HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20240807AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
August 7, 2024
4:30 PM, City Council Chambers -
3rd Floor
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
I.SITE VISIT
II.ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A Draft Minutes - 6/26/24 & 7/10/24
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XII.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
XIII.OLD BUSINESS
XIV.NEW BUSINESS
Special Meeting
Site Visit at 325 W. Hopkins Ave. to begin at 12:00pm
minutes.hpc.20240626_DRAFT.docx
minutes.hpc.20240710_DRAFT.docx
1
1
XIV.A 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations
Review - Public Hearing
XV.ADJOURN
XVI.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Staff Memo.325 W Hopkins Ave..pdf
Exhibit A - HP Design Guidelines - Staff Findings.pdf
Exhibit B - Relocation Criteria - Staff Findings.pdf
Exhibit C - Variation Criteria - Staff Findings.pdf
Exhibit D - Combined Referral Comments.pdf
Exhibit E - Application.pdf
Exhibit E.1 - Revised Drawings.pdf
Exhibit E.2 - Response to Staff Comments.pdf
Exhibit E.3 - Grading Drainage and UtilityPlan.pdf
TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS
(1 Hour, 15 Minutes for each Major Agenda Item)
1. Declaration of Conflicts of Interest (at beginning of agenda)
2. Presentation of proof of legal notice (at beginning of agenda)
3. Applicant presentation (10 minutes for minor development; 20 minutes for major
development)
4. Board questions and clarifications of applicant (5 minutes)
5. Staff presentation (5 minutes for minor development; 10 minutes for major
development)
6. Board questions and clarifications of staff (5 minutes)
7. Public comments (5 minutes total, or 3 minutes/ person or as determined by the Chair)
8. Close public comment portion of hearing
9. Applicant rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
10. Staff rebuttal/clarification (5 minutes)
End of fact finding. Chairperson identifies the issues to be discussed.
11. Deliberation by the commission and findings based on criteria commences. No further
input from applicant or staff unless invited by the Chair. Staff may ask to be recognized if
there is a factual error to be corrected. If the item is to be continued, the Chair may
provide a summary of areas to be restudied at their discretion, but the applicant is not to
re-start discussion of the case or the board’s direction. (20 minutes)
12. Motion. Prior to vote the chair will allow for call for clarification for the proposed
resolution.
Please note that staff and/or the applicant must vacate the dais during the opposite
presentation and board question and clarification session. Both staff and applicant team
will vacate the dais during HPC deliberation unless invited by the chair to return.
Updated: March 7, 2024
2
2
3
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick, Charlie
Tarver, and Kara Thompson. Absent were Peter Fornell, Jodi Surfas and Jeffrey Halferty.
Staff present:
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 5/22/24. Ms. Raymond seconded.
Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes. 3-0, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs wanted to comment on the 205 W. Main St. item that had been
in front of the HPC. He mentioned that after submitting a CORA request to monitor the progress of the
administrative process, he said that there was a document (entered as Exhibit D in agenda packet) from
Mr. Hayden that raised the issue of whether the west addition was in fact historic. Mr. Hayden said that
he had found evidence that it was historic. Ms. Thompson’s reply said that the applicant represented
that it was not historic, but if it was historic it needs to remain. Mr. Scruggs stated that that changes the
whole dynamic of the project. He wanted to inquire if that addition was determined to be historic or
not.
Ms. Johnson reminded the HPC that this is the public comment portion of the meeting and that the 205
W Main St. project is not before the board tonight. She noted that the board was under no obligation to
answer that question.
Ms. Thompson said that they did not have an answer yet. When there is an answer staff will
communicate it.
Mr. Scruggs then stated that the applicant was asking for the trash component of the project to be
placed in the 5’ west setback and have a waiver on the height limitation. He believed that both of those
requests were not allowed in this type of review.
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer commented that it was great that we live in a
community that citizens can come before the HPC and state their concerns as Mr. Scruggs did.
Ms. Pitchford asked if there was a timeframe by which an answer to Mr. Scruggs’ question must be
given. Ms. Johnson said there was no specific timeframe but noted that staff tries to get to these
requests as timely as possible.
Ms. Raymond asked if the permit application had already been submitted. Ms. Thompson said no.
Mr. Tarver recommended, knowing the current staff constraints, that instead of having one agenda item
every two weeks, that they schedule two items once a month. Ms. Johnson said that staff tries to keep
in mind the applicant’s timeframes into scheduling. Mr. Hayden echoed Ms. Johnson’s comment.
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Thompson noted that she was conflicted on the agenda
item and would leave the meeting at that point. She mentioned that they would be appointing Mr.
Moyer as interim chair for the rest of the meeting.
PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been eight project
monitoring items. These were at:
135 E. Cooper Ave.
227 E. Bleeker St.
333 E. Bleeker St.
132 W. Hopkins Ave.
720 E. Hyman Ave.
420 W. Francis St.
510 E. Durant Ave.
211 W. Main St.
He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet.
Mr. Moyer noted that this should have been in his earlier comments, but he asked where staff was in
the study of insulation on historic buildings. Mr. Hayden noted that since Ms. Armstrong left, there
hadn’t been much movement, since she was predominantly doing the work on that longer term project.
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson commented about the staffing of the Historic Planning team and the
recent turnover. He noted that they had received an accepted employment offer. He went on to briefly
describe the new employee’s background and mentioned that she would bring a lot of great experience.
He then addressed the commissions’ comments about agenda item scheduling and noted that at the
moment, Mr. Hayden had a lot of constraints on his capacity and over the next couple of months staff
would still be trying to navigate those limitations.
Ms. Pitchford asked about the general staffing needs of the historic preservation department. Mr.
Anderson spoke to the current staffing levels and the open positions. He also noted that Kirstin
Armstrong was still working on a temporary basis.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last HPC meeting there had
been two certificates of no negative effect items. These were at 201 E. Hyman Ave. and 510 E. Hyman
Ave. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet.
CALL UP REPORTS:Mr. Hayden noted that the 808 Cemetery Lane item that HPC had recently heard,
went in front of City Council for second reading and was unanimously approved.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed
in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item.
She then notified the commissioners that since Mr. Halferty was absent and Ms. Thompson was
conflicted, they have in the past nominated Mr. Moyer as interim chair.
Ms. Thompson left the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS: 335 Lake Ave –Minor Development and Relocation -PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams; Mike Albert – Design Workshop; Erica Williams
– Olsen Kundig
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
Ms. Adams started her presentation by going over the minor development request and the list of
exterior remodel items that they are proposing and passed around a 3D model of the project. The
remodel items included replacing the barrel-vaulted roof, removal of some projecting balconies,
replacing a roof connection between the main house and garage, simplifying the material pallet and
updating the windows and landscaping. She noted that this work is not triggering demolition by the
City’s definition. She said that they would be presenting how they comply with the guidelines on the
elements of the project that they are touching and that the goal is to make the addition meet the
guidelines where they can, knowing that the scope is a minor development. She also noted that they are
proposing relocation in order to lift the house to underpin and add a crawl space underneath the
existing basement.
She then described the location of the house in the R6 zone while showing some historic pictures and
the site map of the historic lots. She also detailed the history of the property and the lot split that
occurred in 2005. She noted that this project will reduce the floor area of the building by about 150
square feet.
She showed the existing conditions and noted the grade change on the lot going up to the house from
Lake Ave. She pointed out the red sandstone foundation wall surrounding the historic house that was
added in 2005 and noted that there is no evidence of a stone foundation ever being on the house prior.
She showed a few more pictures of the house from different angles as well as other houses in the area
to give some context.
Ms. Adams went on to describe the proposed changes, starting with the landscaping. These changes are
designed to bring in better alignment with the design guidelines and include various perennial planting
around the house, the thinning out of some trees between the neighboring house per the forester’s
recommendations, and some lilacs proposed near the retaining wall on the front grade. She then moved
to the hardscape and noted that they are proposing a lighter grey concrete material pallet. This included
pavers for the stairs leading up to the house and grey stone for the retaining wall to replace the existing
red sandstone. She said that a point of discussion in the staff memo was their proposed material for the
driveway. She said that the existing material is a red tinted concrete that is now cracking, and that they
are proposing grey granite cobbles due to their durability. She then noted the simple lighting plan that
was in the application but wanted to comment on staff’s concerns in the packet regarding the two light
fixtures on the front stairway upper landing. She said that while walkway lighting is up to HPC discretion,
this was an important safety issue for the applicant and would go a long way in making it feel safer. She
noted that they are proposed to be 18” tall. She then reviewed the historic preservation guidelines
associated with their proposed landscaping elements.
Ms. Adams then went on to describe the levels of the house and showed some existing and proposed
elevations noting that anything in red is proposed to be removed. These included some window changes
and the removal of existing triangular balconies that jut out on historic structure. These would be cut
back and tucked in, so they are not visible from Lake Ave. They were also proposing to replace the
existing gabled roof between the garage and non-historic addition with a thin metal roof form. Next, she
showed their overall roof plan and noted the existing barrel-vaulted roof that is standing seam metal is
to be replaced with a new gable roof. They are proposing to simplify the roof materials by having it all be
wood shingles. She said that they felt that the siding and new windows on the new addition goes far
enough to distinguish between new and old. She said that for the historic resource, they are proposing
painted clapboard siding and she noted that the existing siding on the building is not historic, and they
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
are proposing to leave it in place. They are proposing stained wood siding for the addition. She also
pointed out on the elevations the change from the barrel-vaulted roof to a gable style and admitted that
that roof form change would change the roof height slightly.
Next, she described the current foundation condition that includes red sandstone that comes up about
two and a half feet and is not historic. They are proposing to replace it with a light grey concrete and
install new clapboard siding down so that there is only about a 6-inch exposure of the concrete. She
then touched on the design guidelines that were brought up in the staff memo as somewhat met or not
met at all and gave their reasons why they believed they were met. These dealt with guideline 9.5
regarding the foundation and 10.6 dealing with the roof form and materials. She wrapped up by
reviewing the conditions of approval included in the resolution.
Ms. Raymond asked about the foundation and bringing the clapboard down to 6 inches. She asked once
this was completed if there wouldn’t be a step in the siding. Ms. Adams said yes. Ms. Raymond then
raised concerns over the use of a wood roofing material over much of the project. She suggested that
the applicant check with their insurance company. She then asked for clarification of the proposed
location of the lilacs on Lake Ave. Ms. Adams said that they would be down at the main street level,
almost in the right of way. There was some discussion of their exact proposed location.
Ms. Pitchford commented on the proposed wood shingles and noted that HPC tries to distinguish
between the historic and non-historic portions of the structure and that the roofing materials is one of
those factors.
Ms. Raymond asked how they will drain the newly proposed metal plate roof over the breezeway. Ms.
Williams said it would have a slight pitch and gutter.
Ms. Pitchford then stated that she was struggling on the proposed lights on the walkway as they
conflicted with the design guidelines. There was some discussion about the exception that may be
granted for safety reason that is noted in the guidelines.
Mr. Tarver asked whether Ms. Admas knew if the existing non-historic red sandstone foundation
material had replaced a historic stone foundation wall. Ms. Admas said they have no evidence of what
was there before.
Mr. Moyer asked if they had considered any other solutions other than adding siding to hide the cement
foundation. Ms. Adams said they thought that was the best solution. Mr. Moyer also asked if they
anticipated any issues with the proposed roof venting or if they were planning any new openings on the
historic resource. Ms. Adams answered no to both questions.
Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden - Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden started his presentation by noting that the proposed project at 335 Lake Ave. satisfies most
of the historic preservation design guidelines and he commended the applicant for following the
guidelines. He noted that the few exceptions could be easily improved by the conditions in the
resolution.
He then discussed the driveway materials pointing to guideline 1.4, as stated in the packet materials. He
said that trying to better meet the second bullet point is why staff was suggesting in the approval
conditions that another material be researched and approved by staff and monitor. This is of particular
sensitivity, because the driveway doesn’t go to an alley but goes to another street behind It and that
some neighbors consider that to be their front street facing side. He also addressed guideline 1.14
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
concerning lighting on the walkway and said that while staff agrees that there is a safety need for
lighting, since the elevation at that point is about eight feet above the street, there is a concern of light
spill.
He moved onto guideline 9.5 about the foundation and noted that while the proposed exposed concrete
is appropriate, the addition of more clapboard siding gives a false sense of the historic height of the
resource. He continued onto guidelines 10.3, 10.4, 10.6 and 10.9 and went over staff’s reasoning of why
they were not met as described in the staff findings portion (Exhibit A) of the agenda packet.
Next, he noted that staff finds that the proposed relocation to dig the proposed crawl space under the
existing basement was an acceptable preservation method. He wrapped up by stating that staff
recommends approval with the conditions outlined in Exhibit A of the agenda packet as well as included
in the draft resolution.
Mr. Moyer asked if dark skies was considered here and on other projects. Mr. Hayden noted that while
not part of the historic guidelines, there was a recently updated section of the Land Use Code that deals
with light pollution, and it would be addressed at permitting.
Mr. Tarver asked if there was a certain max height that staff would like the proposed lilacs to be. Mr.
Hayden said that it was more of an ongoing maintenance issue, but it could be included as a condition
by HPC.
Public Comment:
Suzanne Leydecker noted that she lived at 710 N 3
rd St. She believed that based on her home that there
was a very large foundation under the structure. She was slightly concerned about the potential height
increase of the gabled roof that will replace the barrel-vaulted roof on the addition. She noted that
when she worked on her historic house, there was a limit placed on the roof height and now it sounds
like this applicant would be able to build higher. She noted that in her many years living next to this
house, everyone enters it from 3rd Street as there is no parking on Lake St. She also mentioned several
trees on the vacant lot that had caused damage to her property over the years. She noted that in
previous years the property had been rented and interior lights were constantly on which shown into
her bedroom.
Ms. Claude Salter asked about the proposed lighting on the path and noted that is it really dark in that
area, and she supported having more light there. She wanted to bring to the commission’s attention
that the property line is above the bank itself so the proposed lilac plantings would be in the public right
of way. She was wondering if the applicant was planning on making a parking space in that same right of
way. She was curious if the dry stacked red sandstone retaining wall was to be ripped out and replaced.
She also wondered if it was proposed to micropile the entire foundation to dig the crawl space as that
would be very impactful to live through. She wanted to prepare for a lot of loud construction.
Ms. Adams responded to Ms. Salter’s question about the parking space and noted that it was included in
the 2005 HPC application and is still currently open for public use. She also noted that the current red
sandstone retaining wall would be replaced with grey stacked stone. Ms. Williams said that the current
drawings do not show the need for micropiles but that could change during construction.
In response to Ms. Leydecker’s question, Mr. Moyer asked what the difference would be from the
existing barrel roof to the proposed gable roof peak. Ms. Adams said currently the barrel roof measures
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
just over 24 feet and the new gable roof would be approximately 24 and a half feet. She noted the max
height for the zone district is 25 feet.
Ms. Pitchford asked the applicant why they needed an additional 6-foot crawl space under the existing
basement. Ms. Adams said it was for mechanical equipment and storage.
Ms. Raymond asked the applicant if they could produce the elevation drawings that show the difference
in height of the current barrel roof and the proposed gable roof. Ms. Adams said they would work to
produce those.
Mr. Hayden responded to public comments by stating that the application represents the difference in
height of the current barrel roof and the peak of the proposed gable was approximately 1 foot and 4
inches.
Ms. Raymond thanked Mr. Hayden for the information and noted that while it was still under the
allowable height, it was taller than existing and could be an issue for neighbors and is worth considering.
Mr. Hayden wanted to note for the record that the neighboring vacant lot does have developable floor
area so future development on the lot is possible that may affect the views from surrounding properties.
Ms. Raymond asked if Mr. Hayden could speak more to his view of how the proposed change in the roof
form and height met or did not meet the design guidelines. Mr. Hayden said it was a tricky balance
between making it compatible to the historic resource and at the same time distinguishing it. He said in
his mind it was becoming more compatible, but adding a similar shingle roof takes it too far and harder
to distinguish. He commented on the roof height increase and noted that because of the grade on the
lot, one cannot see the addition from Lake Avenue, so it was not as much of a concern for him. He said
one can also not see the historic resource from 3rd St.
Board Discussion:Mr. Moyer started board discussion by going through the list of conditions of
approval stated by staff.
The first condition was regarding the driveway material. The board was in support of the applicants
request to use the granite cobblestone material. Staff’s condition to use an alternate material was
stricken from the resolution.
The second condition dealt with the proposed lilacs. The board was in support of the lilacs if they were
of a dwarf variety. Staff’s condition was amended to include the use of a dwarf lilac variety.
The third condition regarding the property line fence was left unchanged.
The fourth condition was regarding the light fixtures. Mr. Warwick was in support of the light fixtures on
the walkway for safety reasons if they were downlit. Ms. Pitchford agreed with staff that the western
most light fixtures up near the front porch should be eliminated. Ms. Raymond said she would be ok
with them if they were shorter. Mr. Albert said it would be feasible to use a 12 to 15-inch fixture. The
board agreed to amend the condition to reduce the western most fixtures to 12 to 15 inches in height.
The fifth condition regarding the roof vents and pipes was left unchanged.
The sixth condition regarding the installation of addition clapboard siding was left unchanged. Mr.
Warwick agreed that 2 and a half feet of concrete was not ideal, but also thought that siding all the way
down to grade was also not ideal. Ms. Raymond agreed with staff that it would change the proportionof
what the historic building looks like.
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
The seventh condition regarding the alternate roofing was first amended to remove the alternative
option that the applicant add a 10-foot connector to separate the historic resource and the existing non-
historic addition. Ms. Pitchford was concerned of the proposed roofing materials being the same on
both historic and non-historic. She thought it would be become non-distinguishable. The rest of the
board members agreed to leave the first part of the condition unchanged.
Ms. Johnson noted that the applicant did not indicate any issues with the remaining standard
conditions.
Ms. Raymond brought up the increase in the roof height of the proposed new gable. She asked if the
board was ok with the 15-inch increase. Mr. Warwick and Mr. Moyer were fine with it. Mr. Warwick said
that with the grade you cannot see the new roofline. He said in his opinion it was not in their authority
as long as the change stayed under the max height per the Code.
Ms. Raymond said that she had sat on the other side of this table for a long time and over those years
she felt the board had been somewhat inconsistent in what it allowed or requested. She noted that the
design guidelines state that new additions should not be taller than the historic resource and that the
roof replacement is basically new construction. She noted the concern of affected neighbors.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Ms. Raymond’s comments and said that regardless of whether they are
allowed to do it or not, it would end up overwhelming the historic resource.
Mr. Tarver moved to extend the meeting until 7:15pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor…motion
passes.
Mr. Hayden informed the members that the lot next door was part of a historic lot split and thus any
future development would come before HPC. He also reminded them that roof height, as long as it met
the max height found in the code was within HPC’s purview.
Ms. Adams noted that the height of the existing barrel-vaulted roof was already taller than the historic
resource.
Ms. Johnson noted that if the proposed height of the new roof was an issue a condition could be added
to the resolution to address it,or they could ask the applicant to restudy it. The board agreed not to
include anything about the roof height in the resolution.
MOTION:Ms. Pitchford moved to approve Resolution #07 with the conditions proposed by staff as well
as the amendments to conditions 1,2,4 and 7 as discussed. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll call vote: Mr.
Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes. 5-0, motion
passes.
Ms. Raymond and Mr. Tarver were assigned as monitors.
Mr. Raymond asked if they could potentially schedule a work session to address her concerns of
inconsistencies that HPC has directed over the years. Ms. Johnson said that requesting a work session
on a topic such as that was within HPC’s right but was dependent on staff time and resources. There was
some discussion on the ability to meet to discuss this and potentially other topics.
Ms. Johnson noted that while she appreciated Ms. Raymond’s concerns, she noted that board members,
as well as their opinions do change over time.
Mr. Anderson commented on the current environment of the historic preservation program and noted
some of the differences from when it was started. He also noted that not only has the program changed
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JUNE 26TH, 2024
over time, but the City itself has changed on a variety of issues over that same time. He thought that
with the new historic preservation staff member coming on to lead the program soon, there would be
some opportunities to take an overall look at the program and potentially identifying areas that might
need addressing.
Ms. Raymond thanked Mr. Anderson for his comments and suggested that the HPC members think
about topics that they may want to discuss and wait to have a work session once the new staff member
has started.
Ms. Pitchford agreed.
ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024
Interim Chairperson Moyer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford, and Charlie
Tarver. Absent were Peter Fornell, Riley Warwick, Jeffrey Halferty and Kara Thompson.
Staff present:
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Surfas inquired about a large outdoor refrigerator outside the
new Wild Fig restaurant. Mr. Hayden noted that while it was in the historic district, this was not a
designated historic property. He said that he would look into what was being installed to make sure it
complied with what was approved.
Ms. Pitchford asked about the Boomerang. She noted that the building is clearly deteriorating. She knew
that the City took some action there, but all she can see is that they put up a fence. Mr. Hayden noted
that he advocated for taking down the screening on the fence so that people could have eyes on the
building. He said that the owners were on track with their repairs.
Ms. Johnson noted that the City had taken action against them in Municipal Court to fix the issues. She
said that there had been many engineering site visits and there were not a lot of concerns with the
structural integrity of the building. She noted that while the owners had applied for a repair permit, she
did not believe that the building would look any different aesthetically once the repairs were complete.
Ms. Pitchford asked if the building could sit there as is for the next 50 years. Ms. Johnson said that as
long as they maintain the structural integrity, yes. She said that there is no obligation by the property
owner to occupy or develop it.
Then Ms. Pitchford asked about the Crystal Palace building. She noted that it had been made tidy from
the outside, but wondered if they could just let it sit. Ms. Johnson noted that they do have a building
permit and that work is being done on the interior.
Mr. Tarver asked if Historic Preservation staff were staying on top of the Boomerang Lodge. Ms. Johnson
said yes.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: None
STAFF COMMENTS: None
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024
CALL UP REPORTS:None
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed
in compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item.
NEW BUSINESS: 117 North Sixth Street - Minor Development -PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jake Ezratty – Brikor Associates; Monty Earl
Mr. Ezratty started by handing out a few materials related to their request. He stated that they are
representing the Tolk’s who have some concerns about the historic structure on their historic structure.
They believe the roof needs replacing but are concerned with replacing it with the exact same material
due to fire hazard and structural issues. They felt it would be better to use a metal material as a
replacement as it is lighter and promotes snow to slide off. He noted there was a letter from the
engineer in the packet.
Mr. Earl noted that a lot of these types of historic roofs in town had survived the snow loads because
they were not insulated. He also noted that once the building is insulated the snow will build up, which
is why they were proposing a metal roof. He also referenced the increased risk of wildfires and the fire
hazard that wooden roofs pose. He noted that metal is a common roofing material throughout town,
and he listed some of its sustainability benefits.
Ms. Raymond asked when the house was built. Ms. Pitchford said that in staff’s report it notes that it
was built in 1885.
Mr. Moyer asked if a fully installed metal roof weighs more than a wood shingle roof. The applicants
said a metal roof would be lighter. Mr. Moyer asked if the current structure supporting the existing
shingled roof in good condition. Mr. Earl said they were not completely sure as the building had not
been opened up since a remodel in the 1990s.
Ms. Raymond asked what the Class A roof assembly would be for the proposed metal roof. Mr. Earl
detailed that assembly. Mr. Ezratty explained that more underlayers were required on a Class A wood
shingle roof assembly which would add more weight than what is currently there.
Ms. Surfas asked why they were wanting a lighter weight metal roof, as the engineer’s letter presented
to them mentioned that there were no obvious structural issues with the house. Mr. Earl said the while
there may not be any obvious issues, the engineer was not able to fully inspect the structure as it was
not opened up. He also reiterated the snow load concerns.
Mr. Tarver asked whether they had looked at using synthetic wood look shingles. Mr. Earl said he was
not aware that those were allowed.
Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden – Acting Principal Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden started his presentation by describing the structure and its location and noted that he
believed the location, form and style of this historic resource make the roof a particularly prominent and
defining feature. He showed a few pictures of neighboring structures and noted that there was a variety
of shingled roofs in the area. He said that as far as he could tell the structure had always had a wood
shingled roof.
13
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024
Mr. Hayden went over the historic design guidelines, pointing out guidelines 7.7, 7.8, 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6
as described in the staff findings portion of the agenda packet. He detailed why staff found these
guidelines to be not met as spelled out in the agenda materials. As a result, Mr. Hayden said that staff’s
recommendation is denial of this application.
Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Hayden if the existing shingled roof on the non-historic structure was to stay the
same, would his opinion stay the same regarding changing from wood to metal on the historic structure.
Mr. Hayden said no, as there are elements of the non-historic structure that use metal roof materials
and that the intent of guidelines 7.7 and 7.8 is to maintain the historic character of the historic resource.
Ms. Raymond asked Mr. Hayen if he could speak to the fire protection aspects. Mr. Hayden noted that
fire protection issues were not addressed in the applicant’s proposal and that some flexibility had been
created in the guidelines to take fire protection into account, allowing for the use of alternative
materials.
Mr. Earl noted that the metal roof on the breezeway of the non-historic structure was a galvanized zinc
and silver in color. They believed that the proposed black standing seam metal for the historic resource
would be considered the separation of materials.
Mr. Ezratty mentioned that their main concern is the longevity of the structure as a whole. He reiterated
their concerns with adding more weight with a Class A shingled roof assembly.
Public Comment:None
Board Discussion:Ms. Raymond started the discussion by recognizing the fire issues and noted the
recent discussions by HPC regarding alternate shingle materials that could be used. She thought that this
particular building may not be the best application for a metal roof and referenced the other composite
materials out there that look more like wood shingles and would better meet the guidelines. She said
that the perceived structural issues did not hold a lot of weight in her mind as the building has stood for
over 100 years and we do not get as much snow as we used to. She understood the need to preserve
the building from fire.
Ms. Surfas thought the applicant was conflating two issues…the fire issues and the structural integrity.
She wondered which was the real concern. From what she could tell, there was no reason for a lighter
weight roof other than the applicant thinking it was needed.
Ms. Pitchford agreed with Ms. Raymond and said that her main concern was related to guideline 7.7 to
maintain the historic character of the historic roof. She thought putting a metal roof on the structure
would change the character.
Mr. Tarver asked Mr. Hayden to clarify that a historic structure that originally had a metal roof can
replace it with metal and a historic structure without a metal roof originally can’t. Ms. Johnson noted
that “can’t” is too strong of a word because they were dealing with guidelines and not rules. She said
that it is about evaluating the historical character of structure and the likeness of materials that are
being proposed. She noted that there is no historical context that there was a metal roof. Mr. Tarver
also noted that there were non-metal roofing materials that were fire retardant available.
Mr. Moyer said that he agreed with staff primarily on guideline 7.7.
Ms. Johnson noted that a denial from HPC would mean the applicant would not be able to reapply with
a substantially similar proposal for one year. She said that what HPC has suggested in the past is for the
14
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION JULY 10TH, 2024
applicant to either withdraw the application or request a continuance to reevaluate their proposal in
order to avoid a denial. She said that it was ultimately up to the applicant.
Mr. Ezratty asked about the recent changes to the guidelines regarding flexibility in materials. Ms.
Johnson explained that it allowed for metal roofing to be a possibility but did not change how HPC was
supposed to evaluate metal roof proposals. She further explained the applicant’s options here.
Mr. Earl asked what the process would be if they proposed replacing the roof with the exact same
materials as exist now. Ms. Johnson said that it would not have to come before HPC in that situation.
There was some continued discussion of the applicant’s options for withdrawal or continuance.
MOTION:Ms. Raymond moved to continue this hearing to September 11th, 2024 at 4:30pm. Mr. Moyer
seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr.
Tarver, yes. 5-0 vote, motion passes.
ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Surfas seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
15
Page 1 of 6
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Stuart Hayden, Interim Principal Planner, Historic Preservation
THROUGH: Bob Narracci, Interim Planning Director
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2024
RE: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and
Variations, PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant/Owner:
325 W HOPKINS
LLC, PO BOX 7699
Aspen, CO 81611
Representative:
BendonAdams, LLC
Address:
325 W. Hopkins Ave.
Legal Description:
Lots C and D, Block
46 of the City and
Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado
Parcel
Identification
Number:
2735-124-64-002
Current Zoning &
Use:
R-6 – Residential
Proposed Use:
Residential
Summary: The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for
Major Development, Relocation, and Variations at 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
for the purposes of restoring the historic resource and constructing a
new, detached, two-story, single-family residence to its side and rear.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuation of the
conceptual major development review of 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
Figure 1: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. – Site Location Aerial Image
16
Page 2 of 6
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
BACKGROUND:
325 W. Hopkins Ave. is an individually designated historic property of 6,000 square feet in
the R-6 zone district. Although its construction date is unknown, a single-story, wood-frame
Miner’s Cottage with a cross-gable roof, and a front porch was sited in the northwest corner of the
property by 1890. In the 1970s a large one-story, gable-roofed addition was made to the rear of
the historic resource and the front porch altered. In the 1980s, a large, L-shaped structures was
added to the east side thereof.
REQUESTS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
• Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development (Section 26.415.070(d)) for the
construction of a new structure within a historic property, a new development that has
been determined not to be minor development; and alterations to more than three (3)
elements of a building façade including its windows, doors, roof planes, materials, and
porch.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090) for underpinning or lifting the the existing building for
repairs to the existing foundation.
• Variations (Section 26.415.110(c)) to setback requirements to maintain the historic (and
current) location of the resource within the front and (west) side setbacks.
The HPC is the final review authority of these requests. Any HPC approval of demolition and/or
relocation, however, may be subject to call up by City Council.
Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map with Property Boundary Figure 3: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. in 1980
17
Page 3 of 6
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The application proposes to demolish all non-historic additions, including the front porch,
to construct a new rear addition and front porch; remove all non-historic windows; reconstruct all
windows; underpin and/or lift the historic resource to repair the exiting foundation; maintain the
siting of the historic resource within the front and (west) side setbacks; and construct a two-story
stand-alone single-family dwelling to the side and behind the historic resource, including a garage,
parking pad, patio, fencing, and landscaping.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff supports the proposed “relocation” and variations requested in the application.
Several aspects of the conceptual development plan, however, do not meet the Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines. Although some unmet guidelines may be remedied for a final
development plan review or with monitoring committee oversight, those concerning height, scale,
massing, and proportions require more immediate attention, redesign, and reconsideration.
Major Development, Conceptual Review - Section 26.415.070(d)
Historic Resource Additions:
The proposal to remove more recent additions that are not historically significant meets
Guideline 10.2. Because they fall within the footprint of the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map,
however, the entire rear sloping roof of the historic resource, the existing dining room, and part of
the front porch are presumed to be historically significant unless and until a preponderance of
evidence suggests otherwise. To “preserve original building materials” as called for by Guideline
2.1, additional physical investigation and documentation of these areas is necessary to ensure
none exists. If “original, underlying material” does exist, Guideline 2.6 will also be applicable.
Monitoring committee review of such documentation and may be an appropriate condition of
approval.
By attempting to reconstruct the non-extant historic rear addition the small shed-roofed
addition proposed to replace the existing rear addition contradicts Guidelines 10.3, 10.4, and 10.6.
The former explicitly state “an addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not
allowed.” Doing so compromises, rather than maintains, “one’s ability to interpret the historic
character of the primary building.” Guideline 10.4 similarly calls for the historic resource to be
“distinguishable against the addition.” Rather than “design a new addition to be recognized as
product of its own time” pursuant to Guideline 10.6, the new addition is directly replicative of
historic form, materials, and fenestration.
Historic Resource Windows:
Without additional documentation, particularly physical evidence of the historic window
openings, and details about the proposed new windows, it is unknown whether the proposed
replacement of all existing windows meets Guidelines 3.1 – 3.7. While some existing windows
18
Page 4 of 6
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
(e.g. the west bay window) obviously lack historic significance, the history and current condition
of others is unknown. As interior deconstruction may provide access to necessary physical
evidence, monitoring committee review of additional documentation and approval of the proposed
windows may be an appropriate condition of approval.
Historic Resource Downspout:
The proposed placement of three downspouts on or abutting the front porch does not meet
Guideline 7.10. The northernmost downspout will be especially visible from the street, and seems
particularly superfluous. Currently, no gutter or downspout serve this eave (which will decrease in
size after the proposed porch is constructed).
New Building:
The proposed new building dominates, and is incompatible with, the historic resource.
Other than for a token frontispiece, the proposed new building appears similar to the historic
building in neither scale nor proportion, and fails to meet Guildeline 11.3. In no way does the two-
story new construction “reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.”
The second story of the new building, for example, is proposed to be 17-feet-9-inch-tall, nearly
three feet taller than the total height of the historic resource. The Its large, vertical mass of the
new building is not subdivided into smaller “modules” similar in size to the historic building.
Although “recognized as a product of its time,” the new construction does not strongly relate
to the form, materials, or fenestration of the historic resource. Consequently, it does not meet
Guideline 11.6. The blocky verticality of the proposed building diverges from the horizontality of
the one-story, L-shaped form of the historic resource. The disproportionately large double front-
gabled masses proposed above historic resource similarly have no historic parallel, and the shed-
roofed dormers attached thereto merely add unwarranted complexity and mass.
Moreover, the proposed new building does not “use windows and doors that are similar in
size and shape to those of the historic resource.” Large, fixed, clustered, horizontal, triangular,
and trapezoidal windows are dissimilar from those of the historic resource. Even what might
otherwise be a successful contemporary interpretation of the centered gable-end window at the
front of the new building is out of scale with its proposed counterpart on the historic resource. The
front door is similarly disproportioned.
Two-thirds of the materials proposed to clad the new construction differ from those used
historically on the site. Large metal panels, are particularly unprecedented at 325 W. Hopkins
Ave., complicate the palette and detract from the relatively minimal number of materials on the
historic resource.
While the materials may be refined for final development plan review, to meet Guideline
11.6, form and/or fenestration necessitate reconsideration prior thereto.
With the window wells of the new building penetrating the east setback, and no porosity
through the site, the project exceeds the setback-to-setback development Guideline 1.1 refers to
19
Page 5 of 6
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
as “typically uncharacteristic of the historic context.” Accordingly, the project does not “respect
the historic development pattern or context of the block” or neighborhood.
Staff recommends continuation of the conceptual major development plan review such that
a revised application may better meet the heretofore unmet guidelines.
Relocation - Section 26.415.090
To the degree that the proposed underpinning or temporary lifting of the historic resource
at 325 W. Hopkins Ave. will help ensure the continued utility, use, and longevity of the historic
resource, this proposed work is an acceptable preservation method. The effort to make necessary
repairs of the existing foundation is unlikely to adversely affect the integrity of the historic site, or
diminish the historic, architectural, or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties.
The historic/current/ proposed site, orientation, and elevation of the historic resource are the
same, and most appropriate, conditions for the building.
An acceptable relocation plan has not yet been submitted providing for the safe relocation,
repair and preservation of the building, including the provision of the necessary financial security.
As the application otherwise complies with the standards for relocation, and the applicant can
reasonably be expected to meet the remaining requirement prior to applying for a building permit,
a conditional approval of the proposed relocation is appropriate.
Staff recommends approval relocation with the following conditions:
1. Provide a relocation plan for monitoring committee review prior to permitting.
2. Provide a $30,000 deposit to the City of Aspen as collateral for the safe underpinning or
lifting of the historic resource prior to permitting.
Setback Variation - Section 26.415.110.C
Variations are benefits available to historic properties granted by the HPC. They are site-
specific approvals that are tied to a specific design reviewed for compatibility and appropriateness.
Instead of the 10-foot front setback and 5-foot side setback required by the Aspen Land Use Code
for the R-6 zone district, the historic structure has a front setback of 5 feet 10.25 inches and an
east side setback of 1 foot 1.75 inches. A front setback variation of 4 feet 1.75 inches and side
setback variation of 3 feet 10.25 inches will maintain this historic/existing pattern, feature, and
character of the historic property, thereby satisfying the first criteria.
Insofar as relocating the historic resource to satisfy the setback requirements would
adversely impact the architectural character of the historic property, the proposed variations also
mitigate an adverse impact to the satisfaction of the second criteria.
Staff recommends approval of setback variations.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
20
Page 6 of 6
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
Staff referred out the initial application to other City departments for comments. The
aggregated referral comments are included in Exhibit D. Some of the feedback may have already
been incorporated into the subsequent application updates (Exhibits E.1, E.2, and E.3).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the HPC continue the conceptual major development plan review for a
certificate of appropriateness at 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines – Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria – Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Variation Criteria – Staff Findings
Exhibit D – Combined Referral/Initial Comments
Exhibit E – Application
Exhibit E.1 – Revised Drawings
Exhibit E.2 – Response to Staff Comments
Exhibit E.3 – Grading Drainage and Utility Plan
21
Page 1 of 11
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines - Staff Findings
26.415.070 - Development involving designated historic property or property within a
historic district.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered,
repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located
within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community
Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their
review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
(d) Certificate of appropriateness for major development.
(3) Conceptual development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major
development projects are as follows:
1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials
submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are
determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a
public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be
provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c.
2. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the
project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use
Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant
information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue,
approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the
recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report
and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's
conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
3. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the
application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to
approve or deny.
4. A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in
accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-
up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City
and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as
described in said section.
22
Page 2 of 11
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines & Findings
The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, Relocation, and
Variations at 325 W. Hopkins Ave. for the purposes of restoring the historic resource and constructing
a new, detached, two-story, single-family residence to its side and rear.
Chapter 1: Site Planning and Landscape Finding
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the
block, neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the
neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback
development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a
project which leaves no useful open space visible from the street.
Not Met
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front
entry on residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or
is typical of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style
and install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For
example on an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than
in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private
walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for
residential properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern
property.
Met
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can
be better integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC
review must include at least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design.
A more detailed design must be reviewed and approved by Planning and
Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away
from the historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment
systems of the site, reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and
increase infiltration into the ground. Stormwater facilities and conveyances located
in front of a landmark should have minimal visual impact when viewed from the
public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Met
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way
to preserve the character of a property.
Met
23
Page 3 of 11
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard
from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width
of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically
appropriate, proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Met/Not
Met
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public
views of important features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible
visual impacts. Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence
rail. This will give the appearance of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also
consider using lattice, or other transparent detailing on the upper portions of the
fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural
features that are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Met
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not
allowed and will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Met
Chapter 2: Building Materials Finding
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices,
pediments, steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined
that the weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
TBD
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically
significant material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two
layers. This will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may
go unnoticed.
TBD
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material TBD
Chapter 3: Windows Finding
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. TBD
24
Page 4 of 11
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash,
muntins/mullions, sills, heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of
windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using
restoration glass for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a
building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
TBD
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-
hung. If the sashes have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
TBD
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the
original. TBD
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
TBD
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to
that of the original window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the
sash steps back to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These
increments, which individually only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are
important details. They distinguish the actual window from the surrounding plane
of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
TBD
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or
secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building,
but should in some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat
different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will
negatively affect the integrity of a structure.
TBD
Chapter 7: Roofs Finding
25
Page 5 of 11
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material.
• Using recognized preservation methods, repair deteriorated historic material when
possible.
• When replacement is necessary, replace the roofing in kind, and/or use a material
that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities.
Met/Not
Met
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should maintain or restore the character of
the historic roof.
• If a substitute is used, the roof material should be of a design, scale, color, texture,
and composition akin to the original, or a simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential
alternative that is visually compatible with building’s historic features.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have
a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the
original seaming.
Met/Not
Met
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornament or detail where there is no evidence that they existed, creates a
false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate.
• Roofing materials should reflect the architectural style of the affected building or be
substantiated by documentary or physical evidence.
Met
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent
possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if
possible, or in locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the
building.
Not Met
Chapter 9: Excavation, Building Relocation, and Foundations Finding
26
Page 6 of 11
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who
specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in
successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved
by the HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the
building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken
to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of
covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed
and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction
process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered
on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
TBD
Chapter 10: Building Additions Finding
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire
Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically
significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to
be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or
variations are being approved.
Met/Not
Met
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character
of the primary building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary
building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in
comparison to the architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For
example, a new faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen
Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
Not Met
27
Page 7 of 11
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and
the predominant structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be
distinguishable against the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the
above grade floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade
development must be completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this
policy if two or more of the following are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the
historic resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the
scale and proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition
that is considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic
resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of
usable floors as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant
setback from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related
to historic conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation,
or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific
constraints such as trees that must be preserved, Environmentally
Sensitive Areas review, etc.
Met/Not
met
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually
compatible with historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material, or a modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may
be considered to help define a change from historic construction to new
construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration.
An addition must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these
elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows
for creativity and a contemporary design response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not
be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old
portions of a development. Some resources of particularly high significance or
integrity may not be the right instance for a contrasting addition.
Not Met
Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties Finding
28
Page 8 of 11
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building
by using a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as the means of access to the front
door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
Met
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the
historic buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
Not Met
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure. Met
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration.
A project must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these
elements. Departing from the historic resource in one of these categories allows
for creativity and a contemporary design response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic
resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and
finish to those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute
to a traditional sense of human scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in
size and shape to those of the historic resource.
Staff Findings:
Site Planning and Landscape
Insofar as it does not “allow for some porosity on a site,” the proposed project does not
respect the historic development pattern or context of the block or neighborhood and does not
meet Guideline 1.1. Setback-to-setback development is typically uncharacteristic of the historic
context in a residential area, according to this guideline. With a one-foot eastside setback, two
feet between the proposed lightwells and the west property boundary, and no consistent break
through the middle, this development is excessively dense.
The proposed walkway from the street to the new building satisfies Guideline 1.6.
“Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree,” such as on the
east side of the front yard at 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
In satisfaction of Guideline 1.8, a conceptual drainage plan is included in the application.
The site design appears to provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark without
using the natural drainage and treatment systems of the site. To capture the additional stormwater
29
Page 9 of 11
runoff generated by the increased lot coverage and impervious surfaces, the application proposes
a stormwater drywell in the basement of the new building. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
All fencing is behind the street-facing façade of the historic resource, therefore satisfying
Guideline 1.17. Whereas the fence between historic resource and the new building has a
“transparent quality” as defined by Guideline 1.19, the pickets of the rear fence are not “a
minimum of ½ the width of the picket.” Insofar as it does not block public views of important
features of a designated building, and has no visual impact on the historic resource, the rear
fence, nevertheless meets Guideline 1.20.
Although “historic grade” is unknown, the proposed site work will change the grade little
from existing conditions, particularly at the front of the property and around the historic resource,
effectively meeting Guideline 1.23.
Chapter 2: Building Materials
Photographic evidence, including Figure 4 on page 3 of the application, suggest that the
shed-roofed element at the rear of the historic resource was of a similar size to the area currently
occupied by the bathroom and dining room. It is not known whether this area of the existing
building contains historic building materials and, therefore, whether the proposal to remove it
meets Guideline 2.1. To “preserve original building materials” as directed, additional
documentation of existing roof, wall, floor, and foundation is necessary to ensure none exists. If
“original, underlying material” does exist, Guideline 2.6 will also be applicable.
The construction of the front porch also lacks documentation. Photographic evidence
indicating the porch was enlarged does not verify that no historic materials comprise this feature.
Additional information is necessary to determine that the proposal to remove the whole porch
satisfies Guideline 2.1.
Chapter 3: Windows
Without additional documentation, particularly physical evidence of historic and existing
window, as well as details about the proposed new windows, it is unknown whether the proposed
replacement of all existing windows meets Guidelines 3.1-3.7. As amended, the application
proposes the restoration of all existing windows based on the historic photographs included in the
application and physical evidence that may be found during demolition. The application provides
no dimensions or details of the proposed windows, or the evidence necessary to justify them.
Exhibit E.2 – Response to Staff Comments, does, nevertheless propose to replace existing
windows for which no historic framing is found with “a historic window with proportions based on
similar landmarks within Aspen per HPDG 3.3.” This proposal is not only implausible given the
claim elsewhere in the Response to Staff Comments that “there are no historic windows remaining
on the landmark,” but also mischaracterizes the guidelines, none of which encourage replicating
the windows of other historic resources. Instead, Guideline 3.3 calls for matching “a replacement
window to the original in its design.” If no evidence of the original window exists, “new windows
should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in some way be
distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.,” pursuant to
Guideline 3.7.
30
Page 10 of 11
Chapter 7: Roofs
As evident in historic photographs and the 1904 Sanborn Map, the roof of the rear addition
was clad in wood shingle. Insofar as it is not “similar to the original in both style and physical
qualities,” the standing seam metal roofing proposed for the reconstructed rear addition does not
meet Guideline 7.7. Although this material is also not “of a design, scale, color, texture, and
composition akin to the original,” it may be “a simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential
alternative that is visually compatible with the building’s historic features” to the satisfaction of
Guideline 7.8. The use of standing-seam metal on similar rear additions of nearby buildings of a
similar era (evident in historic photographs and the 1904 Sanborn Map) suggests the roofing
material reflects the architectural style of the affected building architectural style, thereby sufficing
Guideline 7.9.
The proposed placement of three downspouts on or abutting the front porch does not meet
Guideline 7.10. The northernmost downspout will be especially visible from the street, and
particularly superfluous. Despite having a larger drip edge than that proposed, the eave north of
the existing porch has no gutter.
Chapter 10: Building Additions:
The proposal to remove more recent additions that are not historically significant meets
Guideline 10.2. Because they fall within the footprint of the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map,
however, the entire rear sloping roof of the historic resource, the existing dining room, and part of
the front porch are presumed to be historically significant unless and until a preponderance of
evidence suggests otherwise.
Because the proposed new rear addition does not maintain “ones ability to interpret the
historic character of the primary building,” the application does not meet Guideline 10.3. The
proposed addition is “compatible with the historic character of the primary building” and
“subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the architectural character of
the primary building,” but “imitates the primary building’s historic style,” which “is not allowed.”
Similarly, Guideline 10.4 is not completely satisfied by the proposed rear addition.
Although the historic resource will “be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the
predominant structure” and “visually dominant on the site” relative to its addition, it will not be
“distinguishable against the addition.” Contrary to Guideline 10.6, the new addition is not
designed “to be recognized as a product of its own time…distinguishable from the historic
building.” It replicates the historic form, materials, and fenestration.
Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties:
The foundational policy of Chapter 11 permits new detached buildings on a parcel that
includes a landmarked structure, but stresses the import that the new building be compatible with,
and not dominant of, the historic structure. The new detached building proposed for 325 W.
Hopkins Ave. is incompatible with and dominates the historic structure.
Because the primary entrance of the new building is clearly defined by a functional front
porch that is overly tall, but otherwise “similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally,” the
31
Page 11 of 11
application meets Guideline 11.2. The one-story front-gabled element of the new building also
meets Guideline 11.4. The front elevation thereof is similar in scale to the historic building.
Although technically taller, the primary plane of this front gable end does not appear taller than
the historic structure given the change in elevation between the two.
Most of the new building, nevertheless, appears similar to the historic building in neither
scale nor proportion. Other than the aforementioned front entryway, the large mass of the new
building is not subdivided into smaller “modules” similar in size to the historic building. In no way
does the two-story new construction “reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the
historic resource.” The second story of the new building, for example, is proposed to be 17-feet-
9-inch-tall, nearly three feet taller than the total height of the historic resource. Consequently, the
application fails to meet Guideline 11.3.
Guideline 11.6 is not met. Although “recognized as a product of its time,” the new
construction does not strongly relate to the form, materials, or fenestration of the historic resource.
The blocky verticality of the proposed building diverges from the horizontality of the one-story, L-
shaped form of the historic resource. The disproportionately large double front-gabled masses
proposed above historic resource similarly have no historic parallel. The shed-roofed dormers
attached thereto merely add unwarranted complexity and mass.
Similarly, the proposed fenestration does not “use windows and doors that are similar in
size and shape to those of the historic resource.” In addition to the much larger, usually wider,
and sometimes triangularly shaped windows apparent above the historic resource, the
fenestration on the frontmost façade of the proposed new building is out of scale with its
counterpart on the historic resource. The front door is disproportionately large and front window
has a transom without historic precedent.
Some, but not all, of the materials proposed to clad the new construction may be similar to
those used historically on the site. There is no evidence of metal used as roofing material, let
alone as siding. Employing multiple types of materials differs and detracts from the relatively
minimal application of material on the historic resource.
Staff Recommendation:
Continuation of the conceptual major development plan review such that a revised
application may better meet the heretofore unmet guidelines.
32
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
Relocation Criteria - Staff Findings
26.415.090.C – Standards for the relocation of designated properties.
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any
one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not
affect the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or
property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely
affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the
historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and
preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
33
Page 2 of 3
Relocation Review Criteria for 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
The applicant requests a relocation review to either underpin or temporarily lift the historic
resource for the purpose of repairing the existing foundation.
Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is
determined that it meets any one of the following standards: Finding
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation
will not affect the character of the historic district. N/A
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on
which it is located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic
District or property
N/A
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship. N/A
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method
given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will
not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally
located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent
designated properties.
Met
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met Finding
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of
withstanding the physical impacts of relocation. Met
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified. Met
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair
and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the
necessary financial security.
TBD
Staff Findings:
To the degree that the proposed underpinning or temporary lifting of the historic resource
at 325 W. Hopkins Ave. will help ensure the continued utility, use, and longevity of the historic
resource, this proposed work is an acceptable preservation method. The effort to make necessary
repairs of the existing foundation is unlikely to adversely affect the integrity of the historic site, or
diminish the historic, architectural, or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties.
The historic/current/ proposed site, orientation, and elevation of the historic resource are the
same, and most appropriate, conditions for the building.
An acceptable relocation plan has not yet been submitted providing for the safe relocation,
repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary
financial security.
34
Page 3 of 3
As the application otherwise complies with the standards for relocation, and the applicant
can reasonably be expected to meet the remaining requirement prior to applying for a building
permit, a conditional approval of the proposed relocation is appropriate.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval with the following conditions:
1. A relocation plan must be provided to the monitoring committee prior to permitting.
2. The applicant must make a $30,000 deposit to the City of Aspen as collateral for the
safe underpinning or lifting of the historic resource prior to permitting.
35
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Variations Criteria - Staff Findings
26.415.110 - Benefits:
(c) Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to
create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district
than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
(1) The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c. Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d. Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
(2) In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
36
Page 2 of 2
Staff Finding:
Instead of the 10-foot front setback and 5-foot side setback required by the Aspen Land
Use Code for the R-6 zone district, the historic structure has a front setback of 5 feet 10.25 inches
and an east side setback of 1 foot 1.75 inches. A front setback variation of 4 feet 1.75 inches and
side setback variation of 3 feet 10.25 inches will maintain this historic/existing pattern, feature,
and character of the historic property, thereby satisfying the first criteria.
Insofar as relocating the historic resource to satisfy the setback requirements would
adversely impact the architectural character of the historic property, the proposed variations also
mitigate an adverse impact to the satisfaction of the second criteria.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval of the request for setback variations.
Variation Review Criteria for 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
The applicant requests a front setback variation of 4 feet 1.75inches, and a side setback
variation of 3 feet 10.25 inches to maintain the historic/current siting of the historic resource.
In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation
either: Finding
Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; or Met
Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property, or
historic district.
Met
37
To: Stuart Hayden
HPC
Community Development Department
From: Joseph Pewitt
Permit Coordinator
Parks & Open Space Department
Date: May 23, 2024
Subject: Parks Department Referral Comments
Project: LPA-24-059, 325 W Hopkins Ave. – HPC Conceptual Major Review
Comments:
These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the project conceptual
packet submitted for the request of a conceptual major review and other requirements may be
requested at time of permit submittal.
1. Applicant shall submit an up-to-date survey dated within one year of permit submittal with the
location of all trees four (4) inches or over identified by trunk diameter and species.
2. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan at permit to include a tree preservation plan, a tree
removal plan, a tree planting plan, and an irrigation plan.
3. Applicant shall submit applicable construction drawings at permit to illustrate any proposed
grade changes which may adversely impact any trees on the site.
4. The Parks and Open Space Department supports the preservation and protection of existing
trees in the right of way along Hopkins Avenue.
5. Pursuant to Sec. 13.20.020(b)(4) the applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu amount equal to the
comparable value of the aggregate of all trees removed as determined pursuant to
Sec.13.20.020(e).
38
Memorandum
TO: Stuart Hayden, Planner II Historic Preservation
FROM: Magda Dziwosz, Zoning Enforcement Officer
DATE: 06/03/2024
PROJECT: 325 W Hopkins Ave, Historic Miner’s Cabin
Thank you for the opportunity to provide zoning comments on this project.
1) Demolition – this project is subject to demolition as the proposed exceeds the 40% threshold of
exterior alternations.
2) Setbacks – The existing conditions show the current north front setback is 5 ft. 10.25 inch, and
side east setback is 1 ft 1.75 inch. In this particular zone district, the front setback requirement is
10 ft & side setback is 5 ft. The applicant is seeking for variance to both and is requesting north
front setback to be reduced to 4 ft 1.75 inch and side east setback to be increased to 3 ft 10.25
inch.
3) Site Coverage – Per R-6 zone district, the maximum site coverage at the lot of 6,000 sq ft is 40%.
The existing site coverage is 29% but the candidate is asking for a special approval for site coverage
to be 45%.
4) Height – the height complies with the zone district’s requirements.
5) Show natural vs. historic grade.
6) Floor area ratio – The structure is decreasing in floor area therefore it meets zoning requirements.
7) Fence – show the dimensions of the proposed fence.
8) Due to Mechanical equipment being addressed in a later process, please ensure that it will be
compliant with the Code Section(s) 26.575.020.(e) and/or 26.575.020.(f)(4)(a)
9) Exterior light – please show compliance with the new outdoor lighting code Sec.26.512.
10) Crawlspace/basement – demonstrate that the crawlspace is compliant with Code
Sec.25.575.020(d)(4) and show that the proposed basement is not a double basement per Code
Sec.25.575.020.(d)(9).
This memorandum summarizes major items. A variety of other requirements will be necessary for building
permit submittal and zoning review.
39
Memorandum
TO: Stuart Hayden, stuart.hayden@aspen.gov
Community Development Department
FROM: Kyla Smits, kyla.smits@aspen.gov
Engineering Department
DATE: June 3, 2024
SUBJECT: Engineering Department Referral Comments
PROJECT: LPA-24-059, 325 W. Hopkins HPC Major Conceptual Review
COMMENTS:
These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the project conceptual
packet submitted for the purpose of the Historical Preservation Committee meeting. Other
requirements may be requested at time of permit.
For Land Use:
1. The survey incorrectly states in note 10 that the posted address is 325 W Francis. Please correct.
2. The drainage report states this is a 3,000 square foot lot when the survey states it is 6,000 square
feet. Please amend.
3. A variance for placing the drywell below the foundation will be needed. Please confirm that it will
be possible to maintain the drywell and the stormwater system. Show the location of the
proposed drywell on the site plans. It is very uncommon to place a drywell under a structure,
clearly explain in the variance why no other detention options are possible. The variance should
be included in the final review.
4. Please include permeable pavers as a proposed facility in the drainage report.
5. A basic site plan showing drainage and utility infrastructure should be included in the final review
packet.
For Permit:
1. This project will qualify as a major level 2 review for Engineering Development. At permit, a full
stamped Civil Plan set, drainage report, and soils report will be required. Other supporting
documents may be requested.
2. Any damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk from construction or wear will need to be replaced.
3. Attached is a letter from the utility department regarding the water service line.
4. Electric transformer easement clearances meet requirements. The easement language must be
agreed to by all parties and recorded before Certificate of Occupancy.
5. A permanent revocable encroachment license will be required for the retaining wall in the Right-
of-Way at time of Certificate of Occupancy.
40
Dear Water Customer,
New state and federal laws require us to inventory all water service lines in our service area. A
service line is the underground pipe that carries water from the water main, into your home or
building. We are contacting you because you have submitted an application for a Substantial
Remodel without a request for a new water service. City records do not indicate the material
type of the underground service line and we need your help.
Service lines throughout the City are often copper or galvanized iron or steel. Older homes
and buildings may have a lead service line. Drinking water is free from lead when it leaves our
water treatment plant. However, water can absorb lead as it travels through lead pipes on its
way to your faucet. Knowing your service line material is important for your health and safety
and is required for the City’s compliance with the state and federal laws.
In accordance with the most current Water Distribution Standards, “All new water service
installations, as well as Substantial Remodels…, shall comply with current City of Aspen Water
Distribution Standards.” If you have a lead service line, or a galvanized iron or steel line which
does not meet current City standards, then you will be required to comply with current City
Water Distribution Standards. If you have a Type K copper service line with fittings and tap
connections compliant with City standards, then you are not required to replace the line, but
the Water Department recommends customers consider replacing services older than 30
years during construction as parts and piping are approaching the end of their useful life.
For more information or with any questions, please feel free to reach out by phone or email to
the staff below.
Thank you for your cooperation!
Erin Loughlin Molliconi, Field Operations Manager
970.319.0825, erin.loughlin@aspen.gov
Michael Gordon, Water Distribution Supervisor
970.309.7415, michael.gordon@aspen.gov
City of Aspen Water Department, 970.920.5110
41
Memorandum
TO: Sara Adams, BendonAdams
FROM: Stuart Hayden, Historic Preservation Planner, City of Aspen
DATE: 07/16/2024
PROJECT: LPA-24-059, Historic Preservation Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation, and Setback Variations
COMMENTS:
These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the
Land Use application submitted for review. Other requirements may be requested at time
of permit.
The proposed project generally suffices the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines. The following exceptions warrant particular attention, refinement, redesign,
or reconsideration:
• Insofar as it does not “allow for some porosity on a site,” the proposed project does
not respect the historic development pattern or context of the block or
neighborhood and does not meet Guideline 1.1. Setback-to-setback development
is typically uncharacteristic of the historic context in a residential area, according
to this guideline. With a one-foot eastside setback, a five-foot westside setback,
and no consistent break through the middle, this development is excessively
dense.
• The proposed walkway from the street to the new building does not satisfy
Guideline 1.6. It does not lead to the front entry, and its truncated length
necessitates additional steps (and pathway lighting) instead of a gentle slope.
• A conceptual drainage plan is not included in the application. As drawn in the north
elevation on Sheet No. A2.02, regrading around the new construction slopes
toward the historic resource. As this condition does not meet Guideline 1.8,
additional information and/or a redesign is required.
• The patio proposed to front the new building is incompatible with Guideline 1.12.
Its size is not restrained. This contemporary feature is not appropriate in Zone A
and covers an area which was historically unpaved.
42
• Please specify the type and mature size of the Arborvitae proposed to be planted
in front of the historic resource. Some varieties are not appropriate for Zone A, and
do not meet Guidelines 1.12 and 1.13.
• Pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A pursuant to Guideline 1.14.
• As depicted in the site plan, the fence between the buildings is not behind the street
facing façade of the historic resource, therefore not meeting Guideline 1.17.
• As depicted in elevation on Sheet No. A2.02, the topography of the north side of
the site is proposed to change substantially (more than 2 feet above existing
conditions at the proposed northeast corner of the new building). Re-grading the
site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed per Guideline
1.23.
• Is the window on the northeast corner of the historic resource not historic?
• How do we know dimensions of the non-extant historic window on the front façade
next to the front door?
• Please clarify the size and location of the window on west façade of the historic
resource. Sheet No. A2.01 is unclear.
• Please clarify whether the existing windows on the historic resource are to be
restored as indicated on Sheet No. A2.01 or removed and replaced by new
windows with historic proportions as indicated on Sheet No. A2.02.
• All replacement windows are to match the original location and size as
substantiated by physical and/or photographic evidence.
• Because they fall within the footprint of the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map, the
entire rear sloping roof of the historic resource, the framing surrounding the
existing dining room, and part of the front porch are presumed to be historically
significant and must be preserved unless and until a preponderance of evidence
suggests otherwise. See Guidelines 10.1 and 10.2. This may require a thorough
physical investigation and documentation to ensure no historic material is
removed.
• The foundational policy of Chapter 11 permits new detached buildings on a parcel
that includes a landmarked structure, but stresses the import that the new building
be compatible with, and not dominate of, the historic structure. The new detached
43
building proposed for 325 W. Hopkins Ave. dominates and is incompatible with the
historic structure.
• Pursuant to Guideline 11.2, the front porch must be similar in size and shape to
those seen traditionally. The proposed front porch for the new building is 177.25
square feet, nearly twice as big as that proposed for the historic resource (96.15
square feet). Please reduce the size of the front porch of the new building,
particularly its projection toward the Hopkins Ave.
• Contrary to Guideline 11.3, the new building is not similar in scale and proportion
to the historic building. The new building is twice as tall as the historic resource. A
17-feet-9-inch-tall second story is far out of proportion with the historic resource
that is less than 15 feet tall.
• Albeit closer, the frontmost façade of the new building is also out of scale. It
appears taller than the historic resource, thereby not meeting Guideline 11.4.
• The new structure is also too recognizably a product of its time. Despite Guideline
11.6, the new construction does not strongly relate to the form, or the fenestration
of the historic resource. The simple horizontal form of the historic resource appears
nowhere in the excessive projections and verticality of the new construction. Shed
roof wall dormers don’t’ recall the historic porch roof. They add unnecessary
complexity to the roof form. The variable fenestration makes the disproportionality
more acute. Without mentioning the wildly divergent windows behind the historic
resource, the fenestration on the frontmost façade of the proposed new building is
out of scale with its counterpart on the historic resource. The oversized front door,
but especially the large front window, help to dwarf the historic resource.
• As suggested by Guideline 9.1, developing a basement by underpinning and
excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the
historic fabric. In addition to installing a foundation that meets modern standards,
excavating a basement could facilitate the relocation of desired floor area so as to
reduce the scale of the above ground development and better satisfy Guidelines
11.3, 11.4 and 11.6.
Additional Notes, Questions and Comments:
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are
appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Figure 2 of Exhibit A.1 differs from the Site Plan on Sheet No. A1.02 of Exhibit L.1.
44
• Please clarify and make consistent all drawing titles, distinguishing “proposed”
from “existing,” and eliminating “historic” (unless depicting historic conditions).
• Where in the Land Use Code is increased density a by-right benefit of historic
properties? Don’t all benefits require special consideration and approval?
• Photographic evidence, including Figure 4 on page 3 of the application, suggest
that the shed-roofed element at the rear of the historic resource was of a similar
size to the area currently occupied by the bathroom and dining room. To ensure
this part of the existing building is non-historic, please provide additional
documentation that no historic material exists. Please similarly provide evidence
that no elements of the historic porch remain. Alternatively, selective demolition
with monitoring committee oversight may be a condition of approval.
45
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Kirsten Armstrong and Stuart Hayden
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
March 21, 2024
Re: 325 West Hopkins – HP Conceptual Major Development Application
Dear Kirsten, Stuart, and HPC,
Please accept this application for Conceptual Major Development, Temporary Relocation, and side
and front setback variations for the historic location of the landmark to restore the historic
landmark to its original appearance with no additions, and to construct a detached single family
home on the property. 325 West Hopkins Avenue is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the R-6 zone
district. The property is designated historic and currently contains a pre-1890 miner’s cabin and
large 1970s addition to the south and east of the landmark. The historic resource has been heavily
altered over time as described below. We have closely analyzed historic records and located images
of the building to inform a complete restoration of the footprint and appearance. The remaining
floor area is proposed to be applied to a new detached single family home on the same property.
Roughly 300 sf of floor area is proposed to be left unused if this project is approved. The FAR bonus
is not requested for this project.
Figure 1: Existing condition at 325 W. Hopkins (left) compared to proposed new project (right).
46
Page 2 of 3
Background
325 West Hopkins Avenue was built pre-
1890 as it is included on the 1890 Sanborn
Fire Insurance map next to the Baptist
Church. Photographs from the Denver
archives are provided below and are used
to accurately restore the footprint and
appearance of the historic home to match
the 1890 Sanborn map.
Figure 2: 1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Subject property is outlined in orange.
Figure 3: History Colorado, William Henry Jackson collection. Photograph is pre-1890 as the Baptist church is not shown on the corner. Blue arrow indicates 325.
47
Page 3 of 4
Figure 3: History Colorado, William Henry Jackson collection. Photograph is likely pre-1890 similar to Figure 2. This photograph shows the
east and north elevations of 325 West Hopkins.
Figure 4: Denver Public Library Special Collections, CPHOTO513-2020-125. Photograph of the south (rear) elevation of 325 West Hopkins.
The photograph is circa 1900 - 1910 and depicts the Baptist Church on the corner (at left of 325).
48
Page 4 of 5
Overtime the historic home has been consumed by alterations and additions. A review of Aspen
aerials and building permit files document additions starting in the 1970s with a rear addition in
1972, a re-roof in 1976, an excavation permit in 1983, a permit for a 726 sf addition to the east in
1984, and window replacement in 1987.
Proposal
The new owner requests approval to restore the historic landmark to its original footprint and
appearance, and to keep the building in its original location which requires two setback variations
from HPC as described below. As a historic landmark property two detached single family homes
are allowed on the 6,000 sf lot with a total of 3,600 sf of floor area for the entire property; typically,
a non-historic property must be 9,000 sf in size to support two detached single family homes. This
benefit is by-right for historic landmark properties and does not require a special approval from
HPC; however, it is worth noting as this is one of the more meaningful benefits to property owners
and to the community as it encourages detached new construction.
Conceptual design A full restoration of the landmark footprint is proposed. The landmark
will be about 560 sf in size with no additions, lightwells, or new construction. A new
detached single family home is proposed with a one story gable roof form facing the street,
stepping up to two stories toward the rear of the property.
Demolition Removal of all non-historic additions is requested to restore the building to its
original footprint.
Potential “relocation” The condition of the foundation under the historic building is
unknown until the project construction commences. In order to cover all potential options,
we request approval to underpin, and potentially lift, the historic home to repair the
foundation if needed. This type of potential work requires relocation approval, and we
decided it is most efficient to request approval now in case it is necessary once the project
is underway. Best case scenario, the historic home does not require foundation repairs and
relocation is not necessary.
Figure 5: 1970s Aspen aerial view showing rear addition. Figure 6: 2004 Aspen aerial view showing current footprint with east addition.
49
Page 5 of 5
Setback variations The historic home is in its original location; however, it is located within
the front (north) and side (west)setbacks. We request approval for setback variations to
maintain the historic condition only.
RDS for new home The new home is subject to compliance with the Residential Design
Standards as described in Exhibit A.6.
Thank you for your consideration of this project. We request a site visit prior to the HPC hearing if
possible. We look forward to hearing your comments and to improving this special historic
property.
Kind Regards,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams, LLC
sara@bendonadams.com
610-246-3236
Exhibits
A Review Criteria
A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
A.2 Demolition of non-historic additions
A.3 Relocation to underpin historic landmark and excavate a crawl space
A.4 Letter from house mover
A.5 Setback variations for historic location of landmark
A.6 Residential Design Standard compliance for new house
B. Land Use Application
C. Pre-application summary
D. Authorization to represent
D.1 Authorization letter
D.2 Statement of Authority
E. Proof of ownership
F. Agreement to Pay
G. HOA form
H. Vicinity Map
I. Mailing list
J. Survey
K. Conceptual engineering report
L. Drawing set
L.1 Neighborhood context
L.2 Existing and proposed drawings
50
Exhibit A.1
HP Review
Sec. 26.415.060.A Approvals Required
Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless
determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative
effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be
issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within
the boundaries of a Historic District.
Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below:
Streetscape
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or
district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
Response – The landmark remains in its original location and the footprint is restored to match historic
maps. The new home on the site is detached, under the allowable floor area, and provides 10 feet between
new and old construction. There is significant grade change from the right of way up to the landmark
property. Useful open space is provided around the landmark and in the front yard, as viewed from the
street.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was abandoned or never graded may be encouraged on a
case by case basis.
Response – No change to historic streets or alleys proposed.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the
original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street should be removed if they can be relocated to
the alley.
Response – No change to access. The property will be accessed from the alley.
51
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Response – The driveway is located off the alley.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a semi-
public walkway, to a semiprivate entry feature, to private spaces.
Response – A simple walkway is proposed from Hopkins Avenue to each of the two detached homes.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential
projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example, on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete, brick
or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential properties.
A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
Response – Paving material for the 3’ wide walkways will be provided at Final HP Review, and will comply
with the paving materials noted above.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather than
many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
Response – The existing front yard is maintained in front of the historic home. Open space is provided behind
the landmark and around the landmark between the two homes.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at least
a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be reviewed
and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site, reduce
the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
52
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
Response – A conceptual drainage plan is included in the application. Drainage is directed away from the
landmark.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis.
Response – n/a.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or
block views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is preferred.
Response – Built in outdoor elements are proposed behind the landmark on the patio area.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and
shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
Response – Existing trees
in the right of way along
Hopkins are preserved and
protected per the Parks
Department’s
specifications.
Figure 1: Existing mature trees
proposed to remain.
53
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not overplant a site, or install a landscape which is over
textured or overly complex in relationship to the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In Zone
A, new planting shall be species that were used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited patio
where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to alter the
landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential nature of the building must
be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful
consideration should be given so as not to over plant
either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape
characteristics from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern
architectural style are encouraged.
Response – A simple landscape is proposed around the historic
resource as illustrated on A1.02. Planting is simple and will be
further developed for review as part of the Final application.
A front patio is proposed in front of the landmark to activate the
space and differentiate between new and historic construction.
Hardscape is highlighted in blue at right, including the driveway and
surface parking space off the alley. Note: the covered porch is not
highlighted.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could
interfere with or block views of historic structures are
inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in locations that
will obscure, damage, or block significant architectural
features or views to the building. Hedgerows are not
allowed as fences.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new trees
adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees too close to a landmark may result in building
deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Figure 2: Proposed site plan with hardscape
highlighted in blue.
54
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Response –Planting is not proposed to block views of the landmark. Low plantings are proposed near the
landmark and new construction.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian
properties unless an exception is approved by HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully selected so that they are compatible with the building,
yet recognizable as a product of their own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Response – Landscape lighting will be minimal, provided at Final HP review, and will meet this guideline.
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic significance of a site should not be moved,
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
Response – n/a.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence.
Response – n/a.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
Response – No fence is proposed in the front yard. Fencing is proposed in the side and rear yards, and
between the landmark and the new home. A detail of the proposed fence will be provided at Final review.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and
style.
• The new fence should use materials that were used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that a decorative fence historically existed on the
site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian
properties. This fence type has many desirable characteristics including transparency, a low
55
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
height, and a simple design. When this material is used, posts should be simply detailed and not
oversized.
Response – Details of the new fence will be provided at Final HP design review and will be consistent with
this guideline.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type of fence may be historically appropriate,
proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to the fence segment.
Response – n/a.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important
features of a designated building.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance
of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also consider using lattice, or other transparent
detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners and any important architectural features that
are visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are prohibited in Zones A and B.
Response – No fence in front of landmark.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement materials
should match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is inappropriate.
Response – n/a.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar, will be reviewed on a case by case basis and should
be compatible with the palette used on the historic structure.
Response – The existing retaining wall in the right of way (refer to Figure 1) will be replaced as required
by the Engineering Department. Details of the proposed materials will be provided at Final review.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be
reviewed on a case by case basis.
Response – The historic building is proposed to maintain grade similar to existing conditions.
56
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an assessment of the current condition of the landscape
should be done before the beginning of any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its overall design intent must be preserved.
Response – Existing trees in the right of way along Hopkins are protected and preserved per the Parks
Department’s specifications.
1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built
features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height,
material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible.
Response – A simple landscape with traditional plant species is proposed.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle which occurred historically.
Response – All parking is located off the alley.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
Response – All new plantings are simple and reference historically used native species.
57
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Restoration
Materials
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to protect it from the elements. Brick or stone
that was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as appropriate to the style and history of the building.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary
surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the replacement
of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials obscure the original, historically significant material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
Response – Building materials will be restored to the original appearance including painting horizontal
wood clapboard siding. There does not appear to be any original building material after numerous
58
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
remodels described in the cover letter. Any original material discovered during demolition will be
discussed with HP staff prior to removal.
Windows
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills,
heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration glass
for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement window must also be double-hung. If the
sash have divided lights, match that characteristic as well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original
window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile. Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back to
the plane of the glazing (glass) in several increments. These increments, which individually only
measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
59
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window.
• Install a storm window on the interior, when feasible. This will allow the character of the original
window to be seen from the public way.
• If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior, match the sash design and material of the original
window. It should fit tightly within the window opening without the need for sub-frames or panning
around the perimeter. A storm window should not include muntins unless necessary for structure.
Any muntin should be placed to match horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic window.
Response – There are no historic windows in the landmark. Using historic photographs included in the cover
letter, wood windows are proposed to be replaced to restore the original appearance. Window details,
materials, and manufacturer specifications will be provided in the final HP application.
Doors
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that the
door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic
appearance.
Figure 3: Comparison of proposed east elevation and historic aerial photograph of east elevation.
60
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original
door or a door associated with the style of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen Victorian properties.
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic
entry door.
• Match the material, frame design, character, and color of the primary door.
• Simple features that do not detract from the historic entry door are appropriate for a new storm
door.
• New screen doors should be in character with the primary door.
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale
with the door and appropriate to the style of the
building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any
modern elements such as entry keypads.
Response – A historically appropriate wood door will be
provided for final review. The existing front door is not
historic as shown below and will be replaced.
Figure 4: Existing non-historic front door at 325 W. Hopkins.
61
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Architectural Details
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to preserve
the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain heavily
deteriorated material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize
damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for example, then the replacement material should be
wood, when feasible. It should match the original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original
designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified interpretation of the original, and maintains similar
scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement
parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that
architectural features existed, but there is no
other physical or photographic evidence, then
new features may be designed that are similar in
character to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding
new conjectural detailing for which there is
no documentation is inappropriate.
Response – Architectural details will be provided at
Final review for consideration by HPC. There are no
historic details evident in the home. Details will be
based on the historic photographs and similar landmarks throughout Aspen.
Figure 5: Example of east elevation of landmark with no historic
details.
62
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Roof
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen from
the street.
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may
be appropriate on an addition.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when documentation exists.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character.
• A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary, character defining façade.
• A new dormer should fit within the existing wall plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and
set in from the eave. It should also be in proportion with the building.
• The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be subordinate to the scale of the historic building.
• While dormers improve the livability of upper floor spaces where low plate heights exist, they also
complicate the roof and may not be appropriate on very simple structures.
• Dormers are not generally permitted on AspenModern properties since they are not
characteristics of these building styles.
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in good condition. When replacement is
necessary, use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities
and use a color that is similar to that seen historically.
63
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-
reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a
secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where there is no evidence that it existed, creates a
false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate.
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that are not visible from the street if possible, or in
locations that do not obscure architectural detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in character with the style of the building.
Response – Existing cedar shingle roof proposed to be replaced in kind. Standing seam metal roof is
proposed for the rear “addition” to the landmark and the front porch. The historic photograph below
shows a precedent for metal roofs on the back of simple miner’s cabins (white arrow). 325 has wood
shingle on the rear addition (blue arrow). Preliminary gutter locations are shown and will be finalized at
Final HP review.
Figure 6:
Denver Public
Library Special
Collections,
CPHOTO513-
2020-125.
Photograph of
the south (rear)
elevation of
325 West
Hopkins. The
photograph is
circa 1900 -
1910 and
depicts the
Baptist Church
on the corner
(at left of 325).
64
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
Relocation
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place
may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting
of financial assurances as a building relocation.
Response – A crawl space exists under a portion of the landmark. The project proposes to maintain the
existing crawl space and repair the foundation and crawl as needed. Relocation is hopefully not required,
but may be necessary if foundation and crawl space repairs are discovered during construction.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those
in a historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings
were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are
characteristics that should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a
building relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the
construction technique, and the architectural style may make on-site relocation too impactful
to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation
alternative in order for approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior
surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option.
Response – If discovered that relocation is required, a relocation plan will be provided to explain the
approach. In all cases, relocation will be onsite and the landmark will be placed back in its original
location.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building
in front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult
with the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes
obscured by trees.
Response – The landmark will remain in its original location.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
65
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if
needed to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is
inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been
avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic
guardrails, etc.
Response – Grade is not proposed to closely match the original/existing condition.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character
and is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed
historically, it must be replicated, ideally using
stone salvaged from the original foundation as
a veneer. The replacement must be similar in
the cut of the stone and design of the mortar
joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be
handled on a case by case basis to ensure
preservation of the design intent.
Response - The existing foundation is mixed - a wood skirt
board is shown in the photo below and some areas are
plywood or concrete. Painted metal flashing is proposed
per Guideline 9.5.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from
a street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float”
in the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
Response – Existing lightwell sizes and locations are not changed. The lightwell veneer and 6” curb are
proposed to be grey concrete, replacing the existing red sandstone. The existing vertical metal railings
are proposed to be replaced with simple metal mesh railing that is almost transparent – a sample will be
provided at the HPC meeting.
Figure 7: Existing foundation detail.
66
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving
historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the
HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to
protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging
door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant
architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis
and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen.
Response – The project will comply with this requirement.
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
• Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for
special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative.
Response – n/a.
Non-historic Addition
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right.
Response – n/a.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally
relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance
maps to determine which portions of a
building are historically significant and must
be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic
construction that is considered to be
detrimental to the historic resource in any
case when preservation benefits or variations
are being approved.
Response – The existing non-historic addition is
proposed to be removed.
Note: The remainder of Chapter 10 does not apply
because no addition is proposed to the landmark.
Figure 8: Non-historic addition proposed to be removed.
67
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
New Buildings on Landmark Properties
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the
traditional grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case-by-case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward of the historic resource. Alignment of their
front setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made on a corner lot or where a recessed
siting for the new structure is a better
preservation outcome.
Response – The new building is orientation to Hopkins
Avenue at the 10 feet front setback line. The landmark is in
its original location which extends into the front setback
about 4 feet. This historic condition is preserved; however,
it prevents alignment of the front setbacks.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary
entrance to a new building by using a front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as
the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to
those seen traditionally.
Response – The new house has a function front porch that is
recessed similar to traditional 19th century porches. The
front porch meets RDS requirements as described in Exhibit
A.6.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale and proportion with the historic buildings on a
parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules” that are similar in size to the historic buildings
on the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the historic resource.
Response - The new building is broken into smaller modules with a one story gable form as the primary
street facing façade to relate to the proportions and height of the adjacent landmark. The new home
steps up to two story after a 10’ long one story flat roof connecting element to further push the two story
massing to the rear of the site.
Figure 9: Rendering of front porch and entry to new home.
68
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear taller than the historic structure.
Response – The front elevation of the new home is 16’2” to the ridge and the landmark is 14’9.5.”There
are natural grade changes and a large City spruce tree between the homes that break up the site as
viewed in the renderings. The intent of the guideline – that front elevations are similar in scale- is met.
Figure 11: Rendering comparison of front elevations. Note: The large City tree at center is to be protected during construction.
Figure 10: Comparison of front elevations.
69
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot split is to remove most of the development potential from the
historic resource and place it in the new structure(s).
• This should be kept in mind when determining how floor area will be allocated between
structures proposed as part of a lot split.
Response – n/a. A lot split is not proposed; however, all non-historic floor area is allocated to the non-
historic home. The entire project is about 300 sf under the maximum allowable floor area of 3,600 sf.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building; form, materials, and fenestration. A project
must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from
the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use materials that appear similar in scale and finish to
those used historically on the site and use building materials that contribute to a traditional
sense of human scale
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use windows and doors that are similar in size and
shape to those of the historic resource.
Response – The new home relates to the landmark but is clearly a product of its own time.
Building Form: The primary roof form is a traditional gable and the slope matches the historic
landmark.
Materials: Horizontal cedar siding is the primary material proposed for the new home. This
relates to the horizontal siding that will be restored on the landmark. Exact details
on material treatment (i.e. stain as illustrated in renderings) are being developed
and will be provided at Final Review.
Fenestration: Windows relate to the vertical orientation of the landmark, but are contemporary
in style and application. A street facing non-orthogonal window is proposed in the
two story portion of the new home to clearly convey modern construction.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is
discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and
new buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in
character.
Response – The new home does not imitation a
historic style. The details are modest and supportive
of the landmark.
Figure 12: Rendering of east and rear elevations of new home.
70
Exhibit A
Review Criteria
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate in form, finish, and scale with the structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period of history than that of the affected building, or
be associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is consistent with the period of the building, and should
not provide a level of illumination that is out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A
recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant or sconce will be considered if suited to the
building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern properties, recessed lights and concealed lights are
often most appropriate.
Response – A preliminary lighting plan is noted on Sheet A1.02. Light fixtures have not been selected yet,
and will be included in the Final HP application for review and approval.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials
that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available
for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with
their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Response – Mechanical equipment and venting will be further developed after Conceptual approval
is granted, and will be included in the final HP application for review and approval. A transformer
meeting the City’s requirements is shown on the site plan along the alley.
Lighting and Mechanical
71
Exhibit A.2
Demolition of non-historic additions
Exhibit A.2
Demolition
Sec. 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within
a historic district.
It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated
significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen
Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed
unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section.
4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property
owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for
demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the
application meets any one of the following criteria:
a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and
the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner,
b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly
maintain the structure,
c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or
d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic,
architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which
it is located and
b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the
Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated
properties and
c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the
area.
Response – The historic home has been heavily altered over time with large non-historic additions to the
south and east of the home. Demolition of all non-historic additions, including window replacements and
front porch alterations, is proposed to restore the landmark to its original footprint and appearance per
historic photographs and maps. Please refer to Sheet Z1.04 for a representation of demolition. This project
meets the City’s threshold for demolition; however, it is exempt from a demolition allotment per Land Use
Code Section 26.580.050.f Exception for the removal of non-historic additions to designated historic
structures.
72
Exhibit A.3
Temporary Relocation
Exhibit A.3
Temporary Relocation
26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties.
The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much
of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as
their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that
occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or
because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant.
C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object
will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the
character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located,
and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the
integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical
impacts of relocation.
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of
the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
Response – A crawl space already exists beneath the landmark and is proposed to remain. Temporary
relocation is requested in case it is discovered that the existing foundation or crawl space need repairs that
required underpinning or slightly lifting the home. We do not intent to move the house, but the condition
of the foundation needs to be verified in the field during deconstruction.
While not technically relocation, this review is required to ensure the safety of the landmark during
excavation. This request meets criteria 4 as only necessary repairs will be conducted. The landmark is not
proposed to be relocated. Excavation will occur without any impact to the landmark. Design guidelines
related to Chapter 9, Relocation, are addressed in Exhibit A.1. A letter from a house mover is attached as
Exhibit A.4, and the building permit will include all required documentation if it is determined that temporary
relocation is necessary.
73
bwr.pe
1010 W 24th St • Rifle, Colorado 81650
(970) 462-8853 • bwr@bwr.pe
March 1, 2024
Wheeler Clancy
Richard A. Wax & Associates
PO Box 7699
Aspen, Colorado 81612
Re: 325 West Hopkins Avenue Historic Residence Move
Dear Mr. Clancy:
It is my understanding that the historic residence at 325 West Hopkins Avenue in Aspen, Colorado, may
need to be moved during the construction of the new residence that is to be built upon the same
property. Following is my professional opinion of the general condition of the structure and its ability to
withstand being moved.
At your request, I investigated the historic residence on August 4, 2023. The original house, built in
1888, is constructed of light wood framing at the roof and walls. The floor framing and foundation were
not exposed to view at the time, but it seemed clear from my observations that the floor framing is also
of light wood construction. The home was expanded in an unknown year, presumably in the 1980s
based on information collected from the Pitkin County Assessor website, wherein a significant portion of
the existing south exterior wall near the east end had been removed to connect the historic house with
an addition that more than doubled its original footprint. In the current project, it is desired to demolish
the expansion and restore the historic home to its original configuration.
The original, historic residence appeared to be generally in good condition and may be moved without
complication. Minor preparations may be required before movement (e.g. lifting beams and perhaps
bracing) as well as minor remediation after being moved to its final location (e.g. restoration of the wall
that was removed in the prior expansion project).
If you have further questions, please contact me for discussion.
Sincerely,
BWR.PE LLC
Brian Rossiter, PE
Principal
01MAR2024
74
Exhibit A.5
Setback Variations
Exhibit A.5
Setback variations for historic location
26.415.110. Benefits
(c) Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create
development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what
would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
(1) The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
c. Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d. Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
(2) In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character
of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district.
Response – The landmark is in its original location based on historic maps. The requested setback variations
allow the historic home to remain in its original location. Preserving the original location is important to the
integrity of the property and historic context, and contributes to the overall sense of place in the
neighborhood which contains numerous AspenVictorian properties along Hopkins and Hyman Avenues.
The following setback variations are requested:
Table 1: Setback variations for historic condition
R-6
Requirement
Historic condition/ variation
request
Front Setback (north) 10 ft.
5 ft. 10.25 in. provided
4 ft. 1.75 in. variation requested
Side Setback (east) 5 ft.
1 ft. 1.75 in. provided
3 ft. 10.25 in variation requested
75
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
B.1.Articulation of Building Mass
(Non-flexible)
B.2.Building Orientation
(Flexible)
B.3.Build-to Requirement
(Flexible)
B.4.One Story Element
(Flexible)
C.1.Garage Access
(Non-flexible)
C.2.Garage Placement
(Non-flexible)
C.3.Garage Dimensions
(Flexible)
Instructions: Please fill out the checklist below, marking whether the proposed design complies with the applicable standard as written or is requesting Alternative Compliance (only
permitted for Flexible standards). Also include the sheet #(s) demonstrating the applicable standard. If a standard does not apply, please mark N/A and include in the Notes section why
it does not apply. If Alternative Compliance is requested for a Flexible standard, include in the Notes section how the proposed design meets the intent of the standard(s). Additional
sheets/graphics may be attached.
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Address:
Parcel ID:
Zone District/PD:
Representative:
Email:
Phone:
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A.6
76
Standard Complies Alternative
Compliance N/A Sheet #(s)/Notes
C.4.Garage Door Design
(Flexible)
D.1.Entry Connection
(Non-flexible)
D.2.Door Height
(Flexible)
D.3.Entry Porch
(Flexible)
E.1.Principle Window
(Flexible)
E.2.Window Placement
(Flexible)
E.3.Nonorthogonal Window Limit
(Flexible)
E.4.Lightwell/Stairwell Location
(Flexible)
E.5.Materials
(Flexible)
Residential Design Standards
Administrative Compliance Review Applicant Checklist
Disclaimer: This application is only valid for the attached design. If any element of the design subject to Residential Design Standards changes prior to or during building permit review, the
applicant shall be required to apply for a new Administrative Compliance Review.
Page 2 of 2 77
325 West Hopkins Avenue Dimensional Requirements
R6 requirement Existing Conditions Proposal
Minimum lot size 3,000 sf 6,000 sf NO CHANGE
Minimum net lot area
per dwelling unit
3,000 sf for landmark
properties 3,000 sf NO CHANGE
Minimum lot width 30 feet 60 ft. NO CHANGE
Minimum front yard 10 feet primary
15 feet accessory 5 ft. 10.25 in. NO CHANGE – historic
10 feet – new
Minimum side yards
5 feet per side ~1 ft. 1.75 in. east
~5 ft. west
NO CHANGE – historic (east)
5 ft. new (west)
15 feet combined ~6 ft. 1.75 in. n/a – 10 ft. distance between
buildings met
Minimum rear yard 10 feet living space
5 feet garage ~ 50 feet? 10 feet living space
10 feet garage
Maximum height 25 feet One story 23 ft. 2 in. – new
Floor Area 3,600 sf 1,715 sf 3,306 sf
Site coverage 50% 29% 45%
Minimum distance
between buildings 5 feet n/a – buildings are
connected 10 ft.
Proposed % of
demolition n/a n/a 73%
78
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTIVATIVE:
Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions
Review: Administrative or Board Review
Required Land Use Review(s):
Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields:
Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units
Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage
Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $
Pre-Application Conference Summary
Signed Fee Agreement
HOA Compliance form
All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary
Name:
Address:
Phone#: email:
Address:
Phone #: email:
Name:
Project Name and Address:
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)
Exhibit B
2735-124-64-002
325 W Hopkins LLC
P.O. Box 7699
970-920-0236
300 S. Spring Street, #202, Aspen, CO 81611
970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com
325 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
Restore historic miner's cabin by removing non-historic additions. Construct a new detached single family home on the property. A total of two detached single family homes are proposed for the designated historic 6,000 sf lot in the R-6 zone district.
Major Development -HP Review, Demolition, Relocation, Setback variances for historiclocation, RDS for new home.
n/a n/a 2
0 n/a
1,950
wheeler@rwaspen.com
Sara Adams, BendonAdams
79
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist
Project and Location
Applicant:
Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area:
**Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area
Please fill out all relevant dimensions
Single Family and Duplex Residential
1) Floor Area (square feet)
2) Maximum Height
3) Front Setback
4) Rear Setback
5) Side Setbacks
6) Combined Side Setbacks
7) % Site Coverage
Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential
1) Number of Units
2) Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10)
3) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
4) Floor Area (square feet)
4) Maximum Height
5) Front Setback
6) Rear Setback
Existing Allowed Proposed
8) Minimum distance between buildings
Proposed % of demolition
7) Side Setbacks
Proposed % of demolition
Commercial
Proposed Use(s)
Existing Allowed Proposed
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Off-Street Parking Spaces
5) Second Tier (square feet)
6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing non-conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Lodge
Additional Use(s)
1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio)
2) Floor Area (square feet)
3) Maximum Height
4) Free Market Residential(square feet)
4) Front setback
5) Rear setback
6) Side setbacks
7) Off-Street Parking Spaces
8) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet)
Proposed % of demolition
Existing Allowed Proposed
325 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
325 W Hopkins LLC, represented by BendonAdams
R-6 6,000 6,000
Please reference next page for dimenions.
West side yard setback and north front yard setback encroachments- the historic house is in its original location, this is a historiccondition.
West side yard and north front yard setbacks to maintain historic location of landmark.
80
PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY
DATE: August 10, 2023
PLANNER: Stuart Hayden, Planner II, Historic Preservation, Stuart.Hayden@aspen.gov
REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com
PROJECT LOCATION: 325 W. Hopkins Ave.
REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Major Development Review, Relocation, FAR Bonus
DESCRIPTION: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. is a historically designated miner’s cottage on a 6,000 sq. ft. lot in the
R-6 zone district. Although the construction date is unknown, by 1890 the subject property included a single-
story, wood-frame Miner’s Cottage with a cross-gable roof, and a front porch sited toward the front of Lot C of
Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen. In the 1980s, the construction of a large, one-story, gable-roofed
addition to the southeast corner of the historic structure and a new rear patio expanded its footprint into the
heretofore relatively undeveloped eastern half of the property, Lot D.
The proposed project includes the demolition of all non-historic additions to the historic footprint of the
structure, as well as the construction of a new detached dwelling unit elsewhere on the property. The applicant
may also pursue a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus to offset the proposed restoration of the historic structure
pursuant to section 26.415.110 “Historic Preservation – Benefits” of the Aspen Land Use Code
The scope of work qualifies as Major Development, requiring a two-step review process. During the
Conceptual Design review, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will consider the proposed mass,
scale, and site plan, as well as any benefits requested by the applicant. City staff will inform the City Council
of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold or “Call Up” aspects of the decision for further
discussion, a standard practice for all significant projects. Following the Notice of Call Up, HPC will conduct a
Final Design review to consider the proposed landscape, lighting, and materials.
HPC will evaluate the project according to the Aspen Land Use Code and Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines. The proposed new building is also subject to the Residential Design Standard Review (RDS) and
Administrative Growth Management mitigation for affordable housing. It may necessitate providing Certificates
of Affordable Housing Credit, or the deferral thereof.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304.010 Common Development Review Procedures – General
26.410 Residential Design Standards (RDS)
26.415.070.D Historic Preservation – Major Development
26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits
26.470.090 Growth Management Quota System – Administrative Applications
26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6)
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Exhibit C
81
REVIEW BY:
• Staff for completeness and recommendations
• HPC for conceptual and final review decisions
• City Council for Notice of Call Up
PUBLIC HEARING:
• Yes, at HPC’s Conceptual and Final Reviews
PLANNING FEES: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time (Additional/fewer hours will be billed/ refunded
at a rate of $325 per hour). This fee will be due at Conceptual and Final submittal.
REFERRAL FEES: $0. Staff will seek referral comments from the Building, Zoning, Engineering and
Parks Departments regarding any relevant code requirements or considerations.
There will be no Development Review Committee meeting or referral fees.
TOTAL DEPOSIT: $1,950 at Conceptual and Final (additional/lesser planning hours are
billed/refunded at a rate of $325/hour).
APPLICATION CHECKLIST:
Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the entire application as one .pdf to
stuart.hayden@aspen.gov. After determining the application to be complete, City staff will request payment
of the application fee.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur,
consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an
ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing
the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts
and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the
Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states
the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the
applicant.
HOA Compliance form.
List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey, no more than a year old, showing all existing conditions including
topography and vegetation, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of
Colorado.
A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed
work complies with the relevant Historic Preservation Guidelines and any other relevant land use
codes.
An existing and proposed site plan showing property boundaries, setbacks and parking.
82
Existing and proposed scaled drawings of the structures clearly depicting their form, height,
mass/scale and roof plans and all proposed exterior alterations.
An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development.
Relevant cut-sheets/technical specification documents for all materials.
Supplemental media providing a visual description of the context surrounding the designated
historic property, including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict
location and extent of proposed work.
For Conceptual Review, the following will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
A preliminary stormwater design.
For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:
Drawings of the street facing facades must be provided at ¼” scale.
Final selection of all exterior materials, and samples or clearly illustrated photographs. Samples
are preferred for the presentation to HPC.
A lighting plan and landscape plan, including any visible stormwater mitigation features.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based
on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or
may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
83
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
February 26, 2024
Bob Narracci
Planning Director
City of Aspen
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: 325 West Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO
Mr. Narracci:
Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership
interests in 325 West Hopkins Avenue, and act on our behalf on matters reasonably
associated in securing land use approvals for the property.
If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Property – 325 West Hopkins Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611
Legal Description – Lots C and D, Block 46, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel ID – 2735-124-64-002
Owner – 325 West Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Kind Regards,
325 W Hopkins LLC
PO Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81621
Exhibit D.1
84
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
85
Exhibit D.2
86
711 E. Valley Rd, Unit 201B
Basalt, CO 81621
Phone: 970-366-4111 Fax: 970-672-1576
www.titlecorockies.com
COMMITMENT TRANSMITTAL
Commitment Ordered By:
Kaitlin Roos
Richard Wax & Associates
PO Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81612
Phone: 970-920-0236 Fax:
email: kaitlin@rwaspen.com
Inquiries should be directed to:
Title Company of the Rockies
711 E. Valley Rd, Unit 201B
Basalt, CO 81621
Phone: 970-366-4111 Fax: 970-672-1576
email:
Commitment Number:7002675-C
Buyer's Name(s):Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested owner
identified at item 4 below
Seller's Name(s):325 W Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Property:325 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 46, Lot C & D, Pitkin County, CO
COPIES / MAILING LIST
Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchaser agreement
with the vested owner identified at item 4 below
Vincent Coghlan, Manager
325 W Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
COLORADO NOTARIES MAY REMOTELY NOTARIZE REAL ESTATE DEEDS AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS USING REAL-TIME AUDIO-VIDEO COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY. YOU MAY
CHOOSE NOT TO USE REMOTE NOTARIZATION FOR ANY DOCUMENT.
Title Company of the Rockies maintains branch operations in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Lake, Moffat (dba Northwest Title Company), Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties along with Front
Range coverage. Closing services are available for all Mountain Communities, throughout the State of Colorado, and on a nationwide basis. Experience the
Experience, www.titlecorockies.com
Page 1 of 1 February 28, 2024
12:43 PM
Exhibit E
87
711 E. Valley Rd, Unit 201B
Basalt, CO 81621
Phone: 970-366-4111 Fax: 970-672-1576
www.titlecorockies.com
Commitment Ordered By:
Kaitlin Roos
Richard Wax & Associates
PO Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81612
Phone: 970-920-0236 Fax:
email: kaitlin@rwaspen.com
Inquiries should be directed to:
Title Company of the Rockies
711 E. Valley Rd, Unit 201B
Basalt, CO 81621
Phone: 970-366-4111 Fax: 970-672-1576
email:
Commitment Number:7002675-C
Buyer's Name(s):Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested owner identified
at item 4 below
Seller's Name(s):325 W Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
Property:325 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611
City and Townsite of Aspen, Block 46, Lot C & D, Pitkin County, CO
TITLE CHARGES
These charges are based on issuance of the policy or policies described in the attached Commitment for Title Insurance, and includes premiums
for the proposed coverage amount(s) and endorsement(s) referred to therein, and may also include additional work and/or third party charges
related thereto.
If applicable, the designation of “Buyer” and “Seller” shown below may be based on traditional settlement practices in Pitkin County, Colorado,
and/or certain terms of any contract, or other information provided with the Application for Title Insurance.
Owner’s Policy Premium:
Loan Policy Premium:
Additional Lender Charge(s):
Additional Other Charge(s):
Tax Certificate:
Total Endorsement Charge(s):
TBD Charge(s):
TOTAL CHARGES:
$300.00
$300.00
Title Company of the Rockies maintains branch operations in Eagle, Garfield, Grand, Lake, Moffat (dba Northwest Title Company), Pitkin, Routt, and Summit Counties along with Front Range
coverage. Closing services are available for all Mountain Communities, throughout the State of Colorado, and on a nationwide basis. Experience the Experience, www.titlecorockies.com
88
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
as agent for
Chicago Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE A
Reference:Commitment Number: 7002675-C
1.Effective Date: February 16, 2024, 7:00 am Issue Date: February 28, 2024
2.Policy (or Policies) to be issued:
ALTA® 2021 Owner's Policy Policy Amount:Amount to be Determined
Premium:Amount to be Determined
Proposed Insured:Purchaser with contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested
owner identified at item 4 below
3.The estate or interest in the Land at the Commitment Date is Fee Simple .
4.The Title is, at the Commitment Date, vested in:
325 W Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
5.The Land is described as follows:
FOR LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEE SCHEDULE A CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
For Informational Purposes Only - APN: 2735152464002/R00213
Countersigned
Title Company of the Rockies, LLC
By:
Staci Stamps
This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not
valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule
B, Part II-Exceptions.
Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
Commitment for Title Insurance (8-1-2016)
Technical Correction 4-2-2018
Schedule B - Part II
Page 1
89
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
2021 v.01.00 (07-01-2021)
Commitment No: 7002675-C
SCHEDULE A (continued)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The Land referred to herein is located in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and described as follows:
Lots C and D, in Block 46,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN
For each policy to be issued as identified in Schedule A, Item 2, the Company shall not be
liable under this commitment until it receives a specific designation of a Proposed Insured,
and has revised this commitment identifying that Proposed Insured by name. As provided in
Commitment Condition 4, the Company may amend this commitment to add, among other
things, additional exceptions or requirements after the designation of the Proposed Insured.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title
Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy;
Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a
counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
90
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
2021 v.01.00 (07-01-2021)
Commitment No: 7002675-C
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
Issued by
Chicago Title Insurance Company
SCHEDULE B, PART I
Requirements
The following are the requirements to be complied with prior to the issuance of said policy or policies.
Any other instrument recorded subsequent to the effective date hereof may appear as an exception under
Schedule B of the policy to be issued. Unless otherwise noted, all documents must be recorded in the
office of the clerk and recorded of the county in which said property is located.
All of the following Requirements must be met:
1.The Proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred
to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the
Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions.
2.Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured.
3.Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company.
4.Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be
insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public
Records.
Evidence satisfactory to the Company or its duly authorized agent either (a) that the "real estate5.
transfer taxes" imposed by Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979), and by Ordinance No. 13, (Series
of 1990), of the City of Aspen, Colorado have been paid, and that the liens imposed thereby have
been fully satisfied, or (b) that Certificates of Exemption have been issued pursuant to the
provisions thereof.
NOTE: Please be advised that our search did not disclose any open Deeds of Trust of
record. If you should have knowledge of any outstanding obligation, please contact the Title
Department immediately for further review prior to closing.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA ® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title
Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy;
Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a
counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
91
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
2021 v.01.00 (07-01-2021)
Commitment No: 7002675-C
A satisfactory Land Survey Plat, Improvement Survey Plat or ALTA Land Title Survey must be6.
furnished to the company. Exception will be taken to any and all adverse matters disclosed
thereby. OR
Execution of an acceptable survey affidavit certifying that there have been no new improvements
constructed or major structural changes made on the subject property since Improvement Survey
Plat at Job No. 230539, Dated 05/2023, Prepared by Aspen Survey.
Deed from 325 W Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company to Purchaser with7.
contractual rights under a purchaser agreement with the vested owner identified at item 4 below.
NOTE: Duly executed real property transfer declaration, executed by either the Grantor or
Grantee, to accompany the Deed mentioned above, pursuant to Article 14 of House Bill No.
1288-CRA 39-14-102.
NOTE: Statement of Authority for 325 W Hopkins LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
recorded June 29, 2023 as Reception No. 695783, discloses that the names and addresses of the
manager(s) or member(s) authorized to act on behalf of the limited liability company are as
follows:
Vincent Coghlan, Manager and/or Richard Wax, Manager
The Owner's Policy, when issued, will not contain Exceptions No. 1, 2, 3 and 4, provided that:
(A) The enclosed form of indemnity agreement or final affidavit and agreement is
properly executed and acknowledged by the party(ies) indicated and returned to the
Company or its duly authorized agent,
(B) The Company or its duly authorized agent receives and approves a Land Survey Plat,
Improvement Survey Plat or ALTA survey properly certified by a registered surveyor or
engineer, and/OR
Execution of an acceptable survey affidavit certifying that there have been no new
improvements constructed or major structural changes made on the subject property since
Improvement Survey Plat at Job No. 230539, Dated 05/2023, Prepared by Aspen Survey.
(C) Applicable scheduled charges in the amount of $TBD.00 are paid to the Company or
its duly authorized agent.
NOTE: EXCEPTION NO. 5 UNDER SCHEDULE B, SECTION 2 OF THIS COMMITMENT
WILL NOT APPEAR IN THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO,
PROVIDED THAT (A) THE DOCUMENTS CONTEMPLATED BY THE REQUIREMENTS
SET FORTH IN SCHEDULE B, SECTION 1 OF THIS COMMITMENT ARE SUBMITTED TO
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title
Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy;
Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a
counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
92
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
2021 v.01.00 (07-01-2021)
Commitment No: 7002675-C
AND APPROVED AND RECORDED BY THE COMPANY OR ITS DULY AUTHORIZED
AGENT, AND (B) AN EXAMINATION OF THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
AND RECORDER FOR PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO BY THE COMPANY OR ITS DULY
AUTHORIZED AGENT DISCLOSES THAT NO DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES,
ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN SUCH RECORDS
SUBSEQUENT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
THE COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT AN ADDITIONAL SEARCH OF
THE RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK AND RECORDER FOR PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO FOR JUDGMENT LIENS, TAX LIENS OR OTHER SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR
INVOLUNTARY MATTERS AFFECTING THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES, AND TO MAKE
SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS IT DEEMS NECESSARY, AFTER THE
IDENTITY OF THE GRANTEE OR GRANTEES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE
COMPANY.
NOTE: THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED UPON THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICABLE PREMIUMS, CHARGES AND FEES SHALL
BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT IF THE APPLICANT AND/OR ITS DESIGNEE OR
NOMINEE CLOSES THE TRANSACTION CONTEMPLATED BY OR OTHERWISE RELIES
UPON THE COMMITMENT, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES AND
SCHEDULES OF RATES ON FILE WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF
INSURANCE.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title
Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy;
Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a
counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
93
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
2021 v.01.00 (07-01-2021)
Commitment No: 7002675-C
SCHEDULE B, PART II
Exceptions
Some historical land records contain Discriminatory Covenants that are illegal and unenforceable
by law. This Commitment and the Policy treat any Discriminatory Covenant in a document
referenced in Schedule B as if each Discriminatory Covenant is redacted, repudiated, removed,
and not republished or recirculated. Only the remaining provisions of the document will be
excepted from coverage.
The Policy will not insure against loss or damage resulting from the terms and conditions of any lease or
easement identified in Schedule A, and will include the following Exceptions unless cleared to the
satisfaction of the Company:
Any facts, right, interests, or claims which are not shown by the Public Records but which could1.
be ascertained by an inspection of said Land or by making inquiry of persons in possession
thereof.
Easements or claims of easements, not shown by the Public Records.2.
Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the3.
Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land.
4. Any lien, or right to a lien for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished,
imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records.
5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any created, first appearing in
the Public Records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date of
the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon
covered by this Commitment.
6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing
authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b)
proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such
proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
Reservations and Exceptions as set forth in the Deed from the City of Aspen recorded November7.
14, 1891 in Book 79 at Page 41 and recorded April 7, 1890 in Book 79 at Page 6 providing as
follows: "That no title shall be hereby acquired to to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar or copper
or to any valid mining claims or possession held under existing laws."
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title
Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy;
Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a
counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
94
American Land Title Association Commitment for Title Insurance
2021 v.01.00 (07-01-2021)
Commitment No: 7002675-C
Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations contained in the Utility Easement Agreement8.
recorded December 11, 1986 in Book 524 at Page 947 as Reception No. 284010. (Located within
Lots D and E)
Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations contained in the City of Aspen Certificate of No9.
Negative Effect recorded October 31, 2023 as Reception No. 698462.
All matters shown on Improvement Survey Plat at Job No. 230539, Dated 05/2023, Prepared by10.
Aspen Survey.
NOTE: Effective May 24th, 2023, the Company and its policy issuing agents are required by Federal law
to collect additional information about certain transactions in specified geographic areas in accordance
with the Bank Secrecy Act. If this transaction is required to be reported under a Geographic Targeting
Order issued by FinCEN, the Company or its policy issuing agent must be supplied with a completed
ALTA Information Collection Form("ICF") prior to closing the transaction contemplated herein. This
affects the following counties, Adams, Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Eagle, Elbert, El Paso,
Fremont, Jefferson, Mesa, Pitkin, Pueblo, and Summit.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title
Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy;
Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II-Exceptions; and a
counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
95
Commitment No: 7002675-C
DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
Note 1: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII, requires that
"Every Title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of
recording whenever the Title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal
documents resulting from the transaction which was closed.” (Gap Protection)
Note 2: Exception No. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of this Commitment may be deleted from the Owner's
Policy to be issued hereunder upon compliance with the following conditions:
The Land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single-family residence, which1.
includes a condominium or townhouse unit.
No labor or materials may have been furnished by mechanics or materialmen for purpose of2.
construction on the Land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 13
months.
The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against unfiled3.
mechanic's and materialmen's liens.
Any deviation from conditions A though C above is subject to such additional requirements or4.
Information as the Company may deem necessary, or, at its option, the Company may refuse to
delete the exception.
Payment of the premium for said coverage.5.
Note 3: The following disclosures are hereby made pursuant to §10-11-122, C.R.S.:
The subject real property may be located in a special taxing district;(i)
A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County(ii)
Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent; and
Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from(iii)
the County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor.
Note 4: If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00, the seller shall be required to
comply with the disclosure or withholding provisions of C.R.S. §39-22-604.5 (Non-resident
withholding).
Note 5: Pursuant to C.R.S. §10-11-123 Notice is hereby given:
(a)If there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased or otherwise conveyed
from the surface estate then there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all
interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property, and
(b)That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface
owner's permission.
Note 6: Effective September 1, 1997, C.R.S. §30-10-406 requires that all documents received for
recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a
left, right and bottom margin of at least one-half inch the clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file
any document that does not conform.
Note 7: Our Privacy Policy:
We will not reveal nonpublic personal customer information to any external non-affiliated organization
unless we have been authorized by the customer, or are required by law.
Note 8: Records:
Regulation 3-5-1 Section 7 (N) provides that each title entity shall maintain adequate documentation and
Page 8
96
Commitment No: 7002675-C
records sufficient to show compliance with this regulation and Title 10 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
for a period of not less than seven (7) years, except as otherwise permitted by law.
Note 9: Pursuant Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (F) notice is hereby given that “A title entity shall not earn
interest on fiduciary funds unless disclosure is made to all necessary parties to a transaction that interest
is or has been earned. Said disclosure must offer the opportunity to receive payment of any interest
earned on such funds beyond any administrative fees as may be on file with the division. Said disclosure
must be clear and conspicuous, and may be made at any time up to and including closing.”
Be advised that the closing agent will or could charge an Administrative Fee for processing such an
additional services request and any resulting payee will also be subjected to a W-9 or other required tax
documentation for such purpose(s).
Be further advised that, for many transactions, the imposed Administrative Fee associated with such an
additional service may exceed any such interest earned.
Therefore, you may have the right to some of the interest earned over and above the Administrative Fee,
if applicable (e.g., any money over any administrative fees involved in figuring the amounts earned).
Note 10: Pursuant to Regulation 3-5-1 Section 9 (G) notice is hereby given that “Until a title entity
receives written instructions pertaining to the holding of fiduciary funds, in a form agreeable to the title
entity, it shall comply with the following:
The title entity shall deposit funds into an escrow, trust, or other fiduciary account and hold them1.
in a fiduciary capacity.
The title entity shall use any funds designated as “earnest money ” for the consummation of the2.
transaction as evidenced by the contract to buy and sell real estate applicable to said transaction,
except as otherwise provided in this section. If the transaction does not close, the title entity
shall:
Release the earnest money funds as directed by written instructions signed by both the buyer(a)
and seller; or
If acceptable written instructions are not received, uncontested funds shall be held by the title(b)
entity for 180 days from the scheduled date of closing, after which the title entity shall return
said funds to the payor.
In the event of any controversy regarding the funds held by the title entity (notwithstanding any3.
termination of the contract), the title entity shall not be required to take any action unless and
until such controversy is resolved. At its option and discretion, the title entity may:
Await any proceeding; or(a)
Interplead all parties and deposit such funds into a court of competent jurisdiction, and(b)
recover court costs and reasonable attorney and legal fees; or
Deliver written notice to the buyer and seller that unless the title entity receives a copy of a(c)
summons and complaint or claim (between buyer and seller), containing the case number of
the lawsuit or lawsuits, within 120 days of the title entity's written notice delivered to the
parties, title entity shall return the funds to the depositing party.”
Page 9
97
Commitment No: 7002675-C
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
· Pursuant to Section 38-35-125 of Colorado Revised Statutes and Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2
(Section 5), if the parties to the subject transaction request us to provide escrow-settlement and disbursement services to
facilitate the closing of the transaction, then all funds submitted for disbursement must be available for immediate
withdrawal.
· Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Section 5, Paragraph H, requires that "Every title insurance company
shall be responsible to the proposed insured(s) subject to the terms and conditions of the title insurance commitment,
other than the effective date of the title insurance commitment, for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of
recording whenever the title insurance company, or its agent, conducts the closing and settlement service that is in
conjunction with its issuance of an owners policy of title insurance and is responsible for the recording and filing of legal
documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Title Company of the Rockies, LLC conducts
the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception
No. 5 in Schedule B-2 will not appear in the Owner's Title Policy and Lender's Title Policy when issued.
· Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-2, Paragraph M of Section 5, requires that prospective insured(s) of a
single family residence be notified in writing that the standard exception from coverage for unfiled Mechanics or
Materialmans Liens may or may not be deleted upon the satisfaction of the requirement(s) pertinent to the transaction.
These requirements will be addressed upon receipt of a written request to provide said coverage, or if the Purchase and
Sale Agreement/Contract is provided to the Company then the necessary requirements will be reflected on the
commitment.
· Colorado Division of Insurance Regulation 8-1-3, Paragraph C. 11.f. of Section 5 - requires a title insurance company to
make the following notice to the consumer: “A closing protection letter is available to be issued to lenders, buyers and
sellers”
· If the sales price of the subject property exceeds $100,000.00 the seller shall be required to comply with the Disclosure
of Withholding Provisions of C.R.S. 39-22-604.5 (Nonresident Withholding).
· Section 39-14-102 of Colorado Revised Statutes requires that a Real Property Transfer Declaration accompany any
conveyance document presented for recordation in the State of Colorado. Said Declaration shall be completed and signed
by either the grantor or grantee.
· Recording statutes contained in Section 30-10-406(3)(a) of the Colorado Revised Statutes require that all documents
received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left,
right, and bottom margin of at least one-half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file a document
that does not conform to requirements of this paragraph.
· Section 38-35-109 (2) of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, requires that a notation of the purchasers legal address,
(not necessarily the same as the property address) be included on the face of the deed to be recorded.
· Regulations of County Clerk and Recorder's offices require that all documents submitted for recording must contain a
return address on the front page of every document being recorded.
· Pursuant to Section 10-11-122 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, 1987 the Company is required to disclose the
following information:
Page 10
98
Commitment No: 7002675-C
o The subject property may be located in a special taxing district.
o A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction shall be obtained from the County
Treasurer or the County Treasurer's authorized agent.
o Information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained
from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder or the County
Assessor.
· Pursuant to Section 10-11-123 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, when it is determined that a mineral
estate has been severed from the surface estate, the Company is required to disclose the following
information: that there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise
conveyed from the surface estate and that there is a substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or
all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and that such mineral estate
may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission.
Note: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Commitment, if the policy to be issued is other
than an ALTA Owner's Policy (6/17/06), the policy may not contain an arbitration clause, or the terms of
the arbitration clause may be different from those set forth in this Commitment. If the policy does contain
an arbitration clause, and the Amount of Insurance is less than the amount, if any, set forth in the
arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the
Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties.
Page 11
99
ALTA COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE
issued by
CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
NOTICE
IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE
INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE
CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT.
THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL
OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES
USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND
EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF
THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A
PROPOSED INSURED.
THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED
INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS
COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS
COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON.
COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY
Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions,
Chicago Title Insurance Company, a Florida corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms
and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each
Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the
Proposed Amount of Insurance and the name of the Proposed Insured.
If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 180 days after the Commitment Date, this
Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This Commitment
is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I-Requirements; and Schedule B, Part
II-Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
100
COMMITMENT CONDITIONS
DEFINITIONS1.
a.“Discriminatory Covenant ”: Any covenant, condition, restriction, or limitation that is unenforceable under
applicable law because it illegally discriminates against a class of individuals based on personal characteristics
such as race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, familial status, disability, national origin, or
other legally protected class.
b.“Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual knowledge or actual notice, but not constructive notice imparted by the
Public Records.
c.“Land”: The land described in Item 5 of Schedule A and improvements located on that land that by State law
constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond that described in Schedule A,
nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in any abutting street, road, avenue, alley, lane, right-of-way,
body of water, or waterway, but does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is
to be insured by the Policy.
d.“Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, security deed, or other real property security instrument,
including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.
e.“Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or
to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment.
f.“Proposed Amount of Insurance ”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Amount of
Insurance of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.
g.“Proposed Insured ”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued
pursuant to this Commitment.
h.“Public Records ”: The recording or filing system established under State statutes in effect at the Commitment
Date under which a document must be recorded or filed to impart constructive notice of matters relating to the
Title to a purchaser for value without Knowledge. The term “Public Records ” does not include any other
recording or filing system, including any pertaining to environmental remediation or protection, planning,
permitting, zoning, licensing, building, health, public safety, or national security matters.
i.“State”: The state or commonwealth of the United States within whose exterior boundaries the Land is located.
The term “State” also includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and Guam.
j.“Title”: The estate or interest in the Land identified in Item 3 of Schedule A.
2.If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment
to Issue Policy, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end.
3.The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without:
a.the Notice;
b.the Commitment to Issue Policy;
c.the Commitment Conditions;
d.Schedule A;
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A;
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its
issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
72C170B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (7-1-21)
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
101
e.Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and
f.Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and
g.a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
4.COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND
The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect,
lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any
liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company is not liable for any other amendment
to this Commitment.
5.LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY
a.The Company ’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured ’s actual expense
incurred in the interval between the Company ’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the
delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to:
i.comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements;
ii.eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or
iii.acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment.
b.The Company is not liable under Commitment Condition 5.a. if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment
or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing.
c.The Company is only liable under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the
expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the
Proposed Insured.
d.The Company’s liability does not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured ’s actual expense incurred in good
faith and described in Commitment Condition 5.a. or the Proposed Amount of Insurance.
e.The Company is not liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.
f.The Company is not obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B,
Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company.
g.The Company’s liability is further limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy to be issued to the Proposed
Insured.
6.LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT; CHOICE OF LAW AND
CHOICE OF FORUM
a.Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this
Commitment.
b.Any claim must be based in contract under the State law of the State where the Land is located and is restricted
to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. Any litigation or other proceeding brought by the Proposed
Insured against the Company must be filed only in a State or federal court having jurisdiction.
c.This Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the
subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and
proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this
Commitment.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A;
Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its
issuing agent that may be in electronic form.
72C170B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (7-1-21)
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.
102
d.The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to
provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy.
e.Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the
Company.
f.When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability
will be under the Policy.
7.IF THIS COMMITMENT IS ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT
The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The
issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for closing, settlement, escrow, or any other purpose.
8.PRO-FORMA POLICY
The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company
may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a
Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure.
9.CLAIMS PROCEDURES
This Commitment incorporates by reference all Conditions for making a claim in the Policy to be issued to the Proposed
Insured. Commitment Condition 9 does not modify the limitations of liability in Commitment Conditions 5 and 6.
10.CLASS ACTION
ALL CLAIMS AND DISPUTES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS COMMITMENT, INCLUDING ANY
SERVICE OR OTHER MATTER IN CONNECTION WITH ISSUING THIS COMMITMENT, ANY BREACH OF A
COMMITMENT PROVISION, OR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THE
TRANSACTION GIVING RISE TO THIS COMMITMENT, MUST BE BROUGHT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. NO
PARTY MAY SERVE AS PLAINTIFF, CLASS MEMBER, OR PARTICIPANT IN ANY CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE
PROCEEDING. ANY POLICY ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS COMMITMENT WILL CONTAIN A CLASS ACTION
CONDITION.
11.ARBITRATION
The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less
may be arbitrated at the election of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A
Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration.
This page is only a part of a 2021 ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Chicago Title Insurance Company. This
Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B,
Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be
in electronic form.
72C170B ALTA Commitment for Title Insurance (7-1-21)
Copyright 2021 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved.
The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and
ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited.
Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association.103
Anti-Fraud Statement
NOTE: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false,
incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of
defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment,
fines, denial of insurance and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an
insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or
information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to
defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from
insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado division of insurance within the
department of regulatory agencies.
This anti-fraud statement is affixed to and made a part of this policy.
104
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
Please type or print in all caps
Representative Name (if different from Property Owner)
Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone:
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and
payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property
owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
$. flat fee for . $. flat fee for
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional
costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete
processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project
consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to
the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of
an invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I
agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly
rates hereinafter stated.
$ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen:
Ben Anderson, AICP
Community Development Director
City Use:
Fees Due: $ Received $
Case #
Signature:
PRINT Name:
Title:
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Address of Property:
Property Owner Name:
Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to:
1300 4
BendonAdams
325 West Hopkins Ave., Aspen
325 W Hopkins LLC
PO Box 7699, Aspen CO 81612
kailtin@rwaspen.com wheeler@rwaspen.com 970-920-0236
1,950 6
Exhibit F
Richard Wax
Owner
105
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090
Homeowner Association Compliance Policy
All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association
Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies
with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by
the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner.
Property
Owner (“I”):
Name:
Email: Phone No.:
Address of
Property:
(subject of
application)
I certify as follows: (pick one)
□This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant.
□This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association orcovenant beneficiary.
□This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or
covenant beneficiary.
I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the
applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I
understand that this document is a public document.
Owner signature:
Owner printed name:
or,
Attorney signature: date:
Attorney printed name:
date:
325 W Hopkins LLC
wheeler@rwaspen.com 970-920-0236
325 West Hopkins AvenueAspen, CO 81612
Exhibit G
Richard Wax
2/26/2024
106
425425425
501
420
420420
326
333
333
333
400
400
400 400400
400
501
501
501
503501
503
507
507
509
507
501
425
511 505
435
430
325
333
334
219
217
211
205413
431
430
432
500
218
400
402
306
108108108
108
108
108
108
111
107 105
125
101
213
127210
204
204
124124
124124
124
124
124
124
124
124 124
124 124
127127
127 127
127127
232
232232
232232
232
301 301
301 301
214
311
204
314
300312
216
214
123 121
119 117
113
135
233
205
211
221
220
112114
122
122
122132132
132132
132132
131
125
122
111
125
135
130
121
129
420500
327
323
335
333
334
24
28
322
315
334
513
505
509
523
517
110
210
210
210
232
210232
219
222
222 222
222
233
233233
233233
233
233233
233
233233
233
233
233
233
220
220220
220
220
220
332
332
332
328
328
328
324
323 323
323 311
311
311
311 311
311
311
311
311311
311
311
311311
222
319
132134
200
212
235237
320
314
109
211
205
200
312
308
300
303
315
205
213
215217
233
116
120
234
0 0.04 0.070.02
mi
F
Legend
Historic Sites
Historic Districts
Parcels
Roads Zoomed Out
Roads Zoomed In
Source: City of Aspen GIS
325 West Hopkins - vicinity map Exhibit H
107
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The
information maintained by the County may not be complete as to
mineral estate ownership and that information should be
determined by separate legal and property analysis.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273512464002 on 02/26/2024
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Exhibit I
108
235 W HOPKINS B LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
250 S OCEAN BLVD # 14A
430 WEST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
432 W HOPKINS AVE
437 W SMUGGLER LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10022
510 MADISON AVE 18TH FL
AJAX APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
301 W HYMAN AVE
AJOY ASPEN LLC
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33394
100 SE 3RD AVE #1850
ALLAN ANDREW S
DENVER, CO 80218
154 MARION ST
AML 103 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
AML 309 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
ANCALA SHADOWVIEW RETREAT LLC
DUBLIN, OH 43017
10277 MACKENZIE WY
ASPEN A CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
308 W HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
311 W MAIN ST
ASPEN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
ASPEN, CO 81611
311 W MAIN ST
ASPEN MEDICAL CENTER CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W MAIN ST
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE UNIT 301 LLC
CONSHOHOCKEN, PA 19428
PO BOX 401
BEHRENDT H MICHAEL TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
334 W HYMAN AVE
BLUEGREEN VACATIONS UNLIMITED INC
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
4960 CONFERENCE WY N #100
BRAFMAN FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
334 W HOPKINS
BRAFMAN STUART REV TRUST
CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815
5630 WISCONSIN AVE #401
BRAHMAN MARITAL TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
334 W HOPKINS
BROMLEY WENDI TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 W HYMAN AVE
BROWDE KRISTEN PRATA
MIAMI, FL 33132
888 BISCAYNE BLVD #2401
CHARY REV TRUST
PNTE VEDRA , FL 320821822
334 PNTE BEDRA BLVD
CHERNY ANDREA J
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 WEST HYMAN AVE #5
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
427 RIO GRANDE PL
CLICK MARY JANE LIV TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 W MAIN #2A
CONNOR WILLIAM E II TRUST
RENO, NV 89502
990 S ROCK BLVD #F
DENBY SAMUEL ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
331 W MAIN ST #B
DHM FAMILY TRST
ATLANTA, GA 30309
2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12
EDGEWATER PROPERTIES LLC
OMAHA, NE 68022
18081 BURT ST
EGBERT STEPHEN E
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 W HYMAN AVE #1
109
ELKMAX LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
FINIGAN SC REAL ESTATE LLC
BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34134
4851 BONITA BAY BLVD #2002
FOOTHILLS CHAPEL LLC
DENVER, CO 80235
6226 W JEFFERSON AVE
FOSTER LOT 2 LLC
DENVER, CO 80206
425 FILLMORE ST
GILDENHORN MICHAEL S
BETHESDA, MD 20816
5008 BALTON RD
GOLDENBERG STEPHEN R
ASPEN, CO 81611
430 W HOPKINS #2
GOSS CHESTER A IV
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9642
GUNN ROBERT W FAMILY TRST
MARBLEHEAD, MA 01945
409 OCEAN AVE
GUNNING JANINE L
SNOWMASS , CO 81654
420 CHATEAU WY
GUNNING RALPH
SNOWMASS , CO 81654
420 CHATEAU WY
HERRON APARTMENTS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 W MAIN ST
INNSBRUCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
233 W MAIN ST
JACOBY FAMILY LP
VERO BEACH, FL 32963
3383 OCEAN DR
JEWISH RESOURCE CENTER CHABAD OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81612
435 W MAIN ST
JOHNSTON FAMILY TRUST
COSTA MESA, CA 92626
2018 PHALAROPE
KASPAR THERESA D
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1637
KENDIG ROBERT & SUE
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4649
KOSTER RYAN & SUANNE
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 W HOPKINS AVE #5
MARTEN RANDOLPH
MONDOVI, WI 54755
129 MARTEN ST
MARTIN SCOTT M
ASPEN, CO 81611
PO BOX 51
MCCARTY DANIEL L
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4051
MILLER BRITT C
ASPEN, CO 816111625
301 W HYMAN AVE APT 4
MORGAN DONALD
ATLANTA, GA 30309
2288 PEACHTREE RD, NW #12
MOUNTAIN LODGE HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
605 W MAIN ST #2
NANOOK RIDGE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
324 W HOPKINS AVE #B
NEVINS NATHALIE R
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 W HYMAN AVE #3
NORTON CAPITAL PARTNERS LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81611
335 S SECOND ST
OOBASPEN LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10022
320 PARK AVE 18TH FL
PIONEER PARTNERS LTD
ASPEN, CO 81611
617 W MAIN ST #1B
PITKIN COUNTY
ASPEN, CO 81611
530 E MAIN ST #301
110
PORTOFINO LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 W MAIN ST #2B
POWDERDAYSKIING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 10261
RAINBOW CONNECTION PROPERTIES LLC
MORRISON, CO 80465
151 SUMMER ST #771
RESSEL THOMAS G
ASPEN, CO 816111625
301 W HYMAN AVE #7
REYNOLDS FRANK R IV
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2725
ROSENTHAL DIANNE
ASPEN, CO 816127311
PO BOX 10043
SAND KATHERINE M
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 51
SCOTT BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 W HOPKINS AVE
SECOND STREET ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
533 E HOPKINS 3RD FL
SHADOW MOUNTAIN DUPLEX CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W HOPKINS AVE
SHADOW MOUNTAIN LODGE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
W HOPKINS AVE
SHADOW MTN HOMEOWNER ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
232 W HYMAN AVE
SHADOWVIEW CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
320 W HOPKINS AVE
SHARRON W VALLIERE
STOWE, VT 056726200
638 S MAIN ST #3
SHERWIN ENTERPRISES LLC
DURHAM, NC 27701
1714 VISTA ST
SLONE MICHAEL DAVID II
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703
4476 WATERSIDE CT
STASPEN LLP
ATLANTA , GA 303094420
229 PEACHTREE HILLS AVE NE #438
SWISS CHALET/KITZBUHEL PARTNERSHIP
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 E DURANT AVE
TAD PROPERTIES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9978
TEMPKINS HARRY & VIVIAN
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139
605 LINCOLN RD #301
TRAN LAN D
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2705
TWIN COASTS LTD
BOCA RATON, FL 33432
433 PLAZA REAL #275
UNDERWOOD AMOS
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 W HYMAN #6
UTOPIA LIVING ASPEN LLC
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
225 GEORGINA AVE
WEST ASPEN MOUNTAIN CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
333 S SECOND ST
WEST SIDE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
234 W HOPKINS AVE
WINER CAROL G
BETHESDA , MD 20817
6740 SELKIRK DR
YOUNG PAUL III FAMILY TRUST
ASPEN, CO 816111603
413 W HOPKINS AVE
111
Exhibit J
112
325 West Hopkins Avenue
Historical Preservation Committee
Engineering Report
December 12, 2023
Prepared By:
Jay Engstrom, P.E.
Crystal River Civil, LLC
Carbondale, CO 81623
jay@crystalrivercivil.com
(970) 510-5312
Exhibit K
113
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 2 of 9
Table of Contents
1.0 General Information ......................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................... 4
2.0 Drainage Basins and Subbasins ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Onsite Drainage Basins ............................................................................................... 5
2.2 Offsite Drainage Basins ............................................................................................... 5
3.0 Low Impact Site Design ................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Principles ..................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Hydrologic Criteria ........................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Runoff Calculation Method ........................................................................................... 7
4.2 Basin Analysis ............................................................................................................. 7
4.3 Water Quality and Storage Requirements .................................................................... 8
5.0 Proposed Facilities .......................................................................................................... 8
5.1 Drywells ....................................................................................................................... 8
114
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 3 of 9
1.0 General Information
1.1 Existing Conditions
The property being discussed in this report is addressed at 325 West Hopkins Avenue, Aspen,
Colorado 81611. The site is located within downtown City of Aspen and is 2,999 sq. ft. in area. It
is documented as parcel # 273512464002 and is described as Lot C and D, Block 46. The site is
located on the south side of West Hopkins between South 3rd Street and South 2nd Street and is
surrounded by other residential developments. A single-family home is located to the east and
two smaller, developed, residential lots are located to the west, with West Hopkins Avenue Right-
Of-Way to the north and an Alley Right-Of-Way to the south.
325 West Hopkins Avenue Vicinity Map
325 West Hopkins has a small, historic building that was built in 1888 located on the northwest
corner of the lot. This building has been added onto and the additions extend further east up to
the setback from the east property line. There is a relatively large backyard, with large evergreen
trees following the alley property line. The grade throughout the site is relatively flat, with the
overall grade change on the property not exceeding four feet from the southwest corner sloping
towards the northeast corner. However, the Right-Of-Way to the north drops quickly after the
property line down to the sidewalk below. There is a vertical drop of two to three feet in this
distance with a small 18-inch retaining wall following the sidewalk, as well as multiple mature
trees.
A City of Aspen Water Department water main is located under the West Hopkins Avenue Right-
Of-Way. An existing water service runs south from the main line at the center of the property,
under the large trees and into the front of the newer addition. The existing size and material is
Site
115
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 4 of 9
unknown at this time. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, or ACSD, has a sewer main within
the alley Right-Of-Way to the south. The existing home has a sewer service that extends south
and ties into this sewer main. A City of Aspen Electric Department electric transformer is located
on the neighboring property, just east of the southeast corner of 325. It is an older transformer,
and it is the only transformer in the near proximity to the property under evaluation. Gas and
communications are also located in the alley, with services extending onto the site.
A survey has been completed and is included with this submittal. Refer to this survey for additional
information regarding all utilities and other existing conditions on and around the site.
1.2 Proposed Conditions
The proposed conditions for 325 West Hopkins Avenue include the demolition of the non-historic
addition of the residence. The historic building will then be a standalone unit in the northwestern
corner of the property and will be utilized as an Additional Dwelling Unit, or ADU. A new residence
is proposed in an “L” around the historic building on the remaining areas of the developable site.
A large, below-grade basement will encompass the entire site outside of the ten foot offset from
the historic building. Patios and landscaping will surround and connect both the historic building
and the new structure. A garage will be located on the southern side of the structure that will be
accessed from the alleyway.
Improvements to the site patios, walkways, and landscaping surrounding the structure are
included with the project. The development is considered a “Major Project” as per Table 1.1 of
the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The parcel is zoned as residential
and will not require a change in land use or zoning.
Currently there are no known drainage studies performed on or around the site. The project is not
within a mudflow area as defined within the URMP. The project has been in discussions with the
City of Aspen Engineering Department, and it has been determined that onsite detention will be
utilized for stormwater management. All impervious areas are proposed to be routed to a drywell
sized for full detention of the captured drainage basin. This drywell will be located below the
foundation of the proposed structure and will be sized for full detention of the 100-year, 1-hour
storm event.
Utility services will be improved to the site for the development. Upon inspection and sizing
verification of the existing water line, a new water service may be necessary. This will require
excavation into the West Hopkins Right-Of-Way and into 325 West Hopkins, which would be
routed through the area that will minimally impact the existing trees. A new sanitary sewer service
will replace the existing service to the main in the alley. A new transformer is proposed at the
southern property line along the alleyway, as the existing transformer does not have capacity for
the proposed conditions. This is shown on the architectural site plan, and it is understood the
setback requirements for this transformer. Additionally, the gas and communications services will
be upgraded and extended from the alley to the residence.
116
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 5 of 9
2.0 Drainage Basins and Subbasins
2.1 Onsite Drainage Basins
The property has been analyzed as one drainage basin, containing the entirety of the existing and
proposed conditions. The point of concentration for the basin will be a drywell that is located under
the proposed structure.
Basin 1 is composed of 3,451 square feet and is 100% impervious. This basin includes existing
and proposed roof areas and proposed impervious patios. All areas outside of this basin on the
site include landscaped areas, pervious paver patios and walkways, and a pervious paver
driveway accessing the garage. Due to the pervious nature of the surrounding areas of the
development, there will not impacts due to offsite drainage. The basin is collected by downspouts
from the roof structure and several inlets strategically spaced in the hardscaping. All stormwater
is conveyed to the drywell, which shall be located under the proposed structure. The drywell has
been sized for full detention of a 100-year, 1-hour storm event, so no runoff will leave the
premises. In the case of failure of the drywell, an emergency pump with alarm will release the
runoff into the landscaping in front of the residence, where it would sheet flow into the right of
way. This would enter the curb and gutter and release into a curb inlet located in West Hopkins
between South 2nd Street and South 1st Street, one block away.
2.2 Offsite Drainage Basins
There are no offsite drainage patterns releasing onto 325 West Hopkins. Minor rutting within the
alley way results in ponding, however drainage generally flows to the east. Any grading onsite will
slope towards the alleyway and will not impact this area.
3.0 Low Impact Site Design
Low Impact Development (LID) aims to mimic the natural pre-development hydrologic patterns.
The goal is to manage storm water as close to its source as is possible. The captured onsite basin
is 100% impervious.
3.1 Principles
Principle 1: Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process.
The design team coordinated throughout the schematic design phase to coordinate with the City
of Aspen Engineering Department to determine the stormwater management as effectively as
possible, while effectively conceptualizing a stormwater system that meets requirements and
needs. It was understood that the footprint of the building, existing trees, and the historic relevance
was going to drive the design to minimize space for infrastructure and site disturbance.
117
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 6 of 9
Principle 2: Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment.
Given the existing conditions, minimal space could be utilized for stormwater collection and
treatment. Because of this, the only location for stormwater management is under the building.
Principle 3: Avoid unnecessary impervious area.
Impervious patio areas are proposed be kept to a minimum within the site. The only patios that
are proposed impervious are on top of structure, so pervious pavers are not possible. Walkways
around the building are proposed as pervious. There are no impervious areas proposed outside
of the roof and the on-structure patios.
Principle 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions.
All runoff from impervious surfaces on the property is collected and conveyed to a drywell, which
has been sized for full detention of a 100-year storm event. Given this, there will be no runoff
leaving the site in addition to the runoff from the offsite basin in the Right-Of-Way.
Principle 5: Integrate storm water quality management and flood control.
Adequately sizing the inlets and piping systems on site will significantly reduce the potential of
flooding on site and into the neighboring parcels in the area.
Principle 6: Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the
environment.
The onsite and offsite basin will be conveyed to the drywell located on the site. This will minimize
impacts of stormwater on neighboring residences from the existing residence. The design allows
for more than adequate drainage while having minimal visual impacts. Detention of the onsite
runoff prevents any runoff from reaching the river and instead infiltrates the stormwater into the
ground. This effectively minimizes impacts on the existing infrastructure and the Roaring Fork
River.
Principle 7: Use treatment train approach.
Sumps will be proposed for the inlets in the pipe network to ensure treatment throughout the
system. Additionally, the drywell will meet the City of Aspens requirements for a double chamber
system, allowing for more filtration prior to infiltration.
Principle 8: Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained.
Inlets, piping, and the drywell will be vacuumed or flushed routinely to maintain adequate flows
and proper treatment. The designed system includes cleanouts at roof drain connections and
downspouts, simplified collection systems that minimize maintenance, and easy access to the
whole system.
Principle 9: Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind.
The proposed design for the walkways and patios will allow for adequate drainage, and minimizes
ice buildup and dangerous conditions. Walkways and stairways will be pitched at recommended
slopes and within building code thresholds to allow for safe circulation within the property.
Grading will be kept to a minimum and retainage has been minimized. Transitions into existing
conditions will be smooth and natural. Inlets and piping will be sized to reduce potential flooding
within the area.
118
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 7 of 9
4.0 Hydrologic Criteria
4.1 Runoff Calculation Method
Calculations and analyses defined in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the URMP were used to define
the runoff from the basins on the property. The property is classified as a “sub-urban area served
by public storm sewer.” Pre-developed and developed runoff rates were determined for both the
5-year 1-hour, and the 100-year 1-hour storm events for capacity designs as required by this
classification.
The peak discharge shown in this analysis uses the Rational Method, as described in section 3.4
of the URMP. This requires several variables to be determined, including values for intensity, the
runoff coefficient, and basin area. Using the rainfall depths from Table 2-2 and the basin time of
concentration in conjunction with Equation 2-1, the rainfall intensity for the basins can be
calculated. The rainfall intensity equation shown in the URMP is a direct correlation of the Aspen
area Intensity Duration Frequency Curve derived from the NOAA Atlas 14 database. As stated
within the URMP, the time of concentration can be no less than five minutes for the calculations
to be effective. Due to the size of the basins on the site, the time of concentration within the basins
is less than five minutes. The runoff coefficient for each basin was established using the percent
impervious of the basin and the soil type in combination with the most up-to-date values as
presented in the Mile High Flood District Drainage Design Values for the specified soil type in the
area. For this project, an NRCS Soil Classification of B was utilized.
4.2 Basin Analysis
The tables below summarize the calculations that were performed on the onsite basins using the
methods described in Section 4.1 of this report.
Rainfall depth, P 1 (in)0.64 Soil Class B Intensity (in/hr)Discharge (ft3/Sec)Q=CIA t
Note: For basins with a flow length of less than 500 feet, a Time of Concentration is assumed at 5 minutes. These calculations are assuming a NRCS Hydrologic Soil Class B.
Rainfall depth values derived from NOAA Atlas 14 data. Intensity equation has been derived from the Aspen area NOAA Atlas 14 IDF Curve.
Predeveloped Conditions
Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge
(Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec)
1 3451 0 0.00%0.010 5 3.29 0.00
Developed Conditions
Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge
(Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec)
1 3451.00 3451.00 100.00%0.860 5 3.29 0.22
5-Year 1-Hour Onsite Peak Discharge CalculationsI=88.8P1(10 +Td)1.052
119
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 8 of 9
4.3 Water Quality and Storage Requirements
For a property classified as a “Sub-urban area not served by public storm sewer”, runoff from the
site must meet the predeveloped peak discharge of a 100-year, 1-hour storm event. Full detention
volume is detained on site due to the lack of infrastructure downhill of the site. All equations used
in the spreadsheets are directly from the URMP. A full detention analysis of the drainage basins
has been completed. The full detention volume is calculated using the impervious area on the site
and multiplying by the 100-year, 1-hour rainfall depth found in the NOAA Atlas 14 database. The
calculation that has been used to determine the full detention volume required to be detained on
the property is shown in the spreadsheet below.
As required by the City of Aspen, a drywell must be sized for the capacity determined from the
full detention volume calculation for a 100-year, 1-hour storm if no overflow path for the BMP is
available. Since the drywell has been sized for full detention, the Water Quality Capture Volume
for the onsite basin has been fulfilled. This volume will be used to adequately size the onsite
drywell.
5.0 Proposed Facilities
The following analyses were performed using the peak flows of the basins described in Section 4
of this report. Additional sub-basin analysis will be provided for the permit set, as well as a
hydraulic analysis of all conveyance infrastructure, including inlets and piping.
5.1 Drywells
The proposed dual chamber drywell meets the requirements of the URMP. The sizing of the
drywell is determined using the capacity calculations summarized in Section 4.3 of this report.
Below is a summary showing the drywell dimensions to verify it has capacity. The chamber
divider, conical section, and sloped manhole lid were not included in these dimensions, which is
why the proposed drywell exceeds the storage depth shown in the calculations.
Rainfall depth, P 1 (in)1.23 Soil Class B Intensity (in/hr)Discharge (ft3/Sec)Q=CIA t
Note: For basins with a flow length of less than 500 feet, a Time of Concentration is assumed at 5 minutes. These calculations are assuming a NRCS Hydrologic Soil Class B.
Rainfall depth values derived from NOAA Atlas 14 data. Intensity equation has been derived from the Aspen area NOAA Atlas 14 IDF Curve.
Predeveloped Conditions
Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge
(Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec)
1 3451 0 0.00%0.430 5 6.33 0.22
Developed Conditions
Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge
(Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec)
1 3451.00 3451.00 100.00%0.890 5 6.33 0.45
100-Year 1-Hour Onsite Peak Discharge CalculationsI=88.8P1(10 +Td)1.052
Basin Point of Concentration Total Area Impervious Area Impervious Full Detention Depth Factor of Safety Full Detention Storage
(Name) (name)(ft2)(ft2)(%)(in)(FOS)(ft3)
1 Drywell 3451.00 3451.00 100.00%1.23 1 354
Full Detention Storage
120
Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 9 of 9
Given the capacity dimensions, the drywell will be 12.5’ deep from manhole lid to the bottom of
the lower vault. This will be located within the footprint of the building and will be strategically
located where it is not in close proximity to foundation footers and easy accessibility.
Drywell Name Associated Basin Drywell Diameter Storage Height Gravel Height Internal Capacity External Capacity Combined Capacity Calculated Volume Necessary
(Name)(Name)d (ft)h (ft)hg (ft)Vi (ft3)Ve (ft3) V (ft3)(ft3)
A 1 6 10 5 282.74 79.52 362.26 353.73
Storage Calculation - Drywells
Internal Capacity, Vi (ft3)External Capacity,Ve (ft3)Combined Capacity, V (ft3)Vi =hπ(d2)2 Ve =hg(π(d +1.52)2 −π(d2)2)V =Vi +Ve
121
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
2
PROJECT OVERVIEW
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
COVER SHEET
ZONING
SITE PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
ELEVATIONS
1
2
Z1.01
Z1.02
Z1.03
Z1.04
A1.01
A1.02
A1.03
A1.04
A1.01
A1.06
A1.07
A2.01
A2.02
A2.03
A2.04
A2.05
A2.06
A2.07
COVER SHEET
PROJECT OVERVIEW
FAR
DEMOLITION PLANS
SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1:5
CMP | 1:5
SITE PLAN | EXISTING
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1:5
FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
DEMO PLANS
FLOOR PLANS - PROPOSED
FLOOR PLANS - PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
ELEVATIONS- HISTORIC PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS -NORTH & SOUTH
ELEVATIONS- EAST & WEST
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS033
LBB
5.1
A
REFERENCE GRID LINE
SPOT ELEVATION
WINDOW MARK
DOOR MARK
ROOM NUMBER
DRAWING REVISION
ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT
SECTION CUT
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
DETAIL CALLOUT
SECTION DETAIL CALLOUT
INTERIOR ELEVATION
ROOM
100
F11
1
T. O. RIDGE BEAM
123'-6 1/2"
4.4
1
1
7.1
1
7.1
8.1
1
2
3
4
SYMBOL LEGEND
MATERIAL LEGEND
GYPSUM WALL
BOARD
RAW FRAMING
WOOD BLOCKING
ROCK - NON
COMPACTED FILL
CONCRETE
STONE
FRAME WALL
BRICK
PLYWOOD
BATT INSULATION
FINISHED WOOD
RIGID INSULATION
8
OWNER/BUILDER
Richard Wax & Associates
Vince Coghlan
P.O. Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81612
P. 970.274.2113
coghlanv@gmail.com
PROJECT MANAGER
Richard Wax & Associates
Wheeler Clancy
P.O. Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81612
P. 970.948.8771
wheeler@rwaspen.com
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Bwr.PE
Brian Rossiter
1010 W. 24th St.
Rifle, CO 81650
P. 970.462.8853
bwr@bwr.pe
A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
ADJ. ADJUSTABLE
ALT. ALTERNATE
A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS
& AND
ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL
@ AT
BM. BEAM
BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET
BRG. BEARING
BLK’G. BLOCKING
BOT. BOTTOM
B.F. BOTTOM OF FOOTING
BLDG. BUILDING
B.O. BY OWNER
CAB. CABINET
CLG. CEILING
CL. CENTER LINE
C.T. CERAMIC TILE
CLR. CLEAR
COL. COLUMN
CONC. CONCRETE
CONN. CONNECTION
CONT. CONTINUOUS
DTL. DETAILS
DBL. DOUBLE
DWL. DOWEL
E.W. EACH WAY
ELEV. ELEVATION
EXIST’G EXISTING
EXT. EXTERIOR
FLR. FLOOR
FTG. FOOTING
FND. FOUNDATION
GA. GAUGE
G.L. GLU-LAM
G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD
HT. HEIGHT
HK. HOOK
HORIZ. HORIZONTAL
INFO. INFORMATION
INSUL. INSULATION
JST. JOIST
L.L. LIVE LOAD
LONGINT. LONGITUDINAL
N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT
O.C. ON CENTER
OPP. OPPOSITE
O/ OVER
PTD. PAINTED
PERF. PERFORATED
PL. PLATE
PLY. PLYWOOD
PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE
REINF. REINFORCEMENT
RDWD. REDWOOD
REQ’D. REQUIRED
RESIL. RESILENT
REV. REVISED
S.M. SHEET METAL
SIM. SIMILAR
S.F. SQUARE FEET
STD. STANDARD
STL. STEEL
STDS. STUDS
THK. THICK
TLT. TOILET
T.F. TOP OF FOOTING
T.P. TOP OF PLATE
T.L. TOP OF LEDGE
T.W. TOP OF WALL
TOT. TOTAL
T.B. TOWEL BAR
TRANSV. TRANSVERSE
TYP. TYPICAL
U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1. The Contract Documents shall consist of the general notes and the architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All future
additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall, in turn, become part of these documents. Work indicated
or reasonably implied in any one of the documents shall be supplied as though fully covered in all. Any discrepancy between any
parts of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect/Designer immediately for clarification.
2. Richard Wax & Associates, waves any and all liability for problems which arise from failure to follow the design intent of the plans.
Contractor to obtain and/or request guidance of Richard Wax & Associates, with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or
conflicts which may be discovered or alleged.
3. The Plans and Specifications are the property of the Architect/Designer and are not to be used without the permission of same.
4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having
jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by journeymen of the appropriate trades.
5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall
provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer
or Architect/Designer shall not include inspection of the above items nor will the Architect/Designer or Structural Engineer be
responsible for the Contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and
the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the programs incident thereto. The Contractor
shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations.
6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions are to be used. If there is a discrepancy in dimensions, the
Architect/Designer should be notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing
conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise.
7. These documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein.
It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect/Designer any conditions which will not permit
construction according to the intentions of these documents.
8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor when there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local
code or ordinance.
9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved
by the Architect/Designer. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The
Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation.
Work to be done by a certified surveyor.
10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor to maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for
record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work to show changes and actual
installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. Give particular attention to work which will be
concealed and difficult to measure and record at a later date, and work which may require servicing or replacement during life of
project. Require entities marking prints, to sign and date each mark-up. Bind prints into manageable sets, with durable paper cover,
appropriately labeled.
11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils
engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work.
12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Notify Architect/Designer of any
discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions.
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORY
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
ABBREVIATIONS
325 W. HOPKINS AVE.HPC SUBMISSIONVICINITY MAP
Exhibit L.1
122
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
Z1.01
FAR
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
1,715 sq ft
443 sq ft
130 sq ft
AREA LEGEND
-BASEMENT AREA
-EXISTING FLOOR AREA
-EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE
-EXISTING DECK
EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS
MAIN= 1715 SF
EXISTING= 1,715 SF
ALLOWED=3,600 SF
DECKS
FRONT PORCH= 130 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
TOTAL= 0 SF
ALLOWED= 540 SF (3,600 SF * .15)
DECKS/PORCH COUNTABLE TOWARD FAR= 0 SF
*GARAGE ALLOWED 250 SF EXEMPT, THEN 50% COUNTS UP TO 500 SF
10.4 HISTORIC RESOURCE FLOOR AREA RATIO
NON HISTORIC EXISTING FLOOR AREA
MAIN= 1,272 SF (1715-443)
EXISTING= 1,272 SF NON HISTORIC
EXISTING= 443 SF HISTORIC
79 sq ft
41 sq ft
96 sq ft
172 sq ft
371 sq ft
87 sq ft
80 sq ft
21 sq ft
565 sq ft
21 sq ft9 sq ft
9 sq ft
25 sq ft
169 sq ft
215 sq ft98 sq ft 99 sq ft
21 sq ft
9 sq ft
26 sq ft
11 sq ft
317 sq ft
2,394 sq ft
<5'-6" EXISTING CRAWL SPACE, VIF
BASEMENT WALL AREA CALCS
TOTAL WALL AREA= 2,700 SF
EXPOSED WALL AREA= 158 SF
158/2,700 *100= 6% COUNTS TOWARDS FAR
2,700*.06= 143 SF COUNTS TOWARDS FAR
WALL LEGEND
-BURIED WALL AREA
-EXPOSED WALL AREA
109 sq ft
1,644 sq ft3'-71/4"497 sq ft
559 sq ft
179 sq ft
ON GRADE PATIO
ON GRADE PATIO
ON GRADE PATIO
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
AREA LEGEND
-BASEMENT AREA
-EXISTING FLOOR AREA
-PROPOSED GARAGE AREA
-PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
-PROPOSED DECK
PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS
BASEMENT= 143 SF
MAIN= 1644 SF
HISTORIC= 559 SF
GARAGE= 0 SF*
UPPER= 964 SF
PROPOSED= 3,310 SF
ALLOWED= 3,600 SF
DECKS
FRONT PORCH= 179 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
HIST. FRONT PORCH= 109 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
PROPOSED= 476 SF
TOTAL= 476 SF
ALLOWED= 540 SF (3,600 SF * .15)
DECKS/PORCH COUNTABLE TOWARD FAR= 0 SF
*GARAGE ALLOWED 250 SF EXEMPT, THEN 50% COUNTS UP TO 500 SF
10.4 HISTORIC RESOURCE FLOOR AREA RATIO
NON HISTORIC PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
MAIN= 559 SF
PROPOSED= 559 SF HISTORIC
EXISTING= 425 SF HISTORIC
964 sq ft
476 sq ft
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
Existing Floor Area Calculations
Basement 0
Main 1715
Garage 0
Upper 0
Total Proposed FAR:1715 Allowed: 3600
Remaining:1885
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS (SF)
Total Wall Areas Exposed Wall Area
317
169
80
9 21
565
9 21
87
215
99
21 9
98
26 11
25
79
41 96
172
371
317
Total Wall Area:2700
Exposed Wall Area: 158
% of Exposed Wall:6%
Subgrade Floor Area Calculations
Subgrade Gross Floor Area 2394
Subgrade Countable Floor Area 143 (2391 x 6%)
Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Basement 143
Main 1644
Garage 0
Upper 964
Historic Resource 559
Total Existing FAR:3310 Allowed: 3600
Remaining:290
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FAR
123
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
Z1.02
DEMOLITION PLANS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
Vertical Wall Surface Demolition Calculations for Zoning Dept.
Wall Demolition
Wall Label Individual Wall Area (SF) Area Reduced for Fenestration (SF)Area of Wall to be Removed (SF)
A 236 36 0
B 105 10 0
C 179 25 0
D 70 15 70
E 95 19 95
F 252 22 252
G 358 56 358
H 304 146 304
J 52 12 52
K 257 80 257
L 209 13 209
M 32 0 32
N 151 14 0
P 10 0 0
Q 97 0 0
Wall Surface Area Total (SF)2407
Area Reduced for Fenestration (SF)448
Area Used for Demo Calculations (SF)1959
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (SF)1629
Demolition Totals
Wall Area Used for Demo Calcs (SF)1959
Surface Area to be Removed (SF)1629
Total 83%
96 sq ft
468 sq ft
1,247 sq ft DDWWF4 sq ft
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
AREA OF DECK
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR
FRAMING TO REMAIN
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
HJ
K
L
M
N
P
Q
A
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
ROOF TO BE
REMOVED, ORIGINAL
ROOF TO BE REBUILT
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
134 sq ft
15 sq ft
102 sq ft
21 sq ft
15 sq ft
11 sq ft11 sq ft
10 sq ft
358 sq ft
52 sq ft
10 sq ft
56 sq ft
12 sq ft
179 sq ft
4 sq ft 4 sq ft17 sq ft
304 sq ft
44 sq ft
36 sq ft
34 sq ft 17 sq ft
6 sq ft
41 sq ft 17 sq ft
6 sq ft25 sq ft
32 sq ft257 sq ft 209 sq ft
151 sq ft
97 sq ft
13 sq ft 14 sq ft
95 sq ft
19 sq ft
252 sq ft
70 sq ft105 sq ft
LEGEND
AREA OF EXISTING WALL
AREA REDUCED FOR FENESTRATION
AREA OF WALL TO BE REMOVED
WALL "A"
WALL "P"
WALL "A"WALL "D"
WALL "F"WALL "G"
WALL "B"
WALL "J"
WALL "C"
WALL "M"
WALL "H"
WALL "K"WALL "Q"WALL "N"WALL "L"
WALL "E"
Interior/Exterior Wall & Ceiling Area Demolition Calculations for Engineering Dept.
*Note: Wall labels are for approx. location of demo area. Total demo areas include interior walls & floor
Wall Label Main Level
A
B
C 4
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
Main Level 1247
Demo Area Totals (SF)1251
Wall & Ceiling Demolition (SF)
Main Level 1251
Total 1251
Existing Floor Areas (SF)
Main Level 1715
Total 1715
Demolition Totals
Floor Area Used for Demo Calcs (SF)1715
Wall & Ceiling Area to be Removed (SF)1251
Total 73%
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 UPPER LEVEL DEMO
124
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
Z1.03
SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN |
PROPOSED | 1:5
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
Pre‐Project Lot Coverage
Site Area (SF)6000
Building Footprint 1715
Pre‐project Lot Coverage 29%
Proposed Lot Coverage
Site Area (SF)6000
Building Footprint 2698 2,139+559
Pre‐project Lot Coverage 45%
2,139 sq ft
559 sq ft
3'-0"
3'-0"
10'-0"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"CONC SIDEWALK
5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKS 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
ALLEY ALLEY5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
1,715 sq ft
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
WALL
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
SCALE: 1" = 5'1 SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | 1:5 | PROPOSED
0 2'5'10'
SCALE: 1" = 5'1 SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | 1:5 | EXISTING
0 2'5'10'
125
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Thursday, March 21, 2024 10:23 AMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.01
SITE PLAN | EXISTING
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/21/2024
Sheet No.
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
WEST HOPKINS AVENUE - 75.0' R.O.W.
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
6
13
2
4
5
24 7
8
11
2710
9
26
25
22
20
23
21
CONC SIDEWALK
CURB
WALL
SSS S S
E EEEEE
E
EGGG G G
C
C
C CCC CPPP
P
PP P
PWWW W W
PAN
G 790379047905790679077908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
79067907790879
0
9
79
1
0
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
EXISTING PLAN
BRICK PARKINGWALKEXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
6
13
2
4
5
24 7
8
11
2710
9
26
25
22
20
23
21
WALL
SSEEGGCCPPWG
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
79067907790879
0
9
79
1
0
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
BRICK PARKINGWALK SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN | 1:10 | EXISTING
0 5'10'20'
SCALE: 1" = 5'2 SITE PLAN | 1:5 | EXISTING
0 2'5'10'
126
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.02
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED |
1:5
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
5'-0"
11'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
3'-0"
10'-0"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"CRAWL SPACE ACCESS
REPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALL
5'x5' TRANSFORMER
CLEARANCE REQ.
MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
PEA GRAVEL BORDER, TYP.
OUTDOOR GAS FIREPLACE
WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
75.0' R.O.W.
CONC SIDEWALK
5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKPERVIOUS PAVER
DRIVEWAY
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO, LIVING
SPACE BELOW 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
PERVIOUS PAVER
PARKING
ON GRADE
WOOD DECK 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUSPERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
DNDN
ALLEY ALLEY
LIVING SPACE
BELOW
6
13
4
5
24
CONC SIDEWALK
CURB
PAN 790379047905790679077908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
79067907790879
0
9
79
1
0 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
6'-15' COLORADO SPRUCE
LANDSCAPING LEGEND
EXISTING TREES, SEE SURVEY
DWARF BOXWOOD, MAX 30"
WALL SCONCE W/
FROSTED GLASS COVER
LIGHTING LEGEND
STEP LIGHT
PATH LIGHT
DOWN LIGHT
FLOWER BED - FRONT YARD
-WALKERS LOW CATMINT: 5
-SALVIA: 5
-DAYLILIES: 5
-MERRIGOLD: 10
-BLANKET FLOWER: 4
-COLUMBINE: 5
PEA GRAVEL
FEATHER REED GRASS
-QUANTITY: 12
ARBORVITAE
LAWN
WOOD CHIPS
6'-15' ASPEN
5'-0"
11'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
3'-0"
10'-0"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"CRAWL SPACE ACCESS
REPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALL
5'x5' TRANSFORMER
CLEARANCE REQ.
MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
PEA GRAVEL BORDER, TYP.
OUTDOOR GAS FIREPLACE
CONC SIDEWALK
5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKPERVIOUS PAVER
DRIVEWAY
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO, LIVING
SPACE BELOW 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
PERVIOUS PAVER
PARKING
ON GRADE
WOOD DECK 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUSPERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
DNDN
ALLEY ALLEY
LIVING SPACE
BELOW
6
13
4
5
24
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
79067907790879
0
9
79
1
0 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
6'-15' COLORADO SPRUCE
LANDSCAPING LEGEND
EXISTING TREES, SEE SURVEY
DWARF BOXWOOD, MAX 30"
WALL SCONCE W/
FROSTED GLASS COVER
LIGHTING LEGEND
STEP LIGHT
PATH LIGHT
DOWN LIGHT
FLOWER BED - FRONT YARD
-WALKERS LOW CATMINT: 5
-SALVIA: 5
-DAYLILIES: 5
-MERRIGOLD: 10
-BLANKET FLOWER: 4
-COLUMBINE: 5
PEA GRAVEL
FEATHER REED GRASS
-QUANTITY: 12
ARBORVITAE
LAWN
WOOD CHIPS
6'-15' ASPEN
SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN | 1:10 | PROPOSED
0 5'10'20'
SCALE: 1" = 5'2 SITE PLAN | 1:5 | PROPOSED
0 2'5'10'
127
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.03
FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.DDWWF6'-0"2'-61/4"12'-73/4"43/4"8'-8"43/4"
11'-9"43/4"15'-43/4"10'-6"6'-93/4"2'-6"43/4"43/4"9'-2"
7'-71/4"1'-0"6'-0"4'-10"5'-41/2"5'-11/4"8'-0"2'-6"5'-11/4"2'-6"3'-0"4'-111/4"1'-93/4"2'-7"3'-71/4"4'-0"2'-0"11'-103/4"100'-0"
AREA IN GRAY IS PREVIOUS ADDITION THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED
AREA IN WHITE IS HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE RESTORED BACK TO ORIGINAL FORM
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
SHELVESKITCHEN
LIVING
MSTR BEDROOM
BATH
ENTRY
GUEST BEDROOM 1
DINING
GUEST BEDROOM 2
DEN
LAUNDRY
MSTR BATH
HISTORIC RESOURCEPREVIOUS ADDITIONTO BE DEMOLISHED104
102
110
106
101
105
103
107
108
109
111
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
9'-4"1
A2.01
3
A2.01
2
A2.01
4
A2.01
5
A2.01
6
A2.01
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING
128
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.04
ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
AREA IN GRAY IS PREVIOUS ADDITION THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED
AREA IN WHITE IS HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE RESTORED BACK TO
ORIGINAL FORM, NEW FIRE RATED WOOD SHINGLES TO BE INSTALLED
EXISTING PORCH ROOF TO BE REMOVED, NEW ROOF BUILT TO MATCH ORIGINAL DESIGN
7:12 7:12
7:12 7:126:12 6:12
9:12 9:12
9:129:129:129:127:127:127:127:122:122:12
1
A2.01
3
A2.01
2
A2.01
4
A2.01
5
A2.01
6
A2.01
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
129
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.01
DEMO PLANS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
96 sq ft
468 sq ft
1,247 sq ft DDWWF4 sq ft
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
AREA OF DECK
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR
FRAMING TO REMAIN
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
HJ
K
L
M
N
P
Q
A
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
ROOF TO BE
REMOVED, ORIGINAL
ROOF TO BE REBUILT
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ROOF DEMO PLAN
130
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.06
FLOOR PLANS -
PROPOSED
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
12'-03/4"63/4"4'-63/4"63/4"13'-11"16'-23/4"15'-103/4"63/4"12'-51/4"63/4"8'-81/2"12'-91/4"63/4"14'-41/4"63/4"15'-23/4"14'-51/4"63/4"13'-13/4"63/4"12'-51/2"63/4"10'-11/4"63/4"4'-5"63/4"5'-5"61/2"13'-61/2"16'-23/4"
4'-63/4"
63/4"
11'-11/4"
13'-61/2"23'-113/4"63/4"5'-103/4"5'-73/4"63/4"5'-83/4"63/4"25'-8"63/4"6'-101/4"63/4"6'-111/4"63/4"10'-1"10'-11/4"
90'-2"
NEW FOUNDATION REQUIRED TO MATCH
ORIGINAL HOUSE FOOTPRINT, VIF
LAUNDRY
MECH.
BATH
TV
BUNK ROOM
GYM
MEDIA
BILLIARD
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
EXISTING CRAWL SPACE UNDER EXISTING MINERS CABIN, VIF
NOTE:EXISTING FOUNDATION TO BE MAINTAINED, VIF
PWDR
CLOSET
UP
CRAWL
SPACE
ACCESS
LIGHT WELL
LIGHT WELLLIGHT WELLLIGHT WELL
111
116
113
114
102
100
101
104
108
109
105
106
107
115
112
1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
TILE
TILE
TILE
CARPET
RUBBER
CARPET
CARPET
CARPET
CARPET
TILE
TILE
CARPET
CARPET
TILE
CARPET
W/DW/D4'-63/4"63/4"11'-11/4"
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.01
A
A3.01
B
A3.01
B
A3.01
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02DW
F
W/D
19'-31/4"43/4"2'-71/4"43/4"21'-93/4"8'-33/4"63/4"13'-03/4"14'-93/4"63/4"6'-83/4"10'-0"4'-51/4"63/4"
12'-23/4"7'-63/4"63/4"16'-91/2"6'-2"3'-6" TYP.9'-0"3'-6"7'-83/4"6'-6"18'-111/4"8'-6"18'-0"12'-0"63/4"7'-73/4"2'-0"13'-101/4"
63/4"7'-03/4"1/2"4'-31/2"4'-51/2"2'-3"29'-01/4"3'-11/4"4'-61/2"13'-91/2"6'-01/2"13'-03/4"12'-31/2"6'-01/2"13'-03/4"12'-2"12'-13/4"
18'-3"78'-10"42'-81/4"10'-21/2"19'-111/4"6'-0"49'-11"
4'-5"22'-8"22'-10"
10'-0"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"12'-0"6'-3"
11'-2"1/2"6'-01/2"
100'-0"
100'-0"
MAKEUP VANITY
NEW ADDITION TO MATCH ORIGINAL
HOUSE FOOTPRINT, VIF
BENCH
OFFICE
HER BATH
HER CLOSET
MUD ROOM
PRIMARY BEDROOM
ENTRY
PWDR
GH KITCHEN
GH LIVING
GH BEDROOM
GH BATH
OUTDOR PATIO
LIGHT WELL
LIGHT WELLLIGHT WELLLIGHT WELL
BAR
PERVIOUS PAVER DRIVEWAY
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
PERVIOUS PAVER
PARKING
EXISTING WOOD
DECK TO BE
REPLACED W/ LIKE PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUS5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKS 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
OUTDOOR FIREPLACEHIS BATH
HIS CLOSET
DEN
STEAM
STEAM
DN
UP
BENCH
NEW CRAWL
SPACE ACCESS 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
3'-4"1/2"4"8'-0"
102
108
109
105
107
101
104
GH1
GH2
GH3
GH4
110
108
109
108
5'-0"71/2"5'-83/4"71/2"6'-6"16'-11"8'-0"5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKWOOD
TILE
CARPET
WOOD
CARPET
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
TILE
CARPET
CARPET
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.01
A
A3.01
B
A3.01
B
A3.01
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL- PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL - PROPOSED
131
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.07
FLOOR PLANS -
PROPOSED
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
DW
TRDW1'-101/4"
24'-13/4"3'-6"4'-8"16'-6"20'-10"71/2"21'-2"19'-11/4"71/2"22'-81/2"19'-51/4"10'-2"3'-6"111'-0"
LIVING
36" FRIDGE WINE36" FREEZER
BAR
OUTDOOR FP
KITCHEN DINING
DN
PANTRY
DESKPANTRY
1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
203
201 202
WOOD
WOOD WOOD
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.01
A
A3.01
B
A3.01
B
A3.01
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
49'-11"
4'-5"3'-0"10'-10"3'-0"5'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"1'-23/4"5'-31/4"
9:129:12
9:12
3:129:129:12 2:122:123:122:12
1/8"/12"
1/8"/12"
3:129:129:12
1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
9:129:12
9:129:121/8"/12"
1/8"/12"1/8"/12"3:12
1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.01
A
A3.01
B
A3.01
B
A3.01
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
DOWNSPOUT
LOWER ROOF
LOWER FLAT ROOF
LOWER ROOF
ROOF DECK BELOW
HIGH FLAT ROOF
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
NEW SHED ROOF IN LINE W/
ORIGINAL HOME DESIGN
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ROOF PLAN
132
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
IFFR PERMIT
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.01
ELEVATIONS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC.
TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED HISTORIC RESOURCEPREVIOUS ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHEDNON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC. TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE RESTORED
HISTORIC RESOURCE PREVIOUS ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC.
TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
BAY WINDOW NOT HISTORIC, TO BE REMOVED &
ORIGINAL WINDOW CONFIGURATION RESTORED
EXISTING WINDOW TO BE RESTORED, TYP.
HISTORIC RESOURCEPREVIOUS ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION-EXISTING HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION -EXISTING HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION -EXISTING HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION -EXISTING HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 EAST PARTIAL ELEVATION -HISTORICSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6 WEST PARTIAL ELEVATION -HISTORIC
133
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.02
ELEVATIONS- HISTORIC
PROPOSED
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
gD gC gB
EXISTING BAY WINDOW REMOVED,
NEW WINDOW W/ HISTORIC
PROPORTIONS
MATCHING SIDING TIED INTO
EXISTING, SIDING NOT ORIGINAL, TYP.
NEW ADDITION W/ SHED ROOF IN LINE
W/ HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND MASSING
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW COLUMN DETAILING IN
LINE W/ HISTORIC EXAMPLES
NEW BASE FLASHING
TO PROTECT RESOURCE
HISTORIC RESTORATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION
g1 g2 g3 g4 g5
NEW WOOD SIDING TO MATCH
EXISTING SHIP LAP SIDING
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
gB gC gD
A B C D E F G H J K
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW ADDITION W/ SHED ROOF IN LINE
W/ HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND MASSING NEW HOUSE BEHIND
NEW HOUSE BEHIND
NEW HOUSE BEHIND
HISTORIC
RESTORATION
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
g5 g4 g3 g2 g1
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
116'-21/2"
127'-103/4"
128'-9"
114'-9" VIF
8'-0"5'-6"2'-0"5'-0"4'-0"10'-0"10'-0"9'-0"EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC.
TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.NEW COLUMN DETAILING IN
LINE W/ HISTORIC EXAMPLES
NEW BASE FLASHING TO PROTECT
EXISTING RESOURCE
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
NEW HOUSE BEHINDNEW HOUSE BEHIND
WOOD DECK
NEW HOME SHEET METAL BASE FLASHING, TYP.
3" HALF ROUND GUTTER, TYP.
ENTRY LOGIA 10'-0"
CEILING HEIGHT
ENTRY LOGIA 9'-0"
PLATE HEIGHT
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC
134
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.03
ELEVATIONS -NORTH &
SOUTH
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
49'-11"
4'-5"3'-0"10'-10"3'-0"5'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3"
123'-2"
124'-3"
122'-101/2"
124'-31/2"
128'-9"
127'-103/4"
METAL FASCIA
FASCIA DEPTH TO EMULATE
HISTORIC RESOURCE
2'x4' METAL PANEL SIDING HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
METAL & FROSTED GLASS PANEL
GARAGE DOOR
METAL FASCIA
GLASS RAILING, TYP.
STONE SLAB WRAPPED
OUTDOOR FIREPLACE
THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
116'-21/2"
127'-103/4"
128'-9"
123'-2"122'-93/4"10'-0"10'-0"8'-0"9'-0"124'-23/4"
FASCIA DEPTH REDUCED TO
EMULATE HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
WOOD COLUMN W/ STEEL
SUPPORT & CONNECTIONS
2'x4' METAL PANEL SIDING
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
METAL BASE FLASHING
FASCIA DEPTH REDUCED TO
EMULATE HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
FASCIA DEPTH REDUCED TO
EMULATE HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
VERTICAL MULLION
ENTRY LOGIA 10'-0"
CEILING HEIGHT
ENTRY LOGIA 9'-0"
PLATE HEIGHT
DORMER AREA <50% COVERAGE,
NOT CONSIDERED IN HEIGHT CALC.
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
THIRD POINT THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED (STREET FACING)
135
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.04
ELEVATIONS- EAST &
WEST
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
K J H G F E D C B A
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"11'-03/4"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
FASCIA DEPTH TO EMULATE
HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
WOOD POST W/ STEEL
SUPPORT & CONNECTIONS
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
GLASS RAILING CONNECTION ELEMENT
W/ FLAT ROOF
METAL BASE FLASHING, TYP.
A B C D E F G H J K
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
113'-31/2"
116'-21/2"
127'-103/4"
128'-9"11'-03/4"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
FASCIA DEPTH TO EMULATE
HISTORIC RESOURCE
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
GLASS RAILING
METAL BASE FLASHING
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED
136
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.05
RENDERINGS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1' = 1'-0"1 CONTEXT PERSPECTIVE
137
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.06
RENDERINGS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.SCALE: 1:1.673FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.674FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.671FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.672FRONT PERSPECTIVE
138
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, March 20, 2024 12:42 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.07
RENDERINGS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/20/2024
Sheet No.SCALE: 1:1.672REAR PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.673REAR PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.671COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE
139
NEIGHBORHOOD USES
325 West Hopkins
2 2 3 3 4 4
5 5 66 7 7 88
1. 303 West Hopkins
2. 315 West Hopkins
3. 325 West Hopkins
4. 333 West Hopkins
5. 334 West Hopkins
6. 324 West Hopkins
7. 312 & 308 West Hopkins
8. 300 West Hopkins11
223344
55 66 77 88
1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
5 5 66 7 7 88
140
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
2
PROJECT OVERVIEW
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
COVER SHEET
ZONING
SITE PLANS
FLOOR PLANS
ELEVATIONS
BUILDING SECTIONS
1
2
Z1.01
Z1.02
Z1.03
Z1.04
A1.01
A1.02
A1.03
A1.04
A1.01
A1.06
A1.07
A2.01
A2.02
A2.03
A2.04
A2.05
A2.06
A2.07
A3.01
COVER SHEET
PROJECT OVERVIEW
FAR
DEMOLITION PLANS
SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1:5
CMP | 1:5
SITE PLAN | EXISTING
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1:5
FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
DEMO PLANS
FLOOR PLANS - PROPOSED
FLOOR PLANS - PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS
ELEVATIONS- HISTORIC PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS -NORTH & SOUTH
ELEVATIONS- EAST & WEST
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
RENDERINGS
BUILDING SECTION C
033
LBB
5.1
A
REFERENCE GRID LINE
SPOT ELEVATION
WINDOW MARK
DOOR MARK
ROOM NUMBER
DRAWING REVISION
ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT
SECTION CUT
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
DETAIL CALLOUT
SECTION DETAIL CALLOUT
INTERIOR ELEVATION
ROOM
100
F11
1
T. O. RIDGE BEAM
123'-6 1/2"
4.4
1
1
7.1
1
7.1
8.1
1
2
3
4
SYMBOL LEGEND
MATERIAL LEGEND
GYPSUM WALL
BOARD
RAW FRAMING
WOOD BLOCKING
ROCK - NON
COMPACTED FILL
CONCRETE
STONE
FRAME WALL
BRICK
PLYWOOD
BATT INSULATION
FINISHED WOOD
RIGID INSULATION
8
OWNER/BUILDER
Richard Wax & Associates
Vince Coghlan
P.O. Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81612
P. 970.274.2113
coghlanv@gmail.com
PROJECT MANAGER
Richard Wax & Associates
Wheeler Clancy
P.O. Box 7699
Aspen, CO 81612
P. 970.948.8771
wheeler@rwaspen.com
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
Bwr.PE
Brian Rossiter
1010 W. 24th St.
Rifle, CO 81650
P. 970.462.8853
bwr@bwr.pe
A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR
ADJ. ADJUSTABLE
ALT. ALTERNATE
A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS
& AND
ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL
@ AT
BM. BEAM
BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET
BRG. BEARING
BLK’G. BLOCKING
BOT. BOTTOM
B.F. BOTTOM OF FOOTING
BLDG. BUILDING
B.O. BY OWNER
CAB. CABINET
CLG. CEILING
CL. CENTER LINE
C.T. CERAMIC TILE
CLR. CLEAR
COL. COLUMN
CONC. CONCRETE
CONN. CONNECTION
CONT. CONTINUOUS
DTL. DETAILS
DBL. DOUBLE
DWL. DOWEL
E.W. EACH WAY
ELEV. ELEVATION
EXIST’G EXISTING
EXT. EXTERIOR
FLR. FLOOR
FTG. FOOTING
FND. FOUNDATION
GA. GAUGE
G.L. GLU-LAM
G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD
HT. HEIGHT
HK. HOOK
HORIZ. HORIZONTAL
INFO. INFORMATION
INSUL. INSULATION
JST. JOIST
L.L. LIVE LOAD
LONGINT. LONGITUDINAL
N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT
O.C. ON CENTER
OPP. OPPOSITE
O/ OVER
PTD. PAINTED
PERF. PERFORATED
PL. PLATE
PLY. PLYWOOD
PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE
REINF. REINFORCEMENT
RDWD. REDWOOD
REQ’D. REQUIRED
RESIL. RESILENT
REV. REVISED
S.M. SHEET METAL
SIM. SIMILAR
S.F. SQUARE FEET
STD. STANDARD
STL. STEEL
STDS. STUDS
THK. THICK
TLT. TOILET
T.F. TOP OF FOOTING
T.P. TOP OF PLATE
T.L. TOP OF LEDGE
T.W. TOP OF WALL
TOT. TOTAL
T.B. TOWEL BAR
TRANSV. TRANSVERSE
TYP. TYPICAL
U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1. The Contract Documents shall consist of the general notes and the architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All future
additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall, in turn, become part of these documents. Work indicated
or reasonably implied in any one of the documents shall be supplied as though fully covered in all. Any discrepancy between any
parts of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect/Designer immediately for clarification.
2. Richard Wax & Associates, waves any and all liability for problems which arise from failure to follow the design intent of the plans.
Contractor to obtain and/or request guidance of Richard Wax & Associates, with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or
conflicts which may be discovered or alleged.
3. The Plans and Specifications are the property of the Architect/Designer and are not to be used without the permission of same.
4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having
jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by journeymen of the appropriate trades.
5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall
provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer
or Architect/Designer shall not include inspection of the above items nor will the Architect/Designer or Structural Engineer be
responsible for the Contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and
the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the programs incident thereto. The Contractor
shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations.
6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions are to be used. If there is a discrepancy in dimensions, the
Architect/Designer should be notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing
conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise.
7. These documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein.
It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect/Designer any conditions which will not permit
construction according to the intentions of these documents.
8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor when there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local
code or ordinance.
9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved
by the Architect/Designer. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The
Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation.
Work to be done by a certified surveyor.
10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor to maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for
record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work to show changes and actual
installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. Give particular attention to work which will be
concealed and difficult to measure and record at a later date, and work which may require servicing or replacement during life of
project. Require entities marking prints, to sign and date each mark-up. Bind prints into manageable sets, with durable paper cover,
appropriately labeled.
11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils
engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work.
12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Notify Architect/Designer of any
discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions.
PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT INDEX
PROJECT DIRECTORY
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES
ABBREVIATIONS
325 W. HOPKINS AVE.HPC SUBMISSIONVICINITY MAP
141
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
Z1.01
FAR
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
1,715 sq ft
443 sq ft
130 sq ft
AREA LEGEND
-BASEMENT AREA
-EXISTING FLOOR AREA
-EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE
-EXISTING DECK
EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS
MAIN= 1715 SF
EXISTING= 1,715 SF
ALLOWED=3,600 SF
DECKS
FRONT PORCH= 130 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
TOTAL= 0 SF
ALLOWED= 540 SF (3,600 SF * .15)
DECKS/PORCH COUNTABLE TOWARD FAR= 0 SF
*GARAGE ALLOWED 250 SF EXEMPT, THEN 50% COUNTS UP TO 500 SF
10.4 HISTORIC RESOURCE FLOOR AREA RATIO
NON HISTORIC EXISTING FLOOR AREA
MAIN= 1,272 SF (1715-443)
EXISTING= 1,272 SF NON HISTORIC
EXISTING= 443 SF HISTORIC
79 sq ft
41 sq ft
96 sq ft
172 sq ft
371 sq ft
87 sq ft
80 sq ft
21 sq ft
565 sq ft
21 sq ft9 sq ft
9 sq ft
25 sq ft
169 sq ft
215 sq ft98 sq ft 99 sq ft
21 sq ft
9 sq ft
26 sq ft
11 sq ft
317 sq ft
2,394 sq ft
<5'-6" EXISTING CRAWL SPACE, VIF
BASEMENT WALL AREA CALCS
TOTAL WALL AREA= 2,700 SF
EXPOSED WALL AREA= 158 SF
158/2,700 *100= 6% COUNTS TOWARDS FAR
2,700*.06= 143 SF COUNTS TOWARDS FAR
WALL LEGEND
-BURIED WALL AREA
-EXPOSED WALL AREA
109 sq ft
1,644 sq ft3'-71/4"497 sq ft
559 sq ft
51 sq ft
ON GRADE PATIO
ON GRADE PATIO
ON GRADE PATIO
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
AREA LEGEND
-BASEMENT AREA
-EXISTING FLOOR AREA
-PROPOSED GARAGE AREA
-PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
-PROPOSED DECK
PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS
BASEMENT= 143 SF
MAIN= 1644 SF
HISTORIC= 559 SF
GARAGE= 0 SF*
UPPER= 964 SF
PROPOSED= 3,310 SF
ALLOWED= 3,600 SF
DECKS
FRONT PORCH= 51 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
HIST. FRONT PORCH= 109 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
PROPOSED= 476 SF
TOTAL= 476 SF
ALLOWED= 540 SF (3,600 SF * .15)
DECKS/PORCH COUNTABLE TOWARD FAR= 0 SF
*GARAGE ALLOWED 250 SF EXEMPT, THEN 50% COUNTS UP TO 500 SF
10.4 HISTORIC RESOURCE FLOOR AREA RATIO
NON HISTORIC PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
MAIN= 559 SF
PROPOSED= 559 SF HISTORIC
EXISTING= 425 SF HISTORIC
964 sq ft
476 sq ft
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
Existing Floor Area Calculations
Basement 0
Main 1715
Garage 0
Upper 0
Total Proposed FAR:1715 Allowed: 3600
Remaining:1885
PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS (SF)
Total Wall Areas Exposed Wall Area
317
169
80
9 21
565
9 21
87
215
99
21 9
98
26 11
25
79
41 96
172
371
317
Total Wall Area:2700
Exposed Wall Area: 158
% of Exposed Wall:6%
Subgrade Floor Area Calculations
Subgrade Gross Floor Area 2394
Subgrade Countable Floor Area 143 (2391 x 6%)
Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Basement 143
Main 1644
Garage 0
Upper 964
Historic Resource 559
Total Existing FAR:3310 Allowed: 3600
Remaining:290
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FAR
142
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
Z1.02
DEMOLITION PLANS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
Vertical Wall Surface Demolition Calculations for Zoning Dept.
Wall Demolition
Wall Label Individual Wall Area (SF) Area Reduced for Fenestration (SF)Area of Wall to be Removed (SF)
A 236 36 0
B 105 10 0
C 179 25 0
D 70 15 70
E 95 19 95
F 252 22 252
G 358 56 358
H 304 146 304
J 52 12 52
K 257 80 257
L 209 13 209
M 32 0 32
N 151 14 0
P 10 0 0
Q 97 0 0
Wall Surface Area Total (SF)2407
Area Reduced for Fenestration (SF)448
Area Used for Demo Calculations (SF)1959
Wall Surface Area to be Removed (SF)1629
Demolition Totals
Wall Area Used for Demo Calcs (SF)1959
Surface Area to be Removed (SF)1629
Total 83%
96 sq ft
468 sq ft
1,247 sq ft DDWWF4 sq ft
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
AREA OF DECK
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR
FRAMING TO REMAIN
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN
NON-HISTORIC
WINDOW TO BE
DEMO'D
NON-HISTORIC
WINDOW TO BE
DEMO'D
NON-HISTORIC
WINDOW TO BE
DEMO'D
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
HJ
K
L
M
N
P
Q
A
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
ROOF TO BE
REMOVED, ORIGINAL
ROOF TO BE REBUILT
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
134 sq ft
15 sq ft
102 sq ft
21 sq ft
15 sq ft
11 sq ft11 sq ft
10 sq ft
358 sq ft
52 sq ft
10 sq ft
56 sq ft
12 sq ft
179 sq ft
4 sq ft 4 sq ft17 sq ft
304 sq ft
44 sq ft
36 sq ft
34 sq ft 17 sq ft
6 sq ft
41 sq ft 17 sq ft
6 sq ft25 sq ft
32 sq ft257 sq ft 209 sq ft
151 sq ft
97 sq ft
13 sq ft 14 sq ft
95 sq ft
19 sq ft
252 sq ft
70 sq ft105 sq ft
LEGEND
AREA OF EXISTING WALL
AREA REDUCED FOR FENESTRATION
AREA OF WALL TO BE REMOVED
WALL "A"
WALL "P"
WALL "A"WALL "D"
WALL "F"WALL "G"
WALL "B"
WALL "J"
WALL "C"
WALL "M"
WALL "H"
WALL "K"WALL "Q"WALL "N"WALL "L"
WALL "E"
Interior/Exterior Wall & Ceiling Area Demolition Calculations for Engineering Dept.
*Note: Wall labels are for approx. location of demo area. Total demo areas include interior walls & floor
Wall Label Main Level
A
B
C 4
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
N
P
Q
Main Level 1247
Demo Area Totals (SF)1251
Wall & Ceiling Demolition (SF)
Main Level 1251
Total 1251
Existing Floor Areas (SF)
Main Level 1715
Total 1715
Demolition Totals
Floor Area Used for Demo Calcs (SF)1715
Wall & Ceiling Area to be Removed (SF)1251
Total 73%
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 UPPER LEVEL DEMO
143
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
Z1.03
SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN |
PROPOSED | 1:5
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
Pre‐Project Lot Coverage
Site Area (SF)6000
Building Footprint 1715
Pre‐project Lot Coverage 29%
Proposed Lot Coverage
Site Area (SF)6000
Building Footprint 2698 2,139+559
Pre‐project Lot Coverage 45%
2,139 sq ft
559 sq ft
3'-0"
10'-41/2"
10'-0"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"CONC SIDEWALK
5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKS 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
ALLEY ALLEY5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
1,715 sq ft
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
WALL
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
BRICK PARKINGWALK
SCALE: 1" = 5'1 SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | 1:5 | PROPOSED
0 2'5'10'
SCALE: 1" = 5'1 SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | 1:5 | EXISTING
0 2'5'10'
144
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.01
SITE PLAN | EXISTING
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
101'-95/8"=7909'-35/8"
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
WEST HOPKINS AVENUE - 75.0' R.O.W.
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
6
13
2
4
5
24 7
8
11
2710
9
26
25
22
20
23
21
CONC SIDEWALK
CURB
WALL
SSS S S
E EEEEE
E
EGGG G G
C
C
C CCC CPPP
P
PP P
PWWW W W
PAN
G 790379047905790679077908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
790679077908
79
0
9
79
1
0
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
EXISTING PLAN
BRICK PARKINGWALKSTORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
101'-95/8"=7909'-35/8"
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK 5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
6
13
2
4
5
24 7
8
11
2710
9
26
25
22
20
23
21
WALL
SSEEGGCCPPWG
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
790679077908
79
0
9
79
1
0
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
BRICK PARKINGWALKSTORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN | 1:10 | EXISTING
0 5'10'20'
SCALE: 1" = 5'2 SITE PLAN | 1:5 | EXISTING
0 2'5'10'
145
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.02
SITE PLAN | PROPOSED |
1:5
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
5'-0"
11'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
10'-41/2"
10'-11/4"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"100'-0"=7907'-6"
101'-93/4"=7909'-31/2"
CRAWL SPACE ACCESS
REPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALL
5'x5' TRANSFORMER
CLEARANCE REQ.
MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
PEA GRAVEL BORDER, TYP.
OUTDOOR GAS FIREPLACE
PEA GRAVEL BORDER, TYP.
WEST HOPKINS AVENUE
75.0' R.O.W.
CONC SIDEWALK
5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKPERVIOUS PAVER
DRIVEWAY
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO, LIVING
SPACE BELOW 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
PERVIOUS PAVER
PARKING
ON GRADE
WOOD DECK
1/8"/12"PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUSPERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
DN
DN
ALLEY ALLEY
LIVING SPACE
BELOW
6
13
4
5
24
CONC SIDEWALK
CURB
PAN 790379047905790679077908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
790679077908
79
0
9
79
1
0 PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUSPERVIOUS NON-
PERVIOUSPERVIOUS PAVER
PATIO
T.O. PLY=SITE
T.O. EXISTING PLY=SITE
79
0
9
79
0
8790879077908 TRASH
STORAGE
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
6'-15' COLORADO SPRUCE
LANDSCAPING LEGEND
EXISTING TREES, SEE SURVEY
DWARF BOXWOOD, MAX 30"
WALL SCONCE W/
FROSTED GLASS COVER
LIGHTING LEGEND
STEP LIGHT
PATH LIGHT
DOWN LIGHT
FLOWER BED - FRONT YARD
-WALKERS LOW CATMINT: 5
-SALVIA: 5
-DAYLILIES: 5
-MERRIGOLD: 10
-BLANKET FLOWER: 4
-COLUMBINE: 5
PEA GRAVEL
FEATHER REED GRASS
-QUANTITY: 12
ARBORVITAE
LAWN
WOOD CHIPS
6'-15' ASPEN
5'-0"
11'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
10'-41/2"
10'-11/4"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"100'-0"=7907'-6"
101'-93/4"=7909'-31/2"
CRAWL SPACE ACCESS
REPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALLREPLACE RETAINING WALL
5'x5' TRANSFORMER
CLEARANCE REQ.
MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
PEA GRAVEL BORDER, TYP.
OUTDOOR GAS FIREPLACE
PEA GRAVEL BORDER, TYP.
CONC SIDEWALK
5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKPERVIOUS PAVER
DRIVEWAY
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO, LIVING
SPACE BELOW 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
PERVIOUS PAVER
PARKING
ON GRADE
WOOD DECK
1/8"/12"PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUSPERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
S 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
DN
DN
ALLEY ALLEY
LIVING SPACE
BELOW
6
13
4
5
24
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
790679077908
79
0
9
79
1
0 PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUSPERVIOUS NON-
PERVIOUSPERVIOUS PAVER
PATIO
T.O. PLY=SITE
T.O. EXISTING PLY=SITE
79
0
9
79
0
8790879077908 TRASH
STORAGE
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"+6'-3"MOST RESTRICTIVE ENCROACHMENT
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
6'-15' COLORADO SPRUCE
LANDSCAPING LEGEND
EXISTING TREES, SEE SURVEY
DWARF BOXWOOD, MAX 30"
WALL SCONCE W/
FROSTED GLASS COVER
LIGHTING LEGEND
STEP LIGHT
PATH LIGHT
DOWN LIGHT
FLOWER BED - FRONT YARD
-WALKERS LOW CATMINT: 5
-SALVIA: 5
-DAYLILIES: 5
-MERRIGOLD: 10
-BLANKET FLOWER: 4
-COLUMBINE: 5
PEA GRAVEL
FEATHER REED GRASS
-QUANTITY: 12
ARBORVITAE
LAWN
WOOD CHIPS
6'-15' ASPEN1"6"6"31/2"2"31/2"
2"31/2"2"31/2"2"31/2"31/2"45°
31/2"x3/4" VERTICAL
WOOD PICKETS, TYP.
31/2"x11/2" HORIZONTAL
WOOD RAIL, TYP.
31/2"x31/2" WOOD POST,
6'-0" TO 8'-0" O.C.
FINISH GRADE
TYPICAL SPACING
31/2"x31/2" WOOD POST,
6'-0" TO 8'-0" O.C.
31/2"x3/4" VERTICAL
WOOD PICKETS, TYP.
31/2"x11/2" HORIZONTAL
WOOD RAIL, TYP.
TYPICAL SPACING
PLAN VIEW
ELEVATION VIEW
T. O. FENCE
36" ABOVE FINISH GRADE, TYP.
*SHOWN HEIGHT NOT TO SCALE
21/2"21/2"1/2"21/2"1/2"FINISH GRADE
TYPICAL SPACING
21/2"x21/2" ALUMINUM
POST, 4'-0" TO 6'-0" O.C.
21/2"x1/2" HORIZONTAL
ALUMINUM PICKETS, TYP.
21/2"x21/2" ALUMINUM
POST, 4'-0" TO 6'-0" O.C.
21/2"x1/2" HORIZONTAL
ALUMINUM PICKETS, TYP.
PLAN VIEW
T. O. FENCE
72" ABOVE FINISH GRADE, TYP.
*SHOWN HEIGHT NOT TO SCALE
ELEVATION VIEW
SCALE: 1" = 10'1 SITE PLAN | 1:10 | PROPOSED
0 5'10'20'
SCALE: 1" = 5'2 SITE PLAN | 1:5 | PROPOSED
0 2'5'10'6 REAR FENCE EXAMPLE
SCALE: 1 1/2"= 1'-0"3 FRONT FENCE DETAIL
SCALE: 1 1/2"= 1'-0"4 FRONT FENCE DETAIL
5 REAR FENCE EXAMPLE
146
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.03
FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.DDWWF6'-0"2'-61/4"12'-01/4"43/4"8'-8"43/4"
11'-9"43/4"15'-43/4"10'-6"6'-93/4"2'-6"43/4"43/4"9'-2"
7'-0"1'-0"6'-0"4'-10"5'-41/2"5'-11/4"8'-0"2'-6"5'-11/4"2'-6"3'-0"4'-111/4"1'-93/4"2'-7"3'-0"4'-0"2'-0"11'-31/4"101'-93/4"
AREA IN GRAY IS PREVIOUS ADDITION THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED
AREA IN WHITE IS HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE RESTORED BACK TO ORIGINAL FORM
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
SHELVESKITCHEN
LIVING
MSTR BEDROOM
BATH
ENTRY
GUEST BEDROOM 1
DINING
GUEST BEDROOM 2
DEN
LAUNDRY
MSTR BATH
HISTORIC RESOURCEPREVIOUS ADDITIONTO BE DEMOLISHED104
102
110
106
101
105
103
107
108
109
111
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
9'-4"1
A2.01
3
A2.01
2
A2.01
4
A2.01
5
A2.01
6
A2.01
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING
147
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.04
ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
AREA IN GRAY IS PREVIOUS ADDITION THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED
AREA IN WHITE IS HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE RESTORED BACK TO
ORIGINAL FORM, NEW FIRE RATED WOOD SHINGLES TO BE INSTALLED
EXISTING PORCH ROOF TO BE REMOVED, NEW ROOF BUILT TO MATCH ORIGINAL DESIGN
7:12 7:12
7:12 7:126:12 6:12
9:12 9:12
9:129:129:129:127:127:127:127:122:122:12
1
A2.01
3
A2.01
2
A2.01
4
A2.01
5
A2.01
6
A2.01
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"1 ROOF PLAN - EXISTING
148
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.01
DEMO PLANS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
96 sq ft
468 sq ft
1,247 sq ft DDWWF4 sq ft
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
AREA OF DECK
FOOTPRINT DEMOLITION
EXISTING BUILDING FLOOR
FRAMING TO REMAIN
AREA OF BUILDING
FOOTPRINT TO REMAIN
NON-HISTORIC
WINDOW TO BE
DEMO'D
NON-HISTORIC
WINDOW TO BE
DEMO'D
NON-HISTORIC
WINDOW TO BE
DEMO'D
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
HJ
K
L
M
N
P
Q
A
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
ALL NON-HISTORIC
ROOF TO BE
REMOVED, ORIGINAL
ROOF TO BE REBUILT
ALL NON-HISTORIC
AREAS TO BE DEMO'D
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL DEMO
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ROOF DEMO PLAN
149
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.06
FLOOR PLANS -
PROPOSED
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
12'-03/4"63/4"4'-63/4"63/4"13'-11"16'-23/4"15'-103/4"63/4"12'-51/4"63/4"8'-81/2"12'-91/4"63/4"14'-41/4"63/4"15'-23/4"14'-51/4"63/4"13'-13/4"63/4"12'-51/2"63/4"10'-11/4"63/4"4'-5"63/4"5'-5"61/2"13'-61/2"16'-23/4"
5'-01/2"
43/4"
10'-101/4"
13'-61/2"23'-113/4"63/4"5'-103/4"5'-73/4"63/4"5'-83/4"63/4"25'-8"63/4"6'-101/4"63/4"6'-111/4"63/4"10'-1"10'-11/4"5'-71/4"8'-111/2"3'-0"
89'-4"
NEW FOUNDATION REQUIRED TO MATCH
ORIGINAL HOUSE FOOTPRINT, VIF
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DRYWELL
ACCESS, CLEANING ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
LAUNDRY
MECH.
BATH
TV
BUNK ROOM
GYM
MEDIA
BILLIARD
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATH
BATH
CLOSET
CLOSET
EXISTING CRAWL SPACE UNDER EXISTING MINERS CABIN, VIF
NOTE:EXISTING FOUNDATION TO BE MAINTAINED, VIF
PWDR
CLOSET
UP
CRAWL
SPACE
ACCESS
LIGHT WELL
LIGHT WELLLIGHT WELLLIGHT WELL
111
116
113
114
102
100
101
104
108
109
105
106
107
115
112
1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
TILE
TILE
TILE
CARPET
RUBBER
CARPET
CARPET
CARPET
CARPET
TILE
TILE
CARPET
CARPET
TILE
CARPET
T.O. SLAB
18 RISERS @ 71/8"W/DW/D5'-01/2"43/4"10'-101/4"
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.02
A
A3.02
B
A3.02
B
A3.02
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02DW
F
W/D
19'-31/4"43/4"2'-71/4"43/4"21'-93/4"8'-33/4"63/4"13'-03/4"15'-33/4"63/4"6'-83/4"10'-21/2"4'-111/2"63/4"
12'-23/4"7'-63/4"63/4"16'-91/2"22'-2"14'-23/4"18'-111/4"8'-6"18'-0"12'-0"63/4"7'-73/4"1'-111/2"13'-103/4"3'-11/4"4'-61/2"13'-91/2"6'-01/2"13'-03/4"12'-31/2"6'-01/2"13'-03/4"12'-2"12'-13/4"
18'-3"78'-10"42'-81/4"10'-21/2"19'-111/4"6'-0"49'-11"
4'-5"22'-8"22'-10"
10'-11/4"10'-01/2"113/4"5'-101/4"12'-0"6'-3"
11'-8"1/2"6'-01/2"
100'-0"
101'-93/4"
MAKEUP VANITY
NEW ADDITION TO MATCH
ORIGINAL HOUSE FOOTPRINT, VIF
BENCH
OFFICE
HER BATH
HER CLOSET
MUD ROOM
PRIMARY BEDROOM
ENTRY
PWDR
GH KITCHEN
GH LIVING
GH BEDROOM
GH BATH
OUTDOR PATIO
LIGHT WELL
LIGHT WELLLIGHT WELLLIGHT WELL
BAR
PERVIOUS PAVER DRIVEWAY
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
NON-PERVIOUS
PATIO
PERVIOUS
PATIO 1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
PERVIOUS PAVER
PARKING
EXISTING WOOD
DECK TO BE
REPLACED W/ LIKE PERVIOUSNON-PERVIOUS5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKS 14°50'49" W 100.00'(R)N 14°50'49" E 100.00'(R)10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
OUTDOOR FIREPLACEHIS BATH
HIS CLOSET
DEN
STEAM
STEAM
DN
UP
BENCH
NEW CRAWL
SPACE ACCESS 1/8"/12"1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
3'-4"1/2"4"8'-0"
5'-111/2"63/4"7'-03/4"1/2"4'-31/2"
102
108
109
105
107
101
104
GH1
GH2
GH3
GH4
110
108
109
108
4'-103/4"71/2"5'-83/4"71/2"6'-6"17'-111/4"8'-0"4'-51/2"2'-3"8'-31/4"5'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKWOOD
TILE
CARPET
WOOD
CARPET
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
TILE
CARPET
CARPET
T.O. PLY
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.02
A
A3.02
B
A3.02
B
A3.02
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL- PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL - PROPOSED
150
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A1.07
FLOOR PLANS -
PROPOSED
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
DW
TRDW1'-101/4"
27'-73/4"20'-10"71/2"19'-11/4"71/2"22'-81/2"19'-51/4"10'-2"3'-6"111'-0"
LIVING
36" FRIDGE WINE36" FREEZER
BAR
OUTDOOR FP
KITCHEN DINING
DN
PANTRY
DESKPANTRY
1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
203
201 202
WOOD
WOOD WOOD
T.O. PLY
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.02
A
A3.02
B
A3.02
B
A3.02
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
49'-11"
4'-5"3'-0"10'-10"3'-0"5'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"1'-23/4"5'-31/4"
9:129:12
9:12
3:129:129:12 2:122:123:122:12
1/8"/12"
1/8"/12"
3:129:129:12
1/8"/12"1/8"/12"1/8"/12"
9:129:12
9:129:121/8"/12"
1/8"/12"1/8"/12"3:12
1
1
2
2
6
6
11
11
7
7
4
4
8
8
10
10
9
9
5
5
3
3
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
J J
K K
gA gA
gB gB
gC gC
gD gD
g1
g1
g2
g2
g4
g4
g3
g3
g5
g5
A
A3.02
A
A3.02
B
A3.02
B
A3.02
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
DOWNSPOUT
LOWER ROOF
LOWER FLAT ROOF
LOWER ROOF
ROOF DECK BELOW
HIGH FLAT ROOF
DOWNSPOUTDOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
NEW SHED ROOF IN LINE W/
ORIGINAL HOME DESIGN
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ROOF PLAN
151
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
IFFR PERMIT
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.01
ELEVATIONS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC.
TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
EXISTING WINDOWS NOT ORIGINAL, TO
BE REPLACED W/ NEW ACCORDING TO
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED HISTORIC RESOURCEPREVIOUS ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHEDNON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
3'-101/2"3'-101/2"EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC. TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
EXISTING WINDOW NOT ORIGINAL, TO
BE REPLACED W/ NEW ACCORDING
TO HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
HISTORIC RESOURCE PREVIOUS ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC.
TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
BAY WINDOW NOT HISTORIC, TO BE REMOVED &
ORIGINAL WINDOW CONFIGURATION RESTORED
EXISTING WINDOW NOT ORIGINAL, TO
BE REPLACED W/ NEW ACCORDING TO
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
HISTORIC RESOURCEPREVIOUS ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE DEMOLISHED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION-EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION -EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION -EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION -EXISTING
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 EAST PARTIAL ELEVATION - EXISTINGSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6 WEST PARTIAL ELEVATION -EXISTING
152
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.02
ELEVATIONS- HISTORIC
PROPOSED
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
gD gC gB
EXISTING BAY WINDOW REMOVED,
NEW WINDOW W/ HISTORIC
PROPORTIONS
MATCHING SIDING TIED INTO
EXISTING, SIDING NOT ORIGINAL, TYP.
NEW ADDITION W/ SHED ROOF IN LINE
W/ HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND MASSING
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW COLUMN DETAILING IN
LINE W/ HISTORIC EXAMPLES
NEW BASE FLASHING
TO PROTECT RESOURCE
HISTORIC RESTORATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION
g1 g2 g3 g4 g5
NEW WOOD SIDING TO MATCH
EXISTING SHIP LAP SIDING
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
EXISTING GRADE
gB gC gD
A B C D E F G H J K
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW ADDITION W/ SHED ROOF IN LINE
W/ HISTORIC FOOTPRINT AND MASSING NEW HOUSE BEHIND
NEW HOUSE BEHIND
NEW HOUSE BEHIND
EXISTING GRADE
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
HISTORIC
RESTORATION
HISTORIC
PRESERVATION
g5 g4 g3 g2 g1
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
116'-21/2"
127'-103/4"
128'-9"
116'-63/4" VIF
8'-0"5'-6"2'-0"5'-0"4'-0"10'-0"10'-0"9'-0"123'-2"
124'-3"61/2"101'-93/4"16'-21/2"14'-9"EXISTING WOOD SIDING NOT HISTORIC.
TO BE KEPT AND PAINTED, TYP.
NEW COLUMN DETAILING IN
LINE W/ HISTORIC EXAMPLES NEW BASE FLASHING TO PROTECT
EXISTING RESOURCE
NEW FIRE RATED
WOOD SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
NEW HOUSE BEHIND
NEW HOUSE BEHIND
WOOD DECK
NEW HOME SHEET METAL BASE FLASHING, TYP.
3" HALF ROUND GUTTER, TYP.
ENTRY LOGIA 10'-0"
CEILING HEIGHT
ENTRY LOGIA 9'-0"
PLATE HEIGHT
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADE
PROJECTED VERTICALLY 25'-0"
EXISTING GRADE TO BE PRESERVED
@ RESOURCE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE T.O. RIDGE
THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
T.O. FLOOR @ RESOURCE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC & NEW DETACHED HOME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC & NEW DETACHED HOME
153
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.03
ELEVATIONS -NORTH &
SOUTH
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
49'-11"
4'-5"3'-0"10'-10"3'-0"5'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3"
123'-2"
124'-3"
122'-101/2"
124'-31/2"
128'-9"
127'-103/4"
122'-101/2"
METAL FASCIA
FASCIA DEPTH TO EMULATE
HISTORIC RESOURCE
2'x4' METAL PANEL SIDING HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
METAL & FROSTED GLASS PANEL
GARAGE DOOR
METAL FASCIA
GLASS RAILING, TYP.
STONE SLAB WRAPPED
OUTDOOR FIREPLACE
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
DORMER AREA <50% COVERAGE,
NOT CONSIDERED IN HEIGHT CALC.
ROOF THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
THIRD POINT
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
116'-21/2"
127'-103/4"
128'-9"
123'-2"122'-93/4"10'-0"10'-0"8'-0"9'-0"124'-3"
122'-93/4"
FASCIA DEPTH REDUCED TO
EMULATE HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
WOOD COLUMN W/ STEEL
SUPPORT & CONNECTIONS
2'x4' METAL PANEL SIDING
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
METAL BASE FLASHING
FASCIA DEPTH REDUCED TO
EMULATE HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
FASCIA DEPTH REDUCED TO
EMULATE HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
VERTICAL MULLION
ENTRY LOGIA 10'-0"
CEILING HEIGHT
ENTRY LOGIA 9'-0"
PLATE HEIGHT
DORMER AREA <50% COVERAGE,
NOT CONSIDERED IN HEIGHT CALC.
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
THIRD POINT THIRD POINT
DORMER MID POINT
THIRD POINT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME (STREET FACING)
154
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.04
ELEVATIONS- EAST &
WEST
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
K J H G F E D C B A
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"11'-03/4"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
FASCIA DEPTH TO EMULATE
HISTORIC RESOURCE, TYP.
WOOD POST W/ STEEL
SUPPORT & CONNECTIONS
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
GLASS RAILING CONNECTION ELEMENT
W/ FLAT ROOF
METAL BASE FLASHING, TYP.
EXISTING GRADE
A B C D E F G H J K
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
113'-31/2"
116'-21/2"
127'-103/4"
128'-9"11'-03/4"STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
FASCIA DEPTH TO EMULATE
HISTORIC RESOURCE
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
GLASS RAILING
METAL BASE FLASHINGEXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME
155
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.05
RENDERINGS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1:0.831CONTEXT PERSPECTIVE
156
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.06
RENDERINGS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1:1.673FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.674FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.251FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.252FRONT PERSPECTIVE
157
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A2.07
RENDERINGS
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.SCALE: 1:1.672REAR PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.673REAR PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.671COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE
158
DRAWING ISSUE325 W. HOPKINS ASPEN, COSHEET No.
DRAWN BY:
PROJECT No:2101
WRC
MAILING
PO BOX 7699
ASPEN, CO 81612
PHYSICAL
406 AABC
SUITE H
ASPEN, CO 81611
P. 970-920-0236
HPC SUBMISSION
HPC UPDATES
C:\Users\Wheel\OneDrive\Documents\Wax Office Docs\2302 - 325 W. Hopkins\DWG\325 W. Hopkins_Updated Entry Form_2024-03-13.pln Wednesday, July 24, 2024 3:40 PMAll ideas, designs, arrangements and plans
indicated or represented by this drawing are
A3.01
BUILDING SECTION C
owned by and are the property of Richard Wax
& Associates, LLC and developed for use and in
conjunction with the specified project. None
of the ideas, designs, arrangements or plans
shall be used by or disclosed for any purpose
whatsoever without the written authorization
of Richard Wax & Associates, LLC.
3/19/2024
7/24/2024
Sheet No.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
LOWER
89'-4"
LOWER
89'-4"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
49'-11"
4'-5"3'-0"10'-10"3'-0"5'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3"9'-43/4"124'-3"24'-13/4"EXISTING GRADE TO DORMER MID POINTEXISTING GRADE PROJECTED UP 25'
EXISTING GRADE
MUD ROOMOUTDOR PATIO HIS BATHHIS CLOSET
MECH.BILLIARDPWDR
KITCHEN DINING
DORMER MID POINT
105110108109
116 101115
201 202
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION C
159
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
325 West Hopkins Avenue – revisions 7/25/2024
Dear Stuart,
Please review the following revisions to the 325 West Hopkins project based on referral comments
received from you, Engineering, Parks, and Zoning. We coordinated directly with Engineering and
Zoning reviewers and included you in the email correspondence. We appreciate your historic
preservation comments and feel strongly that a site visit and review of the cover letter in the
application will answer a lot of your questions. We went to great lengths to research this property
and provide background information and photographs in the application, which are used to inform
the proposed restoration of the landmark. Please contact me to schedule a site visit if you want to
inspect the windows and interior footprint prior to the staff recommendation being rendered.
Historic Preservation
• The proposed walkway from the street to the new building does not
satisfy Guideline 1.6. It does not lead to the front entry, and its truncated
length necessitates additional steps (and pathway lighting) instead of a
gentle slope.
A large street tree necessitates jog in the walkway to the front entry. We revised the
walkway slightly to accommodate pulling back the front patio area.
• A conceptual drainage plan is not included in the application. As drawn in
the north elevation on Sheet No. A2.02, regrading around the new
construction slopes toward the historic resource. As this condition does
not meet Guideline 1.8, additional information and/or a redesign is
required.
A conceptual drainage narrative and plan are included in the application. Grading around
the landmark does not slope toward the historic resource, but slopes away from the historic
resource. The property naturally slopes down to the east, which is away from the landmark.
Regrading is less than 6” between the landmark and the new detached building.
• The patio proposed to front the new building is incompatible with
Guideline 1.12. Its size is not restrained. This contemporary feature is not
appropriate in Zone A and covers an area which was historically
unpaved.
160
Page 2 of 8
The patio in front of the new detached building is revised to remove the front patio area.
• Please specify the type and mature size of the Arborvitae proposed to be
planted in front of the historic resource. Some varieties are not appropriate
for Zone A, and do not meet Guidelines 1.12 and 1.13.
A detailed landscape plan with species will be provided in the Final HP application.
• Pathway lighting is not permitted in Zone A pursuant to Guideline 1.14.
A complete lighting plan will be provided in the Final HP application. The grade changes
between Hopkins Avenue and the front entries necessitates limited pathway lighting for
safety reasons. We expect to address lighting at Final review.
• As depicted in the site plan, the fence between the buildings is not behind
the street facing façade of the historic resource, therefore not meeting
Guideline 1.17.
The fence between buildings, which was flush with the landmark, has been shifted back
behind the landmark façade.
• As depicted in elevation on Sheet No. A2.02, the topography of the north
side of the site is proposed to change substantially (more than 2 feet
above existing conditions at the proposed northeast corner of the new
building). Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is
generally not allowed per Guideline 1.23.
Regrading is revised to be 6” or less between the two buildings.
• Is the window on the northeast corner of the historic resource not
historic?
The window on the northeast corner of the resource
is not historic per historic photographs and visual
inspection.
Figure 1: Photograph of window in question.
161
Page 3 of 8
• How do we know dimensions of the non-extant historic window on the
front façade next to the front door?
If there is no framing evidence found during demolition, we propose a historic window
with proportions based on similar landmarks within Aspen per HPDG “3.3 Match a
replacement window to the original in its design. If the original is double-hung, then the
replacement window must also be double-hung. If the sash has divided lights, match that
characteristic as well.”
.
• Please clarify the size and location of the window on west façade of the
historic resource. Sheet No. A2.01 is unclear.
Sheet No. A2.01 is revised to include dimensions. A photograph of the window in question
is included to demonstrate it is not historic. Inspection of framing during demolition may
result in adjustment to the proposed window. The intent of this project is to restore the
landmark, so any historic framing discovered during demolition may alter the proposed
window sizes and locations.
• Please clarify whether the existing windows on the historic resource are
to be restored as indicated on Sheet No. A2.01 or removed and replaced
by new windows with historic proportions as indicated on Sheet No.
A2.02.
There are no historic windows remaining on the landmark. Window openings are proposed
to be restored based on the historic photographs included in the application, and physical
evidence that may be found during demolition and construction.
• All replacement windows are to match the original location and size as
substantiated by physical and/or photographic evidence.
The application and proposed drawings intent to match historic, original opening locations
and size based on the historic photographs and any physical evidence found during
demolition and construction.
• Because they fall within the footprint of the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance
map, the entire rear sloping roof of the historic resource, the framing
surrounding the existing dining room, and part of the front porch are
Figure 2: Existing front window (left) and historic photograph of two double hung windows (right)
162
Page 4 of 8
presumed to be historically significant and must be preserved unless and
until a preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. See Guidelines
10.1 and 10.2. This may require a thorough physical investigation and
documentation to ensure no historic material is removed.
Inspection of the historic resource by Amy Simon resulted in a collective understanding that
there is very little historic material left on this landmark. The front porch was rebuilt
between 1974 and 1979 based on Aspen GIS aerial photographs, historic photographs, and
historic maps as provided in the application.
Figure 4: Comparison of Aspen GIS aerials dated 1974 (left) and 1979 (right). Note the change to the front porch footprint.
Figure 3: Current front porch (left) and historic front porch (right).
163
Page 5 of 8
The rear of the landmark, in the location of the dining room, does not show any relationship
to the historic sloping addition shown in the historic photographs and maps included in the
application. The interior ceiling of the dining room is open to reveal the gable roof form that
was added in 1972 per Building permit files. Any evidence of historic framing in the walls
will be used to accurately restore the rear addition per the historic photographs and maps
included in the application.
• Pursuant to Guideline 11.2, the front porch must be similar in size and
shape to those seen traditionally. The proposed front porch for the new
building is 177.25 square feet, nearly twice as big as that proposed for
the historic resource (96.15 square feet). Please reduce the size of the
front porch of the new building, particularly its projection toward the
Hopkins Ave.
The new front porch on the detached new home is reduced in size.
• Contrary to Guideline 11.3, the new building is not similar in scale and
proportion to the historic building. The new building is twice as tall as the
historic resource. A 17-feet-9-inch-tall second story is far out of proportion
with the historic resource that is less than 15 feet tall.
The one story module at the front of the property relates to the one story landmark on the
property. A two story building is proposed behind this one story module – the project does
not propose to maximize floor area and does not request a floor area bonus for all of the
restoration work proposed to the heavily altered landmark. A basement is proposed to
place bedrooms below grade, but there is a reasonable request to have a two story building
completely detached from the landmark.
• Albeit closer, the frontmost façade of the new building is also out of scale.
It appears taller than the historic resource, thereby not meeting Guideline
11.4.
The height of the one story entry of the new building is 16’2” to top of ridge and the
landmark is 14’9” to top of ridge.
• As suggested by Guideline 9.1, developing a basement by underpinning
and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to
preserve the historic fabric. In addition to installing a foundation that
meets modern standards, excavating a basement could facilitate the
relocation of desired floor area so as to reduce the scale of the above
ground development and better satisfy Guidelines 11.3, 11.4 and 11.6.
A basement is already proposed under the new building. The landmark is not proposed to
have a basement which avoids lightwells. Further, the landmark is proposed to function as
autonomous from the new building so locating floor area below the landmark does not
relocate above grade floor area from the new building.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal seams, or similar
materials are appropriate for driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
164
Page 6 of 8
Driveway material will be included in the Final HP application and will comply with the
design guidelines.
• Figure 2 of Exhibit A.1 differs from the Site Plan on Sheet No. A1.02 of
Exhibit L.1.
More information would be helpful, as we don’t see the difference between the two site
plans.
• Please clarify and make consistent all drawing titles, distinguishing
“proposed” from “existing,” and eliminating “historic” (unless depicting
historic conditions).
The intent was for “historic” means a restoration to match historic photographs, maps,
documentation. Proposed means new construction that does not restore any historic
features, and existing means an existing condition. We revised the drawings per your
request.
• Where in the Land Use Code is increased density a by-right benefit of
historic properties? Don’t all benefits require special consideration and
approval?
The R-6 zone district lists by right dimensional requirements, and historic landmarks are
permitted, by right, two detached homes on a 6,000 sf property. There are no review criteria
in the Land Use Code for HPC to grant or award two detached homes on the property. HPC
is charged with applying the Design Guidelines, which are guidelines and not standards, to
determine if the massing, site plan, etc. for two detached homes is appropriate for the
property, NOT whether two detached homes are appropriate. The Design Guidelines clearly
encourage detaching new construction from a landmark. The proposed project restores the
landmark to its original footprint per historic documentation, which is rare in Aspen. There
are no variations requested in this application – the only setback variance included in the
application memorializes the historic location of the landmark.
• Photographic evidence, including Figure 4 on page 3 of the application,
suggest that the shed-roofed element at the rear of the historic resource
was of a similar size to the area currently occupied by the bathroom and
dining room. To ensure this part of the existing building is non-historic,
please provide additional documentation that no historic material exists.
Please similarly provide evidence that no elements of the historic porch
remain. Alternatively, selective demolition with monitoring committee
oversight may be a condition of approval.
Please see discussion above. The property is currently rented – selective demolition is not
an option. However, this rear of the landmark is proposed to be restored as part of the
project. Any historic evidence discovered during construction will be used for accurate
restoration of the rear portion of the landmark. Selective demolition at this time is
premature considering the element is already incorporated into the restoration project.
Engineering Comments
165
Page 7 of 8
1. The survey incorrectly states in note 10 that the posted address is 325 W Francis.
Please correct.
Revised and resubmitted to Engineering.
2. The drainage report states this is a 3,000 square foot lot when the survey states it
is 6,000 square feet. Please amend.
Revised and resubmitted to Engineering.
3. A variance for placing the drywell below the foundation will be needed. Please
confirm that it will be possible to maintain the drywell and the stormwater
system. Show the location of the proposed drywell on the site plans. It is very
uncommon to place a drywell under a structure, clearly explain in the variance
why no other detention options are possible. The variance should be included in
the final review.
A variance request has been submitted to Engineering.
4. Please include permeable pavers as a proposed facility in the drainage report.
Revised and resubmitted to Engineering.
5. A basic site plan showing drainage and utility infrastructure should be included in
the final review packet.
A basic site plan with drainage and utility infrastructure has been provided to Engineering.
Zoning Comments
1) Demolition – this project is subject to demolition as the proposed exceeds the 40% threshold of
exterior alternations.
2) Setbacks – The existing conditions show the current north front setback is 5 ft. 10.25 inch, and
side east setback is 1 ft 1.75 inch. In this particular zone district, the front setback requirement is
10 ft & side setback is 5 ft. The applicant is seeking for variance to both and is requesting north
front setback to be reduced to 4 ft 1.75 inch and side east setback to be increased to 3 ft 10.25
inch.
Variations are only for historic conditions.
3) Site Coverage – Per R-6 zone district, the maximum site coverage at the lot of 6,000 sq ft is 40%.
The existing site coverage is 29% but the candidate is asking for a special approval for site coverage
to be 45%.
R-6 zone district assigns a maximum of 50% site coverage for this property.
4) Height – the height complies with the zone district’s requirements.
5) Show natural vs. historic grade.
Both grades are shown on the drawing set.
166
Page 8 of 8
6) Floor area ratio – The structure is decreasing in floor area therefore it meets zoning
requirements.
7) Fence – show the dimensions of the proposed fence.
A detail of the fence will be provided at Final design review.
8) Due to Mechanical equipment being addressed in a later process, please ensure that it will
be compliant with the Code Section(s) 26.575.020.(e) and/or 26.575.020.(f)(4)(a)
9) Exterior light – please show compliance with the new outdoor lighting code Sec.26.512.
10) Crawlspace/basement – demonstrate that the crawlspace is compliant with Code
Sec.25.575.020(d)(4) and show that the proposed basement is not a double basement per
Code Sec.25.575.020.(d)(9).
A section is provided to show compliance with the basement depth limits and allowances for crawl
space.
Parks Comments
The Parks Department comments below are to be addressed at building permit.
1. Applicant shall submit an up-to-date survey dated within one year of permit submittal with
the location of all trees four (4) inches or over identified by trunk diameter and species.
2. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan at permit to include a tree preservation plan, a tree
removal plan, a tree planting plan, and an irrigation plan.
3. Applicant shall submit applicable construction drawings at permit to illustrate any proposed
grade changes which may adversely impact any trees on the site.
4. The Parks and Open Space Department supports the preservation and protection of
existing trees in the right of way along Hopkins Avenue.
5. Pursuant to Sec. 13.20.020(b)(4) the applicant shall pay a cash-in-lieu amount equal to the
comparable value of the aggregate of all trees removed as determined pursuant to
Sec.13.20.020(e).
167
<<WSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCUEUEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXTXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXG7.507.507.507.237.407.507.507.13Property LineWest Hopkins AvenueProposed ResidenceF.F.E. - 7907.502.0%2.1%F.F.E. - 7.50F.F.E. - 7.507.347.347.347.507.508.50EX: 08.33Proposed Fire Feature7.507.507.007.00Repair And/Or ReplaceExisting Retaining WallsProposed Pervious PaverWalkways. Install At Existing GradeTo Minimize Disturbance Around TreesExisting AlleyEX:9.72EX:9.97EX:8.75EX:7.0779067907790879097910790979097909
790779067905790479037903790479057906Existing Historic ResidenceF.F.E. - 7909.307.406.966.967.148.898.93790979097908 7908F.F.E. - 7.50Grouted Paver PatioOver StructurePerviousPaver PatioGrouted Paver PatioOver StructureGrouted Paver PatioOver StructureGrouted Paver PatioOver StructurePervious PaverParking Area5.6%11.0%3.8%Pervious PaverGarage Access7.507.507.447.447.507.508.148.148.468.469.119.008.79Sandset Stepping Stone Walkway18" Corten WallBOW:7.50BOW:7.50TOW:8.93TOW:8.717907
79087.508.50Sandset Stepping Stone WalkwayWith Perforated Pipe UnderdrainF.F.E. - 7.507.377.374.5" Step Off Patio790779067907LightwellLightwell7.007.007.007.00Existing Concrete Sidewalk And CurbAnd Gutter To RemainEX: 08.40EX: 08.408.507.5079108.508.506.95EX: 08.33EX: 08.33EX: 08.337.18TOS: 6.25BOS: 4.75TOS:7.58BOS:6.18LightwellF.F.E. - 7.50F.F.E. - 7.50Inlet: 06.75Inlet: 07.25Proposed 5'x5' TransformerTransformer SetbacksAnd Proposed EasementLightwellDownspoutDownspoutDownspout Tie In For Flat RoofDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutDownspoutExisting DeckProposed Stormwater DrywellMin. 6' Diameter 10' Deep Within Footprint Of Basement.375 Cubic Feet Of Detention Sized For Full DetentionOf A 100-Year 1-Hour Storm Event. Manhole LidTo Be Located Within Utility Room In Basement.Emergency Pump With Float System To BeInstalled In Case Of Storm Larger Than A100-Year 1-Hour Event Or Drywell FailureAbandon Existing Water ServiceAs Per City Of Aspen WaterDepartment StandardsTee In New Water ServiceAs Per COA Water DepartmentStandardsProposed NewWater ServiceInstall Curbstop AtProperty LineInspect and Verify Depth and ConditionOf Existing Sewer Service. Cut Sewer ServiceAnd Tie Into Proposed Foundation As Per ACSD StandardsInspect and Verify Depth, Size and ConditionOf Existing Gas Service. Cut ServiceAnd Tie Into Proposed BuildingExtend Primary Line Off Existing TransformerUtilize Existing CommunicationsPedestal For ServiceInstall Electric ShutoffAnd Panels On Proposed Building.Install Communications BoxOn Proposed Building.Electric Service11 Linear FeetPrimary Electric Line56 Linear FeetProposed Communications Service62 Linear FeetExisting Sewer Service And Wye To Be MaintainedExisting Gas ServiceTo Be MaintainedExisting Shallow Utilities To Be AbandonedAnd/Or Removed As Necessary3 - 6" Risers3 - 6" Risers7.347.18Daylight Emergency Drywell Pump OverflowEmergency Drywell Pump Overflow PipeDrawing ScaleUnits (Feet) 1" = 10'01020NSWEC.01Grading, Drainage, andUtilitiesOf 1 Page01 HPC Grading Submittal 07.25.2024 JKE
#Description Date Drawn By
325 West Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611 1101 Village Road, Unit UL-3CCarbondale, CO 81623(970) 510 - 5312JKE
Reviewed By
Not For ConstructionJob #: 23.56168