Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.716 S Galena St.5-811. DATE SUBMITTED:_ 2. APPLICANT: Ilo, No, J � 1. CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen STAFF: ku/i Pd I"oy kc,I 3. REPRESENTATIVE: L,,04k hml ;V\ ';Oor, 4. PROJECT NAME: SUA(Kl PJ)JtN,) 5. LOCATION: 6. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Rezoning P.U.D. Special Review Growth Management HPC 7. REFERRALS: Attorney X Engineering Dept. Housing, Water 6i <v,e��n °;.��r�;s.�;1 City Electric 8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: Subdivision Exception Exemption 70:30 Residential Bonus Sanitation District Fire Marshal Parks Holy Cross Electric Mountain Bell Stream Margin 8040 Greenline View Plane Conditional Use Other School District Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas State Highway Dept. Other 9. DISPOSIT /ION: / P & Z Approved ✓ Denied Date 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. (� — �— Ac n w k� _. Council Approved Denied Date 10. ROUTING: �/ Attorney /Building Engineering Other czj 5��� -¢ c o• �; �.�.�y A—, 43��� 10. ROUTING: �/ Attorney /Building Engineering Other Aspen /Pitk.in Planning,Office 130 south galena street aspen, colorado., 81611 MEMORANDUM TO =. Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department Willard Clapper, Fire Ch.ief FROM: Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Christopher Hemmeter - 8040 Greenli.ne 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!!! e i o Ool l� G N YAW ARCHITECTS,- UP __. }Planning and Zoning Commission .City of Aspen 130. South, Galena Aspen, Co.lorado 81611 0 !I Re: Christopher Hemmeter Residence , i , , , . Elevator. .-, App 1 icat i on for 8040 Review Dear Commission. Members: 1 Fo llowing. 804.0 Greentine 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.existiing elevator I 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 t ,seek 8040 approval for an upgraded access system. ! ; Additionall-y,. we seek 8040 approval for a landscape plan to include an. i ;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 i,s 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:i.ts. + --extens -i.ve system-of interconnecting wa 1 kways , b i -dges and 'sta i.r.s. w.i th a new, , relocated •elevator tower and a simplified single b.r;i'dgeway for . safer and more direct access to the house.. The new elevator.tower.and. connecting bridgeway are designed to considerably reduce,the.v.isua.l and . functional .complexity of the - vertical system. necessary for pedes.tr.ian ; 210 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.9252867 • 0 01 T19 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 .i.ts 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 surround.ing 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. • • Xr mm 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 visi=ble 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 • • - - -i — 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 access al "l-eVi -aces the 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 Agchitects , Ltd Larry Yaty, A.I4A. Principal LY:sd Aspen/Pitk.in Planning Office 130 south galena street aspen, a ®1®rad0.; 81611 IEMORAND.Ull 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. fie 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!!! / i^ �(. 6'5_ J~ \ -- � � -- - _ nxu� fomos/u- acC -- ---'-------r--�-'-=���--'- - - Ell- -- ' '- '-_ U - -- ----~ _ _ � .. | -' }�'-----'---- -'--'- - -- -- -- ~--- ---'- -` - - � --- /� i • I r , t -cab -v y 4i, - I i I t 1 I (vnlJ- f MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission ff J! FROM: Alan Richman, Planning Office RE: Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Amendment DATE: August 1,2, 1981 7� Zoning: R -15 Location: Lot 14, Bl,ock.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 (1.3 acres) Background: On February 10, 1931, you granted 8040 Greenline 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 -'r al f i nch'."(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 215 1981. You determined that the amended building .proposal did not meet the criteria of 8040 Greenli.ne 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. i 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. 3. 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 appli:cantls latent Comments: submissi:on.and finds that it is a considerable improve- ment upon the previous de.sfgn 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 exi:sti'ng decks.and 1600 square feet in the proposal you approved last February). 2. There i:s a 1 oweri;ng of the roof 1 i:ne, including a 2 1/2 foot vertical lowering over the rear' of the building, 3. The exterior treatment of. the bui:1di;ng, including new wood siding, lichen rock, sljdi:ng.,glass doors and railings offers relief from .the barn -Me appearance of the existing residence and "creates an architectural horizontal i:ty "%,Which will 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 sli'di:ng.glass doors replacing the non - conforming ,windows. The Planning Office also feels that you should know that the applicant has submitted a.landscapi:ng 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 appl i.- cant has provided drawings depi.cti:ng the building from the north, east, west and south directions, which will be avai.`lable at your meeting for your review. Planning Office The Planning Office recommends that you approve the Recommendation: amendment to your previous 8040.Greeli.ne review of the Hemmeter residence, and that you let your three existing conditions of approval stand as they are currently written. } Copland Hagma 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 Hagrnow 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 'tects, td Lar Yaw, .I. . Principal LY:sd Enclosures LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH .& .JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS MCGRATH, JR. (�' WILLIAM R. JORDAN III August 12, 19 81 B. LEE SCHUMACHER Planning and Zoning Commission City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Hemmeter -- 8040 Amendment Dear Commission Members: AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -2601 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, MCGRATH & JORDAN By j ," Ili t Gam. J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMjr /dw Copland Hagmaro Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colo*81611 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) 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 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. conforming, 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 request 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 measurest 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 2.21 vertical feet as a result of this extension. Copland Hagm *w Ltd Architects . Letter to Alan Richman 10 August 1981 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 1981. 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 (&A Larry Ya A. A. Principal LY : Im _.y •,' i • 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 III AuguS t 12 , 19 81 .. TELEPHONE 925 -2601 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 condit`.ions • 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, McGRATH & JORDAN ° NE : IR. COPY SIGNED J. NICHOLAS MC GRATH By J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMjr /dw �,�,. K•.- W�. �, ` � �.� %> � °/¢��0� I, F- IL HEMMETER REMODEL 0 O View from.' • 14 July 1981 Mr. Alan Richman Assistant Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Hemmeter Residence Renovation (Formerly Blitz Residence) O JUL 14 1981 L�... _--.�. ASPEN / PITKIN CO. PLANNING OFFICE 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 Ll MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission n 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 & Z in 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, 1981 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 (2Z) to one and a half (12) inch grated wye. b. 200 feet of one and a half inch (12 ") single jack hose. c. Two (2) - One and a half inch (12 ") 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 remodelmeets the purposes and Review: intent of Section 24 -6.2 of the Code. The remodeled struc- Q,�4. e,—C_ —�c. ture should lessen the visual impact of the building, par - a rG � A 1-. - A- ticularly in terms of the height and slope of the roof, since the proposed roof height will be 1.2 feet lower (.at its 11 , 61- � A 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. 3 . \� Iz- 0, ee\"t.0, ;� &x0 c..��� Q ~ -A &!Je.� --c--i &eQ._C-(, At CPssaAI ( -\ 61", ( ., A R-�.� ),A", .� �I Q,�4. e,—C_ —�c. r,,.L s a rG � A 1-. - A- � , � 4 n - �YSS 6%-k Llk� 11 , 61- � A tit C w. L 4A .. A Copland Hagmaw Ltd Architects PO Box 2736 Aspen Colol*81611 303 925 2867 26 February 1981 1981 Li 'i Mr. Alan Richman 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. cc: Chris Hemmeter Nick McGrath Herb Lawton Hand Delivered Very truly yours, Ha majYa chitec , Ltd Lar y AI ,t RONALD D. AUSTIN J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR. WILLIAM R. JORDAN III 6. LEE SCHUMACHER Mr. Alan Richman Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Alan: v LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 205 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 February 1211, 1981 Re: Christopher B. Hemmeter AREA CODE 303 TELEPHONE 925 -2601 ! FEB 1981 s� ASPEN / PITKIN — 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, McGRATH & JORDAN By Pja'.1L� CMMZL J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMjr /dw Enclosure cc: Robert B. Edmondson, Esq. w /enc. Gideon I. Kaufman, Esq. Mr. Jack Miller 0 or�himwiill his� heir' s.- and -ass hereb It' zing aC described on; Ext, n b corporAted erein, Y;, this '.�.:ieference'; wish et:�: :fire is attributable t6: a the puipoae firefighting 'to,_the I'll", lll'El.'w dri" —ROBS'Nw BL17Z b - his- act ey n i tact, Gideon Kaufman. man ... .. . . ... . accepted by- the Ci C-1 Of rwledged STACY _Wx 7 bmd'sworn to before me thin 1979',-,-.,by'.Cideon Kaufman, attorney in fact expires, e 9 .--.,- a n September i: 12,.:.i 2 8 ins rry;?hand and official 3 a a 1'. - : X :. .. ..�..:.::.s.»....w•.. ' ,.c.+.u.'.a:'w:a_ e- ..t...x -.�w. .,,..a,. u..:uw+'...'.- .w..�: n._ P.. d :.. . ,r a :. .a...... rte: ..e..."..u.v..w .:::.1:- '.....'.eT,,i_: .wv.. 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 ', be o the 8.040 line (we . are° here'. for" this review . because "`the :- regulation, .as you know, requires review if the development ' y :not_ be is w thiri:: 50 yards of _the . 8040 line) ,; : While ,it ma 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. = Inst'ead;'` "`a combinatoiz of landscaping, stone, and horizontally applied wood will. lessen the:present emphasis " the vertical " "on 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: 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. erosion and consequence: "`on water pollution:" Response. Again, all of these concerns :• y. " : =1 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 any, reasonable steps to = mitigate any possible problems including use of hay bales, interim landscaping during the construction and permanent landscaping thereafter. m d , AUSTIN MCGRATH JORDAN - NIr 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, `exi sting. , building not to "be` quite as attractive.;.as °it. could be We hope you will ;..grant favorable approval for ,this °remodel . aNe. "have'provided'copies ; of the building. plans: o`the. staff and_ the'.Engineering?Department and we will have copies for your. review at' the hearing. Thank you Sincerely., AUSTIN,, MCGRATH & JORDAN x By J Nicholas McGrath,. Jr. JNMj r /dw Enclosure is MEMORANDUM TO: City Attorney City Engineer FROM: Alan Richman RE:, Hemmeter 8040 Greenline Review DATE: January 20, 1981 0 The attached application, submitted by Christopher Hemmeter, requests 8040 Greenline speci.al 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. 0 u LJ LAW OFFICES AUSTIN MCGRATH & JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE SUITE 20S RONALD D. AUSTIN ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 J. NICHOLAS McGRATH, JR. (� AREA CODE 303 WILLIAM R. JORDAN III February 3, 19 81 TELEPHONE 925 -2601 B. LEE SCHUMACHER s_ - par--- Smn?'T-Va—nn ' Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 - 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 JR. (a Thanks. Sincerely, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By �iuc- J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr. JNMj r /dw Enclosure cc: Mr. Herb Lawton Gideon Kaufman, Esq. Mr. Jack Miller ��i L•r ����Y i[ �I��d 'Gd �L�rie✓��ii ���6a WILi��6.+fdi �d .1.+P �.��i� a a`%��.r 11 `�� .. , 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 dell_ 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, - C . e .C1ay�n 1i �' ring Chief Bui ding Inspector ... .... •__e._s�. ��'[ 73 ------------' '--- Go ^'- -_-- ��-------r---� ---- C- oOQ— .', k -- --------------------------- o� ' � ' !�Z_LA-AA -, -0 1-t 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 reconstru-c tion 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. I 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 Greenne 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 construc- 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. a� s ugcl <vA I e4l �'r o� putroLa4 Condo Y'aw (eRier ' I No. [' CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen 1. DATE CERTIFIED COMPLETE: STAFF: i. 2. APPLICANT:Jrj� ";'{:' %i''/` 3." REPRESENTATIVE: �. 1"�' U' al'i yi-- ( cfl cl"' eh 4 • s 4. PROJECT NAME: • %' 1C %'' i"'l' - ' "' %d�r T 2 r "'� C iF!`f'l� /!•'' 5. LOCATION: �7' : ; /�ck ,�7 v Xr �0 6. TYPE OF 4PPLICAT*ION: i �-' ?;''� .ti U 4 Step: GMP ( ) PUD Subdivision 2 Step: Subdivision Exception-( ) GMP Exception Rezoning SPA ' 1 Step: Use Determination ..� -4h ,-v Conditional Use r� a. •1 �t �t � ,..4 � Special Review ( Q • ' ? } 8i HPC No. of Stepp : Other: .7. REFERRALS Attorney Sanitation District School District Engineering Dept. Mountain Sell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas t Housing Parks State Highway Dept. i Water Holy Cross Electric --L-Fire Chief City Electric Fire Marshal /Building Dept. Other 8. DISPOSITION aU f� �'>;1;�'Y1ai �$ ; ► r; ° P& Z Approved_ !/ Denied_ Date rO D -En 1. The applicant must minimize any disturbance from construc- -_��� 'A tion 9:hroug-h retaining walls and piers and through the provision of adequate, timely revegetation. 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 p� must �e `iilyd an-1 rcvegetated to prevent ero��ion and • °S drainacte 17rof�leirs�G? E s -:. 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) 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'we re . 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. E s r.� Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office 13.0 south galena street r aspen,, colorado -� X1611. 1r:, R 199? {j MEMORANDUM ?f??1N CC?. TO: Paul Taddune, City Attorney City Engineering Department Wi 1 l and Cl a.pper, Fire _Chief . FROM: .Alice Davis, Planning Office RE: Christopher Hemmeter - 8040 Greenline.Revi.ew 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 & Z on May 18, 1982; please respond with any comments by May 6. Thank you. 7 �� 4 2 6d --e `--1 (J '- -tom,,. emu% I]It � O F'AGMiAN YAW ARCHITECTS, UP E 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 Gre.enline 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 2'10 SOU EI i GALE \A SUITE 24 A�TKN COLORADO 8-i611 303 ^927 - 2186' 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) 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. taiJl�.l!I�II� lilni'�iL! ® �s HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 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 wal.ls are designed to provide more slope stability than currently exists, and stepped planting areas .wi.11 h b h h d t bilit (see sheet 3) en ance of t e site appearance an its s a y, 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. ii.0 ;, NL 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 si.ding, 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- HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 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 Arc tect td La ry Ya . f Principa -LY : s d • IIA+GMtAN 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 Comm i s s i_ on::M6mbe rs 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 r replace its extensive system of interconnecting walkways, bridges and f 1'10 SOUTH GALENA SUITE 24 ASPEN COLORADO 81611 303.925 -286' —ate 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) 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. HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 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 reveget.ated. Retaining wal.ls..,are designed to provide.more slope -stabi 1 ity than .currently'. exists, and- stepped _planting `areas wi'l l 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. �'��!Illlli,,IiCIIiL HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 1982 Page Four N T. • 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. Whether proposed grading will result .in the least disturbance to the terra "in, 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- HAGMAN YAW ARCHITECTS, LTD Letter to Planning and Zoning Commission 23 April 1982 Page Five ments, both vertically and horizontally. The height of the elevator tower (increased by V-011 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 Arc tect td La ry .Ya Principa LY:sd - ���G�1�71Ci1✓ �` /�U2��� �ilv Philip R. Moore 350 Franklin St. Deriver, Colorado 80218 May 7, 1982 RECE, VED 2.1982 Mr. Larry Yaw MAY 1 c/o Hagman - Yaw Architects ASPEN p`TKIN CO. 210 South Galena St. N9 lNG 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, Philip R. Moore PRM /dld