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