The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.hpc.20241113AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION November 13, 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 - 9/25/24 & 10/2/24 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.A325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations Review - Public Hearing minutes.hpc.20240925_DRAFT.docx minutes.hpc.20241002_DRAFT.docx Staff Memo.325 W Hopkins Ave.20241107.pdf Draft Resolution #__, Series 2024.pdf Exhibit A - HP Design Guidelines Analysis.325 W Hopkins Ave.20241113.pdf Exhibit B - Relocation Criteria.325 W Hopkins Ave.20241113.pdf Exhibit C - Variation Criteria.325 W Hopkins Ave.20241113.pdf 1 1 XII.B Discussion concerning rescission of Historical Preservation Commission Resolution #9, Series of 2023, Granting Minor Development and Relocation Approval for Property Located at 205 W. Main Street. XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER Exhibit D - Combined Referral Comments.pdf Exhibit E - Application.325 W Hopkins.20241113.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 SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Absent was Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond and Riley Warwick. Staff present: Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney Luisa Berne, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes of 8/7/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 3-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Thompson moved to approve the draft minutes from 9/11/24. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. David Scruggs distributed a handout outlining his comments (included in the record). He then went over his concerns about the 205 West Main St. project. He was concerned about what could be the historic west addition and in his mind the misrepresentation of facts by the applicant that the west addition was not historic. He continued by going over his various comments as listed on his handout, included his belief that the HPC does have the right to revoke their approval of the demolition of the west addition. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Mr. Moyer thanked staff for providing him with the audio and minutes from the 8/7/24 meeting. He said it was very helpful. He then commented that over his many years on the HPC, he has felt that from time to time it is ok for the board to say “no” to an applicant. He thought that it could produce a better project. He thought it was beneficial to self-analyze their past decisions to see where they were right or wrong. He also mentioned that while HPC cannot dictate colors of projects, he wondered if they could encourage material differences to better differentiate between historic resources and new construction. Ms. Pitchford commented about her strong feelings about situations where historic resources are sacrificed for employee housing. She also commented about additions to historic resources and the amount of square footage that is allowed by the Land Use Code. She realized that they did not have any control over the square footage, but felt it was a line that could be crossed through process. She also commented on the Pan Abode on Main St. that the City owns. She noted while HPC did not have a say over the color, they did have a say in the materials. There was some discussion between the members and staff about HPC’s purview over materials and finishes. Mr. Moyer then commented about the Special meeting set for October 2nd and that it ignored a religious holiday that affected one of their members. He was disturbed by it and thought the meeting date should have been changed. He felt that HPC should not have to make special considerations for an applicant and that the applicant should have to make special considerations for HPC. 3 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Ms. Thompson noted that she had discussed this with Ms. Johnson and that going forward more holidays would be taken into consideration when scheduling meetings. Mr. Anderson noted that it was a deliberate choice by him to request the special meeting. He said that due to the special nature of and community interest in the property they are dealing with and additional issues with quorum and schedules of the Clerk’s office staff, October 2nd was the selected date for the meeting. Ms. Johnson noted that once the date for the meeting was decided and at least four members confirmed they could attend, the applicant was given instructions to notice for that date and did so. She reiterated that there will be a concerted effort by staff not to schedule meetings around holidays. STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Johnson addressed the members and acknowledged Mr. Scruggs’ public comments and various questions from board members regarding the 205 W Main St. project. She said that the questions that have come up require a legal analysis and opinion and the Attorney’s office would like to give the board a legal opinion on these issues. She proposed that an executive session be scheduled to facilitate a private discussion between the board members and the attorney’s office who represent HPC. She explained the reasoning for not discussing legal opinions in public, as they would be discussing issues that may be relevant to litigation in the future. She suggested October 9th for the executive session. She noted that any action the board would like to take as a result would have to be done at a public meeting. Mr. Hayden expressed his appreciation for the public comment process. He also noted that he had several project monitoring reports and suggested they move those to the end of the meeting. Ms. Thompson amended the agenda to move those to the end of the meeting. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: 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 as it was previously noticed and continued. Ms. Johnson also noted that Mr. Moyer was not present at the first hearing on this property, but that she had provided him with a copy of the audio recording of that meeting as well as the presentation slides from both the applicant and staff and the packet materials from the meeting. Mr. Moyer confirmed he had reviewed all materials. OLD BUSINESS: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. - Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, and Variations Review - Public Hearing – Continued from 8/7/24 Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Wheeler Clancy – DJ Architects Ms. Adams started by noting that their presentation today would concentrate on HPC’s design direction from the last meeting. She then noted their requests which included conceptual major development, relocation to underpin and fix the foundation and a setback variation to legalize the original location of the historic resource. She also stated that there are no variations requested for new construction, that they are requesting to do a complete restoration of the landmark and that they are not asking for any historic benefits or floor area bonuses. She pointed out that the project would be under the allowable floor area, even if this was a single-family home. 4 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 She moved on by going over the areas that HPC supported at the last meeting, including the site plan and location of the detached new construction, the temporary relocation to fix the foundation and the restoration of the landmark and rear addition. She noted a complete preservation plan would be provided with their final design application once interior demolition had begun. She then went over the areas for redesign for both the landmark and the new construction. For the new construction this included increasing the front setback, the reduction of the height and mass of the two- story portion of the new home, simplifyingthe roof forms and to revise some architectural details to appear more modern. She quickly reviewed the history of the property and showed historic images and maps that were presented at the last meeting. She again reiterated that they are using the 1904 Sanborn map as the basis for their restoration of the rear addition on the historic resource. She then showed the plans of the historic landmark which were consistent with what was presented at the last meeting with the exception of the roof of the porch. Next, she showed the front elevations of the proposed new construction that were presented at the previous meeting as well as updated versions based off HPC feedback. She went over some of the changes, noting the that the footprint has become a bit smaller. She detailed the increased front setback measurements of the new construction compared to the property line and the setback of the historic landmark. She then showed the second story plans and detailed the changes made from the last meeting as well as the changes made to the roof lines. She showed the front elevations of the rear two-story portion of the new construction and noted that the roof height had been reduced by over three feet and was under the height limit of 25 feet. She also showed a few renderings of the updated design. She noted they were proposing two main materials for the new construction, including wood cedar siding and metal panels, roofing and windows. Ms. Adams then went over Chapter 11 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that they were subject to on this project and emphasized that all the new construction was completely detached from the historic landmark. She finished by stating her appreciation for HPC’s feedback at the last meeting and felt that it resulted in a stronger project. Mr. Moyer asked how many additions had been added to this resource over the years. Ms. Adams detailed the Building Permits that had been approved, noting that there had been two significant additions. Ms. Pitchford noted that in the renderings from the street, she couldn’t see the second story of the new addition and wondered if Ms. Adams had a view where it was visible. Ms. Adams said that because of the tree and especially the angles and perspective looking at the property from the street, someone would not be able to see the second story because of how far back it is set. Ms. Pitchford then asked what the difference was between the height of the historic resource and the height of the new addition. Ms. Adams said it was approximately nine feet. Ms. Pitchford then asked about the porch on the historic resource and whether any of the materials were historic. Ms. Admas said that more would be know once they start on the project and get a closer inspection of the porch, but that on just a visual inspection, it didn’t appear that there were any historic materials. She said that if any historic materials are discovered they would amend their design accordingly to keep those materials. Ms. Adams reiterated that they are planning on restoring the porch based on the historic photos. 5 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Mr. Moyer noted that the renderings did not include the neighboring structures that were needed to provide context. Ms. Adams responded that the renderings presented at the August meeting included the neighboring context, but they did not have enough time to include them in this redesign. Staff Presentation:Stuart Hayden – Acting Principal Preservation Planner - Historic Preservation by Mr. Hayden began his presentation by addressing guideline 6.4 and related it to the use of the Sanborn maps. He said that they are a useful tool but not the final authority on the size of historic buildings. He said they were used as fire insurance maps and were mainly concerned with building location, distance to other structure and materials. He noted that in this case they are fortunate to have many historic photos which guideline 6.4 states should be used to substantiate restoration efforts. Mr. Hayden then showed an image of the proposed design for the rear addition and overlayed it with a historic picture and noted that one of the proposed windows did not line up exactly, thus demonstrating that the proposed addition was shorter than what was historically there. He said that in his estimate the addition would need to be about three feet longer to be more historically accurate. He showed a few more photos that demonstrated his point. Mr. Hayen moved on to discussing the proposed gutter placement on the front of the historic resource and they still did not meet guideline 7.10 as outlined in the staff memo. Regarding the rear addition, he noted that it did not meet guidelines 10.3 or 10.6 as outlined in the staff memo. Moving onto the new building, Mr. Hayen noted that staff did not believe it met guideline 10.1 related to the historic development pattern of the neighborhood, as outlined in the staff memo. He then went on to discuss guidelines 11.3 and 11.6 and noted that staff found them not to be met as outlined in the staff memo. Mr. Hayden concluded his presentation by noting that staff is recommending continuance to the November 13th, 2024 meeting to allow the applicant to better meet the guidelines. Ms. Thompson noted that Sanborn maps had been relied upon by previous preservation staff members for reconstruction and wondered why Mr. Hayden was taking a different interpretation. Mr. Hayden responded, noting that the maps are a helpful tool, but that it was unique to have so many close-up historic photos of this resource and they should be considered equally to the maps. Mr. Moyer noted that Mr. Hayden didn’t seem to address the mass and scale of the new addition in his presentation. Mr. Hayden said that he addressed those aspects related to guideline 11.3. He admitted he may have gone over that guideline quickly, but he did not find the mass and scale of the new structure to be appropriate in meeting that guideline. There was some discussion about the historic photos used to gage the proportionality of the proposed reconstruction of the rear addition to the historic resource and if there could be a path forward where staff and the applicant could work together on the flexibility of balancing whether this was considered reconstruction or new construction and how it related to guidelines 10.3 and 10.6. Ms. Surfas asked for some clarity on whether they were trying to determine if the rear portion of the historic resource was there originally. Mr. Hayden said that there was no dispute on whether it was there originally, but the question was rather if the applicant’s proposal was an accurate reconstruction as well as if reconstruction was an appropriate treatment for this. Further, Mr. Hayden noted that according to the guidelines, new additions should be distinct from the historic resource and not a reconstruction of something that is currently not there. He did admit that there was the potential that 6 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 the historic photos that they were using may not capture what was the original construction, but that the photos were the best they had to go on. Public Comment:None Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant for coming back after hearing HPC’s feedback at the last meeting. She confirmed that the members were all still in agreement about the relocation to underpin the structure to reinforce the foundation. All members said yes. Ms. Thompson then started with the restoration of the historic resource. She felt that this was a unique project, in that the historic resource was being maintained separate from the new construction. She felt the restoration of the front porch was appropriate and met the guidelines. She thought restoring the rear portion of the historic resource as best as possible was the best restoration approach, realizing that the applicant would be removing several old non-historic additions. She understood staff’s concerns about the size of the proposed rear portion but would be open to staff and monitor working through that once demolition was complete. Mr. Moyer said he could agree, but thought that since they would be reconstructing it, could it be differentiated in its materials from the actual historic resource. Ms. Thompson noted that the applicant will have to replace almost all of the siding and windows on the historic resource, so all the materials on this resource would be new anyways. Ms. Surfas thought that if they were trying to go back to what it was in the historic photos, that it should all be the same and look as close to what it was. She also noted that this portion was in the back and the owners would really be the only people who would see it. She agreed that it was a good preservation effort. Ms. Thompson wanted to add a condition to the resolution that stated that, if during demolition, additional information about the historic footprint of the resource is discovered, that it be addressed. There was agreement for the members on the requested setback variations to establish the current location of the resource. Ms. Thompson moved the discussion to the new construction and felt that there was enough of a form relationship to the resource based off the feedback given to the applicant at the last meeting. She appreciated that the applicant restudied the one-story element at the front of the property and modified the roof to be more consistent as well as lowering and simplifying the roofs on the new construction. She did believe that you would be able to see the second story from the middle or other side of the street but thought it would be an unreasonable ask to not see it. She gave weight to the fact that the new construction would be complete detached from the historic resource. Mr. Moyer thought that the mass and scale of the new construction was too big. Ms. Surfas agreed that the applicant took HPC’s feedback from the last meeting and she felt the mass and scale was acceptable at this point. She did agree with Mr. Hayden about how many different materials were proposed for the new construction and felt it was too much. Ms. Thompson agreed that the material relationship was not strong enough but thought it could be restudied at final review. 7 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Moyer that the new construction was too big. She referenced guideline 10.8 and felt it overwhelmed the historic resource. She felt the large footprint of the new construction did not allow for any porosity on the site. Ms. Thompson asked the applicant if they would be open to continuing the hearing at this point. Ms. Adams said it seemed like they didn’t have the votes to move forward. She felt it a bit disappointing as they were so far under the allowable floor area. She agreed to coming back in November but was unsure about what the plan would be and how they could get much smaller. Ms. Thompson said she was struggling as she thought the applicant responded well to the feedback they received at the last meeting. Ms. Surfas thought the windows were still problematic. Mr. Moyer commented that vertical smooth wood siding was a stupid thing to put on any building in this environment, especially if there is no overhang on the building. He felt the ten feet between the buildings was a dead space that no trees or grass would grow very well. Ms. Adams said they were struggling with the fact that they were already under the allowable floor area for the zone district by a significant amount and now are being asked to make it smaller and were surprised by the feedback based on precedent. She said they would do their best to figure things out for the November meeting. She was hoping they could get some agreement on the other aspects, such as the restoration of the historic resource, so that they would be returning in response to the feedback given regarding the new construction. There was discussion between the members on what parts of the applicant’s proposal they were in agreement with versus staff’s thoughts. The members were in agreement with the applicant’s proposal for the restoration of the historic resource and the rear portion of it. MOTION:Ms. Thompson moved to continue this hearing to November 13 th, 2024 at 4:30pm. Ms. Pitchford seconded. Roll call vote:Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 4-0 vote, motion passes. Ms. Thompson noted the board would take a short break. Ms. Thompson reconvened the meeting and asked Ms. Johnson for an update on the new HPC member. Ms. Johnson informed the members that due to staff and Ms. Severe’s schedules they were still trying to schedule training, but she felt that Ms. Severe would be trained and able to participate in the next HPC meeting. PROJECT MONITORING: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last Project Monitoring update there had been seven Project Monitoring items. These were at: 135 E. Cooper Ave. 110 W. Main St. 343 E. Cooper Ave. 312 W. Hopkins Ave. 720 E. Hyman Ave. 420 W. Francis St. 510 E. Durant Ave. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. 8 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2024 CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Mr. Hayden noted that since the last update there had been five Certificates of No Negative Effect. These were at: 435 W Main St. 216 W. Hyman Ave. 635 W. Bleeker St. 332 W. Main St. 211 W. Hopkins Ave. He then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. Referencing the Project monitoring list, Ms. Thompson noted that Mr. Hayden had sent her a list of the projects that Mr. Halferty was assigned to and that since he was no longer a current member of HPC, she would be working to suggest other members to take them over. She would present those suggestions at a future meeting to finalize. Mr. Anderson wanted to inform the HPC members that a few days after a recent Planning & Zoning meeting the applicant informed staff that they had been the victim of a phishing scam. He went over the details of the scam and noted that multiple City departments were working on ways to minimize these risks. ADJOURN: Ms. Pitchfordmotioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Ms. Thompson seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 9 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Chairperson Thompson opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Roger Moyer, Barb Pitchford, Peter Fornell, Kim Raymond, Dakota Severe, Riley Warwick and Kara Thompson. Absent was Jodi Surfas. Staff present: Gillian White, Principal Preservation Planner Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Ben Anderson, Community Development Director Kate Johnson, AssistantCity Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk MINUTES: None PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Natalie Feinberg-Lopez commented that today was Rosh Hashanah and that it was not typical to have a meeting on this holiday. She also noted that an HPC member was not in attendance because of it and felt that person’s voice was not being treated as equal for this meeting. She also felt that because of the holiday, there was a certain portion of the community that would not be able to participate in the meeting, which was infringing on their 1st Amendment rights as well as freedom of religion. She felt this was a great disappointment and hoped we could do better. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: Ms. Thompson acknowledged Dakota Severe as HPC’s newest member and asked her to introduce herself. Ms. Severe introduced herself and went over some of her background, including experience on various historic preservation committees during college. Mr. Moyer felt it unfortunate that they had ignored a religious holiday. He also felt that many people come to Aspen because it is a wonderful place and then attempt to make it like where they came from. Ms. Severe wanted to add to Mr. Moyer comments and felt that they needed to meet Aspen where it is at and grow together, instead of constantly trying to change or mold it into what we want. Responding to an earlier question of Ms. Thompson, Ms. Johnson noted that since one of the regular members was not present, Mr. Warwick, as an alternate member, would be voting tonight. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: None PROJECT MONITORING: None Mr. Moyer asked if there had been any progress on the discussion about removing paint from historic bricks. Mr. Hayden said that staff and the board members could revisit that topic at a future work session. Mr. Moyer noted that at 535 E. Cooper Ave.,paint had previously been removed causing damage to the brick. He recently noticed that the brick had been repainted and was wondering the status of that. He wondered if anything had been done to the exposed brick before it was repainted. Mr. Hayden said there was no monitor on the project since it was just a certificate of no negative effect. Mr. Moyer thought a serious conversation should be had with the people who had damaged the brick and then repainted it without authorization. 10 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Ms. Thompson said that she was putting together a list of various topics that had been discussed over the past few years that haven’t progressed and had talked with Ms. White about scheduling a work session in the future to go over them. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None CALL UP REPORTS:None STAFF COMMENTS: 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. Substantial Amendment: 300 – 312 E. Hyman Ave. - Formerly known as the Crystal Palace - Substantial Amendment Application Mr. Anderson introduced the item by reviewing the history of the past HPC approvals. He noted that only Mr. Moyer was on HPC back when this project was first proposed for approval in 2016 / 2017. He continued to review the project’s history and noted that currently there is an open building permit that was first issued in 2019. He said that there were several unknowns about the building, which had been transformed many times during its history. These unknowns included potential historic materials that may exist and the integrity and stability of those materials. It was clearly acknowledged in the HPC approval that much would be found out once the construction process began related to historic materials. Mr. Anderson said the project has been closed up as it stalled out but the permit is still in good standing. He said the crux of the issue is the west wall that remains. He noted that the wall was heavily considered by HPC in 2017 and was understood at the time that it would be able to be incorporated into the new construction. He said that staff is in full agreement that there needs to be a retreat from this to acknowledge a few things. These included the fact that a portion of the wall is built in the right of way, that it is currently unstable, that there is a mix of Victorian era and 1970’s era brick and mortar and the context and collective history of the mural. He finished by stating that staff is in agreement that the wall needs to be treated differently than the current approval and realized that a deconstruction and reconstruction would need to happen to have it be incorporated into the new construction. He pointed out that HPC would be seeing in the applicant’s presentation, changes to architectural elements that were approved in 2017. He also noted that staff is not in a position to propose a resolution at this time due to certain things that they cannot support in the application. It was staff’s hope that after discussion with the applicant and staff, and listening to public comment, that HPC could give some clear direction on some of these fundamental questions about getting this project moving forward for the community. He said staff highly recommends a continuance of this meeting and hope that clear direction can be given to the applicant about where the project should ultimately land. Applicant Presentation: Sara Adams – Bendon Adams & Mark Hunt – M Development 11 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Mr. Hunt began by recognizing the fact that this meeting ended up falling on Rosh Hashanah and felt it unfortunate. He moved on by going over some history of their progress on this project. He mentioned that they had been wanting to come before HPC as things had unveiled themselves while they were developing what once was the old Crystal Palace. He said that they had been honored and excited to have taken over what they thought was the historic Crystal Palace and preserving it and adding a modern element. He said that they went to great lengths in cataloging many of the elements of building. He noted that once they began the construction process, things started to present themselves differently than what they had all thought during the original approval. These included cornices, brick on the second story and many other sections of the building. In each incidence, City staff directed them to send the materials to the landfill as they were not historic. He said they are now left with a compromised west wall, which he agreed was a part of Aspen’s history. He noted that the new building structure that has been built is actually holding up the west wall. He expressed that he was both excited and nervous to be here, as he had never built a fake building, but was in a situation were the Crystal Palace that we all knew was gone, more specifically it had been gone long before the 2017 approvals. He said that he did not want to be viewed as taking away from Aspen’s history, but rather adding to it. He felt that they were at a crossroads where they could either take the replication route and do a building that was sort of pretending to be the Crystal Palace or they could design a building that is authentic yet pays homage to the past. Ms. Adams started her presentation by going over some history of the building and showed several historic photos of the building over time. She then a showed a few renderings from the previous approval that included preserving what they thought were historic materials and tying in new construction. She described the educational outreach and information they provided back in 2017 about the preservation plan. She described how in the demolition process they discovered an absence of historic materials and in working with the project monitors and City preservation staff, it was determined that the existing materials were not historic, not to be restored and thus were permanently removed. She said with all this knowledge one thing they wanted to talk about was that maybe reconstructing history is not the answer for this building. She briefly went over the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for reconstruction and that it is only appropriate in certain circumstances and generally not accepted to try and fake history. She showed a picture of the current conditions and noted that there was only a bit of historic material left in the west wall and it is also severely compromised. She went over several issues with the current wall, noting the five reports included in their application from experienced conservation and structural experts. She said that it is recognized, including by Mr. Anderson, that the best way forward is to deconstruct the wall and reconstruct it using the historic brick and appropriate mortar and repairing the sandstone foundation. She said this would ensure the wall is integrated into the building and will be around for another lifetime. She moved on to their proposal stating the question before HPC is do they proceed with approvals that recreate fake history or amend them to be a product of their own time and honor what’s left of the building in an authentic way. She said the applicant felt that re-creation would be inauthentic and not Aspen’s approach to historic preservation. She then showed the south façade elevations and renderings of their proposal included in the packet. It was a mostly brick building that related to surrounding buildings but did not compete with them. She detailed some of the traditional design elements that had 12 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 been given a modern application in order to be a product of their own time. She then continued by going over the proposed west façade and noted that they believe they have enough historic brick to rebuild the mural and repaint it, relocating it into the center of the west façade. She also detailed a few changes to the north and east façades as well as some details about the brick application and metal materials. She also noted a few minor changes to the interior wall layout as well as to the skylights and mechanical equipment on the roof. Ms. Adams then showed another rendering of the proposed south façade and Mr. Hunt spoke to the thoughts that went into its design and characterized it as “less is more”. He felt it was an authentic design that stayed disciplined to the two materials. He noted that the previously approved design had multiple types of brick and multiple types of windows in both shape and material. Ms. Adams referenced the staff memo and noted that it contained four recommended options presented by staff as possible outcomes of this meeting. She said that the applicant would be willing to accept option number two, supporting the new architecture but that an alternate treatment of the west wall and mural is needed and acceptable. She stated that it was their understanding that staff would find it acceptable to use all available historic brick to reconstruct the length of the west side of the historic building and repaint the mural at the corner. She said that their question to HPC is if there is not enough historic brick to express the full length, should they match the brick or use as much as they have and them just stop and blend into the new brick. Ms. Severe asked about a perceived discrepancy in kick plate heights between what was in the packet and what was presented. Mr. Hunt said it was the version with the higher kick plates. Mr. Fornell asked whether their new proposal included any new additional height to the building. Ms. Adams said that there was some mechanical equipment screening that may appear taller than allowed, but they would be ok with bringing that down. She emphasized that there was no new height proposed to the building. Ms. Pitchford asked if the building exceeds the height allowed by the Land Use Code. Ms. Adams said it does not exceed the Land Use Code that the project is vested under. She noted it was vested under the 2015 Land Use Code which allowed up to 38 - 40 feet and that the issued permit for this project is 40 feet. Ms. Pitchford felt theapplicant was presenting this on the basis that the building is no longer historic. Ms. Adams said that if they were saying that it was no longer historic, they would be going through the delisting process. She said they do not want to delist the property but want to discuss a new treatment of the west wall because new information was discovered during demolition. Ms. Pitchford asked if there had been any attempt to stabilize the west wall and or it’s foundation in the 7+ years they have had the permit. Mr. Hunt said they addressed it right away during initial construction and he detailed those efforts. He noted that the west wall cannot support itself and that is why they believe the best way to preserve and protect the wall is to deconstruct it and reconstruct it. He again noted that the base of the wall is 4 inches into the right of way and that the wall leans another 4-6 inches out from there. He did not want to build a building that included a wall that was leaning and created a gap of 8-10 inches between it and the new construction. He said they were asking to be able to carefully deconstruct it and reconstruct it with a proper foundation and within the property line on the same plane as the rest of the building. 13 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Ms. Pitchford asked why it had taken so long to come before HPC with this. Mr. Hunt said that this had been a long process of going back to the drawing board and or going through the monitoring process as new things came to light during construction and things were discovered that were not historic. He said they were here to get some clear direction and support on how to move forward. Ms. Pitchford asked again why they are still wanting this to be listed as historic. Mr. Hunt stated that both the previously approved design and the new proposal would be new buildings. He noted that they could argue about what’s historic and what’s not and he spoke to the significance of the building’s history and specifically the mural. Ms. Pitchford then asked if they thought the new proposed building respects the previous structure as people knew the Crystal palace. Mr. Hunt responded that in 2016 they had designed a building off inaccurate information and false history. Mr. Moyer asked for some information about the architectural firm that designed the building and the builder. Mr. Hunt gave some information about the architectural firm and noted that current builder was Greg Woods. Mr. Moyer then asked if the current builder had their Historic Preservation BEST card. It was confirmed that they did. Mr. Moyer asked about the scaffolding that had been erected on the west wall and whether it had been attached to the structure, noting that there are 36 holes that currently exist on the west wall. There was some discussion about how the holes might have been made as well as if there were any efforts to stabilize the bricks themselves from wear. Ms. Thompson asked if the applicant could describe how they got to the new design regarding the context of the surrounding area. Mr. Hunt described the ideas behind the new design and noted that the previous design was a blend of old and new and their new proposed design is more traditional with some contemporary elements using the two main materials of brick and metal. Ms. Thomspon wanted to confirm that the proposed repainting of the mural would be using modern, non-lead-based paints. Ms. Adams said yes and that product specifics would be provided at building permit for staff and monitor to approve. Ms. Severe asked about something she noticed in the staff memo about some windows that would not be operational. Mr. Hunt said that all the windows on the south façade of the new proposal would be operational, but that in the original design there were several“fake” openings on the west wall that were based on historical openings. He also mentioned that the new design had nods to the Wheeler and Jerome. Staff Presentation:Mr. Ben Anderson – Community Development Director Mr. Anderson commented that staff understands the difficulties that the applicant is going though and the challenges in responding to the changing knowledge of what the building has turned out to be. He began his presentation by going over the request in front of HPC and the applicant’s proposals, noting that staff is recommending continuation due some distance between where staff and the applicant were on a few of the details. Staff felt that some direction from HPC was needed before proceeding with a resolution. He moved on to describing the current status of the project, the issued permit and the amount of work being done. He said that the current “stalling” on the project has much to do with the question of what to do with the west wall. He then showed a few historic photos from different years and noted that many historic buildings in town look different today than they did in their history due to changes over time. He said that this 14 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 building was designated in 1981, and that that designation framed a lot of staff’s responses relating to the guidelines. He then showed the conditions from the 2017 approval for reference. Next, he showed drawings of the currently approved west and south façades and described some of the elements and how they compare to the new proposed architectural design. He felt there was a fair question of what to do with the new information that differed to what they understood in 2017. He asked if the architectural references to the Crystal Palace should remain, or should, as the applicant stated, that they should acknowledge that it wasn’t what they thought it was. He said that there are patterns in the new design that show up in other places in the core and in other historic resources and that without the original approval and the community expectations of the architectural references to the Crystal Palace, this would be a fine-looking building. He said the question is again what to do with the west wall. He moved on to go over staff’s concerns with the reviewed proposal. These included the loss of all remaining integrity of the west wall; relocation of the mural to a different location on the wall; a loss of approved architectural references across the west façade; and a loss of approved architectural references in the west section of the south façade. He noted that staff could not support the reviewed proposal, mostly in relationship to the existing approval. He noted that staff is recommending continuance to November 13th, 2024. He presented on the screen a few questions and topics that may help guide HPC’s discussion related to the treatment of the west wall and the overall new architectural design as outlined in the staff memo. Mr. Fornell asked if the determination was made to deconstruct and reconstruct the west wall with one width of brick, would that resolve the right of way issue. Mr. Anderson said that in his understanding it would. Ms. Severe asked if they stuck with the 2017 approved design, would the doors next to the mural on the west wall be functioning. Mr. Anderson said he did not believe so. He noted that there was historic photographic evidence of doors existing there in the past and the 2017 design was trying to reference those. Ms. Severe then asked about the increased number of windows on the second story of the west façade and whether it was the number of windows that was staff’s concern. Mr. Anderson said that as new construction, those windows would be fine, but the bigger question is whether the new building should continue to reference the Crystal Palace and the design that emerged from the 2017 approval. Mr. Fornell asked if it was decided that the west wall should remain as is, would the City grant a permanent easement for the encroachment into the right of way. Mr. Anderson said that they would probably have to, but that the reconstruction of the wall down to a single width of brick resolves the right of way issue as well as the wall’s structural integrity issue. Mr. Hayden commented that from a historic preservation perspective, keeping the wall in its current location would be preferred. Mr. Anderson noted that over the past five years it has been the applicant and staff’s understanding that the condition of the wall was not as bad as it actually is. They thought the wall may have been able to be picked up and a new foundation built or that the wall could have been brought back into true. He said that with the current knowledge of the wall’s structure, staff’s preference would be deconstruction and reconstruction. 15 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Ms. Raymond asked about staff’s preference to reconstruct the wall with as much historic brick as possible. She wondered if they wanted to keep the whole west wall as approved in 2017. Mr. Anderson said they would like to maintian the extent or length of it and the location of the mural. Mr. Moyer asked if staff would prefer the second-floor portion of the west wall’s design stay as approved in 2017. Mr. Anderson again brought up the general question of whether or not the architectural references to the Crystal Palace in the approved design from 2017 should continue forward and he felt there were good arguments on both sides of the question. Mr. Moyer then asked if staff knew if holes were drilled to install the scaffolding on the Wheeler or Elks building. Mr. Hayden said that this happened on the Wheeler and the alley side of the Elks building. He also noted that as approved, they removed historic brick, put in a “dummy” brick and drilled into that to attach scaffolding and then reversed the process when completed. Mr. Anderson said that he had not seen any evidence in prior staff approvals that this was done on the west wall of the Crystal Palace building. Mr. Moyer asked a few other questions about potential options to stabilize the historic wall. Ms. Raymond asked if staff wanted to maintain the references to the Crystal Palace as presented in the design of the 2017 approval or if they would rather maintain how the original historic building looked. Mr. Anderson said they are referencing the 2017 design. Ms. Severe asked if HPC agrees to keep the existing west wall and mural, how would the lead paint be treated to keep it from chipping and getting into the soil. Ms. White responded that there are ways to encapsulate it so that it would not affect the soil. Ms. Pitchford asked if Mr. Anderson could describe what “progress” meant when it comes to keeping a building permit in good standing. Mr. Anderson said that once a building permit is issued, regular inspections are done by staff to determine if progress is being made. He noted that once this project pulled out of the right of way and it seemed like progress had come to a halt, work was still being done on the inside. Ms. Johnson clarified that an inspection is triggered by a certain level of work which is governed by the building code. She said the Chief Building Official holds the discretion on whether that work is sufficient to maintain an active permit. Ms. Thompson asked if over the previous years, when it was determined that certain materials were in fact not historic, was it staff’s direction to continue with the approved application or was there direction to reconsider the design. Mr. Anderson believed that there were various opinions among staff and uncertainty of what to do about it considering how the approvals had been conveyed to the public. Ms. Thompson then asked Mr. Hayden and Ms. White whether in general historic preservation staff is not in support of reconstruction projects and reconstructing more than what current exists here would not be something they would support. Mr. Hayden responded that reconstruction is to be a rare occurrence and that strict reconstruction of the Crystal Palace and the parts that no longer exist isn’t appropriate. Staff’s focus is on the preservation of the materials in the wall that still exist. Ms. Severe again brought up the issue associated with the lead paint in the mural and how that would be addressed if the wall were to be deconstructed and moved. Mr. Anderson spoke to some of the potential options. 16 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Public Comment: Mr. Jay Maytin commented that as this project has evolved, HPC’s preservation purview has disintegrated due to the fact that this project is not historic or very little of it that remains is. He felt that HPC needed to give up control on this project. He asked HPC to save what was historic and work with the developer. Mr. Jeffrey Halferty commented that he was on HPC in 2017 and had been the monitor on it as well. He said that in 2017 there was a lot of adjudicating about what was historic and what was not. He felt the legacy of the Crystal Palace as a place was gone historically, but the mural was special, and he commended the applicant for preserving it and conforming to the guidelines in general. He felt the most important thing for HPC is to make sure it conforms with the Commercial Design Standards. Mr. Jimmy Markus noted that he used to work with Mr. Hunt on some other projects, but no longer is associated with him. He said he was here as the owner of a neighboring building at 301 E Hopkins. He wanted to feel confident that when something is done, we can rely that it is something historic. He said that he grew up going to the Crystal Palace and had great memories of it but felt that the community has realized over time that the building and mural were not original. Moving forward, he did not what to trick the community into thinking that what is rebuilt is original when it is not, because of the building’s complicated history. Mr. Gordon Bronson stated that he has no vested interest in the building but was an Aspen native and an owner of Gravity Haus which was across the street from this project. Like Mr. Markus, he had spent a lot of time at the Crystal Palace and had great memories of it. He was not there to opine on the historic significance of the building, but just wanted to see a beautiful project that speaks both to Aspen’s legacy and its future. He felt the brick materials speak to many other buildings in town including the Gravity Haus building and the Wheeler and was in support of moving this project along expeditiously. Ms. Gretchen Greenwood noted that she was the HPC chair in 2016 and expressed the difficulty that the board went through back then. She felt like if she was on the board now, she would listen to the facts and the truth that it is no longer a historic building. She said if they had known this in 2017 it would have made the process so much easier. She felt the approvals of 2017 were based on a fallacy. She noted that she was involved in several of Mr. Hunt’s projects when she was on HPC and felt that he is a quality developer that takes the time to do things correctly. She felt this was a new building now and we couldn’t go back and replicate the past. She supported the new design and the centering of the mural and felt that the west side of the previous building always felt like a dead zone or an alley. She felt there was now an opportunity to build a better building for the community by having windows and activity on that side. Ms. Phyllis Bronson stated that she had known Mr. Hunt since he arrived in town. She felt that he was a very honest man, and his passion is beautiful buildings. She felt that an honest man and an authentic building both must be true to themselves, and you can’t just throw up a couple of boxes and say you’re done. She said that Mr. Hunt had recently brought her into the building and it felt incredibly strong and safe until you looked at the west wall. She said that she would really love to see this approved and felt this will be a good and beautiful building and while it may not be perfect it would be authentic. Mr. Fornell motioned to extend the meeting to 7:45pm. Mr. Moyer seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. 17 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 Mr. Scott Hershey thought that the public knows the building as having the owl mural on the southwest corner and he felt that that should stay. He thought that this will just end up being a façade and felt that the three widths thick wall should be deconstructed and moved back so that it is not in the right of way and rebuilt to one width thick with the amount of historic brick that remains. He thought this was the practical approach versus trying to repair and save a wall that is already a patchwork. Mr. Bill Latosa noted that he was a preservation architect and was previously employed by the National Parks Service. He mentioned that he was one of the restoration architects on the Statue of Liberty, Tom Edison’s home and studio and numerous other historic preservation projects. He went on to detail the restoration work on the Statue of Liberty. He then noted that the owl mural is lead based paint and that there are ways to encapsulate it but that it would be an ongoing process. He suggested that the west wall should be deconstructed, the lead-based paint removed and the wall reconstructed with the historic bricks. He also did not think that relocating the mural to the center of the wall would reduce its historical significance. Mr. Craig Cordts-Pearce commented that he had spent many years on Hyman Ave and has seen the changes to the Crystal Palace over time. He thought that the decisions and procedures that have gone on with this project have only hurt the core and the businesses community in Aspen. He said it was very difficult to be in business here and he would really like to see an approval so that we can get back to normal again. He felt this project was being held up because of a wall that could be rebuilt into a beautiful art piece. Ms. Natalie Feinberg-Lopez noted that she had worked on three State capitols and numerous other historic projects throughout the state of Colorado. She mentioned Gaard Moses, the artist who painted the mural and that he had been given an award from HPC recognizing him for his work. She said that she was in favor of encapsulating the mural’s paint to preserve Gaard’s work. She also noted that lead is one of the least toxic elements that can be found in a mining community. Board Discussion:Ms. Thompson thanked the applicant and staff for their presentations and all the public for their comments. She noted that there were two things in front of them. One being the remaining portion of the wall and what the most appropriate path is there and the other being the new structure. She noted that she was struggling with the proposal as presented for the west wall, primarily because it reduces the size of the mural and moves it. She agreed with staff that the wall currently exists and they should try to preserve it in that location and supported creating a one width façade of the existing mural in front of a new wall that moves it onto the property. Mr. Fornell noted that he had carefully reviewed the 2017 approval and the minutes from those meetings and felt that there were a lot of assumptions made about the building back then. He felt that if the HPC members back then had the information we have now, there would have been a very different result. Because of that he did not want to put much weight on the 2017 approval. He said that he had spoken with several community members recently, and they all said the same things, which were to somehow save the mural and get the project moving again. He felt the new design was respectful to the historic district and that he would support the application as presented by the applicant. Ms. Pitchford thought they had a bigger question than just the wall. She was wondering why delisting was not being talked about more. She questioned why the applicant still wanted to keep the building 18 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 listed as historic even though the new building will have no connection to the Crystal Palace. She said you can’t have it both ways, in that its either a historic building or its not. She wanted to ask the HPC members why they were talking about it as a historic resource. Ms. Johnson cautioned that they have an application in front of them. She noted that there exists a Council Ordinance from 1981 designating the building historic under the Land Use Code at that time and that the applicant has not requested to delist the property and HPC does not have the power to make that decision. Ms. Pitchford felt that sometimes it’s more about the cultural and character than bricks and mortar. She felt the Crystal Palace is iconic and that the new design was not in context, and she saw no reason to change the 2017 approved design as it meets the character of town. Mr. Warwick thought this was a simple situation. He acknowledged that the building was not historic and that parts of the wall were. He felt they should preserve the wall and mural. He felt they were walking a very fine line when talking about replicating buildings. He spoke to the uniqueness of Aspen as a historic town, compared to Vail which felt like Disney World with replica after replica. He appreciated that applicant’s attempt to be authentic while preserving the wall and thought the new design was superior to the 2017 design. Ms. Thompson agreed with everything Mr. Warwick said but thought that a few of the elements on the new design were a bit neo-classical. Mr. Warwick thought that if they stick with the 2017 design, they could be getting into a situation that in a few years they look back and say that’s obviously not historic and obviously a replica. Ms. Thompson felt the 2017 design was a conglomeration of a few different styles smashed together and that the new design works well contextually and meets more of the guidelines than the previous one. Ms. Raymond said that if she had been on the board in 2017, she would not have approved that design. She agreed with Mr. Warwick in that common sense needed to be applied here and that the building is not historic. She also felt what Mr. Fornell was hearing from the public, that keeping the mural but getting the project going was very important. She felt that the community relate the mural to what they think of as the Crystal Palace. She also felt that Mr. Hunt and his team were being very authentic by trying to create the context and save the mural. She agreed with Mr. Fornell that they needed to help move this project along as quickly as they can. She felt the new design fits nicely into the neighborhood and agreed that moving the mural to the middle did not take away from its historic significance but was a bit concerned that the mural was getting smaller. Ms. Adams noted that when the mural was repainted in the 1970s it had gotten a bit bigger. Ms. Raymond continued that since it would not be the exact same mural after getting rebuilt and repainted, she thought moving it was a good idea. She was in support of the application as presented, but thought there could be some conditions concerning details added to the approval. Mr. Moyer thought all the members should listen to themselves on the recording tomorrow. He referenced the Paepcke House project from years ago and what HPC had saved on it and that the sisters had wanted to do a lot split and build a road in the middle and that HPC turned them down. Mr. Moyer said that when he saw this proposal he wondered what was wrong with the 2017 design and why the applicant didn’t do it. He said that he was a little affronted when this came to HPC. He noted 19 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 that their job was to preserve history, even if it was one column, one door, or one wall. He felt that the wall had been there for 130 years, wasn’t going anywhere and he was confident that it could be secured to the new CMU wall behind it. He said that he did not particularly care for what they did in 2017, except that they were saving the west wall. He felt he and the City were insulted by this project and that Aspen has been insulted over the last many years with five other projects that are sitting empty. He thought it was awful. He agreed with Ms. Pitchford insupporting the design and approvals from 2017. Mr. Moyer continued by referring to his earlier questions about the holes in the west wall and he thought staff had been a bit lackadaisical in this regard. He wondered how this could have happened and why consolidants had not been used on the brick. He said it was hard to listen to all the comments on this project and that they are not helping in preserving history. He felt that they should retain the wall as it is because it hasn’t and will not collapse. He said that the lead paint wasn’t an issue because Gaard had used an acrylic paint over it. He said he was not prepared to give the applicant permission to demolish the building anymore. He was disappointed that it, like many other projects, has been sitting this long. He was disappointed that the Boomerang nearly self-destructed because nothing was done to it. He thought it was not their responsibility to help developers destroy the town, but to help preserve it, even if it was just a wall. He didn’t understand why the mural would be moved to the middle. Ms. Pitchford referenced all the comments that the project needs to move along.She said the HPC members were not the reason it had been sitting for all these years and that it was not their job to move projects forward, but rather the applicant’s. Ms. Severe thought that the redesign of this building was amazing. She said there were many occurrences of the word “hodgepodge” in the application packet, and she felt that Mr. Hunt had really put both the industrial and Victorian eras together. She wondered if the mural should be moved to the middle of the wall. She said that part of her would like it to stay at the corner as that is where locals remember it. She felt the mural needed to be touched up and completely sealed regardless of whether it remains in its current location or is moved. Outside of where the mural ends up, she was in complete support of the new design and felt that it really fits the context of the street. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8:00pm. Mr. Fornellseconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. Mr. Warwick wondered, in terms of historic preservation, if it would it be better to leave the mural it as is, which would require more maintenance and it would potentially deteriorate faster, or to deconstruct and put it back together and repaint it. Mr. Moyer thought that they could defer that to staff to figure out and give a recommendation. He also spoke to the various methods of preserving the mural and admitted that they would have to be redone of the years. Ms. Thompson felt that they should continue to November 13th but was trying to be able to give the applicant some direction. There was discussion about the four options in the staff memo and that the applicant had said they would be ok with the second one. MOTION:Mr. Fornell motioned to approve the substantial amendment put forth by the applicant, approving the new architecture, the removal and replacement of the wall with one width of brick using 20 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 as many historic bricks as possible to be reviewed by staff and monitor and repainting the mural to replicate what existed. Ms. Severe seconded. Ms. Thomspon noted that they do not have a resolution in front of them. Ms. Johnson suggested that, if there was support for that motion, that it be amended to direct staff to prepare such a resolution for approval at the next meeting. Ms. Raymond suggested that they add a condition stating that instead of outlining how things should be done, the building is approved as presented, but the applicant would have to show how they can best move and redo the mural. Ms. Thompson said she would be a “no” on that motion and felt the mural needed to remain its existing size and the brick needed to be restored. She felt they needed more detail on the differentiation between the historic brick and the new brick and how those meet each other. She also felt a site visit was warranted to meet with the applicant and their experts as well as staff to better understand the existing conditions of the brick. She also wanted to see material samples. Mr. Fornell asked if approval of a material sample be a condition of approval. Ms. Thompson felt that it was important to see it on a site visit and have the whole board agree. Mr. Moyer spoke to the differences between new and old brick referencing how windows and other openings on historic buildings can be seen when they have been filled in with new brick over the years. He felt that was also part of the history of a building. Ms. Johnson noted that the conditions suggested by Ms. Raymond were not part of the motion that is on the table. Ms. Raymond restated her suggested condition. Ms. Johnson suggested, for clarity purposes, to continue the meeting in order to bring back a resolution with some detailed conditions. She noted that there was still a motion on the table and the meeting could not be adjourned until that was voted on. She said action needed to be taken, whether that be to table the motion until a continued date or to take a vote on it. She reminded HPC that there had been no friendly amendment to the motion and that it currently is to approve as is without any additional conditions. Mr. Warwick asked how they could add a condition to the existing motion. Ms. Johnson said that Mr. Fornell could accept a friendly amendment that would have to be accepted by both Mr. Fornell himself and Ms. Severe. Mr. Warwick made a friendly amendment to add to the existing motion that the applicant should return and present their reconstruction plan of the mural. Ms. Thompson said that technically with the motion on the table, it would be an approval. She said that the preservation plan could be reviewed by staff and monitor but they would not have to come back in front of HPC. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8:05pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. Mr. Anderson said that staff recognized the desire to move this project along and that they had spent a lot of time on their presentation. He noted that under the current proposal staff believes there is a question that is raised regarding the deconstruction and reconstruction of the wall that may trigger a conversation about the demolition of a designated structure. He noted that on other projects, efforts are made on a structural basis to deconstruct and reconstruct something in the same place and those 21 SPECIAL MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 2ND, 2024 tend not to be considered demolition. He reiterated staff’s suggestion that the hearing be continued to November 13th to be able to create a resolution responding to direction given. Ms. Pitchford agreed with Mr. Anderson’s comments and felt that this has been sitting for five years and another few weeks to create a thoughtful resolution is the way to go. Ms. Raymond asked that if they vote on Mr. Fornell’s motion, it would be yes or no and that it would be binding. Ms. Thompson motioned to extend the meeting to 8:15pm. Mr. Fornell seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Pitchford, yes; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, yes. 7-0, motion passes. Ms. Johnson said that if the board approves the motion on the table that staff would have to bring a resolution back to HPC as a consent item to approve. She explained that an approval can be called for reconsideration by someone who voted “yes”, but both the member that made the motion and seconded it would have to agree. She also said they could vote to table the motion. Ms. Thompson and Mr. Moyer suggested they vote on the motion and see where they land. Roll call vote: Mr. Fornell, yes; Mr. Moyer, no; Ms. Pitchford, no; Ms. Severe, yes; Mr. Warwick, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Ms. Thompson, no. 4-3, motion passes. Ms. Severe asked if this was a point where they could add conditions. Ms. Thompson said no and what they approved is what got approved. Ms. Raymond asked if the motion included Mr. Warwick’s friendly amendment. Ms. Johnson said it did not. Ms. Raymond and Ms. Severe were assigned as monitors. ADJOURN: Ms. Thompson motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor; motion passes. ____________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 22 Page 1 of 8 427 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: November 13, 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 excavating a basement beneath and restoring the historic resource and constructing a detached, two-story, residence to its side and rear. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions of the conceptual major development review of 325 W. Hopkins Ave. Figure 1: 325 W. Hopkins Ave. – Site Location Aerial Image 23 Page 2 of 8 427 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 lifting and temporarily relocating the the existing building for excavation of a basement and replacement of 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 24 Page 3 of 8 427 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; temporarily relocate the historic resource to excavate a basement and install new 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 setback variations requested in the application without reservation. While the temporary relocation of the historic resource to excavate a basement and install a new foundation will require the standard stipulations to ensure compliance with the applicable criteria, staff also supports the proposal to conceal additional development underground and to provide a first-rate footing for the historic resource. Similarly, the proposed conceptual development plan, does not strictly meet all the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, but may be made compliant by adding conditions to any approval. In particular, the design of the rear addition, as well as the scale, massing, and fenestration of the new building warrant additional consideration. Major Development, Conceptual Review - Section 26.415.070(d) Historic Resource Additions: The proposal to remove more recent additions that are not historically significant meets Guideline 10.2. Because they fall within the footprint of the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map, however, the entire rear sloping roof of the historic resource, the existing dining room, and part of the front porch are presumed to be historically significant unless and until a preponderance of evidence suggests otherwise. To “preserve original building materials” as called for by Guideline 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. 25 Page 4 of 8 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov 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. 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. A subtle setback of the wall plane, change of material, or use of a more contemporary form could adequately differentiate the rear addition from the historic construction. With a condition of approval, the HPC may review and approve such a differentiation during the final development plan review. 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 Porch: Although the proposed front porch appears to match the original in form and general character, the application does not demonstrate that the proposed front porch matches the detail of the original evident in historic photographs and/or the dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. As it is unclear whether the application meets Guideline 5.4, the provision of additional information is necessary and an appropriate condition of approval. 26 Page 5 of 8 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov 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. Whether the application meets Guideline 11.3 is more complicated. The new building is not similar in actual height and proportion to the historic resource. The mass of the larger new building is, nevertheless, subdivided into smaller “modules” that are more similar in size to the historic building, thereby helping the new building at least appear somewhat similar in scale and proportion with the historic building. Similarly, the application satisfies part of Guideline 11.6. Although the new structure is recognizable as a product of its time, it relates strongly to the historic resource in but one of three given elements of design (form, materials, or fenestration). 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, flat roofs that have no historic parallel on the site abut two front gables that do. The result is a more complicated form and a clear departure from the historic resource. The materials used on the new building, on the other hand, clearly relate to those of the historic resource. The proposed primary material, horizontal wood siding, appears similar in composition, scale, application, and orientation to that of the historic resource. The proposed finish (stain) is not the same as, but may still appear similar to, that of the historic resource (paint). Depending on its application, the stain may further distinguish the old and new construction. In either case, the relatively minimal application of material generally compliments the historic resource and contributes to a traditional sense of human scale. The proposed fenestration does not relate strongly to the historic resource. Only some of the proposed windows are “similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource.” While some have either similar widths or height, others are similar in neither height nor width to a window on the historic resource. The non-orthogonal shape of one prominent window diverges from all relevant historic precedence. The front door of the new building is also not similar to that of the historic resource. At 8 feet tall and 4 feet wide, it is more than 1 foot 3 inches taller and nearly 1 foot wider than the historic door. Resizing and reshaping the fenestration of the front façade for review and approval by the HPC at final development review is an appropriate condition for approval of this conceptual review. Staff recommends approval of the conceptual major development plan review with the following conditions: 27 Page 6 of 8 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov • For consideration and approval by the HPC at the final development plan review, the rear addition must be differentiated from the historic construction by a change in setback, form, or material. • For consideration and approval by the HPC at final development plan review, all fenestration on the front (north) façade of new development visible from Hopkins Avenue is to be made orthogonal and similarly sized to that of the historic resource. • A preservation plan must be provided to and approved by the monitoring committee prior to construction, and include the following: o The proposed details and dimensions of all new windows to be installed in the historic resource, and historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; o The proposed details and dimensions of all new porch columns to be installed on the historic resource, and historic historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same. • Pending further land use approvals consistent with Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415.070, no historic material may be removed, or otherwise altered. Relocation - Section 26.415.090 To the degree that the proposed temporary relocation of the historic resource, excavation of a basement, and installation of a new foundation 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. It is unlikely to adversely affect the integrity of the historic site, or diminish the historic, architectural, or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties. The historic/current/ proposed site, orientation, and elevation of the historic resource are the same, and most appropriate, conditions for the building. An acceptable relocation plan has not yet been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, including the provision of the necessary financial security. As the application otherwise complies with the standards for relocation, and the applicant can reasonably be expected to meet the remaining requirement prior to applying for a building permit, a conditional approval of the proposed relocation is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of relocation with the following conditions: • For consideration and approval by the project monitoring committee prior to building permit application, a relocation plan must be provided and include the following: o The identification of a temporary storage location for of the historic resource that is not in a property line setback. • Financial assurance of $30,000 for the safe relocation of the historic structure onto a new basement foundation must be provided to the City upon applying for a building permit. 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. 28 Page 7 of 8 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov Instead of the 10-foot front setback and 5-foot side setback required by the Aspen Land Use Code for the R-6 zone district, the historic structure has a front setback of 5 feet 10.25 inches and an east side setback of 1 foot 1.75 inches. A front setback variation of 4 feet 1.75 inches and side setback variation of 3 feet 10.25 inches will maintain this historic/existing pattern, feature, and character of the historic property, thereby satisfying the first criteria. Insofar as relocating the historic resource to satisfy the setback requirements would adversely impact the architectural character of the historic property, the proposed variations also mitigate an adverse impact to the satisfaction of the second criteria. Staff recommends approval of setback variations. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. For consideration and approval by the HPC at the final development plan review, the rear addition must be differentiated from the historic construction by a change in setback, form, or material. 2. For consideration and approval by the HPC at final development plan review, all fenestration on the front (north) façade of new development visible from Hopkins Avenue is to be made orthogonal and similarly sized to that of the historic resource. 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. 29 Page 8 of 8 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | aspen.gov 3. A preservation plan must be provided to and approved by the monitoring committee prior to construction, and include the following: a. The proposed details and dimensions of all new windows to be installed in the historic resource, and historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; b. The proposed details and dimensions of all new porch columns to be installed on the historic resource, and historic historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; 4. Pending further land use approvals consistent with Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415.070, no historic material may be removed, or otherwise altered. 5. For consideration and approval by the project monitoring committee prior to building permit application, a relocation plan must be provided and include the following: a. The identification of a temporary storage location for of the historic resource that is not in a property line setback. 6. Financial assurance of $30,000 for the safe relocation of the historic structure onto a new basement foundation must be provided to the City upon applying for a building permit. 7. A final development plan application shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution # __, Series of 2024 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 30 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2024) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT, DEMOLITION, RELOCATION, AND SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 325 WEST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS C AND D, BLOCK 46; CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2735-124-64-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, 325 W HOPKINS LLC, PO BOX 7699, Aspen, CO 81611, represented by Sara Adams, BendonAdams, LLC, 300 South Spring Street #202, Aspen, CO 81611, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Setback Variations for the property located at 325 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 46; City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or 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;” and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070(d)(3) of the Aspen Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections; and WHEREAS, per Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.580.050, the Community Development Director may exempt projects, or a portion thereof, from the calculation of Demolition if the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that non-historic elements of a property on Aspen's list of Historic Landmarks shall be removed in returning the historic resource to its original configuration or character; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090, Relocation; and WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110(c), Setback Variations; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on August 7, 2024, September 25, 2024, and November 13, 2024, and considered the application, the staff memo and public comment, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __. 31 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Page 2 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Setback Variations. That the HPC hereby approves the Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Setback Variations for 325 West Hopkins Avenue, Lots C and D, Block 46; City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. For consideration and approval by the HPC at the final development plan review, the rear addition must be differentiated from the historic construction by a change in setback, form, or material. 2. For consideration and approval by the HPC at final development plan review, all fenestration on the front (north) façade of new development visible from Hopkins Avenue is to be made orthogonal and similarly sized to that of the historic resource. 3. A preservation plan must be provided to and approved by the monitoring committee prior to construction, and include the following: a. The proposed details and dimensions of all new windows to be installed in the historic resource, and historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; b. The proposed details and dimensions of all new porch columns to be installed on the historic resource, and historic historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; 4. Pending further land use approvals consistent with Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415.070, no historic material may be removed, or otherwise altered. 5. For consideration and approval by the project monitoring committee prior to building permit application, a relocation plan must be provided and include the following: a. The identification of a temporary storage location for of the historic resource that is not in a property line setback. 6. Financial assurance of $30,000 for the safe relocation of the historic structure onto a new basement foundation must be provided to the City upon applying for a building permit. 7. A final development plan application shall be submitted within one (1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. 32 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2024 Page 3 of 3 Section 2: Material Representations All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority. Section 3: Existing Litigation This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of August, 2023. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ________________________________ ________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 33 Page 1 of 12 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines - Staff Findings 26.415.070 - Development involving designated historic property or property within a historic district. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order. (d) Certificate of appropriateness for major development. (3) Conceptual development Plan Review b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development projects are as follows: 1. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. 2. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 3. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 4. A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section 26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call- up. No applications for Final Development Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council takes action as described in said section. 34 Page 2 of 12 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 35 Page 3 of 12 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 36 Page 4 of 12 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 window from the surrounding plane of the wall. • The historic profile on AspenModern properties is typically minimal. TBD Chapter 5: Porches and Balconies Finding 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. • Match original materials. • When reconstructing an original porch or balcony without historic photographs, use dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. TBD Chapter 6: Architectural Details Finding 37 Page 5 of 12 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 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 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 openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. TBD Chapter 10: Building Additions Finding 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. • For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved. • HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved. Met/Not Met 38 Page 6 of 12 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 39 Page 7 of 12 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. Met/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 40 Page 8 of 12 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. Met/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 satisfies Guideline 1.6. “Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree,” such as on the east side of the front yard at 325 W. Hopkins Ave. In satisfaction of Guideline 1.8, a conceptual drainage plan is included in the application. The site design appears to provide positive drainage away from the historic landmark. 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. Chapter 2: Building Materials 41 Page 9 of 12 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 contains historic building materials and, therefore, whether the proposal to remove it meets Guideline 2.1. To “preserve original building materials” as directed, additional documentation of existing roof, wall, floor, and foundation is necessary to ensure none exists. If “original, underlying material” does exist, Guideline 2.6 will also be applicable. The construction of the front porch also lacks documentation. Photographic evidence indicating the porch was enlarged does not verify that no historic materials comprise this feature. Additional information is necessary to determine that the proposal to remove the whole porch satisfies Guideline 2.1. Chapter 3: Windows Without additional documentation (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 5: Porches & Balconies Although the proposed front porch appears to match the original in form and general character, the application does not demonstrate that the proposed front porch matches the detail of the original evident in historic photographs and/or the dimensions and characteristics found on comparable buildings. The style and form are appropriately simple with minimal, if any, decorative elements. The material is heretofore unidentified. Accordingly, whether the application meets Guideline 5.4 is not clear. 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 42 Page 10 of 12 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. 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 the 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, this 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 43 Page 11 of 12 building also meets Guideline 11.4. Whether its gable-end wall constitutes the “the primary plane of the front” elevation, however, is unclear. The primary plane or front elevation of the new building behind (south of) the 10-foot-long connector is not similar in actual height or scale to the historic structure. As called for by Guideline 11.3, this rear mass of the larger new building is, nevertheless, subdivided into smaller “modules” that are more similar in size to the historic building, thereby helping the new building at least appear somewhat similar in scale and proportion with the historic building. Similarly, the application satisfies part of Guideline 11.6. Although the new structure is recognizable as a product of its time, it relates strongly to the historic resource in but one of three given elements of design (form, materials, or fenestration). 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, flat roofs that have no historic parallel on the site abut two front gables that do. The result is a more complicated form and a clear departure from the historic resource. The materials used on the new building, on the other hand, clearly relate to those of the historic resource. The proposed primary material, horizontal wood siding, appears similar in composition, scale, application, and orientation to that of the historic resource. The proposed finish (stain) is not the same as, but may still appear similar to, that of the historic resource (paint). Depending on its application, the stain may further distinguish the old and new construction. In either case, the relatively minimal application of material generally compliments the historic resource and contributes to a traditional sense of human scale. The proposed fenestration does not relate strongly to the historic resource. Only some of the proposed windows are “similar in size and shape to those of the historic resource.” While some have either similar widths or height, others are similar in neither height nor width to a window on the historic resource. The non-orthogonal shape of one prominent window diverges from all relevant historic precedence. The front door of the new building is also not similar to that of the historic resource. At 8 feet tall and 4 feet wide, it is more than 1 foot 3 inches taller and nearly 1 foot wider than the historic door. Staff Recommendation: Approval with the following conditions: 1. For consideration and approval by the HPC at the final development plan review, the rear addition must be differentiated from the historic construction by a change in setback, form, or material. 2. For consideration and approval by the HPC at final development plan review, all fenestration on the front (north) façade of new development visible from Hopkins Avenue is to be made orthogonal and similarly sized to that of the historic resource. 44 Page 12 of 12 3. A preservation plan must be provided to and approved by the monitoring committee prior to construction, and include the following: a. The proposed details and dimensions of all new windows to be installed in the historic resource, and historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; b. The proposed details and dimensions of all new porch columns to be installed on the historic resource, and historic historical photographic and/or physical evidence substantiating the same; 4. Pending further land use approvals consistent with Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415.070, no historic material may be removed, or otherwise altered. 45 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. 46 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 temporary on-site relocation of the historic resource, excavation of a basement, and installation of new foundation 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. It 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. 47 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: • For consideration and approval by the project monitoring committee prior to building permit application, a relocation plan must be provided and include the following: o The identification of a temporary storage location for of the historic resource that is not in a property line setback. • Financial assurance of $30,000 for the safe relocation of the historic structure onto a new basement foundation must be provided to the City upon applying for a building permit. 48 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C Variations Criteria - Staff Findings 26.415.110 - Benefits: (c) Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. (1) The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d. Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. (2) In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. 49 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 50 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). 51 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. 52 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. 53 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 54 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. 55 • 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 56 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. 57 • 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. 58 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM Stuart Hayden and Gillian White Aspen Historic Preservation Commission October 24, 2024 Re: 325 West Hopkins – HP Conceptual Major Development Application Revisions Dear Stuart, Gillian, and HPC, Please accept this revised application for the 325 West Hopkins project. The project was heard by HPC on August 7, 2024 and September 25, 2024. Both hearings resulted in feedback to restudy the massing to comply with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. 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 historical 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 on September 25, 2024 with direction to simplify materials and reduce mass by redesigning window sizes and locations. The majority of the Board expressed support for relocation, variances for the historic landmark, and the reconstruction of the rear of the landmark per historic photographs and the footprint on the Sanborn Fire Insurance maps. HPC provided good feedback in September which results in a better project including revisions to the roof form, simplification of materials, and redesign of windows as described below. Figure 1: Existing condition at 325 W. Hopkins Avenue. 59 Page 2 of 8 Landmark • General support for site plan, “relocation”, and variations for original location. UPDATE! After the September hearing the owner decided to add a full basement underneath the landmark. The project is under the allowable floor area, and utilizing subgrade space below the landmark does not impact above grade massing. A crawl space was previously proposed under the landmark which is now replaced with living space. The basement is stacked below the landmark and front porch, which sits within the setbacks, so setback variances are now requested for the basement.  Note: the request for living space below the basement is addressed in the attached exhibits re: setbacks and relocation. The location of the lightwell is unchanged from the original application that proposed crawl space access at the rear of the landmark. The size of the lightwell is slightly larger to provide egress from the two new bedrooms. • Move downspouts. NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. Response: Downspouts are removed from the front porch and will be further studied and included in the Final Design application. • Match all roof material. NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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) • Indicate porch window is historic. NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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. NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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. NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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. Figure 2: Previous plan for crawl space under landmark. Figure 3: Proposed living space below landmark. 60 Page 3 of 8 • Check fire assembly on west elevation re: window openings NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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 NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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. • Restudy mass and simplify roof forms UPDATE! Response – In September overall height was reduced by about 3’ by changing the gable from 9:12 to 7:12 pitch and second level floor-to-ceiling heights were reduced to 8’ 4.75” to better relate to the proportions of the landmark. Also in September the one story building was redesigned to across gable. The November redesign focuses on further reducing the second story gables by adding a setback flat roof on the east elevation, and revising window proportions to relate to the vertical double hung windows in the landmark. A comparison of north elevations and roof plans are provided below. 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” 61 Page 4 of 8 Figures 9 - 11: Comparison of August roof plan (left), September roof plan (center), and revised November roof plan (right). Figure 5 and 6: North elevation comparison of August proposal (left) and September proposal (right). Figures 7 and 8: North elevation November proposal showing new construction (left) and new construction plus landmark (right). 62 Page 5 of 8 • Revise architectural details to be more modern. NO CHANGE SINCE 9/25/2024. 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. The following background was provided in previous applications. 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 12: 1890 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Subject property is outlined in orange. Figure 13: History Colorado, William Henry Jackson collection. Photograph is pre-1890 as the Baptist church is not shown on the corner. Blue arrow indicates 325. 63 Page 6 of 8 Figure 14: 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 15: Denver Public Library Special Collections, CPHOTO513-2020-125. Photograph of the south (rear) elevation of 325 West Hopkins. The photograph is circa 1900 - 1910 and depicts the Baptist Church on the corner (at left of 325). 64 Page 7 of 8 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. The project is well below the height limit and below maximum allowable floor area. Conceptual design A full restoration of the landmark footprint is proposed. The landmark will be about 560 sf in size above grade with subgrade living space. 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. UPDATE! 1) All siding changed to horizontal wood siding. 2) 2-story gable form behind the new house entry reduced to match the historic gable proportions. 3) Flat roof added above the stairway opening to reduce the height and massing. Wall is setback from the 2-story gable to reduce mass. 4) Roof eaves reduced on all flat roofs in order to make massing appear smaller. Demolition Removal of all non-historic additions is requested to restore the building to its original footprint. Temporary “relocation” The condition of the foundation under the historic building is unknown until the project construction commences. Relocation review was originally requested to address any foundation issues in need of repair and a letter from an engineer provided to demonstrate the ability to lift the house. The scope of this work has changed, and the owner requests HPC approval to excavate living space below the landmark. The required lightwell for egress is proposed at the rear of the landmark, in the same location as the proposed access to the crawl space in the original application. UPDATE! Figure 16: 1970s Aspen aerial view showing rear addition. Figure 17: 2004 Aspen aerial view showing current footprint with east addition. 65 Page 8 of 8 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. Setback variations are requested for the below grade living space which is stacked below the landmark and the front porch. Exhibit A.5 is updated to address the new variations. UPDATE! RDS for new home The new home is subject to compliance with the Residential Design Standards as described in Exhibit A.6. Thank you for your consideration of this project. We request a site visit prior to the HPC hearing if possible. We look forward to hearing your comments and to improving this special historic property. Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams, LLC sara@bendonadams.com 610-246-3236 Exhibits [light blue indicates exhibit previously provided in original application] A Review Criteria A.1 Historic Preservation Design Guidelines revised 10.24.2024 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 revised 10.24.2024 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 10.24.2024 L.1 Neighborhood context L.2 Existing and proposed drawings revised 10.24.2024 66 Exhibit A.1 HP Review Revised .10.24.2024 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. 67 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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. 68 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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. 69 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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. 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. 70 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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. 71 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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. 72 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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. 73 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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 the original window opening. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 74 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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 window 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. 75 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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. 76 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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 (Figure 3) 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. 77 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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 on 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. 78 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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. 79 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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 excavate a living space below the landmark. A relocation plan will be provided for review by Staff and Monitor. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. 80 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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 – A relocation plan with details will be provided - 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. 81 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 • 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. One lightwell is proposed at the rear of the landmark where crawl space access was previously proposed. 9.7 All relocations of designated structures shall be performed by contractors who specialize in moving historic buildings, or can document adequate experience in successfully relocating such buildings. • The specific methodology to be used in relocating the structure must be approved by the HPC. • During the relocation process, panels must be mounted on the exterior of the building to protect existing openings and historic glass. Special care shall be taken to keep from damaging door and window frames and sashes in the process of covering the openings. Significant architectural details may need to be removed and securely stored until restoration. • The structure is expected to be stored on its original site during the construction process. Proposals for temporary storage on a different parcel will be considered on a case by case basis and may require special conditions of approval. • A historic resource may not be relocated outside of the City of Aspen. Response – The project will comply with this requirement. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. Figure 6: Existing foundation detail. 82 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 New Buildings on Landmark Properties • 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. Restoration of the rear of the landmark is proposed. 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 feet. This historic condition is preserved; and allows the new structure to be setback from the landmark by 6’9.75”. Figure 7: Non-historic addition proposed to be removed. 83 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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. Both gable modules relate to the width of the historic gable end. The new home steps up to two-stories after a 10’ long one story flat roof connecting element to further push the two story massing to the rear of the site. A recessed flat roof is proposed to further break down the two-story mass. The floor to ceiling heights on the second level are reduced to 8’ 4.” The project is below the maximum allowable floor area and below the maximum height limit. 84 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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.” Natural grade changes and a large City spruce tree between the homes break up the site as viewed in the renderings. The intent of the guideline – that front elevations are similar in scale- is met. Porch details and windows are revised to better relate to the landmark. Figure 11: Comparison of front elevation revised Nov. proposal. Figure 9: Comparison of front elevations – August proposal. Figure 10: Comparison of front elevations Sept. proposal. 85 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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 – 3,237 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. • 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: Gable roof forms are proposed to relate to the landmark. These forms are connected by flat roof to break down mass behind the landmark. Materials: Horizontal stained wood siding is proposed for the new building to relate to the landmark. A metal fascia detail along the east and rear elevations, and a metal roof, are secondary materials to the wood siding. Exact finishes are being developed and will be provided at Final Review. Fenestration: Windows mostly relate to the vertical orientation and proportions found on 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. Figure 12: Rendering of project as viewed from the NE corner of the property. 86 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 Figure 13: Renderings of revised project. 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 imitate a historic style. The details are modest and supportive of the landmark and the new building is a product of its own time. 87 Exhibit A Review Criteria – 10.24.2024 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 88 Exhibit A.3 Temporary Relocation Exhibit A.3 Temporary Relocation – revised 10/24/24 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located, and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation. 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response – A crawl space already exists beneath the landmark and is proposed to be expanded into living space. Providing living space below grade removes above grade development pressure from the landmark. Picking up a historic home to repair the foundation and excavate a basement is typically accepted by Aspen HPC as an acceptable preservation method that does not adversely impact the historic property. An engineer stamped letter provided in the original application attests to the ability to lift the historic home. The home will be placed back in its original location after the basement is excavated. A conceptual relocation plan is included as Sheet Z1.04. A more detailed plan will be provided for staff and monitor review and approval. It is expected that the house will remain on the property during excavation and will not be temporarily relocate offsite. Financial security will be provided at building permit. Design guidelines related to Chapter 9, Relocation, are addressed in Exhibit A.1. 89 Exhibit A.5 Setback Variations Exhibit A.5 Setback variations for historic location 26.415.110. Benefits (c) Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards. (1) The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow: a. Development in the side, rear and front setbacks; b. Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings; c. Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; d. Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties. (2) In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation: a. Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic district. Response – The landmark is in its original location based on historic maps. The requested setback variations allow the historic home to remain in its original location with subgrade living space. Preserving the original location is important to the integrity of the property and historic context, and contributes to the overall sense of place in the neighborhood which contains numerous AspenVictorian properties along Hopkins and Hyman Avenues. The following setback variations are requested: Table 1: Setback variations for historic condition R-6 Requirement Historic condition/ variation request Front Setback (north) 10 ft. 5 ft. 10.25 in. provided 4 ft. 1.75 in. variation requested Side Setback (east) 5 ft. 1 ft. 1.75 in. provided 3 ft. 10.25 in variation requested 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 PM 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. ZONING SITE PLANS FLOOR PLANS ELEVATIONS 1 2 Z1.01 Z1.02 Z1.03 Z1.04 A1.01 A1.02 A1.03 A1.04 A1.01 A1.06 A1.07 A2.01 A2.02 A2.03 A2.04 A2.05 A2.06 A2.07 A2.08 COVER SHEET PROJECT OVERVIEW FAR DEMOLITION PLANS SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | PROPOSED | 1:5 RELOCATION PLAN | 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 RENDERINGS033 LBB 5.1 A REFERENCE GRID LINE SPOT ELEVATION WINDOW MARK DOOR MARK ROOM NUMBER DRAWING REVISION ASSEMBLY DETAIL CUT SECTION CUT EXTERIOR ELEVATION DETAIL CALLOUT SECTION DETAIL CALLOUT INTERIOR ELEVATION ROOM 100 F11 1 T. O. RIDGE BEAM 123'-6 1/2" 4.4 1 1 7.1 1 7.1 8.1 1 2 3 4 SYMBOL LEGEND MATERIAL LEGEND GYPSUM WALL BOARD RAW FRAMING WOOD BLOCKING ROCK - NON COMPACTED FILL CONCRETE STONE FRAME WALL BRICK PLYWOOD BATT INSULATION FINISHED WOOD RIGID INSULATION 8 OWNER/BUILDER Richard Wax & Associates Vince Coghlan P.O. Box 7699 Aspen, CO 81612 P. 970.274.2113 coghlanv@gmail.com PROJECT MANAGER Richard Wax & Associates Wheeler Clancy P.O. Box 7699 Aspen, CO 81612 P. 970.948.8771 wheeler@rwaspen.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEER Bwr.PE Brian Rossiter 1010 W. 24th St. Rifle, CO 81650 P. 970.462.8853 bwr@bwr.pe A.F.F. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ADJ. ADJUSTABLE ALT. ALTERNATE A.B. ANCHOR BOLTS & AND ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL @ AT BM. BEAM BM. PKT. BEAM POCKET BRG. BEARING BLK’G. BLOCKING BOT. BOTTOM B.F. BOTTOM OF FOOTING BLDG. BUILDING B.O. BY OWNER CAB. CABINET CLG. CEILING CL. CENTER LINE C.T. CERAMIC TILE CLR. CLEAR COL. COLUMN CONC. CONCRETE CONN. CONNECTION CONT. CONTINUOUS DTL. DETAILS DBL. DOUBLE DWL. DOWEL E.W. EACH WAY ELEV. ELEVATION EXIST’G EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING FND. FOUNDATION GA. GAUGE G.L. GLU-LAM G.W.B. GYPSUM WALL BOARD HT. HEIGHT HK. HOOK HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INFO. INFORMATION INSUL. INSULATION JST. JOIST L.L. LIVE LOAD LONGINT. LONGITUDINAL N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT O.C. ON CENTER OPP. OPPOSITE O/ OVER PTD. PAINTED PERF. PERFORATED PL. PLATE PLY. PLYWOOD PROP. LINE PROPERTY LINE REINF. REINFORCEMENT RDWD. REDWOOD REQ’D. REQUIRED RESIL. RESILENT REV. REVISED S.M. SHEET METAL SIM. SIMILAR S.F. SQUARE FEET STD. STANDARD STL. STEEL STDS. STUDS THK. THICK TLT. TOILET T.F. TOP OF FOOTING T.P. TOP OF PLATE T.L. TOP OF LEDGE T.W. TOP OF WALL TOT. TOTAL T.B. TOWEL BAR TRANSV. TRANSVERSE TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. The Contract Documents shall consist of the general notes and the architectural, mechanical, and structural drawings. All future additional specifications, details, drawings, clarifications, or changes shall, in turn, become part of these documents. Work indicated or reasonably implied in any one of the documents shall be supplied as though fully covered in all. Any discrepancy between any parts of the drawings shall be reported to the Architect/Designer immediately for clarification. 2. Richard Wax & Associates, waves any and all liability for problems which arise from failure to follow the design intent of the plans. Contractor to obtain and/or request guidance of Richard Wax & Associates, with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, or conflicts which may be discovered or alleged. 3. The Plans and Specifications are the property of the Architect/Designer and are not to be used without the permission of same. 4. All work shall comply with all state and local codes, ordinances, rules, regulations and laws of building officials or authorities having jurisdiction. All work shall be performed to the highest standards or craftsmanship by journeymen of the appropriate trades. 5. The Contract Documents represent the finished structure. They do not indicate the method of construction. The Contractor shall provide all measures necessary to protect the structure during construction. Observation visits to the site by the Structural Engineer or Architect/Designer shall not include inspection of the above items nor will the Architect/Designer or Structural Engineer be responsible for the Contractor's means, methods, techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the techniques, sequences for procedure of construction, or the safety precautions and the programs incident thereto. The Contractor shall be responsible for all Federal and OSHA regulations. 6. THE DRAWINGS ARE NOT TO BE SCALED. Written dimensions are to be used. If there is a discrepancy in dimensions, the Architect/Designer should be notified for clarification. All dimensions on the drawings shall be verified against the existing conditions. All dimensions are to rough framing or face of concrete unless noted otherwise. 7. These documents are intended to include all labor, materials, equipment, and services required to complete all work described herein. It is the responsibility of the Contractor to bring to the attention of the Architect/Designer any conditions which will not permit construction according to the intentions of these documents. 8. The Building Inspector shall be notified by the Contractor when there is need of an inspection as required by the I.R.C., or by any local code or ordinance. 9. LOT STAKED: The Contractor shall arrange for the building to be located and staked after demolition or site clearing, to be approved by the Architect/Designer. The Contractor shall review the lot staking and verify, to the best of his ability, its accuracy. The Contractor shall also check the grade where it meets the building to evaluate the consistency with the drawings during excavation. Work to be done by a certified surveyor. 10. RECORD DRAWINGS: Contractor to maintain a complete set of blue/black-line prints of contract drawings and shop drawings for record mark-up purposes throughout the Contract time. Mark-up drawings during course of the work to show changes and actual installation conditions, sufficient to form a complete record for Owner's purposes. Give particular attention to work which will be concealed and difficult to measure and record at a later date, and work which may require servicing or replacement during life of project. Require entities marking prints, to sign and date each mark-up. Bind prints into manageable sets, with durable paper cover, appropriately labeled. 11. SOILS AND CONCRETE: The General Contractor shall arrange for a visual site inspection at the completion of excavation by a soils engineer, and the required concrete testing prior to any foundation work. 12. Property lines, utilities and topography shown is representative of information taken from a survey. Notify Architect/Designer of any discrepancy or variation between the Drawings and actual site conditions. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT INDEX PROJECT DIRECTORY GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES ABBREVIATIONS 325 W. HOPKINS AVE. HP C SU B M I S S I O N - UP D A T E S 10 / 2 3 / 2 0 2 4 VICINITY MAP 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 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 10/23/2024 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 ft82 sq ft 97 sq ft 21 sq ft 9 sq ft 39 sq ft 17 sq ft 317 sq ft 570 sq ft 141 sq ft 56 sq ft 64 sq ft 202 sq ft 108 sq ft 103 sq ft 18 sq ft36 sq ft 21 sq ft 42 sq ft 108 sq ft 10 sq ft 42 sq ft 2,287 sq ft BASEMENT WALL AREA CALCS TOTAL WALL AREA= 2,332 SF EXPOSED WALL AREA= 160 SF 160/2,332 *100= 6% COUNTS TOWARDS FAR 2,332*.06= 136 SF COUNTS TOWARDS FAR WALL LEGEND -BURIED WALL AREA -EXPOSED WALL AREA 1,514 sq ft 109 sq ft 559 sq ft 484 sq ft 57 sq ft ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO ON GRADE PATIO OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE 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 NEW DETACHED BASEMENT= 137 SF NEW DETACHED MAIN= 1,514 SF NEW GARAGE= 30 SF* NEW DETACHED UPPER= 1,022 SF HISTORIC BASEMENT= 50 SF HISTORIC MAIN= 484 SF PROPOSED= 3,237 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= 484 SF PROPOSED= 484 SF HISTORIC EXISTING= 425 SF HISTORIC 1,022 sq ft 463 sq ft OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE ROOF BELOW Existing Floor Area CalculationsBasement 0Main1715Garage0Upper0Total Proposed FAR:1715 Allowed: 3600Remaining:1885 NEW DETACHED ‐ 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 82 39 17 25 85 41 96 162 358 New Detached Total Wall Area:2328 New Detached Exposed Wall Area: 164 New Detached ‐ % of Exposed Wall:6% Subgrade Floor Area Calculations New Det. ‐Subgrade Gross Floor Area 2287 New Det. ‐Subgrade Countable FAR 137 (2287 x 6%) HISTORIC RESOURCE ‐ PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS (SF) 10 141 64 56 202 108 21 42 42 18 36 103 108 HR ‐ Total Wall Area:873 HR ‐ Exposed Wall Area: 78 HR ‐ % of Exposed Wall:9% HS ‐Subgrade Gross Floor Area 570 HS ‐Subgrade Countable FAR 50 (570 x 9%) Proposed Floor Area Calculations New Det. ‐Basement 137 New Det. ‐Main 1514 New Det. ‐Garage 30 New Det. ‐Upper 1022 Historic Resource ‐Basement 50 Historic Resource ‐Main 484 Total Existing FAR:3237 Allowed: 3600 Remaining:363 Existing Floor Area Calculations Basement 0 Main 1715 Garage 0 Upper 0 Total Proposed FAR:1715 Allowed: 3600 Remaining:1885 NEW DETACHED ‐ 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 82 39 17 25 85 41 96 162 358 New Detached Total Wall Area:2328 New Detached Exposed Wall Area: 164 New Detached ‐ % of Exposed Wall:6% Subgrade Floor Area Calculations New Det. ‐Subgrade Gross Floor Area 2287 New Det. ‐Subgrade Countable FAR 137 (2287 x 6%) HISTORIC RESOURCE ‐ PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL EXPOSED WALL CALCULATIONS (SF) 10 141 64 56 202 108 21 42 42 18 36 103 108 HR ‐ Total Wall Area:873 HR ‐ Exposed Wall Area: 78 HR ‐ % of Exposed Wall:9% HS ‐Subgrade Gross Floor Area 570 HS ‐Subgrade Countable FAR 50 (570 x 9%) Proposed Floor Area Calculations New Det. ‐Basement 137 New Det. ‐Main 1514 New Det. ‐Garage 30 New Det. ‐Upper 1022 Historic Resource ‐Basement 50 Historic Resource ‐Main 484 Total Existing FAR:3237 Allowed: 3600 Remaining:363 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 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 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 10/23/2024 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 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 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 10/23/2024 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 2632 2,075+557 Pre-project Lot Coverage 44% 2,075 sq ft 557 sq ft 3'-0" 10'-41/2" 10'-0" 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 ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W. WALL EXISTING 6,000SF LOT SCALE: 1" = 5'1 SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | 1:5 | PROPOSED 0 2'5'10' SCALE: 1" = 5'1 SITE DISTURBANCE PLAN | 1:5 | EXISTING 0 2'5'10' 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 PM All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are Z1.04 RELOCATION PLAN | 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. 14 ' - 0 " AP P R O X . 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 ALLEY BLOCK 53 - 20.90' R.O.W. EXISTING 6,000SF LOT FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE MOVED TEMPORARY STORAGE AREA OF HISTORIC RESOURCE WHILE NEW FOUNDATION IS BUILT SCALE: 1" = 5'1 RELOCATION SITE PLAN | 1:5 | PROPOSED 0 2'5'10' 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 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 10/23/2024 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' 96 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 6 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 10/23/2024 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 97 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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" 2'-0" 11 ' - 3 1/ 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 EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME 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 " 101'-93/4" SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0"1 MAIN LEVEL EXISTING 98 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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 SYNTHETIC 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 99 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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 100 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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 " 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" 13'-01/2"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" 2'-0"31/2"5'-0"31/2"3'-31/4"31/2" 4'-53/4"31/2" 6'-101/4" 20 ' - 3 1/ 2 " 31/ 2 " 9' - 0 1/ 2 " 12'-03/4"31/2"11'-71/2" 10 ' - 1 1 " 31/ 2 " 9' - 1 1/ 2 " 31/ 2 " NEW FOUNDATION REQUIRED TO MATCH ORIGINAL HOUSE FOOTPRINT, VIF LAUNDRY MECH. BATH TV BUNK ROOM GYM MEDIA BILLIARD BEDROOM BEDROOM BATH BATH CLOSET CLOSET PWDR CLOSET UP LIGHT WELL LIGHT WELL LI G H T WE L L LIGHT WELL SLAB ON GRADE ABOVE UP BEDROOM GH1 BEDROOM GH2 BATH BATH LAUNDRY 1'-71/2"31/2"5'-23/4"2' - 9 3/ 4 " 11 ' - 9 " 31/ 2 " 2' - 0 " 31/ 2 " 5' - 5 " 111 116 113 114 102 100 101 104 108 109 105 106 107 115 112 001 002 003 004 005 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" CARPET CARPET TILE TILE TILE W/ D 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 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 17'-91/4"43/4"2'-71/4"43/4"21'-93/4" 8' - 9 3/ 4 " 63/ 4 " 12 ' - 3 3/ 4 " 13'-93/4"63/4"6'-23/4" 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 " 11 ' - 6 " 63/ 4 " 7' - 2 1/ 2 " 2'-0"12'-101/4" 3' - 8 " 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" 5'-11"21'-2"22'-10" 100'-0" 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 " 3' - 2 " 2' - 8 1/ 4 " 2' - 1 1 3/ 4 " MAKEUP VANITY NEW ADDITION TO MATCH ORIGINAL HOUSE FOOTPRINT, VIF BENCH OFFICE HER BATH HER CLOSET MUD ROOM PRIMARY BEDROOM ENTRY PWDRGH KITCHEN GH LIVING DINING OUTDOR PATIO LI G H T WE L L 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 NEW LIGHT WELL 1/8"/ 12 " UP 1 1 2 2 6 6 11 11 7 7 4 4 8 8 10 10 9 9 5 5 3 3 3/4"4'-103/4"63/4"6'-0"5'-43/4" 102 108 109 105 107 101 104GH1 GH2 GH3 110 108 109 108 5'-0"71/2"71/2"6'-6"5'-83/4" 14 ' - 5 " 9' - 0 " 8' - 9 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 WOOD CARPET WOOD WOOD TILE TILE CARPET CARPET T.O. PLY T.O.E. PLY A A B B C C D D E E F F G G H H J J K K gA gA 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 A2.02 101'-93/4" 10'-0" REAR YARD SETBACK SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LOWER LEVEL- PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL - PROPOSED 101 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. DW TR DW TR 1'-101/4" 23'-73/4"6'-0" 23 ' - 8 " 71/ 2 " 22'-61/2"20'-71/4"71/2" 21 ' - 8 1/ 4 " 111'-0" 2'-0"3'-6"5'-0"5'-103/4"3'-4"3'-11"6'-0" LIVING WINE BAR OUTDOOR FP DN OU T D O O R BB Q OUTDOOR PATIO WINE 36 " FRE E Z E R KITCHEN DINING PANTRY DESK WINE 1 1 2 2 6 6 11 11 7 7 4 4 8 8 10 10 9 9 5 5 3 3 203 204 36 " FR I D G E 201 202 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 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" 5'-11"12'-01/2"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" 1/8"/12" 1/8"/12" 1 1 2 2 6 6 11 11 7 7 4 4 8 8 10 10 9 9 5 5 3 3 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 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 LOWER ROOF ROOF DECK BELOW HIGH FLAT ROOF 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. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND LEVEL - PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 ROOF PLAN 102 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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. 10/23/2024 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 103 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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'-51/4" 116'-63/4" VIF 2' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 2'-6" 4'-0" 3' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 61/ 2 " 101'-93/4" 113'-63/4" 13 ' - 6 3/ 4 " 123'-81/4" 123'-11/2"123'-71/4" 125'-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 8' - 9 1/ 4 " 14 ' - 9 " 10 ' - 1 0 1/ 2 " 14 ' - 6 3/ 4 " 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 104 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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" 5'-11"12'-01/2"1'-31/2"3'-0"4'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3" 123'-81/4"123'-71/4"123'-8" 125'-4" 122'-0" 123'-8" 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" HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING MID POINTMID POINT T.O. RIDGET.O. RIDGE MID POINT T.O. ROOF MID POINT 120'-91/2" 125'-51/4" T.O. RIDGE 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 111'-0" SECOND LEVEL 111'-0" ROOF 120'-0" ROOF 120'-0" 114'-63/4" 123'-71/4" 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 123'-73/4"123'-81/4" 125'-51/4"125'-4" 123'-81/4" VERTICAL METAL COLONNADE HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING HORIZONTAL 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 HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING T.O. RIDGE T.O. RIDGE MID POINT MID POINTMID POINT T.O. RIDGE MID POINT ROOF 120'-11" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH ELEVATION NEW DETACHED HOME (STREET FACING) 105 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 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 ' - 5 " 122'-0" 125'-4" 120'-11" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF HORIZONTAL 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 T.O. ROOF 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" 125'-4" 1' - 5 3/ 4 " 10 ' - 0 " 122'-0" 120'-91/2" 125'-51/4" 114'-63/4" 113'-63/4" STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING METAL BASE FLASHING EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE PROJECTED VERTICALLY 25'-0" PROPOSED GRADE PROJECTED VERTICALLY 25'-0" HORIZONTAL CEDAR SIDING STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 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 106 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. SCALE: 1:0.831SIDE PERSPECTIVE 107 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. SCALE: 1:1.674FRONT PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.673FRONT PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.051FRONT PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.252FRONT PERSPECTIVE 108 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No.SCALE: 1:1.542REAR PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.543REAR PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.431COURTYARD PERSPECTIVE 109 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 PM All ideas, designs, arrangements and plans indicated or represented by this drawing are A2.08 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. SCALE: 1:1.251FRONT PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.252FRONT PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.113FRONT PERSPECTIVE SCALE: 1:1.254FRONT PERSPECTIVE 110 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 We d n e s d a y , Oc t o b e r 23 , 20 2 4 3: 4 7 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 10/23/2024 Sheet No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LOWER 89'-4" MAIN LEVEL 100'-0" SECOND LEVEL 111'-0" ROOF 120'-0" 44'-0" 9' - 4 3/ 4 " 125'-41/2" 12'-01/2"1'-31/2"3'-0"4'-10"4'-7"5'-0"6'-9"3"6'-3" 123'-71/2" 8' - 5 1/ 4 " PL A T E HE I G H T 8' - 5 1/ 4 " 8' - 1 0 1/ 4 " 14 ' - 3 3/ 4 " 23 ' - 4 3/ 4 " 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 111 < < 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 11 2 J. Bart Johnson (970) 544-4602 johnson@wcrlegal.com November 12, 2024 VIA EMAIL Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Kate Johnson, Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Aspen 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: 205 W. Main Street (PID# 2735-124-54-003) Dear Kate and Ben, I am writing in regard to the Minor Development and Relocation approval issued for 205 W. Main St. by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on July 26, 2023 pursuant to HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2023. As you know, I represent the applicant for this project, Conservation Housing Partners LLC. This project is now almost through the administrative approval process that we commenced following the HPC approval issued over a year ago. In the course of this administrative approval, some questions arose about whether an addition on the west side of the home is a historically significant element of the home. We addressed this issue in detail in a letter of August 8, 2024, a copy of which I am enclosing. This letter reviewed and confirmed the conclusions reached by Amy Simon in her April 2023 staff memo, in which she found the “small addition was made at the southwest corner of the building once the home was placed at 205 W Main.” As you know, Ms. Simon is a highly respected historic preservation expert who, prior to serving as the City’s Planning Director, served as its lead historic preservation officer for 27 years - from 1993 to 2020. The west side addition is not a historically significant element. Nevertheless, we have learned that the Historic Preservation Commission intends to discuss at its meeting this coming Wednesday a motion to somehow rescind its Resolution #9, Series of 2023 – apparently based on the issue of whether the west side addition is historically significant. It is difficult for us to comment on this possibility in an informed manner because no details have been provided to us. And it just appeared on the HPC’s agenda yesterday afternoon. It is identified as an item for “discussion” in the old business category. This proposed action is highly unusual and without precedent as far as we know. And to have it sprung on us with a few days’ notice is disturbing. In case there might be any doubt, the applicant strongly opposes this effort. First and foremost, there is no substantive justification for any such action. This project has endured an exhaustive approval process and conforms to all requirements of the Aspen Land Use Code. The claimed basis for this radical action from the HPC seems to be that the applicant misled the HPC as part of the 2023 approval process. This allegation is made up from whole cloth. The applicant’s representations to the HPC about the west addition were based on two fundamental touchstones, Amy Simon’s own conclusions after inspecting the home herself and the historic 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance map, which shows no addition on the west of the home. And the additional information we provided in our letter of August 8, 2024 supports Ms. Simon’s conclusion – the west addition is different from the original home in design, construction techniques, detailing and materials (some of which are from the mid-20th Century) and is not a historically significant part of the structure. Second, from a procedural perspective, there is no provision in the City’s Land Use Code that authorizes the Historic Preservation Commission to reconsider a resolution that it adopted nearly a year and half ago. And November 12, 2024 Page 2 regardless of whatever internal rules of procedure the HPC may follow for conducting its meetings, those rules of procedure cannot be used to trump the provisions of the Land Use Code. See § 26.304.060(c) (adopted rules of procedure may not “conflict with this Title”). If the HPC had the authority to revisit decisions of its own initiative after more than a year it would throw the entire process into chaos because no applicant would be able rely on a decision from the HPC as a truly final decision. There is another aspect of this that is also troubling. On November 5 and 6, the Aspen Times and the Aspen Daily News published similar letters to the editor from a neighbor who lives just to the south of 205 W. Main St. This neighbor has been a persistent critic of this affordable housing project whose objections feel more like a classic example of “not in my backyard” than a genuine long-standing concern for Aspen’s historic fabric. In both of his letters the neighbor said, in reference to this project, words to the effect that the HPC will decide the question of preservation or demolition at its upcoming meeting on Wednesday, November 13, 2024. Overall, these letters are clearly geared toward influencing the HPC’s decision at this meeting. But as of early last week when these letters were published, there was no public plan to have the 205 W. Main St. project on the HPC’s agenda for its meeting this Wednesday and, from what we’ve been told, no one on the City’s staff had received any instructions to place it on the agenda. So the question that is hard to avoid is how this neighbor seemed to know, over a week in advance, about the HPC’s plans when the City’s own staff and the applicant did not, and when no agenda has been released by the HPC? Though we don’t know for sure, one potential answer is that this member of the public has been in direct communication with one or more members of the Historic Preservation Commission – i.e., that ex parte communications may be occurring that would definitely be of concern to us and should be of concern to the City. We encourage you to look into this. We do not believe there is any justification for the Historic Preservation Commission to try and somehow rescind its adoption of Resolution #9, Series of 2023. If the HPC attempts to do so, we will oppose and challenge such action by all available means. We urge you to dissuade the HPC from going down the path they seem to be considering. Unfortunately, I have a prior engagement and will not be able to attend this Wednesday’s meeting on behalf of the applicant. Please share this letter with the Historic Preservation Commission. Sincerely, Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP Enclosure cc: Mitch Haas Conservation Housing Partners LLC J. Bart Johnson (970) 544-4602 johnson@wcrlegal.com {A0215524--2} August 8, 2024 VIA EMAIL Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Historic Structure – 205 W. Main Street (PID# 2735-124-54-003) Dear Ben, I am writing in regard to the Minor Development and Relocation approval issued for 205 W. Main St. by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on July 26, 2023 pursuant to HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2023. Since this approval was issued, the property has been proceeding through the administrative stage of the entitlement process for relocation and preservation of the existing home and development of separate affordable housing on the property. In the course of this administrative review process, questions have been raised about whether an addition on the west side of the existing home is part of the original historic structure that was relocated from its original site on E. Hallam St. to its current location on W. Main St. in the late 1940s. These questions have come up apparently based on a panoramic photo that has been discovered from c. 1890-1900 of the entire West End area of Aspen. Though the resolution becomes very low when the relevant portion of the photo is enlarged to show the original home location, the photo might be interpreted to suggest the home had a small, windowless addition off its back rear corner when the photo was taken. In your email of July 16, 2024 confirming that the City fully acknowledges and will adhere to the HPC’s approval Resolution (which we appreciate), you suggested that the City and the applicant should have completed additional due diligence on this issue. We would like to take this opportunity to dispel the idea that additional due diligence was warranted or, even if undertaken, would have led to any different conclusion. We have undertaken some further physical investigation and analysis of this issue and believe the City staff’s and HPC’s original conclusions regarding the addition were correct – i.e., that the current addition on the west side of the home is not a historically significant element and should be removed from the structure as part of the preservation process, as approved by HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2023. Before getting into the details of our further investigation, it is important to note that the City’s HPC staff already researched and made findings on this matter based on the standards in the City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Section 10.2 of the Design Guidelines provides that a “more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.” And importantly, this section goes on to provide that 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.” This standard was addressed in the HPC Staff Memorandum presented to the HPC on April 26, 2023. As noted in this Staff Memorandum, the 1904 Sanborn map of the house Ben Anderson, AICP August 8, 2024 Page 2 {A0215524--2} in its original location shows no addition on the rear right corner of the structure (what would now be the southwest corner of the house). Assuming for the sake of argument there was ever an addition in that location, it was either removed before the Sanborn Map was prepared or the Sanborn Map missed it altogether. The HPC relies on the Sanborn maps because they are known to be accurate and reliable; it would not be in keeping with this approach to simply assume the Sanborn map is wrong. And it should be remembered that the newly discovered photo was taken 4-14 years before the Sanborn map was prepared. It would be perfectly consistent with the Sanborn map to believe the addition had been removed by 1904 because the Sanborn map shows a wagon road running across that corner of the home where the addition would have been. A snip from the relevant portion of the 1904 Sanborn map is pasted below: _____________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ In Exhibit A.1 to the staff memorandum of April 26, 2023, Amy Simon found that the “small addition was made at the southwest corner of the building once the home was placed at 205 W. Main.” As you know, Ms. Simon is a highly respected historic preservation expert who, prior to serving as the City’s Planning Director, served as its lead historic preservation officer for 27 years - from 1993 to 2020. Her conclusion regarding the addition to the home at 205 W. Main St. was based not only on her review of the Sanborn map, but also on her in-person inspection and professional observations of the property and her deep experience with historic structures in Aspen. Ben Anderson, AICP August 8, 2024 Page 3 {A0215524--2} Our further investigation and analysis support the conclusions reached by Ms. Simon and the HPC that the west side addition to the existing home as located at 205 W. Main Street is not a historically significant element of the home. Enclosed with this letter is an analysis of stark differences in the construction materials, techniques, design, and trim details between the main structure and the west addition of the home. Some of the highlights of this analysis include: • The exterior walls of the main structure include foil lined batt insulation, while the walls of the west addition use more modern fiberglass insulation. Fiberglass insulation was invented by Corning Glass by accident in 1932 and was not patented for use until 1936.1 • There are noticeable differences in the wood siding used on the main structure as compared to the siding used on the west addition. This includes the sawing technique (plain sawn vs. rift sawn), the quality and age of the siding, and the treatment of the backside of the boards. • The floor assemblies in the two parts of the home are completely different. The floor in the main part of the home uses a basic plank subfloor, tar paper underlayment, with hardwood or wood veneer flooring on top. By comparison, the lowest level of the floor in the west addition includes a plank subfloor that was originally covered in vinyl flooring and that was later overlain with layers of plywood and the current wood veneer floor. Vinyl flooring was introduced at the “Century of Progress” exposition in Chicago in 1933, but was not commonly used in residential construction in the United States until after the end of World War II.2 There is no evidence of vinyl flooring in the main part of the house. That the west addition does include vinyl flooring in the lower layer of the floor supports the conclusion that the existing west addition was constructed well after the original house. • There are noticeable differences in the styles and level of trim on the interior of the main house versus the west addition, and also in the exterior window detailing. In addition, the historic photo from 1890- 1900 shows no windows at all in the apparent addition area. We do not know for sure whether the original home as located in the West End area included a side addition. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that it did include such an addition, all the evidence we have now firmly indicates that the west addition that is currently located on the home as it sits at 205 W. Main St. is not the same as whatever may have existed prior to 1904. In most every observable way, the existing west addition is different from the main house and, most importantly, does not contribute to the historic significance of the main house. Please include this letter and the enclosure in the City’s file for this project. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Bart Johnson for WAAS CAMPBELL RIVERA JOHNSON & VELASQUEZ LLP 1 See: https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/in-the- pink/#:~:text=Fiberglas%20was%20invented%20by%20accident,with%20their%20open%20floor%20plans 2 See: https://www.tasupply.com/2019/07/03/the-evolution-of-vinyl-flooring/ Ben Anderson, AICP August 8, 2024 Page 4 {A0215524--2} Enclosure cc: Kate Johnson, Esq. Mitch Haas Conservation Housing Partners LLC 205 West Main Street Observations of Historic vs Non-Historic Areas: 1. Wall Construction Differences: There are notable differences in construction assembly methods from the known historic wall and the non-historic wall. The introduction of a tar paper waterproofing layer within the non-historic wall indicates this wall may not be original to the house. 2. Interior Flooring The differences between the three observed areas are notable. The overall thickness of the build-up of layers in the non-historic area is built up to the same height of the historic flooring, indicating there was once a step-down to the linoleum floor. This area is not likely to be an original to the house. The overlay of the veneer flooring on the historic flooring also indicates that the linoleum flooring in the non-historic area may only have been installed there. 3. Siding quality and age There is a visual difference in the quality and age of the siding between the historic and non-historic addition. The historic siding has significant warping and movement on all sides of the house. The non-historic addition is flat and consistent on all portions. The siding portions removed for observation also indicate a difference in mill quality, where the historic siding is plain sawn - leading to the warping and movement - while the non-historic siding is rift sawn and is a more stable material. 4. Roof edge and eave details The historic eaves are more decorative and consistently have a different profile than the non- historic addition’s eaves. 5. Window details The exterior trim around the windows of the historic building have a consistent primary and secondary detail. The primary detail includes an ornamental crown projection at the head of the windows and the secondary detail has a flat square projection. The exterior trim around the windows in the non-historic addition do not have either of these details and are more contemporary square profile trims. 6. Exterior base trim/flashing details The base trim detail around the historic building is a wide 2x board that meets the bottom of the building. The non-historic addition has a 1x board assembly with a different profile in addition to aluminum flashing. 7. Interior decorative trim and cased opening differences The decorative trim on the interior of the historic portion of the house is ornately decorative and consistent with Victorian era detailing. The non-historic addition area does not have these details and instead the trim is simply detailed. 8. Exterior siding on wall of interior closet An interior closet, located in the current kitchen, still has clapboard siding in the area that was once the rear right open patio and now enclosed. Mike Sear From: Stuart Hayden Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 5:46 PM To: Mike Sear Cc: Gillian White Subject: FW: Suspend Action on Notice of Approval of 205 W Main Mike, We received the public comment below. Dutifully, Stuart Stuart Hayden (he/him/hiss Planner II, Historic Preservation I Community Development (0): 970.975.1640 1 (C): 970.975.1640 www.cityofaspen.com CITY OFASPEN My typical work hours are Monday through Friday 9 - 5. Our Values: Stewardship 1 Partnership I Service I Innovation Notice and Disclaimer: This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and exempt from disclosure pursuant to applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it. Further, the information or opinions contained in this email are advisory in nature only and are not binding on the City of Aspen. If applicable, the information and opinions contain in the email are based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The opinions and information contained herein do not create a legal or vested right or any claim of detrimental reliance. From: David Scruggs <dscruggs1947@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 5:32 PM To: Ben Anderson <ben.anderson@aspen.gov>; Stuart Hayden <stuart.hayden@aspen.gov>; Kate Johnson <kate.johnson@aspen.gov>; Gillian White <gillian.white@aspen.gov> Cc: Jim True <jim.true@aspen.gov>; Sammi Montalto <sammi.montalto@aspen.gov> Subject: Suspend Action on Notice of Approval of 205 W Main All and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission See below our request of October 14, 2024 observing " It is inappropriate to proceed with approval while the HPC is contemplating the appropriate action it should take to preserve and protect the entire historic resource. We (neighbors of 205 W Main) respectfully request that all City officials suspend and hold in abeyance the approval process until such time as the HPC determines its course of action." The most recent CORA request answered today discloses that the approval is proceeding with all deliberate speed despite the fact that the HPC will consider rescission of the approval to demolish the historic "west addition ". Applicant's previous representation that the "west addition" was non historic is erroneous. Community Development Director Ben Anderson transmitted to the applicant a Notice of Approval on October 31,2024 for applicant's review and subsequent execution. An Agenda item for the HPC meeting on November 13, 2024 is: XII.B Discussion concerning rescission of Historical Preservation Commission Resolution #9, Series of 2023, Granting Minor Development and Relocation Approval for Property Located at 205 W. Main Street. . In Light of this HPC agenda item, it would be inappropriate and premature for Community Development Director Ben Anderson to execute the Notice of Approval before the HPC has held its "Discussion concerning rescission of Historical Preservation Commission Resolution #9, Series of 2023, Granting Minor Development and Relocation Approval for Property Located at 205 W. Main Street. " Gillian, please distribute this email to the members and alternate of the HPC and include this email in the record. Respectfully submitted David Scruggs 212 W Hopkins 9014934820 On Oct 14,2024, at 10:38AM, David Scruggs <dscruag 947@gmaiL.com> wrote: ALL Pursuant to my recent CORA request I discovered there is correspondence between various Aspen City officials and the applicant which indicates an effort to expedite approval of 205 W Main despite the existence of numerous outstanding unresolved issues. The applicant in writing and in presentations represented to the HPC that the "west addition is Not Historic. HPC Staff discovered evidence in May 2024 that that the applicant's representation is in error and that the "west addition" is in fact Historic. The HPC relied on the erroneous representation of the applicant in approving demolition . The HPC is in the process of considering the proper course of action it should take after the discovery that the "west addition" is in fact historic. The city attorney held a secret/executive session with HPC on 10/9/2024 to discuss this issue. NO decision has been made by HPC, which must be conducted in a subsequent public meeting. Also 9/25/2024 correspondence indicates that there are other approvals such as trash and "URMP'that have not been resolved. Therefore with these outstanding issues I would submit it is improper to proceed with approval at this time. The demolition of the historic west addition would violate the LUC and the important purpose of the HPC to preserve and protect historic resources. It is inappropriate to proceed with approval white the HPC is contemplating the appropriate action it should take to preserve and protect the entire historic resource. We (neighbors of 205 W Main) respectfully request that all City officials suspend and hold in abeyance the approval process until such time as the HPC determines its course of action. Stuart please distribute this email to the members and alternate of the HPC and include this email in the record. Respectfully submitted David Scruggs 212 W Hopkins WEST ADDITION 205 WEST MAIN FACTS 1. HPC granted approval to remove the west addition based on applicant's representation the west addition was non -historic. 2. HPC Staff discovered evidence that the applicant's representation of the non -historic nature of the west addition was in error. 3. HPC staff discovered during administrative review that the west addition is in fact historic as evidenced by the existence of the west addition on the 1896 Willets Map and corroborated by the 1895 McClure Photograph of the resource. 4. Chair Thompson wrote on May 30, 2024, "The applicant represented to us that the area ... is non -historic. If historic, it needs to remain." HPC DUTY TO PRESERVE and PROTECT HISTORIC BUILDINGS 5. The intent of the HPC is to "promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history... Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City." City of Aspen Land Use Code 26.415.010. 6. "...The preservation of historic resources is a high priority. This policy is articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan and in ordinances that address protection of landmark properties and historic districts." City of Aspen Historic Design Guidelines pg 8 7. "The design guidelines serve to reinforce the purpose of the Historic Preservation Chapter in the Aspen Land Use Code: Retain the historic, architectural and cultural resource attractions that support tourism and the economic welfare of the community." City of Aspen Historic Design Guidelines pg 9 8. "The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) promotes public welfare through the protection, enhancement, and preservation of those properties, areas, and sites, which represent the distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political, and architectural history..." HPC website Overview REOUEST Neighbors and interested citizens of Aspen respectfully request that HPC preserve the totality of 205 West Main including the historic west addition. We request you consider the facts and your duties and not extraneous advice of others. Please carefully consider the attached proposed Resolution which implements the mission and responsibility of HPC to preserve, protect and promote retention of historic buildings. Respectfully submitted on behalf of the neighbors and interested citizens of Aspen David Scruggs 212 W Hopkins 9014934820 Proposed Resolution Rescinding Resolution #9, Series of 2023 Section 1: HPC Conditions of Approval #3 Whereas, Resolution #9, series of 2023 Sectionl: HPC Conditions of Approval #3 provides: The non -historic west addition is approved to be removed from the historic structure and the void infilled with clapboards. Whereas, on April 25, 2023, June 14, 2023, and July 26, 2023 applicant in writing and orally made the representation to the HPC that the west addition was non -historic and requested approval to remove the west addition. Whereas, the HPC granted approval to remove the west addition based on applicant's representation the west addition was non -historic. Whereas, in May 2024 HPC Staff discovered evidence that the applicant's representation of the non -historic nature of the west addition was In error. Whereas, HPC staff discovered during administrative review that the west addition is in fact historic as evidenced by the existence of the west addition on the 1896 Willets Map and corroborated by the 1895 McClure Photograph of the resource. Whereas, the historic nature of the west addition was discussed by members of HPC, staff and/or public comment at HPC meetings on June 26, 2024, July 24, 2024, August 7, 2024, September 11, 2024, September 25, 2024, October 9, 2024 and October 23, 2024. Whereas, the intent of the HPC is to "promote the public health, safety and welfare through the protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, areas and sites, which represent distinctive elements of Aspen's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history... Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic buildings and districts in the City." City of Aspen Land Use Code 26.415.010. Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved: That HPC hereby rescinds Resolution #9, Series of 2023 Section 1: HPC Conditions of Approval #3 which approved the removal of the west addition from the Historic structure. And HPC further requires as a Condition of Approval that west addition is to be preserved as Historic as evidenced by the existence of the west addition on the 1896 Willets Map and corroborated by the 1895 McClure Photograph of the resource.