''Li 1 0 r i N . C *% L 1 A A 11 b. As 1 , ve. li/1 :~ A O . 9 3 Copland Hagma v Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colo 81611 303 925 2867 E--3;~5: '2'.4'.1.~:.~ 49 Â£ 26 February 1981 2 FEB 2 881 ASPEN / 2, : .r: N C..1 9 4 V Â·243'. 0 2 Mr. Alan Richman 4-Â·P .Â·. t,JÂ·.4 ,, Assistant Planner 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hemmeter Residence (Formerly Blitz Residence) - Dear Alan: Thank you for taking time to discuss the roof height as it relates to the rennovation requirements of the new upper level. As per our discussion and your administrative approval thereof, the overall roof height will be raised approximately 1.2 ft., not to exceed the roof height of the existing structure. This will only cause the roof height on the north end of the building to be at the height of the existing roof, as other portions of the new roof design are configured to be lower. Because of the hipped nature of the roof which faces the view from town, it will appear to be significantly lower than does the vertical gable end of north elevation as it presently exists. For informational purposes, we will continue to keep you apprised of design progress. It is our intention to submit working drawings for building permit on 3 April. Very truly yours, Hagman Yaw Architects. Ltd C MAll tp) La rjpy Ya,~ A I A~ CC: Chris Hemmeter Nick McGrath Herb Lawton Hand Delivered LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN In February 12, 1981 TELEPHONE 925-2601 8. LEE SCHUMACHER 0-1{;-21 (KIE-=NOOF,EOCA D 1 J d,Â·, 1 1 ..,-,i k.; fj t , t : 1 ,f , tr; i .1 i 1/.. t :Â·I lif -0 -- ----Â· NP Mr. Alan Richman O 21 H FEB 1 1981 i ~ Aspen/Pitkin ASPEN ./ PITK'Al r Planning Office PLANN:;t 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Christopher B. Hemmeter Dear Alan: I enclose a copy of the hold harmless agreement protecting the city with regard to fire access at the Blitz, now Hemmeter, house. As you will see from the agreement, and as Bob can tell you, it fully binds Chris Hemmeter and hence it is my assumption that further documentation would not be necessary on this issue. Sincerely, AUSTIN, MeGRATH & JORDAN By PJA, 11' 5-EL J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMjr/dw Enclosure CC: Robert B. Edmondson, Esq. w/enc. Gideon I. Kaufman, Esq. Mr. Jack Miller fs -rl.L, .ra L Yo'Ar k.4 $ (40 "11 4,4.-t F-61â‚¬. : 4., . r. , C.., r f-:1 *P. Â·#2 4 0 i # IckE~~*-f~'99~{fte~*~i~7 Â·~ti,j~ 2'2:.t..:~Â·._~,i. 4 ki.. . I.f., I./.fi-1 I l E I.*F,*11 "1///277.42. ~ w -â€¢*2' ' '47,0, dril w7 It '71; f :ir.' , 1 ....1-4 .. - 1.71$ . :.Â· ...4167 ~ ~Â·OMM!,i..,~~r Â·Â·. 45/DI2.-4't,Â¢64,1,- A .t~S 6. aw~Â·f,e 4~Â· a,%.... .,/ 4. ... &,19%=%66*t- Â·Â·Â£>:, "40&44/4/*.In/6*0Â·:Areteb~~gB~* 1,1 2-4*+L ~ j~54'%*ar:.. ~4 - . 7Â·N ~25~<//WY,/S#Moqit . 4 , â€¢ 9 V'. tr. . 1 4.16 9/raf Â£ ...... .' lili. , b , tr.â€ž . ~ J . .. . 1~~RrÂ·::,~Â·,1,,iT ~,~ -.*i'tÂ·Ek....1 . ..0.i:*0~EÂ¢,16*4 6,Â· 1 11 ' ' 2 /'e 51/,.4 : . 1. " '4 4â€¢ .Â·t - Â· Â· Â·Ir Â· 7Â·i.~ .;47 Â·~ ~Â· -~ 5 '- I . r. 1 1 f , 448*44 . il Â·: Â·.I'~3' 1.1 %4 ,~ ' [ ,Â¢11.1 . t-- ,Â£1~Â·- "'' ' t '~~A~~;r~ . r *,6 1 " I ' :tÂ¢.1 .4. 1 - 'r!.: -t~,-C..11-: ..1. . 1 -' 1, ..14 AL. . ..>ie W.Â· 0+99Â·:'Â·it'Â¢ -: I .: 1.4 Â». . ..2,/ M," 3 Â·. J t,14.1 gl ~1 W L ..r@ 6 4 . .Â·c.+Prriel..,Al *lur/Mt#44.'74ki48& P:2#46#.24<~t#%.Â·1,v~yii,â‚¬*00+Bqral/* g. IG.997/ 4* . I â‚¬ T.3, Un 29,1 *1 9,4 472410 "23*W w 0 1%.2/ /* 2 Â· - ' 47'Â·4'.' 6-,Â· Â·'Â·' 42 .4.::,Câ‚¬t?.t' ~..pb.~.-ip,le . f kiÂ·*râ‚¬9-â€¢9) Â·- 0 b.1 :- Ma:.44;....f ft . 1,29 :':fIf Â·g 'i# Ff-ftsÂ·- filtÂ·. E.>&'1#*9Â·. 5~ 1 - f.;,?AN 3, R m 4.-fiii.Â·93~jÂ·.'....,, 45>Â· 1 ..:0 41Â· : 1114%,1 8 $ ..... , , Mr , ..,3.98: .lant 4 I ... ..... ..:'.3 <- -Â· 'c": '1 '40 ;~2..3.*' Â· Â·Â·-rlÂ·Â·'fit}4 * ~ 5.Ii*(i?REE:ir il. Â«:; ,Â·..=...::, *%Â· Â·Â·. i., * 4 B 3 =P 1 L. ..'93.1 , I. M m '... , 5 2Â·19% :- ; Di 2/. M , h. 1 -Â·.." 5 *flk,-i: i f - . f . It.F *rfia ty Â» .. f v' II *I ~ W H '. 4 0 . 2- W n * 94-~ 7:'-Â·<:4'. Â· SG 0 '1 464 Â· 5 Â«., W . ...2, 5 1 . tifj i ,/1 . -1 i : A g- I *: t, 1 : 1. i. 0 M 10- 3 ir, , 2 . 0:\ 0- 24 7% i : 5 8- r Â·' it 1 = 99 u o ' 7~ * 11 4 â€¢D o m 7 Q A 2 0% 1 4'lib - /4 : i O + M.. 0 4 R 1 n \ m , 0 -h- 11 .1. \ ' r, -p.04' 7 HYÂ· ,4 n ... 1 0 IK . 1 M 'll . 56-ki\Â¥ .,g 4 BE<.5/0. a 10 4 0 C BIO r e : = C m rt â€¢ .c K 1 U'\ c 6; N'k 7,1, .r , ft * 9*bglzE#% r. cr i i R : 1 N A N A L <392#,1.2 O ft 1 \ : 1 \ 1 \ a 34.BAR , lif 1 1 3,9 :#.1.0: 0 r. 61Â« . 0 1 1 1124% 1 \ 0.90 Fne t- -1. Hifili- e i *K.*t L y,0 0 r.1 n , : I a O + 4; - r ; 3 8 4 " 5 0 M.nnu y M. A. O - 11 Y Â· .. L j ;.4~1.~97.Y * L, 41 4 5 1 $; ~ Uir 43.id'Yi:.~ I . n I - 1 r & 'ta~ .:CÂ· I | | 3*.1 Â· P ?~ -: r. *44...4~ 0 - ,â€¢41 Â· ' 1/1.4 1 el! 1. .Wh. .2, 9 - ~1 -F .Â·.t"' 4 1 .._ 2 |. .:~1*'.'r.f u '|. f ~.- 7 0 , . . , , ./.- I , leT,13;0 Pu 'Zâ‚¬67 'ZI Ja Â£*44....1 ,.W ~ 0 , .I - 2 heÂ·.!(:Â£0*4,. & , .41 ' 4 . 1.49-6 4?.C ,. 4.~ ,/*BL. . t.... V., , , a. 4 , Â·23.49Â£'-2097/C, -1 .' Wa WiÂ¥ A :Â·â€¢â€¢.'-i' 4'1 ... /'.â€ž . , :t-Â·1 ' .Â· Di 01.'Â·:,~449, .., I I ' J. _ ,..'â€¢ a. 1.. '-./ : .....' 6/ â€¢ ~kbl ' 1*'-I-I l ' e 2 -1 ,..4 .1' 4.. 7.f. i 0 2 4. 4,/''A :4<* 43 I . g l -- 60Â£ M: 9% '32 Â¤ '<Es? .8 -3 f 0 1 1 /7 -4 , 6-4,7 53.3 Ld.0, Â· Â·Â·Â· 1 . Q 1 4 1 1 .-I ./ D 2 0 C m : '1 /, F, 4 11 11 -4 7 4 '. 34-" ?49 M C 2Â· t A ,Â·4 -4 40, 1#44 '. i. 2 '4 - C, 1, â€¢. C :Â· J C: + 2.7 - - 1Â· i. r ' u -43 .21 4, A 2 O O I - 1.1 1. li C. 0 1 C. I , "t] U O 4 k-U 3 -32 IN .2 r P WL-00-1 ~ . , SE:REM , --2 2,0 2 -*, Â° A i 0 42 - 4 ..1 Â¢ C 4 n; re A : tz E: U .0 .C X O Â¢11 Z 0 ... -5 2 .:'9:6~;, t-1 :11 < 4 . o Co- 044 CK.0 A *Wr,Â° 3.2 4 = ...1. 421 ./ .4 = 8 14 4 -1 , m 12 3 2 8 4 : 8 1 p , j ..1 C Â·: C k Â·~ . M;19 1,1 4 , .'Ii.:.f. ~ A %' a -''g b A m. . I !â‚¬%9 WKE.2% 1% 3 t.,.. 2 1 2-:. G .1 .... . . 1 - .3,0 -2'' c: 5 2 6 1 3 7 3 j 1 -5 N Z .* 21- - f*Â·. --.A013 4 '.4 4 '. .,4 ., tl: 0, .a I V.< . :1, &:1 Jt : : 1 A E . .1./: 49 a..Al ' 54, 2. f NE,EA '111.81 - :a. O f. pÂ·< 3 ~ :. 11 . ..'' . Â· r . . 39853- . 0 -6 , 1. r . 1 . .11 1 - 1 .. . 1 f '' ' Â·Â·Â· a "12Â·4 I. 1 I . .7 ... ..â‚¬4 -4 1 -1, . I. , 1 1 - ..h~.1,2:?"Â· .r.RÂ·, 4;KI VI~IÂ¢9*:M ...PLQ~WI:C;â€ž~ ea.~ ., : .- ~I 2*.*'24 .11 ..,.21,1.92-:9.Â·'tÂ·4.12,04,4,4 h.1 ''' 46 -'1 t.,r : Al... r. '.Al. i 1 f..Â·â€¢41. ,Â·*.I':<A.1 . 1 1., .7,1 - , : .10 ,..6~9!92413.1 4 2, 16 1 .1 4 ..!-: e I. 4 '~~i.'A'*11{,v-lÂ·.*.' ' ' 0*f , 4 ..- ..m?04,3 . 1. .' 'E I KÂ¥, ?Iyj:?,k...4 1.1Â·,11.'-Â· ' . * , 42 4 Â·'...g- .-i . l 'Uk 20 1.7.-y'.-I'l-".gile'...0-I.-Il' 4- /14/HY~(R*/ 18;001: . 2.;43*P~kin 1 14% i t . 1 11* *r )*MT .-' Â·~*-Â·*43*#Al{..' f 4 4 4 Â·44.-41' Â· lik'~ ' 3,1 '81 22..q.:0 -'03 7,4,4.- 4; , '1;.39 1.4 :40Â·', OtÂ·'*=:-j:co '6Â·,1.:10.5 1.'1 Â·(}r 41 30 Col â€¢[ ied '0 10 I-3 LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN MI - January 15, 1981 TELEPHONE 925-2601 B. LEE SCHUMACHER LI 0 1 1 :..: fi:L; :.i'j.? fle!.7/!1 0,1 f ,~ ~ f~. -2 -'122-112'1 ; ~ ~ 11111 Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office -li~t JAN 1 6 1981 4LN 130 S. Galena ASPEN / PITKIN CO. Aspen, CO 81611 i. piA .. . -AINING OFACE,/' Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Christopher B. Hemmeter - Application for 8040 review Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Christopher B. Hemmeter, who has contracted to buy the Blitz house adjacent to lower Aspen Mountain above the Durant Condominiums. Mr. Hemmeter proposes to remodel the house. His architect, Jack Miller and Associates, has redesigned the exterior to lessen the visual impacts of the house in many significant respects, and thus we believe the remodel will be attractive to you. The proposed remodel can be described in general terms as follows. It involves no additional bedrooms, and no additional fireplaces. It will be in virtually the same footprint and same building envelope as the existing building. The height is slightly below that of the existing building. There will be a significant change in the roof line. The high gabled roof will be changed to a hipped roof that slopes back and into the mountain from the viewpoints of the town. A drawing is attached showing the proposed exterior remodel to further illustrate the lessening of visual impacts, and we hope to demonstrate that to you in better fashion at the hearing with some photographs of the existing house supple- mented by drawings of the proposed remodel. AUSTINI McGRA-1-H & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Cor[Imission January 15, 1981 Page 2 The foundation of the house except for an underground exercise room on the second floor, lies almost entirely below the 8040 line (we are here for this review because the regulation, as you know, requires review if the development is within 50 yards of the 8040 line). While it may not be entirely relevant from the standpoint of 8040 review, the aesthetic changes of the exterior we believe will also assist in reducing visual impacts by the elimination of the strong vertical emphasis in the existing building by structure (steel beams) and by the barn wood exterior vertically applied. Instead, a combination of landscaping, stone, and horizontally applied wood will lessen the present emphasis on the vertical. Again, we will show that better to you at the hearing by illustrations. The house and property have twice before received 8040 approval, the second time by administration determination without a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We believe that would be appropriate. On the other hand Sunny prefers that we present the matter to you. In any event, the 8040 review criteria are set forth in 24-6.2 (b) of the Aspen City Code. Most of these, as you will see are inapplicable because a building currently exists on the site, and many of the criteria are aimed at the initial development only. The criteria and our responses are as follows: "1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development." Response. There currently exists sufficient water pressure at the house and has since the house was originally built and inhabited. Since the house was built the City has completed a new water tank on Aspen Mountain. Other utilities are fully delivered to the site. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 3 "2. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance." Response. All of these matters were resolved upon the prior review. The existing access has not impeded occupation of the house and snow removal, and there is no actual road maintenance involved. In addition, after building the house the prior owner installed a fire hydrant just above the house within approximately 38 feet of the house. There is a standard fire hose at the house to be connected to that hydrant. "3. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers." Response. All of these matters were resolved upon the prior construction. Mr. Hemmeter's remodel will not involve redoing the foundations, with the exception of an underground exercise area, and hence these concerns have already been addressed by the existence of the residence now. "4. The effects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequence on water pollution." Response. Again, all of these concerns were addressed when the house was initially built. To the extent that additional grading will be involved in the remodel, Mr. Hemmeter is willing to take any reasonable steps to mitigate any possible problems including use of hay bales, interim landscaping during the construction phase, and permanent landscaping thereafter. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 4 "5. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city-wide." Response. Mr. Hemmeter plans no additional fireplaces and thus no additional impact at all on air quality. "6. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways or their trails and their compatibility with the terrain." Response. These standards were addressed when the original building was built. To the extent that design is involved, we have already described Mr. Hemmeter's belief that the new design will in fact mitigate and lessen the impacts of the existing building. We will present additional information as to this issue with regard to design at the hearing. We are not proposing any change in location of the structure. "7. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to terrain, vegetation and the natural land features." Response. There will be a necessity to grade on the mountain side of the building with regard to a proposed underground exercise room, which we will show you at the hearing. Again, Mr. Hemmeter will take all reasonable steps to do that in a manner that mitigates any adverse effects. There is no significant vegetation, trees or the like in the area directly adjacent to the house where grading will occur and it is Mr. Hemmeter's plan to provide substantial per- manent landscaping when his remodel is completed. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 5 "8. The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource." Response. The placement of the structure is already dictated to us since it is in place. Mr. Hemmeter believes that the remodel, es- pecially as to exterior features, will help mitigate the impact upon the mountain as a scenic resource. "9. The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain." Response. Our responses above seem applicable here, namely that it has been a primary design purpose employed by Mr. Hemmeter's architects to lessen and minimize the impacts of the existing dwelling by ex- terior remodel changes in order to minimize the effects upon the open character of the mountain. The height of the remodel is within and slightly less than the height and bulk of the existing structure, with the sole exception of the exercise room that is underground off the second floor. We should add that the zoning of the property on which the building is located is R-15. The size of the over- all property is approximately 1.8 acres. Section 24-6.6 suggests there are various conditions that you might consider for approval. Most of those, with the exception of the provision for "minimizing any adverse impact, " involve a new project. For example, one is to "control the sequence of development," but obviously the building exists in place, and remodel ought to be accomplished in as short a period of time as possible. We do believe that mitigating impacts by landscaping is something that Mr. Hemmeter will do whether or not it is required, but you might wish to consider that. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 6 Mr. Hemmeter and his architects believe that the remodel will significantly improve the appearance of the house, considering that there are some who believe the existing building not to be quite as attractive as it could be. We hope you will grant favorable approval for this remodel. We have provided copies of the building plans to the staff and the Engineering Department and we will have copies for your review at the hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By k),dt. Al f G<.14- J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMj r/dw Enclosure MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Richman, Planning Office FROM: Fritz Bruggemeier, Engineering Department DATE: February 4, 1981 RE: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Review After conferring with Willard Clapper, Fire Chief for the Aspen Fire Department, he and the Engineering Department feel the following comments should be considered as possible requirements for 8040 Greenline approval for the above applicant. The applicant should be required to supply the following items due to the deficiency in access for fire protection. 1. Exterior stairs at both the northeast and southwest ends of the structure to allow access to the fire hydrant on the northeast property line. 2. A fire box in the vicinity of the fire hydrant on the northeast property line, supplied with the following equipment: a) One (1) - Two and a half (24) to one and a half (14) inch gated wye. b) 200 feet of one and a half inch (14") single jack hose. c) Two (2) - One and a half inch (14") adjustable nozzels. d) One (1) - forceable entry bar. The Engineering Department also feel that the Hold Harmless Clause to the City with regards to fire, which was a condition placed only upon the Blitz Subdivision Exemption by City Coun- cil's approval on April 23, 1979 (minutes attached), should be made a covenant on the property, so all future owners are made aware of the deficiency in access for fire protection. I Councilwoman Ancerson moved to give conaltional approval; seconded Dy Councilman Wishart. ~ All in favor, motio- -arried. [ SUBDIVISION EXEMPTI. Blitz Ms. Smith said the planning office recommends approval of the Blitz condominiumization application, which is a duplex on lot 14 of the Anthony Acres subdivision, zoned R-15 ! and does allow for duplex. The application received 8040 greenline review in 1975. Ms. Smith said this is not affected by displace of low, moderate and middle income tenants as it is recently build and never has been occupied. P&Z recommended approval with condition of a 15 foot trail easement, and the F'roperty should be deed restricted to six month minimum leases. Bob Jacobs has reviewed this for the impact on fire access. . Bob Jacobs told Council this property has no emergency access road. The road they face on is covered by snow six months of the year and iE unusable. The owners have shown a desire to provide private equipment. Mayor Standley said he felt the fire access was a serious r problem. Gideon Kaufman told Council they had jnstalled a fire hydrant and have bought hose. Mayor Standley said he was not interested in supporting this with the fire dangers. I Kaufman told Council this is a 6,000 square foot duplex; a 4,000 unit on top two floors and a 2,000 unit on the bottom. Councilman Van Ness pointed out the City has an entire process ' to go through, and tell people what the rules a.-e and what they can build. After the , ~ building is built, you cannot come along and tell them the building is no good. Mayor Standley said the person who builds this knows what the risks are; a person buying it may , not know what the risks are and will come back on the City because there is no fire pro- tection. - 71 '11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council April 23, 1979 Councilman Van Ness said he did not believe the City has an obligation to guarantee every- thing about a place. City Attorney Stock told Council they should not treat condominiumi- zation any differently than they treat any type of ownership of a particular piece of property. This went through the approval process; they obtained visual review and mass under the 8040 greenline process; they worked with the fire marshal and put in what he requested. Stock said Council's arguments as to size and location are not valid when 9 considering condominiumization. Councilwoman Anderson asked if the City is setting itself Â£ up for a lawsuit in approving this. Stock said this -is not a violation of the Colorado Fire Code. The Council can resolved this by requiriÂ·ng a hold harmless clause to the City. Councilwoman Anderson moved to approve this conditioned upon a hold harmless to the City on fire with a six months minimum lease agreement and the easement for the trail; seconded bv Councilman Wishart. All in favor with the exception of Councilman Behrendt and Mayor Standley. Motion carried. Councilman Behrendt requested of the planning office an investigation of the property on the mountain capable of development like this. SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Kuen-Fourplex 4 Grice told Council this fourplex is locatedÂ·on East Cooper between Original and West End. The bottom floor has been the owner's residence and the upstairs has been short termed and to music students in the summer. The City Attorney has recommended approval with the condition that all units be restricted to six month minimum leases and that one unit be deed restricted for 5 years to the current guidelines. The Engineering department recom- mended approval subject to four conce.ns. P & Z recommended with the engineering and attorneys comments. Councilman Parry moved to approve with the attorney's and engineer's conditions;'seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Mayor Standley said he would not like to loose these units to the music students. Stock said Council could modify the six month minimum lease provisions to restrict to only one shorter tenancy and another if used by the M.A.A. or give them 3, if they are used only by M.A.A. Mayor Standley said if this is not subdivided, it is easier to run as an apart- ment and rent to locals than to have four more absentee owners. Kaufman pointed out now this is 4 short-term rentals; by approving the subdivision, there will be four units with six-month rental restriction units lived in full time. All in favor, Councilman Wishart, Mayor Standley opposed. Motion carried. HARVEY GILMORE - MELLOW YELLOW i~ , CITY.~UASPEN 130 s~29;;1~treet aspenp~210:UL& 81611 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 23, 1981 TO. Alan Richman FROM. Bob Edmondson RE: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Review No comments . Speaks to the ordinance with specificity. RBE:mc LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDANI 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 8161t J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN III TELEPHONE 925-2601 ----- January 15, 1981 B. LEE SCHUMACHER Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Christopher B. Hemmeter - Application for 8040 review Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Christopher B. Hemmeter, who has contracted to buy the Blitz house adjacent to lower Aspen Mountain above the Durant Condominiums. Mr. Hemmeter proposes to remodel the house. His .ge'. architect, Jack Miller and Associates, has redesigned the exterior to lessen the visual impacts of the house in many significant respects, and thus we believe the remodel will be attractive to you. - The proposed remodel can be described in general terms as follows. It involves no additional bedrooms, and no additional fireplaces. It will be in virtually the same footprint and same building envelope as the existing building. The height is slightly below that of the existing building. There will be a significant change in the roof line. The high gabled roof will be changed to a hipped roof that slopes back and into the mountain from the viewpoints of the town. A drawing is attached showing the proposed exterior remodel to further illustrate the lessening of visual impacts, and we hope to demonstrate that to you in better fashion at the hearing with some photographs of the existing house supple- mented by drawings of the proposed remodel. . AUSTIN Mc GRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 2 The foundation of the house except for an underground exercise room on the second floor, lies almost entirely below the 8040 line (we are here for this review because the regulation, as you know, requires review if the development is within 50 yards of the 8040 line). While it may not be entirely relevant from the standpoint of 8040 review, the aesthetic changes of the exterior we believe will also assist in reducing visual impacts by the elimination of the strong vertical emphasis in the existing building by structure (steel 4- beams) and by the barn wood exterior vertically applied. Instead, a combination of landscaping, stone, and horizontally applied wood will lessen the present emphasis on the vertical. 322Â· Again, we will show that better to you at the hearing by :<.f illustrations. The house and property have twice before received 8040 approval, the second time by administration determination without a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We believe that would be appropriate. On the other hand Sunny prefers that we present the matter to you. In any event, the 8040 review criteria are set forth in 24-6.2 (b) of the Aspen City Code. Most of these, as you will see are inapplicable because a building currently exists on the site, and many of the criteria are aimed at the initial development only. The criteria and our responses are as follows: "1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development." Response. There currently exists sufficient water pressure at the house and has since the house was originally built and inhabited. Since the house was built the City has completed a new water tank on Aspen Mountain. Other utilities are fully delivered to the site. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 3 . 1 z. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance." Response. All of these matters were e~. resolved upon the prior review. The existing v, 1. access has not impeded occupation of the house and snow removal, and there is no actual road maintenance involved. In addition, after building the house the prior owner installed a fire hydrant just above the house within :,i,.Â· ., approximately 38 feet of the house. There is a standard fire hose at the house to be :,3 - connected to that hydrant. "3. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and ~ f . possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers." Response. All of these matters were resolved upon the prior construction. Mr. Hemmeter's remodel will not involve redoing the foundations, with the exception of an underground exercise area, and hence these concerns have already been addressed by the existence of the residence now. 4' "4. The effects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequence on water pollution." Response. Again, all of these concerns were addressed when the house was initially built. To the extent that additional grading will be involved in the remodel, Mr. Hemmeter is willing to take any reasonable steps to mitigate any possible problems including use of hay bales, interim landscaping during the construction phase, and permanent landscaping thereafter. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 4 "5. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city-wide." Response. Mr. Hemmeter plans no additional 4 , fireplaces and thus no additional impact at - all on air quality. "6. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways or their trails e. â€ž and their compatibility with the terrain. " Response. These standards were addressed ,-, when the original building was built. To the - extent that design is involved, we have already described Mr. Hemmeter's belief that the new design will in fact mitigate and lessen the impacts of the existing building. We will present additional information as to this issue with regard to design at the hearing. We are not proposing any change in location of the structure. "7. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to terrain, vegetation and the natural land features." Response. There will be a necessity to grade on the mountain side of the building with regard to a proposed underground exercise room, which we will show you at the hearing. Again, Mr. Hemmeter will take all reasonable steps tb do that in a manner that mitigates any adverse effects. There is no significant vegetation, trees or the like in the area directly adjacent to the house where grading will occur and it is Mr. Hemmeter's plan to provide substantial per- manent landscaping when his remodel is completed. ,""6.4=L'Â¢2.66-*A_.,Â» Â· 6, -- '7 . - - d &5;4.i../:ENULv~.4 ,* -4 4 '-'6 -*-, Â· ' AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 5 "8. The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource." Response. The placement of the structure is already dictated to us since it is in place. Mr. Hemmeter believes that the remodel, es- pecially as to exterior features, will help mitigate the impact upon the mountain as a scenic resource. "9. The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain." Response. Our responses above seem applicable here, namely that it has been a primary design purpose employed by Mr. Hemmeter's architects to lessen and minimize the impacts of the existing dwelling by ex- terior remodel changes in order to minimize the effects upon the open character of the mountain. The height of the remodel is within and slightly less than the height and bulk of the existing structure, with the sole exception of the exercise room that is underground off the second floor. We should add that the zoning of the property on which the building is located is R-15. The size of the over- all property is approximately 1.8 acres. Section 24-6.6 suggests there are various conditions that you might consider for approval. Most of those, with the exception of the provision for "minimizing any adverse impact," involve a new project. For example, one is to "control the sequence of development," but obviously the building exists in place, and remodel ought to be accomplished in as short a period of time as possible. We do believe that mitigating impacts by landscaping is something that Mr. Hemmeter will do whether or not it is required, but you might wish to consider that. 70Â¥. 1 - I~ , "1 .Â¥, 41â€¢i 1.1 - 4 4 !-?fr,-- ~ 1 AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 6 Mr. Hemmeter and his architects believe that the remodel will significantly improve the appearance of the house, considering that there are some who believe the existing building not to be quite as attractive as it could be. We hope you will grant favorable approval for this remodel. We have provided copies of the building plans to the staff and the Engineering Department and we will have copies for your review at the hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By J. Nicholas MeGrath, Jr. JNMj r/dw Enclosure LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NtCHOLAS MCGRATH. JR. AREACODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN n[ TELED.iONE 925-2601 - January 15, 1981 S. LEE SCHUMACHER Mr. Sunny Vann Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Christopher B. Hemmeter - Application for 8040 review Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Christopher B. Herrmeter, who has contracted to buy the Blitz house adjacent to lower Aspen Mountain above the Durant Condominiums. Mr- Hemmeter proposes to remodel the house. His architect, Jack Miller and Associates, has redesigned the exterior to lessen the visual impacts of the house in many significant respects, and thus we believe the remodel will be attractive to you. The proposed remodel can be described in general terms as follows. It involves no additional bedrooms, and no additional fireplaces. It will be in virtually the same footprint and same building envelope as the existing building. The height is slightly below that of the existing building. There will be a significant change in the roof line. The high gabled roof will be changed to a hipped roof that slopes back and into the mountain from the viewpoints of the town. A drawing is attached showing the proposed exterior remodel to further illustrate the lessening of visual impacts, and we hope to demonstrate that to you in better fashion at the hearing with some photographs of the existing house supple- mented by drawings of the proposed remodel. ... 1, AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 2 The foundation of the house except for an underground exercise room on the second floor, lies almost entirely below the 8040 line (we are here for this review because the regulation, as you know, requires review if the development is within 50 yards of the B040 line). While it may not be entirely relevant from the standpoint of 8040 review, the aesthetic changes of the exterior we believe will also assist in reducing visual impacts by the elimination of the strong vertical emphasis in the existing building by structure (steel beams) and by the barn wood exterior vertically applied. Instead, a combination of landscaping, stone, and horizontally applied wood will lessen the present emphasis on the vertical. Again, we will show that better to you at the hearing by illustrations. The house and property have twice before received 8040 approval, the second time by administration determination without a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We believe that would be appropriate. On the other hand Sunny prefers that we present the matter to you. In any event, the 8040 review criteria are set forth in 24-66.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. Most of these, as you will see are inapplicable because a building currently exists on the site, and many of the criteria are aimed at the initial development only. The criteria and our responses are as follows: "1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service ~ the intended development." Response. There currently exists sufficient water pressure at the house and has since the house was originally built and inhabited. Since the house was built the City has completed a new water tank on Aspen Mountain. Other utilities are fully delivered to the site. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 3 "2. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance." Response. All of these matters were resolved upon the prior review. The existing access has not impeded occupation of the house and snow removal, and there is no actual road maintenance involved. In addition, after building the house the prior owner installed a fire hydrant just above the house within approximately 38 feet of the house. There is a standard fire hose at the house to be connected to that hydrant. "3. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers." Response. All of these matters were resolved upon the prior construction. Mr. Hemmeter's remodel will not involve redoing the foundations, with the exception of an underground exercise area, and hence these concerns have already been addressed by the existence of the residence now. "4. The effects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequence on water pollution." Response. Again, all of these concerns were addressed when the house was initially built. To the extent that additional grading will be involved in the remodel, Mr. Hemmeter is willing to take any reasonable steps to mitigate any possible problems including use of hay bales, interim landscaping during the construction phase, and permanent landscaping thereafter. AUSTIN MCGRATH 6 JORDANI Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 4 "5. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city-wide." Response. Mr. Hemmeter plans no additional fireplaces and thus no additional impact at all on air quality. "6. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways or their trails and their compatibility with the terrain." Response. These standards were addressed when the original building was built. To the extent that design is involved, we have already described Mr. Hemmeter's belief that the new design will in fact mitigate and lessen the impacts of the existing building. We will present additional information as to this issue with regard to design at the hearing. We are not proposing any change in location of the structure. "7. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to terrain, vegetation and the natural land features." Response. There will be a necessity to grade on the mountain side of the building with regard to a proposed underground exercise room, which we will show you at the hearing. Again, Mr. Hemmeter will take all reasonable steps to do that in a manner that mitigates any adverse effects. There is no significant vegetation, trees or the like in the area directly adjacent to the house where grading will occur and it is Mr. Hemmeter's plan to provide substantial per- manent landscaping when his remodel is completed. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 5 "8. The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource." Response. The placement of the structure is already dictated to us since it is in place. Mr. Hemmeter believes that the remodel, es- pecially as to exterior features, will help mitigate the impact upon the mountain as a scenic resource. "9. The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain." Response. Our responses above seem applicable here, namely that it has been a primary design purpose employed by Mr. Hemmeter's architects to lessen and minimize the impacts of the existing dwelling by ex- terior remodel changes in order to minimize the effects upon the open character of the mountain. The height of the remodel is within and slightly less than the height and bulk of the existing structure, with the sole exception of the exercise room that is underground off the second floor. We should add that the zoning of the property on which the building is located is R-15. The size of the over- all property is approximately 1.8 acres. Section 24-6.6 suggests there are various conditions that you might consider for approval. Most of those, with the exception of the provision for "minimizing any adverse impact, " involve a new project. For example, one is to "control the sequence of development," but obviously the building exists in place, and remodel ought to be accomplished in as short a period of time as possible. We do believe that mitigating impacts by landscaping is something that Mr. Hemmeter will do whether or not.it is required, but you might wish to consider that. AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN Mr. Sunny Vann, and Planning and Zoning Commission January 15, 1981 Page 6 Mr. Hemmeter and his architects believe that the remodel will significantly improve the appearance of the house, considering that there are some who believe the existing building not to be quite as attractive as it could be. We hope you will grant favorable approval for this remodel. We have provided copies of the building plans to the staff and the Engineering Department and we will have copies for your review at the hearing. Thank you. Sincerely, , AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMjr/dw Enclosure '1 1 , MEMORANDUM To: City Attorney City Engineer FROM: Alan Richman RE: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Review DATE: January 20, 1981 The attached application, submitted by Christopher Hemmeter, requests 8040 Greenline special review approval for the reconstruction/renovation of the "Blitz house" located above the Durant Condominiums on Aspen Mountain. This item is shceduled for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on February 17, 1981; therefore, may I please have your comments concerning this application no later than February 3, 1981? Thank you. LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN IE[ February 3, 1981 TELEPHONE 925-2601 B. LEE SCHUMACHER 30!340 DN'NtÂ·:1'-t.3 '00 NI>11),Â·3 / NLc..9,4 al# (46- 41 :6 , b . , I I 1861 1 El E j ' -Me7-SunTry-Vann i Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office lit .:-1 ~ 130 S. Galena 22,3, Aspen, CO 81611 -4- + I.i- 4. . Re: Christopher B. Hemmeter -- Application for 8040 review Dear Sunny: You may wish to include the enclosed Building Inspector's letter in your package for the 8040 review on February J.?Â¢ (D Thanks. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By ~ lu~- J. Nicholas hcGrath, Jr. JNMj r/dw Enclosure CC: Mr. Herb Lawton Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Mr. Jack Miller ASPEN<~35231-XUN REG]OALAL BUPLEZONG DEE:Â¥16:21-BAENT Jack Miller & Associates Attn: Pat Trott Box 4285 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Dear Pat: Last Friday January 23 you were in my office to show me preliminary plans of the proposed remodel of the Blitz residence on the West side of Little Nell. The plans that you presented do not appear to have any major building or zoning Code problems other than you must have 8040 Green line review. . Sincerely, 0 _~_-2- - C ' -1 8 " , UL~yÂ»iÂ·/ d/04Â·UY-nÂ¢ Â·31=_ - p_. - Â·Claytgn Meyring, ~- ... ~ -.- .-: Chief Building Inspectdr .. . L- r--5=3-4 -2 1-9.7 /C:352,1,7-CRCt-754 l rÂ« 71/ -3-rie M -Â» en 1%9 -ev X --4, A dfl 0 V Mi~~1 #A Rp-v1 41 J (P 9 7% t f-1 Ln -h, 7 6 41 . 0731 B l,1 14\1'Al v ~,n? 5~x C, 92 )y42 ) e.4 7~v,Â«> 794403 '06~, 01 v V.- F *Ar YnÂ» 1 25 5/J U -#* +04 4- -9 1 %~Â» 9 + D 9 1-Â» / -Â¥5' fm u )4 47 7 -73-10 r7 '1 07 4-97 v -I - r71(7 4 0 6.t ---*Â°rt 1 4 -Â»7 + 11 M 4, b 'T~19 -51 34 --'~1 5 -71 9.Ve hn 3-60 11'13 '39 3-110 wr imv 5909,8 ty. C LD) f08 - 016(3 t-3 oi -t, ~ -Â»,j ~ 5 ' 1% RAP p# 9 1 p#~ T~ --"Z, 1 2 1. 90'.2-- --0 0 7 Â©30Â·4 ..."-1 1 -,Â»9 12*\A A 141%*tij M9)71 -3\ n) G\.47,071\ /3 0* \ -Â»1Â¥-Ap ~91 -) 0 5 -77741--1 'r~ F,-3Â»/j -) \6 Â»1 ,-t 5 F W, i r Â» i 42-1 0-V b Â»\9 (7"0.n-4 1 b L.-1 "0--r 9,v Ch- 9 In'/ ~13 ~ rr- -'1 74 C.]~ rnTULNj M?t'ho-~ 71 03~,% \ V 1,9, ~- -DOO" 3-344 -070 -5 6 -,TÂ»~AA 9174 611 Drs C Â°10-3 -,af-41Â·*--2 7%~0~~ 1 -t \(0 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Hemmeter Residence Access System - 8040 Greenline Review DATE: May 7, 1982 Location: Lot 14, Block 2, Anthony Acres; adjacent to and above the Durant Condominiums and bordering the Little Nell portion of Aspen Mountain. Applicant's Request: The applicant is requesting P&Z approval for a renovated access system and a landscape plan for the Hemmeter residence pursuant to Section 24-6.2, 8040 Greenline Review. A major reconstruction of the residence has already been through an 8040 greenline review and has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently the only source of pedestrian access to the Hemmeter house is an existing elevator tower which connects the parking area below to the house through a series of bridges, stairways and pathways. This access system is unsafe, visually unattractive and is in a state of disrepair. This application is to allow the system to be upgraded for visual improvement and a more efficient, safer operation. The applicant is also requesting the approval of an earth- covered walk connecting the access system to the house, a landscaping plan and a gravel loop path system connecting the house to the remainder of the site. Referral Comments: Willard Clapper, Fire Chief, has no problem with the proposal. The residence has the same fire protection problem as was identified in the previous 8040 greenline review -- there is no vehicular access in the winter. The Attorney's Office commented that the proposal should be reviewed according to the applicable review criteria found in Section 24-6.2(b) of the Code. The Engineering Department stated that the applicant should minimize any disturbances from the construction of retaining walls and piers. Any disturbed area must be revegetated. Review Criteria: Section 24-6.2 of the Code establishes nine criteria which an applicant must address in an 8040 greenline request. These criteria include the following: 1. Existence of sufficient water pressure and other utilities. 2. Existence of adequate roads for fire protection and snow removal. 3. Land suitability as regards slope and ground stability. 4. Impacts on runoff, erosion and water quality. 5. Effects on air quality. 6. Design quality and compatibility with the terrain. 7. Impact of grading on terrain, vegetation and natural features. 8. Minimization of new cut and grade, preservation of open space and scenic value. 9. Reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain. Memo: Hemmeter Residence Access System - 8040 Greenline Review Page Two May 7, 1982 Planning Office Review: The Planning Office review shows that all of the greenline review criteria, except number 5 regarding air quality, are applicable to this request. The pertinent sections of these eight criteria are discussed below. 1. Utilities. If the reconstruction of the access system causes the need for relocating any existing utility facilities, the applicant has stated that the utilities will be placed underground. No new utilities will be required for the system. 2. Fire protection. The issue of fire protection has consistently been a major point of discussion during previous reviews of the Hemmeter house. Previous P&Z approvals have placed conditions which appear to answer fire protection concerns. 3. Slope and ground stability. The proposed retaining walls are to provide more stability than currently exists on the hillside while the forest area should increase stability on the enbankment above the elevator. The applicant should be required to minimize any disturbances through the construction of retaining walls and piers and should be required to revegetate any disturbed area. The applicant has stated a willingness to do this. 4. Effects on runoff, drainage, and soil erosion. A significant portion of the project is to be located above grade and will not result in any drainage concerns. Below grade features will be waterproofed to allow ground water drainage around the structure. Surface drainage will be rerouted at the earth-covered walk and the applicant has stated the diversion will blend with the natural slope at the base of the house. Complete revegetation as well as new vegetation are to minimize erosion. Any preventive measures should be taken by the applicant to minimize and arrest erosion-related problems during and after construction. Construction is to be completed within approximately six weeks and is scheduled to start as soon as possible in the spring. Revegetation should occur in a timely manner to prevent any erosion/runoff problems. 5. Air quality. Air quality should not be impacted by the proposed project. 6. Design and location of any proposed structure or trails and their compatibility with the terrain. The new access system is largely within the same alignment as the old system with one area of relocation near the top of the hill. The new alignment for this section does - not present any problems. The new system is a covered access system designed to match the remodeled residence by the use of stone veneer, wood siding and cedar shakes. The visual impacts of the access system should be reduced through the upgrading of the old system and by providing a more attractive, efficient system. The design raises the bridgeway above the existing skier path to eliminate any clearance problems. The earth-covered walk is designed to blend with the surrounding area and will be located next to the proposed evergreen forest. A loop trail on the south part of the property has been proposed as part of the applicant's request. The trail, not shown in the drawings is to be a narrow, two foot path of gravel and flagstone circling the south section of the property. This trail should not present any drainage problems. Memo: Hemmeter Residence Access System - 8040 Greeniine Review Page Three May 7, 1982 7. Grading. The applicant has stated a willingness to minimize any disturbances resulting from grading through various preventive techniques, revegetation and new vegetation. 8. Scenic concerns. The proposed access system should improve the scenic quality of the hillside from below through the visual improvements of the system as well as the new landscaping. 9. Reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open charater of the mountain. The proposed system is two feet higher than the existing one for functional reasons. The top of the system is an approximately 8,030 feet in altitude. The extra two feet in height should not significantly detract from the open character of the mountain. Planning Office Recommendation; The Planning Office recommends the approval of the proposed access system, walkway, trail and landscape plan as requested by the applicant subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must minimize any disturbance from construe- tion through retaining walls and piers and through the provision of adequate, timely revegetation. 2. The applicant must relocate utilities underground, should such relocation be necessary during construction. 3. The applicant must stay within the height requested in the application, two feet above the existing access system (approximately 8,030 feet). 4. Any excavating necessary in constructing the loop trail must be filled and revegetated to prevent erosion and drainage problems. 5, 3/Â·bj 4 appl. ar putratrÂ·( ropdo 00 5 4.ct,Q in Y uto/ (efter 1 Or*re 60/ Vace Câ‚¬+1 er- --31 i: . //4 + tÂ·, , /-- -I : 1 ' No./2 - 3 A CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 41 1/. 1. DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE: // 7.':' STAFF: hi 8 4 vhs 2. APPLICANT: (31<93<.,b?r } I =,>),)icÂ·91'r 3. REPRESENTATIVE: Lorry -U,luM i HoÂ·, ir,< 94(tr kjrcjit~*-el: Dk:j . h aio 6 qa le 16. ilitiâ‚¬ 04 d gas - a;U,7 Â· - 4. PROJECT NAME DIO.Oher 1.10$1)})12161 - 3640 atrec yl )6/U *2-01Â£.tr 5. LOCATION: lot Fl, Moit\< a~ hntijÂ·iÂ·j<, hou06'll,A #AffÂ» / lad 0, )lt 40 4<),lo 12;,d Lt/0 t)(/re.pt OFÂ·)54.o'~ ~t,id borcha 411.6 1,20 je . }jd-( pa:1 6 i /\a.~Lâ€¢Â·1. Ath, .) 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 0 4 Step: tMP C ) PUD ( 1 Subdivision 2 Step: Subdivision Exception ( ) GMP Exception ( j Rezoning ( 1 SPA Hlithdro.-0 1 Step: Use Determination ' 31 10 jet) -4 hst\ Conditional Use re A.(i i url f. 1 ~ Special Review C 30)40 19'6 A.4 f'/1.L' ) 41)91 HPC 8 -W No. of Steps: Other: 7. REFERRALS 14 Attorney Sanitation District School District ?LEngineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas Housing Parks ~ State Highway Dept. Water ~ Holy Cross Electric _Lfire Chief L I) 71 1 1 / pri i City Electric Fire Marshal/Building Dept. Other 8. DISPOSITION 4.3 1~ 7 54 i (nall P&2 Vf Approved l/ Denied DateÂ· /032,4 291 li?El ubject -lo S- coid.1-t Im5; 1. The applicant must minimize any disturbance from construe- tion 'through retaining walls and piers and through the provision of addquate, timely revegetation. ~Or leif\,4 2. ' f., F, f t.~ .'., f.~ -00 11- >d /...i "'. 4- 2. The applicant must relocate utilities underground, should such relocation be necessary during construction. 3. The applicant must stay within the height requested in the applications two feet above the existing access system (approximately 8,030 feet). 4/ Any excavati'ng necessary in constructing the loop trail -6)(- must Le fille,3 and revegetated to prevent erosion and Â· . 4 -46' drtlr': 23--frobleins.;b14Â¥.' .nte:~-312~ 0 ~1.---2:i=** -1 'tr p 5 u bje. c 1 40 -thri apfroun L 0%- 4*. Ou-rant- Concio mi F l Wri a Â£> bo L 1 Â¢14 ion U 5 5 u qi â‚¬5-fed i n 4he- teller- 40 P 1 2- ' ~00 M\. 1--arry Ya-(-0 Â»Lteol jler-i 1 3-3 ) 9872 51 ricâ‚¬- pact- 4 44\â‚¬- Construcli ort of- 4rue_ f rofo 50-4 62-leucclo r u.jill bc 04 the- Dcirafri- proper{-4 * . .1 11't'. ' i . : , . , i Â·Â·. . - . 0 4 , . , .. - HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 1982 Page Two stairs with a new simplified single bridgeway for safer and more direct access to the house. The new connecting bridgeway is designed to con- siderably reduce the visual and functional complexity of the vertical system necessary for pedestrian access to the house. In addition to approval required under the 8040 Greenline review, a similar review and approval is r6quired from the Durant Condominium Association on whose property the existing elevator is located. Although application for both levels of approval were submitted at the same time, the Durant Condominium Association review will necessarily require a longer period of time in order to contact individual owners, etc. In order to contain the entire approval process within.a time frame which can reasonably anticipate spring construction, we would like to first complete the 8040 review, with its approval and recommendations condi- tionally subject to approval by the Durant Condominium Association. Although the majority of the new construction (except the elevator entry area) will be located on the Hemmeter property (see sheets 1 & 4), an appropriate Agreement with the Durant Condominium Association will be necessary for the upgrading of the elevator tower. Final Greenline approval can be made subject to the submission of this document. The accompanying drawings indicate both the existing configuration and those proposed for Greenline approval. The drawings are referenced in the following response to the 8040 review criteria set forth in 24-6.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. 1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development. Response: The elevator requires no water and the house has sufficient water pressure. Other utilities required for the elevator currently exist. All existing and relocated utilities will be underground. 2. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. Response: All related issues in reference to the house were approved and committed to in the initial 8040 approval. The new bridge system will not adversely effect roads, snow removal, road maintenance or fire protection. W ': .Ll I le /41; r 1Â¥ft Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 south galena street. gra Clr-/FF 9 1 5- 1 1 94/ aspen,colorado , 8161 11~Fi:0-1LL--Â£ 5,~7l :8 21 ; (1 1982 ;: L j} 3 l.11 -_.__ MEMORANDUM P.RPEN / PI CKIN CO To: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department Willard Clappar, Fire Chief FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Christopher Hemmeter - 8040 Greenline Review DATE: April 26, 1982 Attached please find a revised 8040 Greenline Review application submitted by Christopher Hemmeter for an upgraded access system to the Hemmeter House (Lot 14, Block 2 of the Anthony Acres Subdivision) above the Durant Condominiums. Approval for a landscape plan is also being requested. This item is scheduled for City P&Zon May 18, 1982; please respond with any comments by May 6. Thank you. -4.- lA Lp~--2*2 --,771tj -1-6?-c/-< Â£1J ~ Cy -a-U./9, 4 1, 4 '/ I i // D TT- , \Jul Â»~ t._.t O.V 1 j,3 1 ,-->h-9 CO (->-<-0 c -C , -<j i . Ue-.U.2 -1 . U 1/L'Â·u,=-â€¢ 6, +-tâ‚¬f~ ~----7 Â«,4--4-- /.tf) .-017,7/*r-r-2 -/<42Â£-4 La-0,3413 Â£2.Â£0 67 / U V (Via-ky -t~ilat (1/0,2 144_ -Â»10 --*-12-h-1--1,Â·-/ 9 'O~~61- U 4 _413%043. 111 21-1441'kz-42'qug u . /2 44/74 -- 6/ 7 012 1// 8 /- . 1%297,1 Utf~ 1/ r. :i-1 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS LIli) 23 Apri 1 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Christopher Hemmeter Residence Elevator and Bridge System Application for 8040 Review Dear Commission Members: Following 8040 Greenline review and approval for an extensive renovation of the former Blitz residence, the present owner, Mr. Christopher Hemmeter, has completed the major portion of the construction approved by P&Z and the Planning Office. The finished work and that remaining for spring finish have and will be completed with strict adherence to the representations made and accepted during the Greenline review. Since the initial construction by Mr. Blitz, the only available source of pedestrian access to the house has been by means of an existing elevator tower located between the Durant Condominium buildings which connects to the house by a complex series of bridges, stairways and pathways. Because the various elements of this access route, particularly the elevator, are unsafe, visually unattractive and in a general state of disrepair, we seek 8040 approval for an upgraded access system. Additionally, we seek 8040 approval for a landscape plan to include an evergreen buffer area and related revegetation above the house (to the south and west), and a loop path system connecting the house to the remainder of the site (see sheet 3). The land parcel on which the improvements would be constructed is des- cribed as Lot 14, Block 2 of Anthony Acres Subdivision, and is located adjacent to and above the Durant Condominiums and borders the Little Nell portion of Aspen Mountain. Mr. Hemmeter proposes to upgrade the existing elevator tower and to replace its extensive system of interconnecting walkways, bridges and 210%(A'Hi C,Al[Nl Sl Ill 24 A -: ' 16, C 01 OR A [)O 811,11 305â€¢925-2567 MIl d 241-= HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Apri 1 1982 Page Two stairs with a new simplified single bridgeway for safer and more direct access to the house. The new connecting bridgeway is designed to con- siderably reduce the visual and functional complexity of the vertical system necessary for pedestrian access to the house. In addition to approval required under the 8040 Greenline review, a similar review and approval is required from the Durant Condominium Association on whose property the existing elevator is located. Although application for both levels of approval were submitted at the same time, the Durant Condominium Association review will necessarily require a longer period of time in order to contact individual owners, etc. In order to contain the entire approval process within a time frame which can reasonably anticipate spring construction, we would like to first complete the 8040 review, with its approval and recommendations condi- tionally subject to approval by the Durant Condominium Association. Although the majority of the new construction (except the elevator entry area) will be located on the Hemmeter property (see sheets 1 & 4), an appropriate Agreement with the Durant Condominium Association will be necessary for the upgrading of the elevator tower. Final Greenline approval can be made subject to the submission of this document. The accompanying drawings indicate both the existing configuration and those proposed for Greenline approval. The drawings are referenced in the following response to the 8040 review criteria set forth in 24-6.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. 1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development. Response: The elevator requires no water and the house has sufficient water pressure. Other utilities required for the elevator currently exist. All existing and relocated utilities will be underground. 2. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. Response: All related issues in reference to the house were approved and committed to in the initial 8040 approval. The new bridge system will not adversely effect roads, snow removal, road maintenance or fire protection. MUIL. d~11!MANDI///I/A HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Apri 1 1982 Page Three Previous fire protection requi rements as described in the memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning Office, to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission are scheduled for spring installation. 3. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. Response: The new earth covered walk is located at the same elevation as the first floor of the residence, and the new construction, including retaining walls and new landscaping, will stabilize any hillside dis- turbances. This will be done in accordance with the recommendations of a licensed Soils Engineer's analysis and all disturbed areas will be revegetated. Retaining walls are designed to provide more slope stability than currently exists, and stepped planting areas will enhance both the site appearance and its stability (see sheet 3). The new evergreen tree buffer area (forest) will provide increased stability on the embankment above the elevator and to the south of the house. 4. The affects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The new bridge and covered walk will have minimal effects on the watershed, runoff and drainage since the majority of the con- struction is above ground, the below grade portion will be adequately waterproofed to provide ground water drainage around the structure. Surface drainage will be rerouted only at the earth covered walk, and will blend with the natural slope at the south of the house. Soil erosion will be prevented by complete revegetation and retaining walls as described above. The new evergreen trees and related vege- tation will control soil erosion at the top of the embankment. Any and all preventative measures necessary to minimize and arrest erosion related problems incurred during the construction phase will be taken. Construction is anticipated to be completed within a six week period and is scheduled to start after the spring snowmelt. 5. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide. Response: No affects on air pollution are anticipated by the electrical traction type elevator to be installed. /5.-#- * Â£1111 :1'/diE. HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Apri 1 1982 Page Four 6. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways, or trails and their compatibility with the terrain. ~ Response: The upgraded elevator and new bridge system will signifi- cantly lessen the impact of the existing vertical access system on the site and surrounding area. The visual impact from the neighbors and especially the Durant Condominiums is considerably reduced by the simplification of the bridge system and the use of materials that match the remodeled residence. (i.e. stone veneer, wood siding, cedar shakes, lighting, etc.) The new bridge system softens the visual confusion from the Durant Condominium area and will not be visible from town. The new proposal also simplifies and raises the bridgeway above the skier path, eliminating possible clearance problems. 7. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: The new earth covered walk was designed to create the least amount of disturbance to existing grade and vegetation. The existing vegetation consists primarily of scrub oak. Minimal excavation is planned, with replacement of soil and vegetation that will compliment the existing. 8. The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The elevator and covered bridge system are grouped together for minimal site obstruction. The new design will preserve and create new valuable open space between Aspen and the bridge system. Most important, the new proposal will visually clear up the area and thus enhance the scenic resource. Also, the new vegetation, evergreens and path add to the visual amenity of this particular area of the mountain which is currently characterized by diseased Aspen trees and scrub oak. 9. The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain. Response: The height and bulk of the new bridge system are at minimal size to providing adequate space for functional and equipment require- NITIi HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Apri 1 1982 Page Five ments, both vertically and horizontally. The height of the elevator tower (increased by 2'-0" for the new cab) will provide a level, easy access from the upper elevator landing to the house. The height increase of the elevator will not block any views from the Durant Condominiums or surrounding area not already limited by the house site. The direct bridgeway access simplifies the stairways, etc. such as currently exists, from hampering access by elderly, handicapped or luggage carriers. , Respectfully submitted, H~man Yaw Arcll tect td LaTy Ya*, ~. 1 . Principal li LY:sd HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD 23 April 1982 Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Christopher Hemmeter Residence Elevator and Bridge System Application for 8040 Review Dear Commission Members: Following 8040 Greenline review and approval for an extensive renovation of the former Blitz residence, the present owner, Mr. Christopher Hemmeter, has completed the major portion of the construction approved by P&Z and the Planning Office. The finished work and that remaining for spring finish have and will be completed with strict adherence to the representations made and accepted during the Greenline review. Since the initial construction by Mr. Blitz, the only available source of pedestrian access to the house has been by means of an existing elevator tower located between the Durant Condominium buildings which connects to the house by a complex series of bridges, stairways and pathways. Because the various elements of this access route, particularly the elevator, are unsafe, visually unattractive and in a general state of disrepair, we seek 8040 approval for an upgraded access system. Additionally, we seek 8040 approval for a landscape plan to include an evergreen buffer area and related revegetation above the house (to the south and west), and a loop path system connecting the house to the remainder of the site (see sheet 3). The land parcel on which the improvements would be constructed is des- cribed as Lot 14, Block 2 of Anthony Acres Subdivision, and is located adjacent to and above the Durant Condominiums and borders the Little Nell portion of Aspen Mountain. Mr. Hemmeter proposes to upgrade the existing elevator tower and to replace its extensive system of interconnecting walkways, bridges and 2105(.,l'fliG,MENA 5[ IZE 24 4 +PEN COLORADO 81611 103â€¢925-2862 lu Mil./d ZE27=57 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 1982 Page Two stairs with a new simplified single bridgeway for safer and more direct access to the house. The new connecting bridgeway is designed to con- siderably reduce the visual and functional complexity of the vertical system necessary for pedestrian access to the house. In addition to approval required under the 8040 Greenline review, a similar review and approval is required from the Durant Condominium Association on whose property the existing elevator is located. Although application for both levels of approval were submitted at the same time, the Durant Condominium Association review will necessarily require a longer period of time in order to contact individual owners, etc. In order to contain the entire approval process within a time frame which can reasonably anticipate spring construction, we would like to first complete the 8040 review, with its approval and recommendations condi- tionally subject to approval by the Durant Condominium Association. Although the majority of the new construction (except the elevator entry area) wi 11 be located on the Hemmeter property (see sheets 1 & 4), an appropriate Agreement with the Durant Condominium Association will be necessary for the upgrading of the elevator tower. Final Greenline approval can be made subject to the submission of this document. The accompanying drawings indicate both the existing configuration and those proposed for Greenline approval. The drawings are referenced in the following response to the 8040 review criteria set forth in 24-6.2(b) of the Aspen City Code. 1. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and other utilities to service the intended development. Response: The elevator requires no water and the house has sufficient water pressure. Other utilities required for the elevator currently exist. All existing and relocated utilities will be underground. 2. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. Response: All related issues in reference to the house were approved and committed to in the initial 8040 approval. The new bridge system will not adversely effect roads, snow removal, road maintenance or fire protection. HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Apri 1 1982 Page Three Previous fire protection requirements as described in the memorandum from Alan Richman, Planning Office, to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission are scheduled for spring installation. 3. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground instability and possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. Response: The new earth covered walk is located at the same elevation as the first floor of the residence, and the new construction, including retaining walls and new landscaping, will stabilize any hillside dis- turbances. This will be done in accordance with the recommendations of a licensed Soils Engineer's analysis and all disturbed areas will be revegetated. Retaining walls are designed to provide more slope stability than currently exists, and stepped planting areas will enhance both the site appearance and its stability (see sheet 3). The new evergreen tree buffer area (forest) will provide increased stability on the embankment above the elevator and to the south of the house. 4. The affects of the development on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution. Response: The new bridge and covered walk will have minimal effects on the watershed, runoff and drainage since the majority of the con- struction is above ground, the below grade portion will be adequately waterproofed to provide ground water drainage around the structure. Surface drainage will be rerouted only at the earth covered walk, and will blend with the natural slope at the south of the house. Soil erosion will be prevented by complete revegetation and retaining walls as described above. The new evergreen trees and related vege- tation will control soil erosion at the top of the embankment. Any and all preventative measures necessary to minimize and arrest erosion related problems incurred during the construction phase will be taken. Construction is anticipated to be completed within a six week period and is scheduled to start after the spring snowmelt. 5. The possible effects on air quality in the area and city wide. Response: No affects on air pollution are anticipated by the electrical traction type elevator to be installed. /2 dld:11111 Iji 11]lj. ="RA HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 1982 Page Four 6. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways, or trails and their compatibility with the terrain. Response: The upgraded elevator and new bridge system will signifi- cantly lessen the impact of the existing vertical access system on the site and surrounding area. The visual impact from the neighbors and especially the Durant Condominiums is considerably reduced by the simplification of the bridge system and the use of materials that match the remodeled residence. (i.e. stone veneer, wood siding, cedar shakes, lighting, etc.) The new bridge system softens the visual confusion from the Durant Condominium area and will not be visible from town. The new proposal also simplifies and raises the bridgeway above the skier path, eliminating possible clearance problems. 7. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Response: The new earth covered walk was designed to create the least amount of disturbance to existing grade and vegetation. The existing vegetation consists primarily of scrub oak. Minimal excavation is planned, with replacement of soil and vegetation that will compliment the existing. 8. The placement and clustering of structures so as to minimize roads, cutting and grading, and increase the open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Response: The elevator and covered bridge system are grouped together for minimal site obstruction. The new design will preserve and create new valuable open space between Aspen and the bridge system. Most important, the new proposal will visually clear up the area and thus enhance the scenic resource. Also, the new vegetation, evergreens and path add to the visual amenity of this particular area of the mountain which is currently characterized by diseased Aspen trees and scrub oak. 9. The reduction of building height and bulk to maintain the open character of the mountain. Response: The height and bulk of the new bridge system are at minimal size to providing adequate space for functional and equipment require- ai./."mt!!i/*.i- ABM/Ell./.6 HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 Ap ri 1 1982 Page Five ments, both vertically and horizontally. The height of the elevator tower (increased by 2'-0" for the new cab) will provide a level, easy access from the upper elevator landing to the house. The height increase of the elevator will not block any views from the Durant Condominiums or surrounding area not already limited by the house site. The direct bridgeway access simplifies the stairways, etc. such as currently exists, from hampering access by elderly, handicapped or luggage carriers. Respectfully submitted, H~man Yaw Archl tect td LaYEy Ya* , ~. 1 . Principa~ ~ LY:sd . , r. 1-ft:wt.nele, el-oudioy ti (13 Philip R. Moore 350 Franklin St. Denver, Colorado 80218 May 7, 1982 RECEIVED MAy ''1'0 1906 ~ % MAY -1 2 1982 1 Mr. Larry Yaw .\4-- c/o Hagman - Yaw Architects 210 South Galena St. ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Larry: Pursuant to our conversation today, this letter is to inform you that I have no objection to the refurbishing of the Durant elevator by Mr. Hemmeter nor to his building a covered bridge across the reconstructed ramp. This is conditioned on my under- standing that Mr. Hemmeter will verify the easement on the ski trail bridges and deed us the triangle peice of land in front of our office. Sincerely, fl f AA| -r- 14< l/,2 lt, 0/ UÂ·gL---.-. 0 Philip R. Moore PRM/dld r,Z 1---I~- - ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 - 63711 09009 - 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 - 63721 09009 - 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use 51â‚¬2,4.14Â·011(1) 4 :30,06 PLANNINGOFFICESALES 00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other A Mfnajd,40 Name: ~09Â¥Yl(lit? tb/'7 /~r{'h,4,/}fr LK/proj.cr tpit}Â·)Rl.0 4,141 40 Cu*, a 4 4 reeM li ilt AddrpqqÂ· Â·-<2)(f) 2~(D,.1441 (PRIP.49.t j Phone: 01 85 -OK(01\J Check No f42Â« (9 K /6 /1 Date: flu.*,(jul 11 â€žwi d 1 1 CIF / Receipt No. P . ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES County 00100 - 63711 09009 - 00000 Subdivision/PUD 63712 Special Review 63713 P&Z Review Only 63714 Detailed Review 63715 Final Plat 63716 Special Approval , 63717 Specially Assigned City 00100 - 63721 09009 - 00000 Conceptual Application 63722 Preliminary Application 63723 Final Application 63724 1~ Exemption 63725 Rezoning 63726 Conditional Use 4 .ofte'ak Kiluiur 4 2>54 00 PLANNING OFFICE SALES 00100 - 63061 09009 - 00000 County Land Use Sales 63062 GMP Sales 63063 Almanac Sales Copy Fees Other J 4.130,7 . 81 0 1ri iq,~ ..r Â· , 3 1) Ws Yuln i -'a CO U j e 'V. *41,6.Â·r ' Name: c,+ ' *-' Project: .O -/ 4 - - V.00 5 J U (200 3(16# 41*.m Auf 3,6<4â‚¬. cPOS N Hemmder AddreÂ« Phonp: (0 4/ j Check No DatP ' + i'iii k Receipt No. P ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE ~ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES .Re City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 - 47332 - 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63723 - 47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 - 47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL 63725 - 47342 - 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 - 47343 - 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 - 47350 - 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 - 47350 - 52100 REZONING 63729 - 47360 - 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB-TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 - 47332 - 52200 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63713 - 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL 63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 - 47343 - 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 - 47350 - 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 - 47350 - 52200 REZONING 63719 - 47360 - 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB-TOTAL PLANNINGOFFICESALES 00113 - 63061 - 09100 - 52200 COUNTY CODE 63063 - 09100 - 52200 ALMANAC 63062 - 09100 - 52300 GMP 63066 - 09100 - 52300 COPY FEES 63069 - 09100 - OTHER SUB-TOTAL j TOTAL Name: /,/4*97 4,r/4 0.11 ~ 4- j 1 A 99 <r -.2 41.7 '; 1 70?.t-, . 64Â¢ Phone: , ft ' f-Â·11 |Â¢ylâ‚¬5' -17:* ' 44 prâ‚¬\%* pbrook.211Â¢y-401#0,+ - Address: t.4 11 'AN,ger, Check No, Â·.3 ; 1 D ate: Additional Billing: No. of Hours: li -. - ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925-2020 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES City 00113 - 63721 - 47331 - 52100 GMP/CONCEPTUAL 63722 - 47332 - 52100 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63723 - 47333 - 52100 GMP/FINAL 63724 - 47341 - 52100 SUB/CONCEPTUAL 63725 - 47342 - 52100 SUB/PRELIMINARY 63726 - 47343 - 52100 SUB/FINAL 63727 - 47350 - 52100 EXCEPT/EXEMPTION 63728 - 47350 - 52100 REZONING 4 Â« E , e7 63729 - 47360 - 52100 SPECIAL REVIEW SUB-TOTAL County 00113 - 63711 - 47331 - 52200 GMP/GENERAL 63712 - 47332 - 52200 GMP/PRELIMINARY 63713 - 47333 - 52200 GMP/FINAL 63714 - 47341 - 52200 SUB/GENERAL 63715 - 47342 - 52200 SUB/DETAILED 63716 - 47343 - 52200 SUB/FINAL 63717 - 47350 - 52200 SPECIAL REVIEW 63718 - 47350 - 52200 REZONING 63719 - 47360 - 52200 SPECIAL APPROVAL SUB-TOTAL PLANNINGOFFICESALES 00113 - 63061 - 09000 - 52200 COUNTY CODE 63063 - 09000 - 52200 ALMANAC 63062 - 09000 - 52300 GMP 63066 - 09000 - ONZO COPY FEES 63069 - 09000 - OTHER - SUB-TOTAL TOTAL NameÂ· ~ ~ ' f . A-. ANJ 4.-h. 1 9 /1 20 .t-1 Phone: 0 4 11 :IM ' Address: 111 C < I A- 3 4 5 - 4. - ,- Project: h :.-5 j f Check No. 3, 1 41 P f- .4 i Â¥) -TL D ate: Additional Billing: No. of Hours: