HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20240925AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION
September 25, 2024
4:30 PM, City Council Chambers -
3rd Floor
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
I.ROLL CALL
II.MINUTES
II.A Draft Minutes - 8/7/2024 & 9/11/24
III.PUBLIC COMMENTS
IV.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
V.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VI.PROJECT MONITORING
VII.STAFF COMMENTS
VIII.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
IX.CALL UP REPORTS
X.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XI.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
XII.OLD BUSINESS
XII.A 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations
Review - Public Hearing
minutes.hpc.20240807_DRAFT.docx
minutes.hpc.20240911_DRAFT.docx
Staff Memo.325 W Hopkins Ave.20240920.pdf
Exhibit A - HP Design Guidelines Analysis.325 W. Hopkins Ave.20240920.pdf
Exhibit B - Relocation Criteria.325 W Hopkins Ave.20240920.pdf
Exhibit C - Variation Criteria.325 W Hopkins Ave.20240920.pdf
Exhibit D - Combined Referral Comments.pdf
1
1
XIII.NEW BUSINESS
XIV.ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Exhibit E - Application.325 W Hopkins Ave.20240911.pdf
Exhibit E.1 - Grading Drainage and Utility Plan.325 W Hopkins Ave.20240911.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
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
Interim Chairperson Moyer opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
at 4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Absent
were Peter Fornell, Riley Warwick and Roger Moyer.
Staff present:
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 6/26/24. Ms. Raymond seconded. Roll
call vote:Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes.
Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the draft minutes from 7/10/24. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote:
Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson asked about the newly appointed HPC member.
Ms. Johnson noted that Ms. Dakota Severe attended the site visit this afternoon and may join the
meeting at some point to watch. Ms. Johnson also said that her and Mr. Hayden would be scheduling a
training session with Ms. Severe in the near future so that she could properly participate in upcoming
meetings.
There was then some discussion of the current board makeup and the open alternate seat. It was also
noted that since Mr. Halferty’s term had ended without him reapplying in time for the interviews in July,
he could interview for the open alternate seat when the next round of interviews occurs. Ms. Thompson
noted that they would have to elect a new Vice-Chair. Ms. Johnson agreed. There was some discussion
about when they would schedule the election.
Ms. Thompson asked Ms. Johnson if she had any updates on the status of the 205 West Main Street
item regarding whether the addition was historic or not.
Ms. Johnson said that she and staff had a few discussions with the applicant team and their legal
counsel. She noted that during the application and hearing phases, this issue was never raised, and the
applicant has been working toward fulfilling the approval that was granted by HPC. She said that at this
point she did not see a legal path to revoke that approval even if there was evidence that the addition
was historic. She noted that there was no evidence that the applicant committed fraud or made any
misrepresentations, and the issue was never called up by staff for further investigation during the
application phase. She said that at this point the applicant has the right to move forward with the
approved plans.
Ms. Thompson said that was disappointing. She asked if something could be written into future
approvals to address these types of issues.
Ms. Johnson said that language to that effect has been included in some previous approvals to say that if
historic materials are discovered that they shall be preserved. She did note that in this case she did not
believe that there had been an actual determination yet on whether the addition was in fact historic or
not.
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
There was some further discussion about this type of situation and the legal paths involved. Ms. Johnson
reiterated the ability for HPC to include language in the conditions of future approvals regarding what to
do if historic materials are found during construction. She again noted that this has been a part of other
HPC resolutions.
Ms. Thompson asked if this information update had been described to the public. Ms. Johnson said this
was the first time it had been described and if HPC would like it described to the public that staff could
put together an informational memo and notice it for a future meeting so that interested members of
the public know it will be discussed.
Mr. Hayden stated that staff has considered this situation a lesson and intends to be more diligent in
determining if materials are historic or not. He said they would be requesting applicants provide as
much evidence as possible, particularly evidence showing if something is not historic.
Ms. Raymond believed that it would be better in the long run for the applicant to do the homework in
the beginning and that it should be included in the conditions of approval going forward.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: None
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Hayden noted that an Aspen 311 complaint was made shortly after the last HPC
meeting regarding items stored on the Boomerang property and that the owners have been diligently
acting to get some of that taken care of.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None
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: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations
Review - Public Hearing
Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects
Ms. Adams started by describing the property’s location and noted that a site visit was conducted earlier
in the day. She also noted that the applicant was amenable to staff’s recommended continuance. She
wanted to make sure the applicant team got clear direction for the next meeting in September.
Ms. Adams started her presentation by going over their requests, including conceptual major
development. They are also required to request relocation as they will need to underpin the landmark in
order to fix the foundation. She said that they are not proposing to move the landmark from its original
location and are requesting two variations to legalize the landmark’s original location. She then
described the requested variations to the front and west side setbacks. She noted that they will be
conducting a full restoration of the historic landmark back to its original footprint based on the Sanborn
maps with no new additions. They are not asking for any variations for the new construction and the
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
total project is under the allowable floor area by about 290 square feet and they are not asking for any
bonus.
Ms. Adams moved on to describe the history of the property by showing a few historic pictures as well
as the 1890 Sanborn map. From these historic pictures, she pointed out the original front porch that has
since been significantly changed over time as well as a shed roofed bump out on the rear of the
landmark that is no longer there. She said they are proposing to restore that. She showed a few arial
photos from the early 1970s and described a few of the additions and other changes that had been done
to the property over the years.
Ms. Adams went over their proposed restoration efforts and noted that their main focus is the
preservation of the historic resource. On the site plan she highlighted the areas in pink as historic and
the areas that were in grey were not historic and will be removed. She said they are proposing to restore
the front porch, historic windows and the shed roof bump out on the rear of the landmark, based on the
Sanborn maps and historic photos.
Ms. Adams went over the historic preservation guidelines related to the historic landmark building. She
noted that in the staff memo it seemed like the shed bump out on the rear was being treated as a new
addition. She said the applicant team is treating it like a restoration of the historic footprint of the
building based on the historic evidence they have obtained.
She then moved on to the site plan and detailed the lot and floor area noting that in the Zone district
they are allowed two detached buildings. She went over the details of the site layout including the
locations of the restored landmark and new detached construction as well as the existing setbacks. She
noted that once restored, the historic landmark would be about 560 square feet and the new
construction would be about 2,140 square feet. She showed the conceptual landscape plan and noted
that it was still being dialed in. She also detailed the floor plans of the historic landmark building as well
as the new construction and noted the garage and parking space for the historic landmark. Next, Ms.
Adams went over the proposed roof plans for new construction and spent some time going over the
various elevations, highlighting how the new construction related to the historic landmark. She noted
that the proposed materials for the new construction are mostly wood with a few metal elements to
break things up. She also noted that the roof heights are at 23 feet 2 inches on the east end and 22 feet
9 inches on the west end. The maximum roof height for the zone is 25 feet.
Ms. Adams concluded by going over the historic design guidelines. She highlighted guidelines 11.3 and
11.4 as where the discussion may center. She explained how they were using form and materials to
relate to the landmark and diverting on fenestration.
Ms. Thompson asked about the civil drawings and noted that it seemed that the pervious pavers
extended beyond the property line. She also asked about the proposed drywell location. Ms. Adams said
that they would look at the drawings related to the pavers and noted that the drywell was proposed to
be underneath the basement of the new construction.
Ms. Raymond pointed out a few small sections of the floor plans and asked what they were. Ms. Adams
said one was an access point to the crawl space below the historic resource and the others were
lightwells. She noted that all of them were not in the setbacks.
Ms. Surfas asked about the small rear portion of the historic resource and if Ms. Adams could clarify
their restoration of it. Ms. Adams said it was a question in staff’s memo and would be better asked after
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
staff’s presentation.Ms. Surfas also asked if they planned to lift the historic resources to underpin. Mr.
Clancy said the plan would be to leave it in place.
Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden – Acting Principal Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden noted that he had been informed that the staff memo might have come off as a bit negative
and wanted to apologize as it was not his intention.
He then stated that it was his belief that the application and proposed project meet most of the design
guidelines. He noted that staff was supportive of the requested reviews for relocation and the setback
variations as they met the guidelines.
He pointed out design guideline 7.9, which relates to gutters. He noted that staff questions the northern
most proposed gutter downspout location and whether it was necessary or not.
He moved on to Chapter 10 of the design guidelines related to new additions and noted that staff did
not believe that the application met guidelines 10.3, 10.4 and 10.6, as the rear addition to the historic
landmark was directly replicative of the historic form, materials and fenestration. Referencing historic
photos, Mr. Hayden said the proposal was not actually a restoration of what was there historically. He
pointed out some of the historic feature of the rear shed roof bump out and it appeared much larger
than what is being proposed. He said that to suggest that the proposal was a restoration was not
completely accurate and that additional study of this element was warranted.
Moving onto the new building, Mr. Hayden noted that staff did not believe that it met the overall policy
objective of Chapter 11, which states that a new addition should not dominate the historic resource and
should be compatible with it. He pointed out guidelines 11.3 and 11.6 as particularly not being met. He
detailed the scale and proportions of the new building and pointed out the height differences to the
historic resource. He thought that some slight changes could make the new building better reflect the
historic resource and its proportions. Regarding 11.6, he said the blocky verticality of the proposed new
building diverges from the more horizontal one-story L-shaped historic resource as well as the
disproportionally large double front gable masses of the proposed new building have no historic parallel.
Speaking to the setback-to-setback development, Mr. Hayden went on to detail staff’s findings related
to guidelines 1.1, as spelled out in Exhibit A of the packet. Staff felt that since the proposed
development was uncharacteristic of the block or neighborhood and lacked some porosity on site, that
this guideline was not met.
He finished by noting that staff recommends continuance to September 25th, 2024.
Ms. Pitchford asked Mr. Hayden to speak to the issue of the rear shed roof area of the historic resource.
She asked him to clarify staff’s position on whether the applicant’s proposal was a restoration or a new
addition. Mr. Hayden stated that if that portion were a historic addition they wouldn’t be treating it as a
new addition, but if it was recreating something that no longer exists, then it is new. He said that if it
was considered a restoration, then it could be designed to better replicate what used to be there. He
pointed out that the materials used to recreate this portion of the historic resource would not be
historic.
There was some discussion about the timeframes of the historic pictures that had been presented and
that there was a difference between them and the Sanborn maps. Mr. Hayden noted that the Sanborn
maps are a good reference but were not 100% accurate. He then showed an overlay of the 1904
Sanborn map and the applicant’s proposal for the rear shed restoration / addition. He noted that
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
restoration based on the Sanborn maps may be limited and that the use of historic photos was more
appropriate.
Ms. Raymond asked about staff’s attitude toward restoration / rebuilding if there is enough evidence to
rebuild what was there versus looking at it as new construction. Mr. Hayden noted that the guidelines
don’t leave a lot of room for restoration and are geared more toward rehabilitation or making a site
more useful for modern needs while retaining as much of historic resource as possible. He suggested
that a restoration would not meet the guidelines, but that is a decision that HPC could make.
Public Comment:Mr. Dan McCardy said that him and his wife live next door to the west. He thought the
presentations were well done. He commented that the massing did seem quite large from the street and
would impact the views from his property. While he recognized the applicant’s right to build a new
structure there and welcome it, he felt the comments from staff were very important.
Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson asked both the applicant and staff to come to the table for the board
discussion. She thanked both parties for their great presentations. She said she supported both the
relocation and setback variations requests. The other members all agreed.
Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Clancy to present the 3D renderings so they could use them in their
discussion. She said that she felt the site planning for the development to be appropriate for the
property and that the location of the one-story portion of the new building to be well done and the
height of it to be appropriate. She felt that everything in front of the two-story structure to be
appropriate.
Ms. Raymond felt the front of the new construction could be pushed back a bit so that the historic
resource appears more prominent.
Ms. Surfas had a similar thought and referenced the old Poppie’s site where people say it is hard to
distinguish the new from old.
Ms. Pitchford agreed as well. She thought the new construction should be pushed back so that the
historic resource is more distinguishable.
Mr. Clancy noted that there are a few large spruce trees on the lot that block the new addition. Ms.
Adams clarified that the proposed new addition is setback six feet from the front of the historic
resource. Ms. Pitchford said the historic resource is also somewhat blocked by trees.
Ms. Thompson said she was having a hard time deciding on the location of the new addition, based on
trees that would eventually die and the building would be there long after.
Ms. Raymond said that what adds to the issue is that the front of the new construction is designed very
similar to the historic resource and she did not see enough distinguishment. She felt the new
construction had a stronger presence as presented and needed to be pushed back a bit or be designed
to look a little more different.
Ms. Thompson disagreed with those comments and felt it was appropriate in meeting the guidelines.
Referencing guideline 10.6, she explained her reasoning. She felt the six feet it was set back from the
historic was sufficient and was in line with what HPC had approved in the past.
Mr. Clancy showed a few different angles of the 3D renderings, and the commissioners discussed their
thoughts about the two structures and whether they appeared distinguishable enough. After some
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
discussion they gave some feedback to Ms. Adams about ways the front of the new construction could
be slightly changed.
Ms. Thompson asked that the applicant restudy where gutters on the front of the historic resource
where really needed.
Ms. Thompson also asked if there was any way to find out more about the rear shed roof portion that
had been discussed. Ms. Adams said that currently there are renters in the property, and it may be
difficult to do much exploratory demolition, but that they would be fine with conditions addressing this
in the resolution.
The commissioners and applicant further reviewed the historic photos of the rear shed roof portion and
tried to discern what may be historic.
Ms. Thompson said the question was around whether the applicant’s proposal was an addition or a
restoration. The members further discussed the historic photos and the pre-1890 Sanborn map, trying
to discern the size and location of the rear shed roof area of the historic resource.
Ms. Pitchford asked for clarification on what constitutes a restoration.
Mr. Hayden noted that it was an important point in this discussion because there is a distinction
between restoration and reconstruction. Her noted that reconstruction would be when there is no
historic material remaining. He said they really don’t know if there is historic material in that section of
the resource.
Ms. Thompson said that she was ok with the proposed reconstruction of the footprint.
Ms. Pitchford said that she would be more comfortable with reconstruction if they had more accurate
information of what might have been there historically.
Ms. Thompson said that as much investigation as possible should be done of the framing and foundation
to determine what may be historic or not.
The members all agreed to consider the applicant’s proposal for the rear portion as a restoration and
not an addition. Ms. Raymond thought that all roofing materials should be the same as they were
historically in order to make sure it looks as historic as possible. It was clarified that the 1904 Sanborn
map showed the roofing to be all wood shingles.
Ms. Thompson moved the discussion on to the rear portion of the proposed new construction. She
noted that she agreed with staff that the form relationship was a stretch from what is seen on the
historic resource and did not find the dormers appropriate in the relationship. She felt, as Mr. Hayden
did, that the upper level of the new construction dwarfed the front portion.
MS. Raymond asked Ms. Thompson why she thought the dormers were not appropriate. Ms. Thompson
said she did not see their relationship to the historic resource and believed there was a lot going on with
the roof forms. She felt like it could be simplified.
Ms. Surfas and Ms. Pitchford both agreed with Ms. Thompson’s thoughts.
The members then discussed the plate height of the second floor and the overall height of the wall from
the floor to the peak roof pitch. Mr. Clancy said one option could be to lower the roof pitch.
The members continued to discuss potential options to lower the roof pitch, but Ms. Thompson still
thought the proportion of the rear section of the new construction was so much bigger than the front
section as well as the historic resource. Ms. Raymond thought another reason it seemed so tall was the
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7TH, 2024
amount of “wall” that appeared above the gable of the front one-story section. She said it stands out
and makes the rear section seems so tall.
Ms. Adams noted that from the feedback she had heard the two biggest takeaways were that the
volume of the second level is too tall in proportion to the historic resource and that roof forms of the
new construction are over complicated. There was then some more discussion about the proposed roof
forms and ideas for potential changes.
MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to continue this hearing to September 25
th, 2024 at 4:30pm. Ms.
Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms.
Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes.
ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in
favor; motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at
4:30pm.
Commissioners in attendance: Peter Fornell, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford, Riley Warwick
and Kara Thompson. Absent was Kim Raymond.
Staff present:
Gillian White, Principal Planner – Historic Preservation
Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation
Jeff Barnhill – Planner I, Community Development
Ben Anderson, Director of Community Development
Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES: Ms. Pitchford moved to approve the draft minutes from July 24th, 2024. Ms. Thompson
seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr.
Warwick, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs distributed a handout to the commissioners (subsequently
included in the public record). He noted his previous appearances before HPC and that he was made
aware of a report that Ms. Kate Johnson gave the members at the last meeting regarding the 205 W
Main St project. He had listened to the audio recording of that meeting and said he respectively
disagreed with Ms. Johnson’s report. He went on to detail his disagreements as laid out in the handout.
He believed the applicant misrepresented that the rear addition was not historic and that HPC approved
the application on that misrepresentation.
Ms. Pitchford requested a more formal information update about the project taking into account Mr.
Scruggs’ comments. Ms. Thompson said that she would talk to Ms. Johnson about the best way to
inform the members.
Ms. Lindsey Flewelling introduced herself as the Certified Local Government (CLG) Coordinator at
History Colorado. She noted that she was attending as part of HPC’s quadrennial evaluation. She noted
that the CLG program is a partnership between local governments, the State Historic Preservation Office
(History Colorado) and the National Parks Service. She said that Aspen’s HPC has been certified since
1985, which was basically the beginning of the program. She said she would leave her contact
information with Ms. White.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Flewelling what other Historic Preservation groups around the State were dealing
with historic wood shingle roofs considering fire implications and insurance. Ms. Flewelling said that
conversations around this have been happening at the State and National level and that she knew of a
few roofs in Telluride that had been approved to use DaVinci synthetic shingles. Mr. Moyer asked if any
Historic Commissions around Colorado ever meet with or observe other municipalities’ commissions.
Ms. Flewelling said it is not super common, but joint meetings do occur. She also mentioned the Ski
Town Forum that happens every spring.
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer wanted to get an update on the 205 W Main St.
project. Ms. Thompson, as the project monitor, gave a brief update on the applicant’s progress on the
project and their submittals. She noted the applicant has been in for their administrative review and all
the referral departments have issued comments, including herself and Mr. Hayden.
DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None
PROJECT MONITORING: None
STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson introduced Ms. Gillian White, who is the City of Aspen’s new Principal
Planner for Historic Preservation. He gave some details of her background and wished her a warm
welcome. Ms. White introduced herself and went over her background. She invited the members to
reach out to her if they would like to meet one on one to get to know each other.
CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None
CALL UP REPORTS:Mr. Hayden noted that the 335 Lake Ave. project had been noticed as a call up to
City Council. He mentioned that City Council did not request to call up the item.
Ms. Thompson requested an update be provided on City Council’s decision regarding the 120 Main St.
project. Mr. Anderson described the outcome and noted that it was a positive conversation with City
Council. He went over the specific aspects that Council granted the project.
SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Berne confirmed that public notice was completed in
compliance with the Code as needed for the agenda item.
OLD BUSINESS: 117 North Sixth Street - Minor Development -PUBLIC HEARING
Continued from the July 10th, 2024 HPC meeting.
Mr. Fornell, Mr. Warwick and Ms. Thompson all noted that they were absent at the July 10th meeting
but had read the minutes and reviewed the packet materials. They all felt they were up to speed and
could participate in this discussion.
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Jake Ezratty – Brikor Associates; Monty Earl
Mr. Earl noted that they had presented their original request at the July 10th, 2024 meeting. He noted
that they had originally proposed a standing seam metal roofing material as a replacement for the
existing wood shingles and that HPC had rejected that proposal. He presented a sample of their updated
alternate metal roofing material choice that they believed looked more like wood shakes than standing
seam. He said the owner wanted to do a black roof. Mr. Ezratty noted that he had submitted the
samples to Mr. Hayden.
Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation
Mr. Hayden started his presentation by noting that the newly proposed alternate material submitted by
the applicant still did not meet guidelines 7.7 and 7.8. He said that wooden shakes were the existing,
original and presumably the only roofing material used on the historic resource. He noted that the new
proposed material is neither an in-kind replacement, nor is similar to the original in both style and
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
physical qualities. He further described the differences between an actual wooden shake and the
proposed new metal material.
He stated that staff recommends denial of the newly proposed alternate material.
Mr. Fornell asked if the applicant would be able to avoid coming before the HPC if they had proposed an
alternate material that was already an approved product listed in either the preservation guidelines or
the municipal code. Mr. Hayden said that a list of approvable materials may not be appropriate given
that each project and situation was unique. He noted that staff had provided the applicant with a list of
materials that had been approved in the past on other projects.
Public Comment:None
Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson said that she agreed with the feedback given at the previous meeting
that the metal material was not appropriate, and that a synthetic shingle may be considered.
Mr. Fornell commented that after reading the application he was disappointed to realize that the bid
from Pacific Sheet Metal was over a year old. He felt that the applicant has been trying to replace their
roof and since HPC could not settle on acceptable roof materials they are just spinning their wheels. He
said they should be able to give an applicant an option that works both for the historic resource but also
for the property owner for the purposes of obtaining insurance.
Ms. Surfas said that they had pointed the applicant in the direction of what they could use and offered
to continue the meeting to today to come back with something that was approvable. She said that HPC
was very clear at the last meeting that this type of material was not approvable.
Mr. Hayden noted that he had provided the applicant with the EcoStar synthetic shake as possible
option that had been approved in the past.
Mr. Fornell asked the applicant if there was something wrong with the option that Mr. Hayden had
provided.
Mr. Ezratty said that a black metal material is preferred by the owner of the property. He felt that this
new proposed material would be somewhere in the middle as it is a metal shingle and not standing
seam. He said that they did not receive an exact list of specific approvable materials, as it is a case-by-
case situation. He noted that they like the metal material because it is lighter in weight and that snow
will slide off it.
Mr. Fornell thought that while the property owner may have a best idea in mind for themselves, they
needed to remember that they purchased a property with a historic resource on it.
Ms. Thompson again stated that it was very clear to her from the minutes of the previous meeting, that
metal was not an acceptable material. She said that clearer direction in this case would be that
replacement with a wooden shingle or synthetic wood shake in a similar color, shape and size to the
historic material would be appropriate.
Mr. Moyer asked Mr. Hayden about the issue with insurance related to roofs and if it varied depending
on the company. Mr. Hayden said it did vary based on the insurer and the property and that there are
still some buildings around town that are able to get new wooden shingle roofs insured.
Mr. Moyer commented on historic methods of fire retardants being applied to wood shingle roofs in
Aspen and described his experience when talking with a manufacturer of synthetic wood shakes. He felt
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
that HPC needed to have a discussion with insurance companies as well as manufacturers of these
synthetic roofing products.
Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they would be able to turn something around for the next meeting
if they continued again. Mr. Ezratty said that because of insurance they would not be able to replace in
kind. He and Mr. Earl asked about other possible materials like slate or a more matte metal. Ms.
Thompson said slate may be appropriate on a structure that historically had a slate roof and that any
type of metal would not work. The rest of the board agreed that metal does not work here.
Ms. Pitchford asked that the owner be told that the new material should convey the scale, color and
texture of the historic material.
There was some more discussion about the current issues related to trying to insure homes with
wooden roof materials and the current options applicants have for replacement materials.
Mr. Hayden noted for the record that the HP Design Guidelines relating to roofing materials had been
amended. He also felt that the next meeting might be unrealistic for the applicant to find a new product
and for staff to have enough time to review it and respond. He suggested the October 9th meeting.
MOTION:Mr. Fornell moved to continue this item until October 9
th, 2024. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll
call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms.
Thompson, yes.6-0 vote, motion passes.
NEW BUSINESS: 128 East Main St. – Sardy House - - Minor HP, Setback Variation -PUBLIC HEARING
Applicant Presentation: Mr. Garrett Larimer – Kramer Land Planning
Jamie Brewster McLeod – Brewster McLeod Architects
Mr. Larimer began by stating that this was an application for HP Minor Development and Setback
Variation for the replacement of mechanical equipment. He went over a brief history of the Sardy House
property and some details about the lot’s location and size. He noted that this request is to install a new
HVAC system in the rear yard setback behind the boarding house on the rear of the property. He said
that the equipment currently on site was approved by HPC in 2003 and received similar HP Minor
Development and Setback Variation approvals. He noted that the equipment is failing and is no longer
serviceable and in an effort to ensure the new equipment was appropriately sized for the building and
met all current code requirements, the applicant hired BG Building Works to research appropriate units.
In that research it was determined that there was nothing on the market that met all code requirements
and was appropriately sized, so the best equipment available for the situation was proposed.
Mr. Larimer showed a few pictures of the existing conditions and location of the existing HVAC
equipment. He noted that in the 2003 HPC approval, this was determined to be the best location for the
equipment. He showed a plan view of the proposed new equipment and noted that in order to keep the
overall size as small as possible and still meet the load requirements of the building, two chiller units are
proposed.
Mr. Larimer went over the code requirements that the equipment is subject to and noted that with the
proximity of the location to the property line the noise emission of the units was very important. He said
that the equipment chosen had a decibel level limit that can be set when installed and would be set to
the daytime and evening noise limits set in the code. He noted that with the site and location
constraints, while they did select the smallest units that still meet the requirements for the building,
13
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
they are still asking for a 103-inch comprehensive height variance to allow for the replacement of the
equipment in this location. He believed that this proposal met the Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines and is the best option for replacement and is as code compliant as possible.
Ms. Thompson asked if all the clearances for the installation had been checked. Mr. Larimer said their
engineer checked the manufacturer’s installation instructions and incorporated them into the design.
Mr. Fornell asked if the number of parking spaces currently on the property exceed the code
requirements. Mr. Larimer did not have that information. Mr. Fornell felt that the number of spaces did
exceed the requirements and asked if they could retire a parking space and stay inside the setbacks.
Ms. Brewster McLeod said they had looked into that option but since the rear portion of the property is
still a boarding house use, they had to comply with that, and the current number of parking spaces is the
minimum allowed per the 1985 Land Use approval.
Staff Presentation:Jeff Barnhill – Planner I
Mr. Barnhill began his presentation by going over some details and history of the property and lot and
pointed out the 2003 HPC approval for the size and location of the current equipment. He showed a
comparison of the existing and proposed equipment and noted that to include the new buffer tank the
pad would need to be slightly larger. He showed the elevation view of the proposed equipment and said
that wind / hail guards and the height request were included in the resolution.
Mr. Barnhill moved on to the Historic Preservation Guidelines and noted that the proposed equipment
met all relevant guidelines as detailed in the staff findings section of the agenda packet materials. He
then reviewed the review criteria for HPC to grant setback variations and went over staff’s response as
detailed in the staff findings section of the agenda packet materials.
Mr. Barnhill concluded by stating that staff recommends that HPC adopt the draft resolution, approving
the requests for Minor HP Development and a setback variation of seven inches in the rear yard setback,
to install the new mechanical equipment.
The board members were curious about the current operation of the boarding house and had some
discussion with the applicant. Mr. Larimer noted that definition of a “boarding house” had been
removed from the Land Use Code and it is now referred to as a small lodge or boutique lodge.
Public Comment:Mr. Charlie Tarver said that he is a very close neighbor to the Sardy House. He
supported the application and urged the members to pass it. He noted that the current mechanical
equipment is very noisy and disruptive. He hoped that what ever HPC approves on this is followed
through on.
Board Discussion:Ms. Thomspon said that she supported the applicant’s request for the setback
variation. She felt that the applicant was improving the equipment that is already in the same location.
The rest of the members agreed.
MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve the next resolution in the series. Ms. Thompson seconded.
Mr. Barnhill displayed the draft resolution and noted that he had added an elevation drawing to it and
had corrected a scrivener’s error.
Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes;
Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
14
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
Mr. Anderson spoke to significant changes and updates in mechanical equipment and noted that
updates to the Land Use Code had been made to give some more flexibility to roof mounted equipment
as well as equipment in the setbacks. He said it was a similar topic to the recent discussions and changes
surrounding roofing materials and that it would most likely be a topic that comes before HPC more often
going forward as existing properties look to replace their mechanical equipment with more energy
efficient units. He noted that there is a cross-department team within the City that is evaluating how to
best coordinate Land Use Codes to the changes in the equipment. He said that more modern and
quieter units are getting bigger.
Mr. Fornell was assigned as the monitor for the Sardy House project.
NEW BUSINESS: Election of Vice -Chair
Ms. Thompson noted that they had briefly discussed this at a previous meeting and that Ms. Kim
Raymond had said that she would accept the position of Vice-Chair if elected. Ms. Thompson nominated
Ms. Raymond to be Vice -Chair. The rest of the board agreed.
Roll call vote:Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes;
Ms. Thompson, yes. 6-0 vote, motion passes.
Ms. Surfas commented that she would not be in attendance at the October 2
nd Special meeting as it was
the air of Rosh Hashanah, which is the biggest holiday on the Jewish calendar. There was some
discussion about whether there would be a quorum for the meeting and if there was a possibility of
rescheduling so that all members could attend. Mr. Warwick asked what the agenda topic was, and Mr.
Hayden said it was 300 East Hopkins Ave. or the old Crystal Palace building.
Mr. Anderson explained that this is a topic of very high community interest and taking into account
some planned absences of HPC members, the Special meeting was requested in order to get this project
moving. He noted that there are building permits that are close to expiring and that the applicant has
landed on a path forward and staff is trying to accommodate that.
There was further discussion about possibly rescheduling the meeting. Ms. Surfas asked that is not be
scheduled on a Jewish holiday.
Ms. Pitchford commented that, as Mr. Anderson stated, the clock was running on the applicant’s
permits, but she felt that was the applicant’s problem and not HPC’s.
Mr. Anderson explained the various reasons for proposing the October 2nd date, but that it was
ultimately up to HPC’s discretion on when to meet.
They continued discussing the meeting schedule. Ms. Thompson asked Mr. Anderson to check with the
applicant about the possibility of holding the meeting on October 23rd.
The commissioners then had a short Q&A with Ms. Flewelling about the CLG program and a few general
Historic Preservation topics.
ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchford motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Surfas seconded. All in favor;
motion passes.
____________________
Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk
15
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2024
16
2.05 W Main- historic "west addition"
Members of HPC
Facts:
1. Misrepresentation: The applicant made the representation 'in writing and in oral
presentations that the "west addition" was "non historic" and requested demolition based
on that representation. Evidence indicates it is in fact historic. The applicant made a
misrepresentation. Whether the misrepresentation was intentional or unintentional is not
germane.
2. Discovery: Mr Hayden (HPC Staff) discovered the "west addition." was historic, as
evidenced by the 1896 Willets Map, and a 1895 McClure photo documenting the I existence of
the "west addition".,
3. Issue was raised: Over four months ago, in May 2024, Mr. Hayden brought the issue to the
attention of the Chair who wrote on May 30,2024 "If historic it needs to remain."
4. Applicant, has. not taken significant steps: Administrative approval is not complete,, permits
have not been issued, the "west addition " is still there. The only steps taken by applicant. are
additional submissions and correspondence.
5. HPC has the right to . revoke approval of demolition: Applicant mislead HPC stating that
the "west addition" was non historic. HPC granted demolition based on an erroneous fact that
was a misrepresentation HPC may revoke or suspend demolition until further inquiry is
exhausted.
6. Applicant does not have the right to move forward: Applicant cannot move forward when
the applicant made a misrepresentation to the HPC. HPC should revoke approval as there is
evidence the "west addition" is historic. The administrative review is 'incomplete and no permits
have been issued.
Summary :The City Attorneys report of 8/7/2024 to HPC was "disappointing", factually
incorrect and illogical. Applicant made the misrepresentation that the "west addition" was non
historic. Mr Hayden (staff) discovered during the administrative review process in May 2024
that it is historic based on the 1896 Willets Map and 1895 McClure photo.Therefore, the issue
was immediately and timely raised upon staffs discovery of the misrepresentation.
Request: The City attorney submit to HPC their opinion/report in writing stating the facts and
law on which it is based. The HPC waive attorney/client privilege to make that opinion available
to the public. Then, HPC decide how to proceed based on your responsibility to Protect (not
Destroy) historic resources.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the neighbors and interested citizens of Aspen
David Scruggs
212 W Hopkins
9014934820
Page 1 of 7
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Stuart Hayden, Planner II, Historic Preservation
THROUGH: Gillian White, Principal Planner, Historic Preservation
MEETING DATE: September 25, 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
17
Page 2 of 7
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
18
Page 3 of 7
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; restore 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 prior to a building permit
application, those concerning the design of the new rear addition and the scale, massing, form,
fenestration, and materials of the new building warrant a more fundamental 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 unti l 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. If “original,
underlying material” does exist, Guideline 2.6 will also be applicable.
Figure 4: Detail of “View from the West of Aspen, Colo.”
Theodore Cooper. c.1900-1910.
Figure 5: “South Elevation Proposed Historic.” Richard
A. Wax & Associates, LLC. 2024.
19
Page 4 of 7
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
The shed-roofed rear addition proposed to replace the existing addition, however, does not
meet the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As the replacement of a missing architectural
feature, the proposed design is incongruous with Guidelines 6.4 and 6.5. Despite having better-
than-usual historic evidence from which to base the reconstruction, the proposed rear addition
veers from the apparent historic design. Historic photographs from the 1890s, 1900s (Figure 4),
and 1950s (Figure 6) show the size of the historic rear portion of the house was larger than its
proposed recreation. The proposed addition is roughly two-thirds the size of that pictured.
The fenestration proposed for the south façade also overtly diverges from the historic
design. The small double-hung window is not based on the full-height screened openings and
back doorway apparent in historic photographs, nor is it a simplified interpretation thereof.
According to Guideline 6.5, adding new detailing for which there is no documentation is
“conjectural” and “inappropriate.” It risks misrepresenting the building’s heritage and degrading its
historic integrity.
As a new addition, the proposed design is inconsistent with Guidelines 10.3, 10.4, and
10.6. Attempting to reconstruct a non-extant historic rear addition by imitating the primary
building’s historic style blurs the line between old and new construction. It confuses “one’s ability
to interpret the historic character of the primary building” by making the new addition
indistinguishable from the historic building. The new addition is not designed “to be recognized as
product of its own time.” Neither its form, fenestration, or material give any indication that it is not
part of the historic resource. Consequently, the rear extent of the historic resource is ill-defined
and its historic integrity subject to doubt.
Historic Resource Windows:
Without additional documentation, particularly physical evidence of the historic window
openings, photographs of the existing windows, and details about the proposed new windows, it
is unknown whether the proposed replacement of all existing windows meets Guidelines 3.1 –
3.7. As interior deconstruction may provide access to necessary physical evidence, monitoring
committee review of additional documentation and approval of the proposed windows is 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 serves this eave (which will decrease
in size after the proposed porch is constructed).
New Building:
The project does not meet Guideline 1.1. The lack of porosity on the site does not “reinforce
the traditional patterns of the neighborhood” or “respect the historic development pattern or
context of the block, neighborhood or district .” In fact, the proposed footprint exceeds the
“setback-to-setback development” referred to as “typically uncharacteristic of the historic context”
by this guideline.
20
Page 5 of 7
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
The proposed project also fails to meet Guideline 11.3. Other than its frontmost, one-story
module, the proposed new building does not appear similar to the historic building in scale or
proportion. Its large mass does not “reflect the heights and proportions that characterize the
historic resource.” The new building’s 43-feet-6-inch width and 24-feet height is unlike the 25-feet-
4-inch-wide, 14-feet-9-inch-tall historic resource. The new building is somewhat subdivided into
smaller “modules” that help to break up and shift some the new mass away from the historic
resource. Beyond the frontmost module, however, there is no clear relationship with the historic
resource. The new building does not necessarily dominate the historic resource as much as
neglect the historic resource.
The new construction does not strongly relate to the form, materials, or fenestration of the
historic resource, and does not meet Guideline 11.6. The more complex, staggered, blocky, and
relatively vertical form of the proposed new building diverges from the simple horizontality of the
one-story, L-shaped form of the historic resource. It uses forms similar to the historic resource,
but only as part of a complex amalgam with contemporary elements. The result is a comparatively
complicated form that departs from the simple historic resource.
Similarly, the materials used on the new building do not relate the historic resource.
Although one of the new materials appears similar in scale and orientation to the painted
horizontal clapboards of the historic resource, it is paired with no fewer than three more divergent
materials. Even when excluding the proposed metal fascia, metal colonnade, and standing-seam
metal roofing, the new construction is an overly complex assemblage of material. It competes
with, rather compliments, the historic resource, distracting and detracting from its minimal
application of material.
The proposed fenestration is an unmistakable product of its time. Rather than “use
windows and doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource,” however,
the new building employs large, fixed, differently shaped, divergently oriented and
uncharacteristically clustered windows. A ribbon of fixed horizontal windows high on a wall, for
instance, is not reflective of the singular or paired, vertically oriented, hung, double-sash windows
on the historic resource. Disproportionately dimensioned common/shared features, such as a
front door, are also missed opportunities to better relate the new building to the historic.
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 nece ssary
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, orienta tion, and elevation of the historic resource are the
same, and most appropriate, conditions for the building.
21
Page 6 of 7
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
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.
Figure 6: Detail “F.I.S. National Ski Tournament,
Aspen, Colorado.” Lloyd Rule. C.1950
Figure 7: “East Elevation Proposed Historic.”
Richard A. Wax & Associates, LLC. 2024.
22
Page 7 of 7
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
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 revisions (Exhibits E).
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 – Grading Drainage and Utility Plan
23
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 p roject'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.
24
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
25
Page 3 of 11
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
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.
Met
26
Page 4 of 11
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying
material
Met
Chapter 3: Windows Finding
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.
Met
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.
Met
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 windo w from the
surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal.
TBD
Chapter 6: Architectural Details Finding
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.
Not Met
27
Page 5 of 11
6.5 Do does 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.
Not Met
Chapter 7: Roofs Finding
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
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 openin gs. 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
28
Page 6 of 11
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
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
29
Page 7 of 11
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
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.
Met
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
30
Page 8 of 11
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.
Not Met
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 of the site, this development is excessively dense.
The proposed walkway from the street to the new building satisf ies 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. To capture
the additional stormwater 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.
31
Page 9 of 11
Chapter 2: Building Materials
Photographic evidence suggests 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 contain s 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 (e.g., photographs of existing windows, and physical
evidence of historic window openings), as well as information about the proposed new windows,
it is unknown whether the proposed replacement of all existing windows meets Guidelines 3.1-
3.7. The revised 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.
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.
Chapter 6: Architectural Details
The proposed rear addition fails to meet Guideline 6.4. Despite having historic
photographs from which to base the replacement of the missing historic rear element, the
proposed shed-roofed rear addition veers from the apparent original design, creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage. In the historic photographs of the northeast and
southeast corners of the building, the width of the east façade of the shed -roofed rear portion of
the house appears to be more than half of the width of the gable-end wall it abuts. The proposed
rear addition, nevertheless, is 6-feet wide, less than half the 13-feet-5-inch width of the gable-end
wall. This minimization of the rear addition is further evidenced by how disproportionately large
the window appears in the proposed elevation drawings relative to its appearance in the historic
photographs. If appropriate to reconstruct the non-extant rear portion of the house, a more
accurate east façade of this rear addition would be roughly 1/3 times (3 feet) wider than that
proposed.
The south façade of the proposed rear addition is even more divergent from that depicted
in historic photographs. The proposed rear addition is not only overtly narrower than the historic
rear portion of the building, but also features fenestration that in no way relates to that evident in
photographs from the 1890s, 1900s, or 1950s. The proposed double -hung window is not based
on original designs, is not a simplified interpretation thereof, and does not meet Guideline 6.4.
32
Page 10 of 11
The proposed rear addition also fails to meet Guideline 6.5. This guideline calls adding
new detailing for which there is no documentation “conjectural” and “inappropriate.” Although it is
not a “guess at historic designs” as much as it is an overt rejection of the historic record, the
proposed rear addition is, nevertheless, inappropriate.
Chapter 7: Roofs
The proposed placement of three downspouts on or abutting the front porch of the historic
resource 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. Such evidence is not provided in the application, but may
reasonably be expected to be provided to th e monitoring committee during the deconstruction
process as a condition of approval.
The proposed rear addition does not meet Guideline 10.3, 10.4, or 10.6. By replicating the
historic resource’s siding, fenestration, and roofing material, t his design “imitates the primary
building’s historic style,” an approach disallowed by Guideline 10.3; “For example, a new faux
Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.” By blurring the line
between old and new construction, the historic resource will not “be distinguishable against the
addition ” as called for by Guideline 10.4. Its history will be muddled, and “one’s ability to interpret
the historic character” of the actual resource will be confused.
The proposed new addition is indistinguishable from the historic building. As such, it is not
“recognized as a product of its own time” as called for by Guideline 10.6. “To help define a change
from historic construction to new construction,” this guideline suggests “a change in setbacks of
the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a modern interpretation of a
historic style.” The proposed rear addition incorporates none of these techniques.
Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties:
The new building is oriented to the street and set back from the historic resource enough
to satisfy Guideline 11.1. Because the primary entrance of the new building is clearly defined by
a functional front porch that is “similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally,” the application
also meets Guideline 11.2. When considered alone, the one-story element at the front of the new
building also meets Guideline 11.4. Whether its gable-end wall constitutes the “the primary plane
of the front” elevation, however, is unclear.
The rest of the new building does not appear similar to the historic building in scale or
proportion. The large mass of the new building does not “reflect the heights and proportions that
characterize the historic resource.” Its 43-feet-6-inch width and 24-feet height is unlike the 25-
feet-4-inch-wide, 14-feet-9-inch-tall historic resource. The new building is somewhat subdivided
into smaller “modules,” but there is no clear relationship between these and the historic resource.
33
Page 11 of 11
Instead, the “modules” help to break up and shift some the mass of the new building away from
the historic resource. Effectively, the new construction neither connects/relates to, nor
overwhelms the historic resource. The two buildings merely cohabit the same parcel to the
dissatisfaction of Guideline 11.3.
Moreover, the project does not relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of
three given elements of design (form, materials, or fenestration) and does not meet Guideline
11.6.
The more complex, staggered, blocky, and relatively vertical form of the proposed new
building diverges from the simple horizontality of the one-story, L-shaped form of the historic
resource. Although forms similar to the historic resource are used, the new construction is a more
complex amalgam of traditional forms and contemporary elements. For example, a flat roof that
has no historic parallel on the site, connects two front gables that do, if only not as steeply sloped.
The result is a more complicated form, but a clear departure from the historic resource.
Similarly, the materials used on the new building do not relate to that of the historic
resource. Although one of the materials appears similar in scale and orientation to the painted
horizontal clapboards of the historic resource, its finish differs and it is pared with no fewer than
three more divergent other materials. Even without a metal fascia, a metal colonnade, and
standing-seam metal roofing material, the new construction is an overly complex assemblage of
material. They compete with, rather compliment, the historic resource, distracting and detracting
from a relatively minimal application of material.
The proposed fenestration is certainly a product of its time. Rather than “use windows and
doors that are similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource,” the new building employs
much larger, usually wider, and often divergently shaped windows. When dimensions are
somewhat reflective of those used historically, the new windows are otherwise clustered in
unprecedented ways. In other places the proportions are out of scale. Despite making the
frontmost façade of the new building somewhat related in size to its historic counterpart, the front
door therein accounts for over half its height and nearly a quarter of its width.
Staff Recommendation:
Continuation of the conceptual major development plan review such that a revised
application may better meet the heretofore unmet guidelines.
34
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.
35
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.
36
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.
37
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 proper ty or historic
district.
38
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
39
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).
40
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.
41
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.
42
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
43
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.
44
• 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
45
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.
46
• 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.
47
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
Stuart Hayden and Gillian White
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
September 11, 2024
Re: 325 West Hopkins – HP Conceptual Major Development
Application Revisions
Dear Stuart, Gillian, and HPC,
Please accept this revised 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. As
recommended in the Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines, all new construction is
completely detached from the historic landmark.
This revised application is submitted in response
to HPC’s feedback during a public hearing on
August 7, 2024. HPC conducted a site visit on the same day. HPC meeting minutes have not been
adopted yet – unofficial notes from the meeting are provided below for easy reference.
Landmark
• Overall HPC supports the site plan, temporary “relocation”, and variations for original location.
• Move downspouts.
Response: Downspouts are removed from the front porch and will be further studied and included
in the Final Design application.
• Match all roof material.
Response: All roof material on the landmark is the same – synthetic wood shingle. A material sample
and more information will be included in the Final Design application. (Sheet A1.07)
Figure 1: Existing condition at 325 W. Hopkins Avenue.
48
Page 2 of 3
• Indicate porch window is historic.
Response: Window by front porch is labelled as historic and to be preserved. (Sheet A2.01 and A2.02)
• Add half wall to existing porch drawings.
Response: The existing half wall is added to the existing porch drawings. (Sheet A2.01)
• Restored rear addition ok as drawn based on Sanborn maps.
Response: No change to the rear addition. As discussed during the August 27, 2024 hearing, historic
evidence discovered during demolition will be used to inform an accurate restoration of the rear
addition.
• Check fire assembly on west elevation re: window openings
Response: The design team is working on this and will include information in the Final Design
application.
New detached home
• Potentially shift building back and meet RDS requirement
Response: Per HPC’s recommendation the front façade of the one story element is increased to a
setback 6’ 9.75” from the front façade of the historic home, which is about 2’8” back from the front
setback. RDS requires new construction to be within 5’ of the front setback.
10’ front setback
Property line
HISTORIC HOME –
original location NEW HOME
Figure 2: Revised site plan.
5’10” front setback 12’ 8” front setback
6’ 9.75”
49
Page 3 of 4
• Height and mass of second level is out of proportion to the landmark.
o Maybe change gable pitch
o Look at using fenestration to reduce mass
o Reconsider the metal band
Response – The gable is reduced from 9:12 to 7:12 pitch. Second level floor-to-ceiling heights are
reduced to 8’4.75” (Building Section C on Sheet A3.01) to better relate to the proportions of the
landmark. Fenestration and materials are restudied to break down mass and height – these
elements will be further refined in the Final Design application.
Figure 4: Comparison of August section (left) and revised September section (right). The dotted line indicates the 25’ height limit.
Figure 3: North elevation comparison of August proposal (left) and revised September proposal (right).
50
Page 4 of 5
•Simplify roof forms
o Dormers are inappropriate -make smaller or totally remove
o Maybe extend the flat roof into the gable
o Drop height behind the one story element
Response – Overall height is reduced by more than 3 feet. The dormers are removed and the gable
roof pitch is reduced from 9:12 to 7:12. The flat roof is extended into the two gables to separate
the mass, and the mass behind the landmark is significantly smaller. The one story element is an L-
shaped footprint as compared to the rectangular footprint in the original proposal. The L-shaped
gable directly relates to the landmark footprint.
Figure 5: Comparison of August roof plan (left) and revised September roof plan (right)
51
Page 5 of 6
•Revise architectural details to be more modern.
o Change overhangs
Response – Architectural details, material application, and windows are all revised to be more
modern. Overhangs are reduced on the new construction, and the one story entry element is
redesigned to be a product of its own time and relate to the adjacent landmark.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are addressed in Exhibit A. Overall height is reduced over
3 feet; the front setback for new construction is increased; floor area is reduced (and is under the
maximum allowable) and overall footprint is reduced. This project proposes complete restoration
of a heavily altered landmark using historic photographs, maps, and physical evidence. The floor
area bonus is not requested and development benefits created to incentivize restoration are not
requested. The only requested variations legalize the landmark in its original location.
Figure 6: Renderings of revised proposal showing simplified roof forms, less mass, reduced height, and modern architectural details.
52
Page 6 of 7
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 7: 1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Subject property is outlined in orange.
Figure 8: History Colorado, William Henry Jackson collection. Photograph is pre-1890 as the Baptist church is not shown on the corner. Blue arrow indicates 325.
53
Page 7 of 8
Figure 9: 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 10: 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).
54
Page 8 of 9
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.
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.
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.
Figure 11: 1970s Aspen aerial view showing rear addition. Figure 12: 2004 Aspen aerial view showing current footprint with east addition.
55
Page 9 of 9
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 [light blue indicates exhibit previously provided in original application]
A Review Criteria
A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines revised 9.11.2024
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 revised 9.11.2024
L.1 Neighborhood context
L.2 Existing and proposed drawings revised 9.11.2024
56
Exhibit A.1
HP Review
Revised 9.11.2024
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.
57
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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.
58
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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.
59
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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.
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.
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.
60
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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
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.
61
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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.
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.
62
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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.
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.
63
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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
remodels described in the cover letter. Any original material discovered during demolition will be reviewed
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.
64
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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.
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 may be one historic windows in the landmark (located on the front porch). 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.
65
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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.
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.
Figure 2: Comparison of proposed east elevation and historic aerial photograph of east elevation.
66
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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.
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.
Figure 3: Existing non-historic front door at 325 W. Hopkins.
67
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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.
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.
Figure 4: Example of east elevation of landmark with no historic
details.
68
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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.
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.
69
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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 – Class A synthetic wood shingle roof is proposed for the rear “addition” to the landmark and
the front porch to match the rest of the landmark. The historic photograph below shows a precedent for
metal roofs on the back of simple miner’s cabins (white arrow); however, HPC recommended all roof
material match. 325 has wood shingle on the rear addition (blue arrow). Gutter locations will be finalized
at Final HP review.
Figure 5:
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).
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.
70
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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.
• 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 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.
71
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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 – Lightwells are setback from the new building facade and curbs are minimized. There are no
lightwells proposed adjacent to the landmark – crawl space access is proposed at the rear of the
landmark.
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.
Figure 6: Existing foundation detail.
72
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
New Buildings on Landmark Properties
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 new addition is proposed to the
landmark.
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 oriented to Hopkins Avenue and setback 12’8” from the property line (10’
is required setback). The landmark is in its original location which extends into the front setback about 4
Figure 7: Non-historic addition proposed to be removed.
73
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
feet. This historic condition is preserved; and allows the new structure to be setback from the landmark
by 6’9.75”.
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 functional front porch that is recessed similar to traditional 19th century
porches. The front porch meets RDS requirements as described in Exhibit A.6.
Figure 8: Site plan showing restored historic front porch (left) and proposed new front porch (right).
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 L-shaped cross gable 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. The floor to ceiling heights on the second level are reduced to 8’ 4”
74
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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.
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 under the allowable floor area – 3,239 sf is proposed which is the
allowable floor area for a single family home on a 6,000sf lot.
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.
Figure 9: Comparison of front elevations – August proposal.
Figure 10: Comparison of front elevations revised Sept. proposal.
75
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
• 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 cross gable, similar to the landmark; however
the details and pitch of the gable is modern.
Materials: Vertical 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 11: East elevation of the new home.
76
Exhibit A
Review Criteria – 9.11.2024
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 compliant transformer
is shown on the site plan along the alley.
Lighting and Mechanical
77
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W
.
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
O
f
f
i
c
e
D
o
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
3
2
5
W
.
H
o
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W
.
H
o
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
R
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
2
4
3:
1
9
P
M
All 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
9/10/2024
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.
HP
C
S
U
B
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
-
U
P
D
A
T
E
S
VICINITY MAP
Exhibit L.2 9.11.2024 revision
78
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
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
85 sq ft
41 sq ft
96 sq ft
162 sq ft
358 sq ft
77 sq ft
77 sq ft
21 sq ft
545 sq ft
21 sq ft9 sq ft
9 sq ft
25 sq ft
169 sq ft
215 sq ft80 sq ft 97 sq ft
21 sq ft
9 sq ft
40 sq ft
17 sq ft
317 sq ft
2,281 sq ft
<5'-6" EXISTING CRAWL SPACE, VIF
BASEMENT WALL AREA CALCS
TOTAL WALL AREA= 2,327 SF
EXPOSED WALL AREA= 164SF
164/2,327 *100= 6% COUNTS TOWARDS FAR
2,281*.06= 136 SF COUNTS TOWARDS FAR
WALL LEGEND
-BURIED WALL AREA
-EXPOSED WALL AREA
1,502 sq ft
109 sq ft
560 sq ft
557 sq ft
57 sq ft
4'
-
7
1/
4
"
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= 136 SF
MAIN= 1,502 SF
HISTORIC= 559 SF
GARAGE= 30 SF*
UPPER= 1,014 SF
PROPOSED= 3,239 SF
ALLOWED= 3,600 SF
DECKS
FRONT PORCH= 57 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
HIST. FRONT PORCH= 109 SF (EXEMPT PER 26.575.020.D.5)
UPPER PROPOSED= 463 SF
TOTAL= 463 SF
ALLOWED= 540 SF (3,600 SF * .15)
DECKS/PORCH COUNTABLE TOWARD FAR= 0 SF
*GARAGE ALLOWED 500 SF EXEMPT, THEN 50% COUNTS UP TO 1,000 SF
10.4 HISTORIC RESOURCE FLOOR AREA RATIO
NON HISTORIC PROPOSED FLOOR AREA
MAIN= 557 SF
PROPOSED= 557 SF HISTORIC
EXISTING= 425 SF HISTORIC
1,014 sq ft
463 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
77
9 21
545
9 21
77
215
97
21 9
80
40 17
25
85
41 96
162
358
Total Wall Area:2327
Exposed Wall Area:164
% of Exposed Wall:6%
Subgrade Floor Area Calculations
Subgrade Gross Floor Area 2281
Subgrade Countable Floor Area 136 (2281 x 6%)
Proposed Floor Area Calculations
Basement 136
Main 1502
Garage 30
Upper 1014
Historic Resource 557
Total Existing FAR:3239 Allowed:3600
Remaining:361
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
79
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
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
D
DW
W
F
4 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
80
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
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 2627 2,070+557
Pre-project Lot Coverage 44%
2,070 sq ft
557 sq ft
3'-0"
10'-41/2"
10'-11/4"
11
'
-
0
1/
2
"
113/4"
5'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
6'
-
9
3/
4
"
2'
-
8
"
CONC SIDEWALK
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
ALLEY ALLEY
7'
-
1
3/
4
"
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
1,715 sq ft
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
5'-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME
ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W.
WALL
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
BRICK PARKING
WA
L
K
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'
81
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
101'-95/8"=7909'-35/8"
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
5'-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
EXISTING 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
CURB
WALL
S
S
S S S
E E
E
E
EE
E
E
G
G
G G G
C
C
C C
C
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
W
W
W W W
PAN
G
79
0
3
79
0
4
79
0
5
79
0
6
79
0
7
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
7
9
0
6
79
0
7
7908
79
0
9
79
1
0
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
EXISTING PLAN
BRICK PARKING
WA
L
K
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
NEW HOME SETBACK FROM
HISTORIC FRONT FACADE DIMENSION101'-95/8"=7909'-35/8"
EXISTING DECK
EXISTING SPA
EXISTING
COVERED
ENTRY
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
N 75°09'11" W 60.00'(R)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK
5'-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
5'-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
EXISTING 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
S
S
E
E
G
G
C
C
P
P
W
G
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
7
9
0
6
79
0
7
7908
79
0
9
79
1
0
EXISTING 6,000SF LOT
BRICK PARKING
WA
L
K
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
NEW HOME SETBACK FROM
HISTORIC FRONT FACADE DIMENSION
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'
82
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
5'-0"
11'-0"
3'
-
0
"
3'-0"
10'-41/2"
10'-0"
11
'
-
0
1/
2
"
113/4"
5'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
100'-0"=7907'-6"
101'-93/4"=7909'-31/2"
6'
-
9
3/
4
"
2'
-
8
"
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
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
PERVIOUS 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
"
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
NO
N
-
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
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
CURB
PAN
79
0
3
79
0
4
79
0
5
79
0
6
79
0
7
7908 79
0
7
790479
0
5
7
9
0
6
7
9
0
6
79
0
7
7908
79
0
9
79
1
0
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
NO
N
-
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
PERVIOUS NON-
PERVIOUSPERVIOUS PAVER
PATIO
T.O. PLY=SITE
T.O. EXISTING PLY=SITE
79
0
9
79
0
8
7
9
0
8
7907
79
0
8
TRASH
STORAGE
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
NEW HOME SETBACK FROM
HISTORIC FRONT FACADE DIMENSION
7'
-
1
3/
4
"
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
+6'-3"
+6
'
-
3
"
+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'-0"
11
'
-
0
1/
2
"
113/4"
5'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
100'-0"=7907'-6"
101'-93/4"=7909'-31/2"
6'
-
9
3/
4
"
2'
-
8
"
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
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
PERVIOUS 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
"
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
NO
N
-
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
PERVIOUS
PAVER
WALK
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
S 75°09'11" E 60.00'(R)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
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
7
9
0
6
79
0
7
7908
79
0
9
79
1
0
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
NO
N
-
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
PERVIOUS NON-
PERVIOUSPERVIOUS PAVER
PATIO
T.O. PLY=SITE
T.O. EXISTING PLY=SITE
79
0
9
79
0
8
7
9
0
8
7907
79
0
8
TRASH
STORAGE
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DRYWELL ACCESS BELOW, CLEANING
ABILITY TO BE MAINTAINED
NEW HOME SETBACK FROM
HISTORIC FRONT FACADE DIMENSION
7'
-
1
3/
4
"
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
+6'-3"
+6
'
-
3
"
+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
1"
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
83
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
D
DW
W
F
6'
-
0
"
2'
-
6
1/
4
"
12'-01/4"43/4"15'-43/4"43/4"
11'-9"43/4"8'-8"
6'
-
9
3/
4
"
10
'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
43/
4
"
43/4"9'-2"
7'-0"
1'
-
0
"
6'
-
0
"
4'
-
1
0
"
5'
-
1
1/
4
"
5'
-
4
1/
2
"
8'
-
0
"
2'
-
6
"
5'
-
1
1/
4
"
2'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
1'
-
9
3/
4
"
2'
-
7
"
4'
-
1
1
1/
4
"
3'-0"
4'
-
0
"
2'-0"
11
'
-
3
1/
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
SH
E
L
V
E
S
KITCHEN
LIVING
MSTR BEDROOM
BATH
ENTRY
GUEST BEDROOM 1
DINING
GUEST BEDROOM 2
DEN
LAUNDRY
MSTR BATH
HI
S
T
O
R
I
C
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
PR
E
V
I
O
U
S
AD
D
I
T
I
O
N
TO
BE
DE
M
O
L
I
S
H
E
D
104
102
110
106
101
105
103
107
108
109
111
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
1
A2.01
3
A2.01
2
A2.01
4
A2.01
5
A2.01
6
A2.01
9'
-
4
"
SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING
84
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
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
9:1
2
9:1
2
9:1
2
9:1
2
7:1
2
7:1
2
7:1
2
7:1
2
2:1
2
2:12
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
85
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
96 sq ft
468 sq ft
1,247 sq ft
D
DW
W
F
4 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
86
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
13'-03/4"63/4"12'-11"4'-63/4"63/4"16'-23/4"
15
'
-
1
0
3/
4
"
63/
4
"
12
'
-
5
1/
4
"
63/
4
"
7'
-
8
1/
2
"
11'-91/4"63/4"13'-41/4"63/4"15'-23/4"
12
'
-
2
1/
2
"
14
'
-
5
1/
4
"
63/
4
"
13
'
-
1
3/
4
"
63/
4
"
12
'
-
5
1/
2
"
63/
4
"
10
'
-
1
1/
4
"
63/
4
"
4'
-
5
"
63/
4
"
5'
-
5
"
61/
2
"
16'-23/4"
5'-01/2"
43/4"
10'-101/4"
12'-61/2"22'-113/4"63/4"5'-103/4"
5'
-
8
1/
4
"
63/
4
"
5'
-
8
3/
4
"
63/
4
"
24
'
-
8
"
63/4"5'-101/4"63/4"6'-111/4"63/4"
11
'
-
1
"
10'-11/4"
89'-4"
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 WELL
LI
G
H
T
WE
L
L
LIGHT WELL
SLAB ON GRADE ABOVE
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
RI
S
E
R
S
@
71/8"
W/
D
W/
D
5'-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
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
DW
F
W/D
17'-31/4"43/4"2'-71/4"43/4"21'-93/4"
8'
-
3
3/
4
"
63/
4
"
12
'
-
9
3/
4
"
12'-93/4"63/4"6'-83/4"
10
'
-
0
"
4'-51/4"63/4"
12'-23/4"7'
-
6
3/
4
"
63/
4
"
15
'
-
3
1/
2
"
22
'
-
2
"
14'-23/4"
21
'
-
9
1/
4
"
8'-6"
18
'
-
0
"
12
'
-
0
"
63/
4
"
6'
-
8
1/
2
"
2'-0"12'-101/4"
3'
-
9
"
13'-91/2"
13
'
-
0
3/
4
"
12
'
-
3
1/
2
"
6'
-
0
1/
2
"
6'
-
0
1/
2
"
13
'
-
0
3/
4
"
12'-2"12'-13/4"
18'-3"
80
'
-
2
"
44
'
-
6
1/
4
"
11
'
-
2
1/
2
"
19
'
-
1
1
1/
4
"
4'
-
6
"
49'-11"
6'-5"20'-8"22'-10"
100'-0"
101'-93/4"
10'-0"
11
'
-
0
1/
2
"
113/4"
5'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
12'-0"6'-3"
11'-2"1/2"6'-01/2"
6'
-
9
3/
4
"
2'
-
8
"
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 WELL
LI
G
H
T
WE
L
L
LIGHT 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
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
NO
N
-
PE
R
V
I
O
U
S
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
W
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
N
14
°
5
0
'
4
9
"
E
10
0
.
0
0
'
(
R
)
10'-0" FRONT YARD SETBACK
OU
T
D
O
O
R
FI
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
HIS 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"6'-0"
3/4"3'-113/4"63/4"6'-5"5'-103/4"
102
108 109
105
107
101
104
GH1
GH2
GH3
GH4
110
108 109
108
5'-0"71/2"71/2"6'-6"5'-83/4"
14
'
-
5
"
9'
-
0
"
8'
-
3
1/
4
"
4'
-
5
1/
2
"
2'
-
3
"
7'
-
1
3/
4
"
5'
-
0
"
SI
D
E
YA
R
D
SE
T
B
A
C
K
WOOD
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
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
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
87
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
DW
TR
DW
1'-101/4"
29'-73/4"
23
'
-
8
"
71/
2
"
22'-81/2"20'-11/4"71/2"
21
'
-
8
1/
4
"
3'
-
6
"
10
'
-
2
"
111'-0"
LIVING
36" FRIDGE WINE36" FREEZER
BAR
OUTDOOR FP
KITCHEN DINING
DN
PANTRY
DESK
OU
T
D
O
O
R
BB
Q
OUTDOOR PATIO
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
204
WOOD
WOOD WOOD
T.O. PLY
TILE
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
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
49'-11"
6'-5"11'-61/2"1'-31/2"3'-0"4'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"1'-23/4"5'-31/4"
1/8"/12"2:1
2
3:1
2
2:12
1/8"/12"
1/8"/12"
1/8"/
12
"
1/8"/12"
9:129:12
9:
1
2
9:
1
2
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
7:127:12
7:1
2
7:1
2
7:127:12
7:127:12
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
1
A2.03
2
A2.04
2
A2.02
1
A2.04
C
A3.01
C
A3.01
D
A3.03
D
A3.03
E
A3.04
E
A3.04
1
A2.02
2
A2.02
3
A2.02
4
A2.02
DOWNSPOUT
LOWER ROOF
LOWER FLAT ROOF
ROOF DECK BELOW
HIGH FLAT ROOF
DOWNSPOUTDOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
NEW SHED ROOF IN LINE W/
ORIGINAL HOME DESIGN
SYNTHETIC WOOD SHINGLE,
TYP.
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
SYNTHETIC WOOD
SHINGLE, TYP.
SYNTHETIC WOOD
SHINGLE, TYP.
DOWNSPOUT
DOWNSPOUT
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL - PROPOSED
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ROOF PLAN
88
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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.
9/10/2024
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'
-
1
0
1/
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 APPEARS TO BE
HISTORIC. RESTORE IF SO. EVALUATE
DURING CONST.
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
89
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
16
,
20
2
4
12
:
2
1
PM
All 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
9/16/2024
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 CLASS A
SYNTHETIC WOOD
SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW COLUMN DETAILING IN
LINE W/ HISTORIC EXAMPLES
NEW BASE FLASHING
TO PROTECT RESOURCE
EXISTING WINDOW APPEARS TO BE
HISTORIC. RESTORE IF SO. EVALUATE
DURING CONST.
HISTORIC RESTORATION HISTORIC PRESERVATION
g1 g2 g3 g4 g5
NEW WOOD SIDING TO MATCH
EXISTING SHIP LAP SIDING
NEW CLASS A
SYNTHETIC WOOD
SHINGLES, TYP.
NEW WINDOW W/
HISTORIC PROPORTIONS
EXISTING GRADE
gB gC gD
A B C D E F G H J K
NEW CLASS A SYNTHETIC
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
114'-63/4"
125'-93/4"
116'-63/4" VIF
6'
-
0
"
2'
-
0
"
3'-0"
4'-0"
9'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
61/
2
"
101'-93/4"
11
'
-
2
3/
4
"
14
'
-
6
3/
4
"
8'
-
3
"
14
'
-
9
"
113'-63/4"
13
'
-
6
3/
4
"
122'-113/4"123'-11/2"123'-13/4"
124'-93/4"
115'-41/4" VIF
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 CLASS A
SYNTHETIC 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 9'-0"
CEILING HEIGHT
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING & PROPOSED GRADE
PROJECTED VERTICALLY 25'-0"
EXISTING GRADE TO BE PRESERVED
@ RESOURCE
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
PORCH ROOF REBUILT TO
EMULATE ORIGINAL HOME
OUTLINE
EXISTING TREES
OUTLINE
EXISTING TREES
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. FLOOR @ RESOURCE
T.O. RIDGE
MID POINT MID POINT
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
MID POINT
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 & NEW DETACHED HOME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED HISTORIC & NEW DETACHED HOME
90
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Mo
n
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
16
,
20
2
4
12
:
2
1
PM
All 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
9/16/2024
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"
6'-5"11'-61/2"1'-31/2"3'-0"4'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3"
122'-113/4"123'-13/4"
125'-93/4"
123'-43/4"
124'-93/4"
122'-0"
123'-101/2"
METAL FASCIA
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
METAL & FROSTED GLASS PANEL
GARAGE DOOR
GLASS RAILING, TYP.
STONE SLAB WRAPPED
OUTDOOR FIREPLACE
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
VERTICAL
CEDAR SIDING
MID POINTMID POINT
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
MID POINT
T.O. ROOF
MID 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"
114'-63/4"
125'-93/4"
123'-13/4"
9'
-
0
"
9'
-
0
"
8'
-
0
"
123'-11/2"122'-113/4"
124'-93/4"
120'-6"
123'-13/4"
VERTICAL METAL COLONNADE
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
METAL BASE FLASHING
ENTRY LOGIA 8'-0"
PLATE HEIGHT
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
EXISTING GRADE
PROPOSED GRADE
2'x4' METAL PANEL SIDING
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
MID POINT MID POINTMID POINT
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. ROOF
MID 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)
91
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
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
'
-
0
3/
4
"
122'-0"
124'-93/4"
125'-93/4"
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
GLASS RAILING CONNECTION ELEMENT
W/ FLAT ROOF
METAL BASE FLASHING, TYP.
EXISTING GRADE
VERTICAL METAL COLONNADE
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
A B C D E F G H J
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
MAIN LEVEL
100'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
SECOND LEVEL
111'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
ROOF
120'-0"
124'-93/4"
125'-93/4"
11
'
-
0
3/
4
"
122'-0"
120'-6"
125'-93/4"
114'-63/4"
113'-63/4"
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
VERTICAL
CEDAR SIDING METAL BASE FLASHING
EXISTING GRADE
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED
VERTICALLY 25'-0"
VERTICAL CEDAR SIDING
HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. RIDGE
T.O. ROOF
T.O. ROOF
T.O. RIDGET.O. RIDGE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME
92
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1:0.831SIDE PERSPECTIVE
93
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
SCALE: 1:1.674FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.673FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.251FRONT PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.252FRONT PERSPECTIVE
94
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.SCALE: 1:1.542REAR PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.543REAR PERSPECTIVE
SCALE: 1:1.431COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE
95
DRAWING ISSUE
32
5
W.
HO
P
K
I
N
S
AS
P
E
N
,
CO
SHEET 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:
\
U
s
e
r
s
\
W
h
e
e
l
\
O
n
e
D
r
i
v
e
\
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
\
W
a
x
Of
f
i
c
e
Do
c
s
\
2
3
0
2
-
32
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
\
D
W
G
\
3
2
5
W.
Ho
p
k
i
n
s
_
H
P
C
Re
d
e
s
i
g
n
_
2
0
2
4
-
0
8
-
2
0
.
p
l
n
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
10
,
20
2
4
3:
1
9
PM
All 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
9/10/2024
Sheet No.
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"
43'-6"
9'
-
4
3/
4
"
125'-93/4"
11'-61/2"1'-31/2"3'-0"4'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3"
122'-113/4"
8'
-
2
"
PL
A
T
E
HE
I
G
H
T
8'
-
4
3/
4
"
PL
A
T
E
HE
I
G
H
T
8'
-
1
0
1/
4
"
13
'
-
5
3/
4
"
22
'
-
9
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
GR
A
D
E
TO
MI
D
PO
I
N
T
EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED UP 25'
EXISTING GRADE
MUD ROOMOUTDOR PATIO HIS BATH HIS CLOSET
MECH.BILLIARDPWDR
KITCHEN DINING
MID POINT
T.O. RIDGE
105110108109
116 101115
201 202
SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"1 BUILDING SECTION C
96
<
<
WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS WS
UE
U
E
U
E
U
E
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
UE
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C C C C C
UE UE
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XS
S
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XSS
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
X
U
E
XU
E
X
U
E
XU
E
XU
E
X
U
E
XU
E
XUE
XUE
XUE
X
U
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
X
U
E
XU
E
XU
E
XUE
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XUE
XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE XUE
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XU
E
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC
XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC XC
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
X
T
XC
XC
XC
XC
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
X
C
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XTXT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XT
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG XG XG XG XG
XG XG XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG XG XG XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
XG
7.50
7.50
7.50
7.23
7.40
7.507.50
7.15
Property Line
West Hopkins Avenue
Proposed Residence
F.F.E. - 7907.50
2.
0
%
2.1%
F.F.E. - 7.50
F.F.E. - 7.50
7.32
7.32
7.327.50
7.50
8.50
EX: 08.33
Proposed Fire Feature
7.507.50
7.00 7.00
Repair And/Or Replace
Existing Retaining Walls
Proposed Pervious Paver
Walkways. Install At Existing Grade
To Minimize Disturbance Around Trees
Existing Alley
EX:9.72
EX:9.97
EX:8.75
EX:7.07
7906
7907
7908
7909
7910
7909
7
9
0
9
7
9
0
9
790
7
790
6
79
0
5
790
4
790
3
7903
7904
7905
7906
Existing Historic Residence
F.F.E. - 7909.30
7.40
6.96
6.967.15
8.89
8.93
79
0
9
79
0
9
790
8
7908
F.F.E. - 7.50
Grouted Paver Patio
Over Structure
Pervious
Paver Patio
Grouted Paver Patio
Over Structure
Grouted Paver Patio
Over Structure
Grouted Paver Patio
Over Structure
Pervious Paver
Parking Area
5.6%
4.9%
Pervious Paver
Garage Access
7.50
7.50
7.447.34
7.50
7.50
8.13
8.14
8.41
8.87
9.00
9.00
8.79
Sandset Stepping Stone Walkway
18" Corten Wall
BOW:7.50 BOW:7.50
TOW:8.93TOW:8.71
79
0
7
7908
7.50 8.50
Sandset Stepping Stone Walkway
With Perforated Pipe Underdrain
F.F.E. - 7.50
7.377.37
4.5" Step Off Patio
7907 7906
7907
Lightwell
Lightwell
7.50 7.00
7.00 7.00
Existing Concrete Sidewalk And Curb
And Gutter To Remain
EX: 08.40
EX: 08.40
8.50
7.50
7910
8.50
8.50
6.95
EX: 08.33EX: 08.33
EX: 08.33
7.15
TOS: 6.25 BOS: 4.75
TOS:7.58 BOS:6.18
Lightwell
F.F.E. - 7.50
F.F.E. - 7.50
Inlet: 06.75
Inlet: 07.25
Proposed 5'x5' Transformer
Transformer Setbacks
And Proposed Easement
Lightwell
Downspout
Downspout
Downspout Tie In For Flat Roof
DownspoutDownspout
Downspout
Downspout
Downspout
Downspout
Downspout
Downspout
Downspout
Existing Deck
Proposed Stormwater Drywell
Min. 6' Diameter 10' Deep Within Footprint Of Basement.
375 Cubic Feet Of Detention Sized For Full Detention
Of A 100-Year 1-Hour Storm Event. Manhole Lid
To Be Located Within Utility Room In Basement.
Emergency Pump With Float System To Be
Installed In Case Of Storm Larger Than A
100-Year 1-Hour Event Or Drywell Failure
Abandon Existing Water Service
As Per City Of Aspen Water
Department Standards
Tee In New Water Service
As Per COA Water Department
Standards
Proposed New
Water Service
Install Curbstop At
Property Line
Inspect and Verify Depth and Condition
Of Existing Sewer Service. Cut Sewer Service
And Tie Into Proposed Foundation As Per ACSD Standards
Inspect and Verify Depth, Size and Condition
Of Existing Gas Service. Cut Service
And Tie Into Proposed Building
Extend Primary Line Off Existing Transformer
Utilize Existing Communications
Pedestal For Service
Install Electric Shutoff
And Panels On Proposed Building.
Install Communications Box
On Proposed Building.
Electric Service
11 Linear Feet
Primary Electric Line
56 Linear Feet
Proposed Communications Service
62 Linear Feet
Existing Sewer Service And Wye To Be Maintained
Existing Gas Service
To Be Maintained
Existing Shallow Utilities To Be Abandoned
And/Or Removed As Necessary
3 - 6" Risers
3 - 6" Risers
7.32
7.11
Daylight Emergency Drywell Pump Overflow
Emergency Drywell Pump Overflow Pipe
7.40 EX:6.71EX:6.72 7.40
Trash Storage
Drawing Scale
Units (Feet) 1" = 10'
0 10 20
N
S
W
E
C.01
Grading, Drainage, and
Utilities
Of 1 Page
01
HP
C
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
07
.
2
5
.
2
0
2
4
JK
E
#
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Dr
a
w
n
B
y
32
5
W
e
s
t
H
o
p
k
i
n
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
8
1
6
1
1
1101 Village Road, Unit UL-3C
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 510 - 5312
JK
E
Re
v
i
e
w
e
d
B
y
Not For Construction
Job #: 23.56
97
Project Monitoring Reports
Historic Preservation Commission September 25, 2024
•135 E. Cooper Ave.
•110 W. Main St.
•343 E. Cooper Ave.
•312 W. Hopkins Ave.
Insubstantial Amendments
•720 E. Hyman Ave.
•420 W. Francis St.
•510 E. Durant Ave.
135 E. Cooper Ave.
Request:
•Remove non-historic skylight from historic resource.
Approved
110 W. Main St.
Request: Substitute a slightly larger brick with more integral color for approved brick.
New: Arriscraft
Linear Series Midnight Grey
2-1/4” x up to 23-5/8” x 3-3/4” Approved
Old: Glen Gery
Flint Hills Roman Maximus
1-5/8” x up to 20” x 3-5/8”
434
E
.
C
o
o
p
e
r
A
v
e
.
Requests: Reduce the size and number of skylights. Approved
Pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
Ne
w
Request:
•Lowering grade 6” on north end of building.
•Lowering sills of non-historic doors on north
façade and historic door on west façade by 6”
312 W. Hopkins Ave.
Previous New
Approved with Condition: No change
to fenestration on the south facade
312 W. Hopkins Ave.
Requests:
- Install a new electrical
pedestal/vault
- Alter the design and location
of the previously approved
trash enclosure
- Install a utility meter on the
north side of the new garage,
and various utility panels on east
side of the new garage and
south side of the trash enclosure.Approved
Request:
•Remove historic roof sheathing
•Re-framing the door opening on the north façade
of the second story to accommodate the new floor
elevation.
Approved
420 W. Francis St.
Request:
420 W. Francis St.
DeniedReplace the 19 ¾” x 32 ¾” foyer window with a 26” x 68” window.
42
0
W
.
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
S
t
.
Previous
New
Request:
- Install a single, 28-inch-wide
sidelight next to the rear door
instead of the two 14-inch-
wide sidelights previously
approved.
Approved
Approved with Condition:
•Staff must find the
proposed brick to be
similar to the existing
chimney brick.
- Use new brick stock to
reconstruct the historic
chimney.
420 W. Francis St.
Request:
- Replacing the existing 19 ¾” x 32 ¾”
foyer window with a 22” wide x 59” tall
double hung window within existing
header and aligning the sill with the
adjacent window.
- Install an adhered
membrane with applied
ribs instead of standing
seam metal roofing.
Denied
Approved with Conditions:
•No historic material be altered or removed.
•Width of new window be no more than 21-
1/2 inches.
720 E. Hyman Ave.
Requests:
Approved with Conditions:
- Height and width of proposed frameless
IGUs must match those of the current
frameless windows as closely as possible.
- The frameless IGUs will have no
aluminum caps (as per Detail B).
Replace awning and frameless windows at main and second levels.
Existing
Proposed
720 E. Hyman Ave.
Requests:
Approved with Conditions:
- The height and width
of the lobby glass units
must match those of the
current lobby glass as
closely as possible.
- The height and width
of the rails and stiles of
the exterior and entry
doors shall match those
of the existing doors as
closely as possible.
- Replace atrium finwall
windows and doors
Request:
•Apply Meoded Lime Wash slaked
limestone mineral paint creating a
blackend, matte, mottled finish
with natural color variations and
slight streaking. Approved
51
0
E
.
D
u
r
a
n
t
A
v
e
.
Certificates of No Negative Effect
Historic Preservation Commission September 25, 2024
•435 W Main St.
•216 W. Hyman Ave.
•635 W. Bleeker St.
Certificates of No Negative Effect
•332 W. Main St.
•211 W. Hopkins Ave.
435 W Main St.
Request: Installation of tinted and untinted shatter/breakage resistant window film on
windows of non-historic building Approved
21
6
W
.
H
y
m
a
n
A
v
e
.
Request:
•Installation of a six-feet tall, vertical wood
picket fence along roughly 36 feet of the north
end of the west property line.
Approved
63
5
W
.
B
l
e
e
k
e
r
S
t
.
Request:
•Replace westside non-historic overhead garage door with out-swinging doors.
•Replace six-panel door on the east side of garage with a quarter-lite door.
•Install a fully shaded conical wall light adjacent to each of the two doors.
Approved
332 W. Main St.
Request:
Repair siding on the historic structure, & replace select
irreparable siding and trim in-kind Approved
211 W. Hopkins Ave.
Requests:
•Install a roof gutter and downspout on the rear of
the original pan abode cabin. Approved