Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20250625AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION June 25, 2025 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.ROLL CALL II.MINUTES 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 XIII.NEW BUSINESS XIII.A 135 E. Cooper Ave. - Substantial Amendment - Public Hearing XIII.B 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Ave . - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation - PUBLIC HEARING Staff Memo.LPA-25-043.135 E Cooper Ave..pdf Exhibit A - Design Guidelines Analysis.LPA-25-043.135 E Cooper Ave.pdf Exhibit B - Application.LPA-25-043.135 E Cooper Ave.pdf 623 & 625 E Hopkins Ave. Staff Memo Draft Resolution #__, Series 2025 1 1 XIV.ADJOURN XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER Exhibit A. Design Guidelines Analysis Exhibit B. Relocation Criteria Analysis Exhibit C. Combined Referral Comments Exhibit D. 623 E Hopkins HPC application 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 Page 1 of 5 Memorandum LPA-25-043 TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission THROUGH: Gillian White, Principal Planner, Historic Preservation FROM: Stuart Hayden, Planner II, Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: June 25, 2025 RE: 135 E. Cooper Ave. – Substantial Amendment; PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT /OWNER: Aspen Core Holdings, LLC. REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams LOCATION: Street Address: 135 E. Cooper Ave. Legal Description: Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen Parcel Identification Number: PID# 2735-131-04-003 CURRENT ZONING & USE RMF (Residential Multi- Family); Single-family home PROPOSED ZONING & USE: No change SUMMARY: The applicant requests a Substantial Amendment to replace wood- shingle roofing with metal-tile roofing atop two historic resources, and change the type of metal-tile roofing approved for the addition. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend continuation of this Substantial Amendment application. Figure 1. Site Location Map – 135 E. Cooper Ave. 3 Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND: The property at 135 E. Cooper Ave. is legally described as Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. This 6,500-square-foot site in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district contains the 2-story Dixon-Markle House, constructed on this site in 1888, and a 1-story, gable-roofed, dwelling likely constructed on the site sometime before 1890. The property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Landmark Sites and Structures (Ordinance #77, Series of 1981) as well as the National Register of Historic Places. According to the 1986 National Register of Historic Places – Nomination Form, “the Dixon- Markel House is significant for its unusual vernacular design using Queen Anne elements.” Although its design is typical of pattern books that publicized Queen Anne designs across the country, the Nomination Form states, the Dixon-Markel House is “unique,” has “a distinctive appearance unlike other Aspen residences of the same period,” and is “one of the largest and most visible in the immediate neighborhood.” It also features nearly all of the characteristics of the Queen Anne style identified in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, including decorative wall surface patterns, steeply pitched rooflines, and decorative shingles. Regarding such buildings, this document states, “preserving the ornamental details and the original materials of this style are high priorities.” The single-story, gable-roofed, historic structure appears to have originated at the front of Lot H, immediately west of the Dixon-Markle House. Historic photographs and Sanborn Maps show a relatively modest dwelling with a simple, rectangular shape entered through a shed-roofed porch that spans the width of the east façade. The only apparent ornamentation is on the bay window below the front gable. Around 1964, this dwelling seems to have been significantly altered and relocated to the rear of Lot H, but continued to function as a dwelling or “guest house.” In 2003, the HPC approved a Major Development that included excavating a basement, across the front half of the site, moving the Dixon-Markel House slightly northeast of its original location, constructing a two-story addition to its west, and erecting a detached garage on the southeast of the site. The project included a 500-square-foot floor area bonus and setback variations. In 2015, the HPC approved with conditions a Minor Development to replace the one-story connector between the Dixon-Markel House and the west addition with a two-story glass-enclosed stairway. The HPC approved a Substantial Amendment modifying the connection to exclude a stairway in 2018. Later in 2018, the HPC permitted a minor development, including demolishing the 14-year- old garage, relocating and reorienting the historic one-story building to the southeast corner of the site, and constructing front and rear additions to the existing addition west of the Dixon-Markel House. Variations allowed a reduction of setbacks on all but the east side of the property. HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2019, approved a substantial amendment, relocation, and setback variations to temporarily relocate the historic buildings and excavate a larger basement. Other than rolled-asphalt roofing installed on the historic one-story building around the time of its first relocation on the site, historic evidence suggests both historic resources at 135 E. Cooper Ave. have only ever had wood-shingle roofing. Sanborn Maps from 1890 and 1904 indicate such material is original to both buildings and their porches. In 2020, the project monitoring committee apparently approved the use of 4½-inch-long, 9- inch-wide, Freedom Grey, Revere, tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper-tile roofing atop the non- 4 Page 3 of 5 historic west addition, and Freedom Grey, Revere, tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated copper gutters, flashing, downspouts and snow stops on all buildings at 135 E. Cooper Ave. It is unclear if/when “the small bay window on the east side facing Aspen Street is approved to have freedom grey shingles as well.” REQUEST OF HPC: The Applicant requests the following approval: • Substantial Amendment (Sec. 26.415.070(e)(2)): to replace wood-shingle roofing with metal-tile roofing atop two historic resources, and change the type of metal-tile roofing approved for the non-historic addition. The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority for this application. PROJECT SUMMARY: • Metal Roofing Material. The applicant proposes to install 5-inch-long, 5- to 12-inch-wide, <3/64-inch-thick, tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper tiles atop the two historic resources at 135 E. Cooper Ave. instead of the previously approved 16-inch-long, 3½- to 11-inch wide, 3/8-inch-thick, Maibec cedar shingles with 5-inch exposures; and to install 4½-inch-long, 9-inch-wide, pre-patinaed-copper tiles atop the non-historic addition instead of the previously approved 4½-inch-long, 9-inch-wide, tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper tiles. Fig. 2: 1904 Sanborn Map with the historic one-story building highlighted in green, Dixon-Markle House highlighted in blue, & the current property line in yellow. Fig. 3: Circa 1955 Photograph of Dixon-Markle House and historic one- story building from the northeast (Aspen Historical Society, Object ID No. 1974.068.0263) 5 Page 4 of 5 As it does not meet the criteria for minor modifications to HPC-approved plans enumerated in Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.070(e)(1)a., the proposed project does not qualify for consideration as an insubstantial amendment. Notably, the proposed work would “change the shape, location or material of a building element or feature,” but would not maintain “the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plan.” Accordingly, the request for metal-tile roofing atop two historic resources warrants a substantial amendment review by the HPC, a one-step review with a public hearing, after which the application may be approved, disapproved, approved with conditions or continued to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. STAFF EVALUATION: As detailed in Exhibit A, staff find the application for a Substantial Amendment at 135 E. Cooper Ave. inconsistent with the relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Not only is the proposed roofing neither an in-kind replacement nor “similar to the original” (Guideline 7.7) of the historic resources, the tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper tiles are not “a simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential alternative” (Guideline 7.8) thereto. Rather than “maintain or restore the character of the historic roof” (Guideline 7.7), the material proposed for the historic resources is more akin to that of the non-historic addition. The location, form, and architectural style of these historic resources make their roofs particularly prominent. The wood construction and detailing of the historic resources is fundamental to their architecture. Introducing a significant amount of metal will contrast with and detract from this basic, nearly all-wood palette. What little metal does exist, namely the decorative metal features of the Dixon-Markel House, will disappear and fade from prominence. The continuity of the historic features that separate the first from the second stories of the Dixon-Markel House are also endangered by the proposed material. With metal tiles atop the porch and the east bay, the wood shingles on the unique pent roof between the first and second stories will no longer match the scale, color, texture and composition of adjacent material. Fig. 4: 2012 Photograph of the 135 E. Cooper Ave. from S. Aspen St. 6 Page 5 of 5 Effectively, the metal tiles will visually estrange the pent roof from the front porch and the bay window, disrupting the band of shingles that historically differentiated the building’s stories. The apparently uninterrupted, 137-year-long use of wood shingles on the Dixon-Markle House makes this material a significant character defining feature. Although replacing the material now may not do irreparable physical damage, failing to follow the Guidelines will indefinitely compromise the historic integrity of these historic resources. For the new addition “to be recognized as a product of its own time” (Guideline 10.6), the historic resource must at least be “distinguishable against the addition” (Guideline 10.4). Although “there is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development” (Guideline 10.6), installing similar roofing material is not one of them. Accordingly, “an addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed” (10.3). Presuming that it is equally, if not more, inappropriate to alter a historic building to imitate an addition’s style, installing 5-inch-long, 5- to 12-inch-wide, tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper tiles atop the two historic resources is particularly unsuitable next to a non-historic addition with similar characteristics. Staff recommend continuation of this request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The application was not referred out to other City departments. Their requirements may, nevertheless, affect the permit review if warranted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend the HPC continue LPA-25-043 to August 13, 2025. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines - Staff Findings Exhibit B – Application 7 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.070(e) – Substantial Amendment to a Certificate of Appropriateness (2) Substantial amendments. a. All changes to approved plans that materially modify the location, size, shape, materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted must be approved by the HPC as a substantial amendment. b. An application for a substantial amendment shall include the following materials, as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director: 1. A revised site plan. 2. Revised scaled elevations and drawings. 3. Representations of building materials and finishes. 4. Photographs and other exhibits to illustrate the proposed changes. c. The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for approval of a substantial amendment and waive any submittals not considered necessary for consideration. 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. d. Notice for the review of an application for a substantial amendment will include publication, posting and mailing pursuant to Section 26.304.060(e)(3) Paragraphs a, b and c. e. Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the extent of the changes relative to the approved plans and how the proposed revisions affect the project's conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Codes. This report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed revisions and a recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions and the reasons for the recommendation. f. 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. 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. 8 Page 2 of 6 Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines & Findings The applicant requests a Substantial Amendment for the purposes of replacing wood-shingle roofing with metal-tile roofing atop two historic resources, and changing the type of metal-tile roofing approved for the non-historic addition. Chapter 7: Roofs Finding 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material. • Using recognized preservation methods, repair deteriorated historic material when possible. • When replacement is necessary, replace the roofing in kind, and/or use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities. Not Met 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should maintain or restore the character of the historic roof. • If a substitute is used, the roof material should be of a design, scale, color, texture, and composition akin to the original, or a simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential alternative that is visually compatible with the building’s historic features. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. Not Met 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornament or detail where there is no evidence that they existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. • Roofing materials should reflect the architectural style of the affected building or be substantiated by documentary or physical evidence. Not Met Chapter 10: New Additions Finding 10.3 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 9 Page 3 of 6 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. Not Met 10 Page 4 of 6 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 Staff Findings: Chapters 7 and 10 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are particularly relevant to this application for a Substantial Amendment at 135 E. Cooper Ave. Whereas the guidelines in Chapter 7 directly apply to the replacement of roofing material on the historic resources, Chapter 10 addresses additions and provides important context within which to consider the appropriateness of the overall proposal. Where wood shingles are the original and existing roofing material atop the historic resources, installing metal tiles does not meet Guideline 7.7. The proposed material is neither an in-kind replacement, nor “similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities.” The proposed material differs from the original in size, texture, color, and composition. Insofar as it does not “maintain or restore the character of the historic roof,” installing the proposed tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper tiles atop the historic resources similarly fails to meet Guideline 7.8. This material is not “of a design, scale, color, texture, and composition akin to the original.” Unlike the 5- to 12-inch-wide, <3/64-inch-thick tiles proposed, the original shingles would likely have been only 3 to 8 inches wide and ⅜ inches thick. Effectively, the original shingles were roughly 30% narrower and nearly 800% thicker than the proposed tiles. The divergence in thickness would significantly alter shadow lines and change the overall texture of the roof. The smooth, glossy finish of each tile also differs from the relatively rough, matte surface of a wood shingle. Among other impacts, like snow retention, this divergence in texture affects the absorption of light, causing the metal tiles to reflect more light than wood shingles. This consequence is compounded by the light color of the proposed material before it weathers. Over time, Freedom Grey appears to become darker. Although it absorbs more light, the resulting color appears darker than wood shingles. 11 Page 5 of 6 The proposed material is also not a “simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential alternative that is visually compatible with the building’s historic features.” The wood construction and detailing of the historic resources are fundamental to their architecture. Introducing a significant amount of metal will contrast with and detract from this basic, nearly all-wood palette. What little metal does exist, namely the decorative metal features of the Dixon-Markel House, will disappear and fade from prominence. The continuity of the historic features that separate the first from the second stories of the Dixon-Markel House are also endangered by the proposed material. With metal tiles atop the porch and the east bay, the wood shingles on the unique pent roof between the first and second stories will no longer match the scale, color, texture and composition of adjacent material. Effectively, the metal tiles will visually estrange the pent roof from the front porch and the bay window, disrupting the band of shingles that historically differentiated the building’s stories. Moreover, the proposed roofing material neither reflects “the architectural style of the affected building,” nor is “substantiated by documentary or physical evidence.” The proposal, therefore, does not meet Guideline 7.9. The architectural styles of the historic buildings at 135 E. Cooper Ave. are intrinsically linked to, and all but reliant on, wood shingles. Advancements in sawmill technology during the 19th century revolutionized the production of shingles, making possible the mass production of uniform shingles. The material became widely available and commonly used, including in non-roofing or strictly utilitarian ways. Vernacular Miner’s Cottages, such as the historic one-story building at the rear of the property, are relatively simple, modest structures with little ornamentation originally constructed from readily available materials. Although corrugated metal was used, it was typically reserved for additions and porches, especially where it would be out of sight from public vantage. Wood- shingle roofing predominated the primary roof slops and complemented decorative shingles occasionally added to gable ends. Queen Anne-style buildings, such as the Dixon-Markle House, are even more associated with wood shingles. The steep primary roof slopes common to this style made wood-shingle roofing a prominent part of a building’s top story while complex and irregular forms created secondary roofs lower down. This style frequently employed wood shingles as decorative features, as cladding below gable ends, or as horizontal bands to separate stories. Metal roofing in Aspen’s Queen Anne-style buildings was limited, restricted to rear additions and porches, and not visible to the public. Documentary evidence indicates that the original and only historic roofing material of the historic resources at 135 E. Cooper Ave. is wood shingles. The historic use of other roofing materials here has not been “substantiated by documentary or physical evidence.” Accordingly, its use atop these historic buildings would not only be conjectural, but also overtly unprecedented. Albeit worded to guide the development of a new addition to a historic resource, Chapter 10 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines essentially describes characteristics of an appropriate relationship between historic and non-historic development. Rather than assessing the near like-for-like substitution of roofing material atop the non-historic addition, this assessment considers it important context for further assessing the proposal to install a similar material atop the historic resource. 12 Page 6 of 6 For the new addition “to be recognized as a product of its own time” as called for by Guideline 10.6, the historic resource must at least be “distinguishable against the addition” pursuant to Guideline 10.4. Although Guideline 10.6 mentions “there is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a development,” installing similar roofing material is not one of them. Accordingly, Guideline 10.3 explicitly disallows “an addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style.” Presuming that it is equally, if not more, inappropriate to alter a historic building to imitate a non-historic addition’s style, installing 5-inch-long, 5- to 12- inch-wide, tin-and-zinc-alloy-coated-copper tiles atop the two historic resources is particularly unsuitable. Effectively, the material proposed for the historic assets is too similar to that of the non-historic addition. 13 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Agreement to Pay Application Fees Please type or print in all caps Representative Name (if different from Property Owner) Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone: I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: PRINT Name: Title: Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: Aspen Core Holdings LLC BendonAdams 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 moe@roninholdings.com invoice@roninholdings.com 970-309-6551 1,950 6 135 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, CO An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Property Owner Name: $ deposit for Docusign Envelope ID: 300330D6-8A26-4B7D-AC33-66F1C4F9567C Fred Ebrahemi Vice President of Aspen Core Holdings, LLC 14 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM March 26, 2025 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission Aspen Historic Preservation Staff RE: 135 East Cooper Ave. Substantial Amendment Application Dear Commission: Please accept our application for a Substantial Amendment for 135 East Cooper Avenue, Lots H and I, and the East 5’ of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is currently under construction to complete a restoration of the main house and the carriage house, a two story connecting element, new addition, and a full basement. The two story Aspen Queen Anne style landmark is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is a frame house that was built for J.M. Dixon sometime between 1886 and 1890. The landmark is in good condition, with the exception of a failing foundation due to incorrect waterproofing. Original doors and most of the original windows are intact. Figure 1: Denver Public Library archives, 1890-1899. 15 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Project Background: This project dates back to 2015 when HPC approved the two story connector and addition under previous ownership. The project was amended on March 2018, and again in September 2018 to relocate the small historic building, demolish and rebuild a one car garage, and reconfigure interior spaces in the basement and remove the attic level in the landmark. In 2019 the property was sold to the current owner who amended the 2018 approvals to pick up both historic homes to repair the failing foundation underneath the two story landmark. The above grade addition was slightly reconfigured, lightwells and an existing areaway were removed, a two car garage and an enlarged basement were approved. A setback variance of 5 feet for below grade space only was granted in a few areas along the alley to allow the above grade structure to stack on top of the basement walls. The project started construction in October 2020. HPC Request: The request before HPC is to change the approved roof materials from treated wood shingle to a metal shingle. This request results from a desire for fire resistant roof material after the owner lost his home in the Pacific Palisades fire and his homeowner’s insurance company issued a determination that a fireproof roof material is required to receive coverage. This request was originally submitted as an insubstantial amendment to the project monitor but was disqualified because the proposed material “does not maintain the same quality and approximate appearance of that found in the approved plans.” A request for a substantial amendment can be submitted when a request does not qualify as a substantial amendment. Roof material is an ongoing conversation as HPC’s preferred roof material is a Type A treated wood shingle roof which is not favored by insurance companies. Homeowners constantly question the negative impact of a wood shingle roof on an insurance policy (if a company is even willing to cover a wood shingle roof at all). Alternatives to a wood shingle roof, like asphalt or composite shingles, degrade and distract from the appearance of a newly restored historic Victorian. Historically Aspen would have a wood shingle roof as the material was readily available. Some outbuildings and mining/industrial buildings had metal roofs or mix of metal and whatever materials could be found. Figure 2: Example of wood shingle and metal roofs near the Durant Mine, circa 1894. Aspen Historical Society. Object ID 1985.055.0021. 16 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Appropriate roof material that meets Fire Codes, insurance requirements, and is similar to the appearance, dimension, and scale of historic materials is an ongoing challenge. In May 2024 HPC amended the Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines to allow greater flexibility in the selection of roof materials. Following is a quote from the staff memo: “Effectively, the authenticity of the material may be secondary to the overall visual qualities. Retaining the overall historic character should guide selection of an appropriate replacement material… Allowing for the broadest range of potentially suitable materials requires more oversite, a more nuanced understanding of each property, and a more detailed analysis than would a narrow set of approvable materials.” HPC voted to remove the subtext under Guideline 7.8 that stated: “A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home but may be appropriate for a secondary structure from that time period.” We appreciate this amendment that recognizes other roof material options and offers an applicant the ability to propose a simplified version of a wood shingle that is a “neutral, modest, and deferential alternative that is visually compatible with building’s historic features.” There are two different metal materials proposed for this project: an artificial patinaed cooper roof for the non-historic addition, and an alloy coated cooper shingle in “freedom grey” finish for the historic structures. The freedom grey shingle is similar to the metal shingle installed on St. Mary’s Church (which originally was a wood shingle roof) and is already approved for the non-historic addition at 135 E. Cooper, whereas the historic structures at 135 are approved to have treated wood shingles. All flashing on both the historic and new addition is approved as freedom grey metal. The small bay window on the east side facing Aspen Street is approved to have freedom grey shingles as well. The small addition to the carriage house is approved to have a standing seam metal roof – this is not proposed to change. 17 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Figure 3: Roof plan – historic structures are in red, and non-historic addition is in blue. The proposed roof materials are shown in the renderings above. Figure 6 shows a good example of typical wood shingle dimension, profile, installation, and texture on a 19th century Aspen home. Figure 4: Rendering of proposed roof materials looking southeast. Figure 5: Rendering of proposed roof materials looking south. 18 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Figure 6: 412 Victorian Home with fence, circa 1915. Aspen Historical Society, Shaw Collection. Object ID number 1974.110.1225. Figure 7: Detail of freedom grey shingles with varying sizes to mimic Figure 5.. Figure 8: St. Mary’s church roof in shade. 19 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment The patinaed copper shingle proposed for the non-historic addition is installed on a local project (Figures 11 and 13). Figure 9: St. Mary’s church in full sun. Figure 10: Detail of shingle on St. Mary’s church. Figure 11: Local project with patinaed copper shingle installed. Figure 13: Photograph of installed patinaed copper shingles. Figure 12: 135 East Cooper Avenue, 1963. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 20 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Figure 14: 135 East Cooper Avenue, detail of wood shingle roof, 1957 (note the metal flashing). Courtesy Aspen Historical Society, Goodnough Collection. Figure 15: 135 East Cooper Avenue with asphalt roof, post-1966. Courtesy Aspen Historical Society. 21 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 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. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. • Avoid removing historic roofing material. • Using recognized preservation methods, repair deteriorated historic material when possible. • When replacement is necessary, replace the roofing in kind, and/or use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should maintain or restore the character of the historic roof. • If a substitute is used, the roof material should be of a design, scale, color, texture, and composition akin to the original, or a simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential alternative that is visually compatible with building’s historic features. • Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. • Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized or painted metal and have a matte, non-reflective finish. • Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural details are not obscured. • A metal roof material should have a matte, non-reflective finish and match the original seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. • Adding ornament or detail where this is no evidence that it existed, creates a false impression of the building’s original appearance, and is inappropriate. • Roofing materials should reflect the architectural style of the affected building or be substantiated by documentary or physical evidence. Response: The proposed new roof materials preserve the orientation and slope of the historic roof. New roof materials are necessary for both historic structures – the proposed freedom grey shingle is a similar dimension, style, and profile to a wood shingle. The dimensions for the approved wood shingle area 3/8” thickness at the base of the shingle, a width range of 3 ½” – 11”, and a nominal length of 16”. The dimensions for the metal shingle are shown below: 22 135 E Cooper HPC Substantial Amendment Metal is a natural material which is closer in physical quality to a wood shingle when compared to an asphalt shingle or an architectural composite shingle. The new roof materials maintain the character of the historic roof as evidenced by the installation of similar grey metal shingles on the St. Mary’s church. The material is neutral and deferential to the restored historic structure. The darker patinaed copper roof proposed for the non-historic addition differentiates the addition from the historic structures. Both metal roofs are a matte finish. Samples will be provided to HPC at the hearing. Flashing is proposed to match the roof material and is consistent with the approved flashing details for the project. We look forward to hearing your thoughts on this request. Please contact me if you would like more information to complete your review. sara@bendonadams.com or 970-925-2855. Kind Regards, Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP Principal BendonAdams, LLC Attachments: A – Letter from Insurance Company. B - Letter from Aspen Fire. C- Land Use application. D - Signed fee agreement. E - Pre-application summary. F - Proof of ownership. G – Authorization to represent. H – HOA form. I – Vicinity map. J - List of owners within 300’. K – HPC Resolution 5-2024. L – Staff Memo dated May 22, 2024. M – Meeting Minutes dated May 22, 2024. N – Proposed plans and cut sheets. 23 Private Risk Solutions Lockton Specialties, LLC 444 W. 47th Street Kansas City, MO 64112 ©2024 Lockton Specialties, LLC. CA license 0K16249. All rights reserved. To whom it may concern, I’m writing to c onfirm that an insurance company is more likely to decline to write a home with a wood shake roof. It is seen as a higher risk of loss due to its flammable property. Insurance companies require non-combustible roof materials like tile, metal, slate etc. that are more resistant to fire. Very best, — Shane Ahern, Private Risk Solutions VP, Private Risk Consultant (CAPI) CA license – 0K45303 Lockton Specialties Insurance Services, LLC – CA license 0K16249 Mobile 818.451.6716 2/28/2025 Exhibit A 24 Exhibit B 25 26 27 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage FEES DUE: $ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Name: Address: Phone#: email: Address: Phone #: email: Name: Project Name and Address: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) x x x x Have you included the following? Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage Affordable Housing dwelling units 135 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, CO 2735-131-04-003 Aspen Core Holdings LLC 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 970-309-6551 jeff@roninholdings.com Sara Adams, BendonAdams 300 S. Spring Street, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 x2 sara@bendonadams.com Historic landmark property with two historic structures currently under construction. Request to amend theapproved roof materials for project. Substantial Amendment per Section 26.4215.070.e.2 2n/a n/a n/a n/a 1,950 Exhibit C 28 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Agreement to Pay Application Fees Please type or print in all caps Representative Name (if different from Property Owner) Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone: I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Ben Anderson, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: PRINT Name: Title: Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: Aspen Core Holdings LLC BendonAdams 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Santa Monica, CA 90401 moe@roninholdings.com invoice@roninholdings.com 970-309-6551 1,950 6 135 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen, CO An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Property Owner Name: $ deposit for Docusign Envelope ID: 300330D6-8A26-4B7D-AC33-66F1C4F9567C Fred Ebrahemi Vice President of Aspen Core Holdings, LLC 29 PRE-APPLICATION SUMMARY PRE-25-014 DATE: February 3rd, 2025 PLANNER: Stuart Hayden, Planner II, Historic Preservation, stuart.hayden@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 135 E. Cooper Ave. PARCEL ID: 2735-131-04-003 REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Substantial Amendment DESCRIPTION: The property at 135 E. Cooper Ave. is legally described as Lots H and I, and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO. The 6,500-square-foot site is in the Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district and contains the 2-story Dixon-Markle house constructed in 1888 and a 1-story secondary dwelling constructed sometime before 1886. The property is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Landmark Sites and Structures (Ordinance #77, Series of 1981) as well as the National Register of Historic Places. The primary building is an unusual example of the Queen Anne style in Aspen, featuring a two-story bay window on a chamfered front corner. Although the secondary building had rolled-asphalt roofing for a period following its first relocation on the site between 1963 and 1965, both historic resources on the site historically had wood shingles. In 2003, HPC approved a Major Development that included excavating a basement, across the front half of the site, moving the main house slightly northeast of its original location, constructing a two-story addition to its west, and erecting a detached garage on the southeast of the site. The project included a 500 square foot floor area bonus and setback variations. HPC Resolution #21, Series of 2015, approved with conditions a Minor Development to replace the one-story connector between the primary historic building and the west addition with a two-story glass-enclosed stairway. In 2018, a Substantial Amendment (HPC Resolution #02, Series of 2018) modified the connection to exclude a stairway. HPC Resolution #13, Series of 2018 permitted a minor development, including demolishing the circa 2004 garage, relocating and reorienting the historic secondary building to the southeast corner of the site, and constructing an addition with a garage south of the west addition and an addition to the front of the west addition. Variations allowed a reduction of setbacks on all but the east side of the property. HPC Resolution #11, Series of 2019 approved a substantial amendment, relocation, and setback variations to temporarily relocate the historic buildings and excavate a larger basement. The applicant proposes to install 4½-inch-long, 9-inch-wide, tin- and zinc-alloy-coated copper roof tiles atop the historic resources instead of the previously approved 5-inch-long, 3½- to 11-inch- wide, 3/8-inch-thick semi-transparent-resin-finished cedar shingles, and to install a 4½-inch-long, 9- inch-wide copper shingle with an applied patina atop the non-historic addition instead of the previously approved 4½-inch-long, 9-inch-wide, tin- and zinc-alloy-coated copper roof tiles. Insofar as they materially modify the materials, design, detailing or appearance of the building elements as originally depicted, the proposed changes require a Substantial Amendment according to Sec. 26.415.070(e). This one-step review by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) includes a public hearing, after which, the project may be approved, disapproved, or approved with Exhibit E 30 conditions by the HPC. To assess the project and inform its determination, the HPC will use the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and other applicable sections of the Land Use Code. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304.010 Common Development Review Procedures – General 26.415.070 Historic Preservation - Development For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: • Land Use Application • Land Use Code • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations HPC for final decision Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC for Substantial Amendment Planning Fees: $1,950 for 6 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Referral Agencies Fee: $0. Total Deposit: $1,950. APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for HPC Substantial Amendment review. Please email the entire application as one pdf to CDEHadmins@aspen.gov. Include Pre-25-014 in the subject line. If more than 18 months has lapsed since this letter was issued, please reach out to hp@aspen.gov. The fee will be requested after the application is determined to be complete.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  A list of all owners of any property within 300 feet of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the relevant review standards and design guidelines.  A roof plan. 31  An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development, including relevant cut-sheets/technical specification documents for all materials.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work. Depending on further review of the case, additional items may be requested of the application. Once the application is deemed complete by staff, the applicant/applicant’s representative will receive an e-mail requesting submission of the deposit. Once the deposit is received, the case will be assigned to a planner and the land use review will begin. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 32 Customer Distribution Prevent fraud - Please call a member of our closing team for wire transfer instructions or to initiate a wire transfer. Note that our wiring instructions will never change. Order Number: Q62018025 Date: 02/14/2025 Property Address: 135 E COOPER AVE, Aspen, CO 81611 For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, SUITE 102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Seller/Owner ASPEN CORE HOLDINGS, LLC Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery Exhibit F 33 Estimate of Title Fees Order Number: Q62018025 Date: 02/14/2025 Property Address: 135 E COOPER AVE, Aspen, CO 81611 Seller(s): ASPEN CORE HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Buyer(s): Thank you for putting your trust in Land Title. Below is the estimate of title fees for the transaction. The final fees will be collected at closing. Visit ltgc.com to learn more about Land Title. Estimate of Title Insurance Fees "TBD" Commitment $279.00 TOTAL $279.00 Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 01/29/2019 under reception no. 653687 34 Copyright 2006-2025 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 135 E COOPER AVE, Aspen, CO 81611 1. Effective Date: 02/07/2025 at 5:00 P.M. 2. Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: $0.00 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE 4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: ASPEN CORE HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5. The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: LOTS H AND I AND THE EASTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT G,​ BLOCK 70,​ CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN​ COUNTY OF PITKIN,​ STATE OF COLORADO ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:Q62018025 35 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62018025 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. The following will be required should the Company be requested to issue a future commitment to insure: 1. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. 2. RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED JANUARY 29, 2019 FROM ASPEN CORE HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF PITKIN COUNTY FOR THE USE OF CITIBANK, N.A. TO SECURE THE SUM OF $15,400,000.00 RECORDED JANUARY 29, 2019, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 653688. 3. WRITTEN CONFIRMATION THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY FOR ASPEN CORE HOLDINGS, LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY RECORDED JANUARY 29, 2019 UNDER RECEPTION NO. 653686 IS CURRENT. NOTE: SAID INSTRUMENT DISCLOSES STEVEN D. LOCKSHIN AS THE MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE INSTRUMENTS CONVEYING, ENCUMBERING OR OTHERWISE AFFECTING TITLE TO REAL PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF SAID ENTITY. IF THIS INFORMATION IS NOT ACCURATE, A CURRENT STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY MUST BE RECORDED. NOTE: ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR EXCEPTIONS MAY BE NECESSARY WHEN THE BUYERS NAMES ARE ADDED TO THIS COMMITMENT. COVERAGES AND/OR CHARGES REFLECTED HEREIN, IF ANY, ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE UPON RECEIPT OF THE CONTRACT TO BUY AND SELL REAL ESTATE AND ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO. THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. 36 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8. RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED FEBRUARY 15 1888 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 358, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS. 9. NOTICE OF HISTORIC DESIGNATION AS SET FORTH IN INSTRUMENT FROM COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 1995 IN BOOK 775 AT PAGE 89. 10. EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE PLAT OF IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT RECORDED DECEMBER 08, 2000 IN BOOK 54 AT PAGE 98 AND IMPROVEMENT SURVEY RECORDED DECEMBER 8, 2008 IN PLAT BOOK 89 AT PAGE 50 AND IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 2018 IN PLAT BOOK 124 AT PAGE 44. 11. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 20, SERIES OF 2003 RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 2003 AS RECEPTION NO. 491751. 12. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 8, SERIES OF 2004 RECORDED MARCH 25, 2004 AS RECEPTION NO. 495822. 13. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED OCTOBER 31, 2005 AS RECEPTION NO. 516835. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62018025 37 14. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 25, SERIES OF 2014 RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 AS RECEPTION NO. 613364. 15. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 21, SERIES OF 2015 RECORDED JULY 23, 2015 AS RECEPTION NO. 621732. 16. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 17, SERIES OF 2016 RECORDED JUNE 14, 2016 AS RECEPTION NO. 629971. 17. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 2, SERIES OF 2018 OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDED APRIL 16, 2018 AS RECEPTION NO. 646597. 18. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 2018 OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDED OCTOBER 1, 2018 AS RECEPTION NO. 650781. 19. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION #11, SERIES OF 2019 OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RECORDED JUNE 19, 2019 AS RECEPTION NO. 656768. 20. TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN RULING OF HEARING OFFICER RECORDED MAY 5, 2020 AS RECEPTION NO. 664443. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62018025 38 Land Title Guarantee Company Disclosure Statements Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) 39 This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. Note: Pursuant to CRS 24-21-514.5, Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any document. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) 40 Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of Land Title Guarantee Company Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurancy Company This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration 41 Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 42 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) 43 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II —Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) 44 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM March 5, 2025 Stuart Hayden Historic Preservation Planner Via email RE: 135 East Cooper Avenue; Aspen, CO. Mr. Hayden : Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams, LLC, to represent our ownership interests in 135 East Cooper Avenue and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 135 East Cooper Avenue; Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Lots H and I and the easterly 5 feet of Lot G, Block 70, City and Townsite of Aspen. Parcel ID – 2735-131-04-003 Owner – Aspen Core Holdings LLC Kind Regards, Aspen Core Holdings LLC 233 Wilshire Blvd., #850 Los Angeles, CA 90401 Docusign Envelope ID: 300330D6-8A26-4B7D-AC33-66F1C4F9567C Fred Ebrahemi, Vice President 45 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: ______________________________________________________________________ Date:_____________________________________________________ Owner printed name: ______________________________________________________________________ or, Attorney signature: ______________________________________________________________________ Date:_____________________________________________________ Attorney printed name: ______________________________________________________________________ 135 East Cooper Avenue, Aspen CO Aspen Core Holdings LLC jeff@roninholdings.com 970-309-6551 Docusign Envelope ID: 300330D6-8A26-4B7D-AC33-66F1C4F9567C 3/5/2025 Fred Ebrahemi, Vice President of Aspen Core Holdings, LLC 46 2,257 376.2 Legend 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet0376.2188.08 Notes Vicinity Map - 135 East Cooper Ave. THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented. Map Created on 9:01 AM 03/13/25 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com State Highway Road Centerline 4K Primary Road Secondary Road Service Road Parcel Boundary Exhibit I 47 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The information maintained by the County may not be complete as to mineral estate ownership and that information should be determined by separate legal and property analysis. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273513104003 on 03/13/2025 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit J 48 119 E COOPER AVE #6 LLC ASPEN, CO 816111760 119 E COOPER AVE #6 119 E COOPER UNIT 5 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #5 123 E HYMAN AVE K-GP LLC CULVER CITY, CA 90230 5150 OVERLAND AVE 123 E HYMAN AVE LLC CULVER CITY, CA 90230 5150 OVERLAND AVE 1438 VENTURES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 89 ARDMORE CT 152 ASPEN LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 2353 IRVINE AVE 1996FT 219 DURANT C5 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 308 S GALENA ST 201 EH INVESTMENTS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 10877 WILSHIRE BLVD #2300 209 LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUMS LLC ANNAPOLIS , MD 21403 913 BOUCHER AVE 210 COOPER 1D LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 400 E HYMAN AVE #A202 210 COOPER 2A LLC DENVER, CO 80237 8181 E TUFTS AVE #600 210 COOPER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E COOPER AVE 210 COOPER LLC DENVER, CO 80237 8181 E TUFTS AVE #600 210 E COOPER LLC GREENWICH, CT 06831 PO BOX 4184 219 E DURANT C5 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 308 S GALENA ST 306 S GARMISCH TOWNHOMES CONDO FLORHAM PARK , NJ 07932 PO BOX 238 415 SOUTH ASPEN ST LLC VAIL, CO 81657 162 WEST MEADOW DR #2 ABBAS HUSSAIN NEW YORK, NY 10011 311 W 20TH ST #3 AFAWC LLC KATY, TX 77494 3235 GINTER LN AJAX MOUNTAIN RETREAT LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E COOPER AVE #7 ALPINE PETROLEUM LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 435 E MAIN ST ANDREA TUFFANELLI MANCUSO FAMILY LP LITTLETON, CO 80123 5856 S LOWELL AVE #32-406 ASCEND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #25 ASPEN LITTLE RED HOLDINGS LLC SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 233 WILSHIRE BLVD #850 ASPEN MTN HOLDINGS LLC NEW YORK, NY 10017 757 3RD AVE 20TH FLR ASPEN PRIME RE 3 LLC ASPEN, CO 816113304 372 GLEN EAGLES RD ASPEN SNOW QUEEN HOLDINGS LLC SANTA MONICA, CA 90401 233 WILSHIRE BLVD #850 ASPEN TOWNHOUSES CENTRAL ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 124 E DURANT AVE ASPEN WILD CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 101 E COOPER AVE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTH 0.01% ASPEN, CO 81611 210 E HYMAN AVE #202 49 ATTERBURY ANDREW L SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66205 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKY AV1 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV2 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV3 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV4 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV5 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV6 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV7 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AV8 DB LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE #201 AVERITT DON R DALLAS, TX 75225 6918 LUPTON BARNES ROBERT M MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 6445 SENECA RD BARRETT STEVEN R WICHITA, KS 67202 150 N MARKET BERHORST FAMILY REV TRUST BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48301 7161 LINDENMERE DR BETA DURANT PROPERTY LLC CHARLESTOWN, MA 02129 92 WARREN ST BEYER KENNETH G & MAGALI R CEDAR HILL, TX 75104 707 OAK HILL LN BISSET KAREN I MISSION HILLS , KS 66208 6445 SENECA RD BOGIN ROBERT M ORANGE , CA 928685623 1110 W TOWN AND COUNTRY RD #462 BRANTON CRAIG ASPEN, CO 81611 450 S ORIGINAL ST #9 BRAYMAN WALTER W TRUST OVERLAND PARK, KS 662237973 13820 METCALF AVE #14223 BRIGHT GALEN ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE #3D BRIGHT GALEN ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE #3E BROADSCOPE PTY LTD ROSSMOYNE WESTERN AUSTRALIA 6148, 149 RIVERTON DR BRODERICK C J BRISTOL, CT 06010 115 BETHS AVE #7 BRYAN HELEN AUSTIN, TX 78746 2011 LAKE SHORE DR CAROL CLAYTON R ASPEN, CO 81611 124 E DURANT AVE #7 CARRIGAN RICHARD A JR OSWEGO, IL 60543 5453 ROUTE 71 CARSON LLC OMAHA, NE 68130 1562 S 187TH CIR CASA KESS LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8442 CASA TUA COMMUNITY PROPERTY TRUST NASHVILLE, TN 37212 1802 PRIMROSE AVE CASPER MARY LYNN ASPEN, CO 81611 124 E DURANT AVE #8 50 CAYTON ANDREA TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90077 2379 EARLS CT CHALET SHANELLE LLC DALLAS, TX 75205 3415 LINDENWOOD AVE CHAPIN ANZLE TRUST WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN 55110 5226 SUMMIT ST CHART HOUSE PROJECT OWNER LLC ASPEN, CO 816111814 411 S MONARCH ST CHU FAMILY TRUST NEWPORT BEACH, CA 926604234 42 HILLSDALE DR CLYNE VICTORIA E SPOUSAL LIFETIME ACCESS TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 610 WEST END ST # G101 COHEN JACK DAVID DENVER, CO 802462001 4541 E KENTUCKY CIR COHN PETER L ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #2 CONFLUENCE PARTNERS LTD WACO, TX 76703 PO BOX 21625 CONKLING LORI TRUST NEW YORK, NY 10011 160 W 12TH ST #65 COOPER ST LOFT CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA COOPER STREET LOFT #3 LLC SANTA FE, NM 87501-1887 576 1/2 W SAN FRANCISCO ST COOPER TWO LLC WINNETKA, IL 60093 950 HILL RD CORKSCREW LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73124 PO BOX 24540 COX HEATHER J NEW YORK , NY 100133290 56 LEONARD ST APT 17BE CP19 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 308 S GALENA ST CROCKETT RUFUS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3837 DANCING BEAR PROJECT OWNER LLC ASPEN, CO 816111814 411 S MONARCH ST DANCING BEAR RES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 411 S MONARCH ST DANCING BEAR RES OWNERS ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 81611 411 S MONARCH ST DELL STEVEN J TRUST AUSTIN , TX 78746 4317 DUNNING LN DER BERGHOF CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 110 E COOPER AVE DUNN DAVID & POLLY CORPUS CHRISTI, TX 78401 611 S UPPER BROADWAY DUPLEX INVESTMENTS LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73120 10601 N PENNSYLVANIA AVE ELLIS PAUL D TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E DEAN ST #2F ENDLINE BRYCE & ALISON CHARLOTTE, NC 28203 2217 LEDGEWOOD LN ERIKSON SHELDON & CLAYTON LIV TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77024 4 LONGBOW LN ERIKSON SHELDON & CLAYTON TRUST HOUSTON, TX 77024 4 LONGBOW LN EVANS DAVID COURTNEY LAUGHLINTOWN, PA 15655-0127 PO BOX 127 FAULKNER JOHN L ARLINGTON, VA 22207 2433 ROCKINGHAM ST 51 FEINBERG HELEN HOUGH ST PETE BEACH, FL 33706 1407 PASS-A-GRILLE WY FIRST CHAIR LLC SPRINGFIELD, MO 65801 PO BOX 1747 FOUR JLM LLC RIVER RIDGE, LA 70123 101 DESTIN LN FREEDMAN RYAN NEW YORK, NY 10065 219 E 67TH ST #5 GEORGE MANAGEMENT TRUST BELLAIRE, TX 77401 5402 PINE ST GILLESPIE JOHN E REV TRUST DESTIN, FL 32541 775 GULFSHORE DR #4219 GINSBURG ANNE C REV TRUST BOCA RATON, FL 33428 11206 BOCA WOODS LN GOINGS GINA ELIZABETH NATCHITOCHES, LA 71458 PO BOX 784 GOOD THUNDER CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 871 GOZON BENJAMIN & HEIDI Z LVG TRUST RIVER HILLS , WI 53217 2941 W GREENBROOK RD GREGORY NEIL MARTIN & LYNETTE ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E DEAN ST #2C GROOS NICHOLAS D GRANDVILLE, MI 49418 4267 CANAL AVE SW GUNDRY KATHERINE DENVER, CO 80218 528 GILPIN ST GUTNER TODDI L GST DESC TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 235 PUPPY SMITH ST #4804 HANDLER MINDY RAE DENVER, CO 80206 PO BOX 6021 HANSEN JULIA S TRUST TUXEDO PARK, NY 109870773 57 W LAKE RD PO BOX 773 HARLOW VIRGINIA TRUST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0554 ESCALANTE HARRISON KYLIE N GST EXEMPT 2016 NG IRREV TRUST JACKSON, WY 83001 370 S KING ST HARRISON RYAN S GTS EXEMPT 2016 NG IRREV TRUST JACKSON, WY 83001 370 S KING ST HATCHER H PATRICK DENVER, CO 80206 191 RACE ST HBN FAMILY TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 9420 WILSHIRE BLVD #400 HEANEY MICHAEL J REV TRUST CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 3400 SAUSALITO DR HOLDER STEPHANIE ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E COOPER AVE #5 HOLYOAKE LAURENCE M NEW YORK, NY 100133290 56 LEONARD ST APT 17BE HOLYOAKE LAURENCE M & COX HEATHER J NEW YORK , NY 10013 56 LEONARD ST #38W HOMONY MICHAEL J SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209 511 ROCKHILL DR HOTEL DURANT ASPEN, CO 81611 122 E DURANT HUDSON HILL LLC DENVER, CO 80220 1960 HUDSON ST HUGHES MICHAEL B ATLANTA, GA 30306 1080 WILDWOOD RD NE HUNT4ASPEN LLC EVERGREEN, CO 80439 28526 EVERGREEN MANOR DR 52 IM & AY LLC DALLAS, TX 75252 17774 PRESTON RD IMHOF FAMILY TRUST SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94123 2409 GREEN ST IMREM SUE GORDON REVOC TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60610 1240 N LAKE SHORE DR #27B JACARANDA ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11980 JCS GARMISCH LLC ALEXANDRIA, LA 71315 PO BOX 11636 JEBBITT PROPERTY RENTALS LLC HOUSTON, TX 77005 6334 BELMONT ST JK EDGEBROOK LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 308 S GALENA ST JPL LLC PHOENIX, AZ 85016 2801 E CAMELBACK RD #450 JUDD LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73124 PO BOX 24540 KAISER HARRIS FAMILY TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90049 12942 CHALON RD KAMINER NINA 2023 REV TRUST LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 8899 BEVERLY BLVD #8E KAPLAN BARBARA PEPPER PIKE, OH 44124 3076 EDGEWOOD RD KAUFMAN STEVEN TRUST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0554 ESCALANTE KEEFE MERRY L REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER #11 KEIL JULIANNE REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E COOPER AVE #8 KELLY JOHN B III SANTA ROSA BEACH, FL 32459 1363 W COUNTY HWY 30-A #3129 KENT STACEY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 457 SCHOONER LN KIEFFER LAWREN SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 1435 48TH AVE KIKEN KENNETH M REV TRUST DENVER, CO 80206 155 STEELE ST #1019 KIRCH MADELINE ANN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11389 KJA2 LLC SAINT PETERSBURG, FL 33706 1407 PASS-A-GRILLE WY KNAPP C EVAN REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 816111821 233 E COOPER AVE # WS-2 KULLGREN NANCY A ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE UNIT 2-C LAIZ GUADALUPE ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E COOPER AVE #4 LANE PAIGE ASPEN, CO 81611 124 E DURANT AVE #2 LARKIN FRED C SPOUSAL TRUST BOW MAR, CO 80123 ONE COVE LN LARRABEE DONALD C JR COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80909 1417 POTTER DR STE 105 LEAR STEFANIA ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 3394 LEATHERMAN ROBERT D ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11930 LEE FRANCIS A III MOORESVILLE, NC 28117 706 NORMANDY 53 LEVY HELEN JOAN TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE #2G LEWIS CURT & KELLI TRUST SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85251 6150 E ALTA HACIENDA LIFT ONE 105 LLC DENVER, CO 80210 1666 S UNIVERSITY BLVD #B LIFT ONE CONDOMINIUM ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 131 E DURANT AVE LIFT ONE LANDING LLC DENVER, CO 80203 965 PEARL ST LIFT ONE LLC LITTLETON, CO 80127 24 LINDENWOOD LN LIMELIGHT ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 117 ASPEN BUSINESS CENTER LIMELIGHT SUB/PUD ASPEN, CO 81611 E HYMAN AVE LOBEL GORDON BRONSON ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11389 LORING PETER & ELIZABETH S BOSTON, MA 02110 230 CONGRESS ST LU NANCY CHAO TRUST HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 15 ANSON RD MACDONALD KENNETH H REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 131 E DURANT AVE #210 MACDONALD VALERIE LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 125 E HYMAN AVE #1-A MAGFAM 201 LLC WILMETTE, IL 60091 216 LINDEN AVE MARK KENNETH A SOUTHAHPTON, NY 11968 30 WHITE OAK LN MARQUARDT HEIDI M REV TRUST DENVER, CO 80206 155 STEELE ST #1019 MATHEWS KIM 2013 TRUST DALLAS, TX 75205 3613 SHENANDOAH MCKENZIE BART BRYAN DELRAY BEACH, FL 33483 1225 S OCEAN BLVD #402 MCKENZIE PAIGE PARAVANO CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 229011935 1125 OLD GARTH RD MDO-1 INVESTMENT PROPERTY LLC ATLANTA, GA 30339 2859 PACES FERRY RD SW #1140 MEIER OLIVER REV TRUST SNOWMASS, CO 81654 1444 LOWER RIVER RD MESSNER CHRISTIAN ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #21 MOLLICONI CHARLES A CARBONDALE, CO 81623-1720 798 LINCOLN AVE MONARCH ON THE PARK CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 233 E COOPER AVE MONARCH PARK UNO LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 406 S ASPEN ST #101 MOUNTAIN GETAWAY PROPERTIES LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139-1343 9 ISLAND AVE # 2103 NEWMAN KERRY J & RICKI R NEWBURGH, IN 47630 617 PRINCE DR ONEILL LORENA ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #26 OTT JOHN & CAROL SNOWMASS, CO 81654-9318 129 LITTLE ELK CREEK AVE P & C COOPER STREET LLC EVERGREEN, CO 80439 32723 UPPER BEAR CREEK RD 54 PARKER RICHARD C GEN-SKIP TRUST ATLANTA, GA 303394812 3029 BAKERS MEADOW SE PARRA KEVIN REV TRUST WAILEA, HI 96753 75-1 HO'OLEI CIR PASCHALL BARBARA DALLAS, TX 75225 6918 LUPTON DR PATERSON JOHN MELBOURNE VICTORIA AUSTRALIA 3191, 88 GRANGE RD SANDRINGHAM PENTHOUSE ONE & TWO LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 11980 PETERSEN CRISTINA CORTES MEXICO D F 11000, MONTE CHIMBORAZO 559.3 PINES LODGE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 152 E DURANT AVE PINES LODGE DEV LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 2353 IRVINE AVE PITKIN COUNTY ASPEN, CO 81611 530 E MAIN ST #301 PITNER N KATHRYN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 11930 POLETTO STEPHEN SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94122 1435 48TH AVE POPKIN PHILIP G ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7956 POW TOWN HOLDINGS 2 LLC INCLINE VILLAGE, NV 89451 930 TAHOE BLVD #802-542 PRENTICE GWYN A SHAWNEE MISSION, KS 66205 2001 SHAWNEE MISSION PKY PROFESSOR PIM HOLDINGS LLC MARINA DEL REY, CA 90292 5210 PACIFIC AVE RINGSBY GRAY HAIKU, HI 967084821 220 APUWAI ST ROARING FORK PROPERTIES EAST TROY, WI 55120 N 9242 SOUTH SHORE DR ROARING FORK RIVER MANAGEMENT LLC MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 1233 EDLIN PL ROGENES VINCE & LISA FRISCO, TX 75034 5 RIVA RIDGE ROSE JON E & RITA L WINTER PARK, FL 32789 333 TRISMEN TER ROSEN LESLIE ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE #3I ROSSI HALSTON A & TAYLOR R GRETNA , VA 24557 1104 AZALEA DR RUDERMAN MIMI E & NICHOLAS F ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E DEAN ST #3B SALISBURY JAMES A REV TRUST MORGANTON, NC 28655 101 MONTROSE ST SALISBURY JAN ETHRIDGE REV TRUST MORGANTON, NC 28655 101 MONTROSE ST SCHAPIRO PATRICIA GOLDEN, CO 80401 1685 TAMARAC DR SCULL JAMES E ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2051 SENTRA INVESTMENTS PTY LTD SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA, 32/34 BILLYARD AVE, ELIZABETH BAY SEVERY LLC DENVER, CO 80202 1099 18TH ST #2600 SHADOW MOUNTAIN BAY LLC FORT WORTH, TX 76116 4041 SHADOW DR 55 SHELTON JEFFERY S ATLANTA , GA 30306 1080 WILDWOOD RD NE SHENNAN MELISSA A REV TRUST CHICAGO, IL 60610 1242 N LAKE SHORE DR #4S SILBERMAN IAN R SAINT LOUIS, MO 63105 8182 MARYLAND AVE #801 SILVER QUEEN LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73124 PO BOX 24540 SIMPSON JANET MARIE ASPEN, CO 81611 233 E COOPER AVE #205 SINGER JEFFREY S SAINT LOUIS, MO 63105 8182 MARYLAND AVE #801 SKI TOWN DONCER LLC CASSOPOLIS, MI 49031 22268 LAKE ST SKI TOWN GORSKI LLC PALOS PARK, IL 60464 PO BOX 70 SKY BLUE LLC WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362 5743 CORSA AVE # 101 SLOAN SUSAN MARIE SARASOTA, FL 34236 500 S ORANGE AVE SLOWMASS LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73124 PO BOX 24540 SMITH NATHANIEL THOMAS MOORESVILLE, NC 28117 706 NORMANDY SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE #3D SOUTH POINT CONDO ASSOC BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 4100 SOUTH POINT LLC BASALT, CO 81621 PO BOX 2763 SPACCARELLI SELMA I SAN RAFAEL , CA 94903 200 DEER VALLEY RD #1-K SPRING LANE INVESTMENTS LLC-LIFT FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305 2110 N OCEAN BLVD #2901 STINGRAY JOANNA REV TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 1275 BEVERLY ESTATES DR TAROCH HOLDINGS LTD ASPEN, CO 816127966 PO BOX 7966 TAYLOR FAMILY PROP LLC SMITHLAND , KY 42081 1144 COON CHAPEL RD TEXAS PENTHOUSE LLC PLANO, TX 75093 2204 BRADBURY CT THOMAS & ANNE WRIGHT LLC INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46220 5670 GUILFORD AVE THREE REEDS LLC ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87104-3096 2224 VIA SEVILLE RD NW TIMBER RIDGE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 100 E DEAN ST TOMLINSON JAMES EARLYSVILLE , VA 22936 330 MALLARD LAKE DR TOWNE PLACE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 E DURANT AVE TOWNE PLACE OF ASPEN CONDO ASSOC INC ASPEN, CO 81611 200 E DURANT AVE TOWNSEND T TAYLOR NATCHITOCHES, LA 71458 PO BOX 784 TREMOLS LUCILA ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE # 3D TREMOLS LUCILA ASPEN, CO 81611 205 E DURANT AVE # 3E 56 TRENTLY TRUST FLORHAM PARK , NJ 07932 PO BOX 238 TRESTMAN EVAN F TRUST METAIRIE, LA 70005 111 VETERANS BLVD #1700 TYDEN FAMILY FARMS PTNP GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503 427 PROSPECT AVE SE UNIFIED CREDIT TRUST MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 300 S POINTE DR # 2403 VISCONSI DOMINIC A JR CLEVELAND, OH 441245774 30050 CHAGRIN BLVD #360 VORTEX INVESTMENTS LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73124 PO BOX 24540 WARWICK RILEY ASPEN, CO 81611 520 E DURANT AVE #102 & #103 WARWICK SCOTT ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #22 WHELCHEL ANGUS ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 1349 WHITE JALEH REV TRUST ASPEN, CO 816112053 960 E DURANT AVE #7 WICHMANN VICTORIA SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5045 WILLIAMS JOHN T ASPEN, CO 81611 119 E COOPER AVE #26 WINDLE BRIAN H SPOUSAL LIFETIME ACCESS TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 610 WEST END ST #G101 WINFIELD ARMS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 600 E HOPKINS AVE #203 WINFIELD ASPEN 24 LLC PLANO, TX 75093 2204 BRADBURY CT WOLF REVERSE QTIP TRUST SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 1221 MYRTLE AVE WOLF SURVIVORS TRUST SAN DIEGO, CA 92103 1221 MYRTLE AVE YARRVOSS LLC NICHOLS HILLS , OK 73116 1211 MARLBORO LN YEWER ELISABETH B CHENEQUA, WI 53029 6259 HWY 83 YOMJ LLC PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293 7742 REDLANDS ST #D1046 ZAUNER HEINZ J REV TRUST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 0451 STAGECOACH LN ZEFF CAPITAL LP ASPEN, CO 81611 555 E DURANT AVE 57 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 RECEPTION#: 703107, Raw$23.00, Dan WOO DOC CODE: RESOLUTION Pg 1 of 3, 06/24/2024at01:20:32 PM Ingrid K. Grueter, Pitkin County, CO RESOLUTION #05 SERIES OF 2024) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION HPQ AMENDING GUIDELINES 7.7-7.9 OF THE CITY OFASPENHISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES (GUIDELINES) WHEREAS, a significant reduction in the availability of homeownerinsuranceforwood roofing materials has catalyzed community interest in relaxing therestrictionsonthetypesof roofing material allowed on designated historic structures; and WHEF EAS, the purpose of the guidelines is to set forth the standardsnecessarytopreserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designatedproperties, and offer direction to property owners wishing to repair, restore, rehabilitate, or otherwise change the exterior appearance thereof, and WHEF EAS, at a Work Session with the HPC on April 10, 2024, staff provided historical, architectural, economic, environmental, political, and technologicalcontextofwoodroofing material, and received feedback and direction from Commissionerstogivetheownersof historic resources more choices when selecting roofing materials; and WHEREAS, the HPC may periodically review and amend at a publichearingtheGuidelines pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415.060(b)(1); and WHEREAS, staff incorporated commissioner input, common policiesamongpeercitiesinthe region and federal standards, and related guidelines outside Chapter7todrafttheproposed amendment. WHERAS, HPC reviewed the amended guidelines on May 22, 2024atapublichearing. HPC considered the amendment, the staff memo, and public comment, and found the proposed amendment to the guidelines consistent with the intent of the City ofAspenhistoricpreservation program and the Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415 by a vote of 5 to0. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves amendments to Chapter 7 of the City of AspenHistoricPreservation Design Guidelines as follows: Section 1: Amendments to Chapter 7 of the City of Aspen HistoricPreservationDesi Guidelines Guidelines 7.77.8 and 7.9 of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation DesignGuidelinesareHPC Resolution #O5, Series of 2024 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit K 58 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. Avoid removing historic roofing material. Using recognized preservation methods, repair deterioratedhistoricmaterialwhen possible. When replacement is necessary, replace the roofing in kind, and/or use a material that is similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should maintain orrestorethecharacterof the historic roof. If a substitute is used, the roof material should be of a design, scale, color, texture, and composition akin to the original, or a simplified, neutral, modest, and deferential alternative that is visually compatible with building's historicfeatures. Flashing should be in scale with the roof material. Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper, galvanized orpaintedmetalandhavea matte, non -reflective finish. Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that architectural detailsarenotobscured. A metal roof material should have a matte, non -reflective finishandmatchtheoriginal seaming. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. Adding ornament or detail where there is no evidence thatitexisted, creates a false impression of the building's original appearance, and isappropriate in . Roofing materials should reflect the architectural style oftheaffectedbuildingorbe substantiated by documentary or physical evidence. Section 2: Scrivener's Errors Any scrivener's errors contained in the code amendments herein, includingbutnotlimitedto mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administrativelyfollowingadoptionofthe Resolution. Section 3: Existing Litigation This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall notoperateasanabatementof any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of theresolutionsorordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conductedandconcludedunder such prior resolutions or ordinances. Section 4: Severabili If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of thisresolutionisforanyreason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, suchportionshallbedeemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect thevalidityoftheremaining portions thereof. HPC Resolution #O5, Series of 2024 Page 2 of 3 59 APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the22" day of May 2024. Approved as to Formo sistant Ci e Sear, Deputy City Clerk Approved as to Content: HPC Resolution #O5, Series of 2024 Page 3 of 3 60 Page 1 of 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Stuart Hayden, Planner II Historic Preservation MEETING DATE: May 22, 2024 RE: Proposed Amendment to Chapter 7: Roofs, City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines: HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2024 REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is asked to review and approve HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2024, amending the roofing material guidelines in Chapter 7 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (Design Guidelines). SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: A strict interpretation of Guidelines 7.7-7.9 (Exhibit A) all but prescribes one type of roofing material for AspenVictorian resources. Given the ubiquitousness of mill-sawn wood shingles in the city between 1880 and 1930, the call of for roofing material that is “similar to the original” in style, physical qualities, color, scale, and texture disqualifies everything but documented historic alternatives from administrative-level consideration. In practice, the HPC and staff have also approved “earth tone” architectural asphalt shingles as substitute for wood shingles. As wood roofing is increasingly hard to insure, asphalt is the de facto roofing material of primary AspenVictorian structures. An alternative material for which no historic precedent exists at that location qualify for minor development review by HPC. Previous Commission Direction On April 10, 2024, the HPC considered local architectural history, homeowners insurance market, policies of peer cities, national historic preservation best practices, and available procedural approaches to addressing the matter. The discussion revealed general support among commissioners for providing the owners of AspenVictorian resources greater flexibility/more choices regarding roofing material while ensuring that the overall architectural character of these historic resources is maintained. To this end, HPC asked staff to draft an amendment to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code Sec. 26.415.060(b)(1); These guidelines set forth the standards necessary to preserve and maintain the historic and architectural character of designated properties and districts. The standards apply to the exterior features and/or notable streetscape and landscape elements of the designated historic property and/or district. These guidelines are intended to offer assistance to Exhibit L 61 Page 2 of 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com property owners undertaking construction, rehabilitation, alterations, changes in exterior appearance or any other development involving designated historic properties or districts. The guidelines will be periodically reviewed by the HPC and amended at a public hearing, as needed. Policy Parameters Although the HPC may periodically review and amend the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, adopting “any plans, guidelines or documents that will be used in a guiding or regulatory capacity by the City,” and/or any amendment to the Land Use Code are “Powers and duties” reserved for the City Council (Sec. 26.208.010). Accordingly, the amending power of the HPC is not one of policy making, but rather one limited to upholding, clarifying, and/or advancing existing policies as adopted by Council and codified in the Land Use Code and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Sec. 26.415.070(b) of the former identifies the criteria by which an application may be administratively approved. The “replacement or repair of architectural features which creates no change to the exterior physical appearance of the building or structure” (e.g., an in-kind replacement of existing roofing material), and the “replacement or repair of architectural features that restores the building or structure to its historic appearance” (e.g., replacing a non-historic roofing material with a documented historic antecedent) may qualify for a Certificate of no negative effect if the work also meets the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Accordingly, amending the Guidelines will not necessarily alter the review process for installing a roofing material that differs from that which currently exists or historically existed on a given roof. Proposed “alterations to…roof planes or material…when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect” (Sec. 26.415.070(c)(1)b), will still constitute a minor development subject to a public hearing and review by the HPC. Similarly, the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines provides “a broad statement explaining the City’s basic approach for the treatment of the design feature being discussed” (p. 10-11). This is the basis for the more detailed design guidelines that follow it and, therefore, provides parameters for their amendment. As stated in Chapter 7, City policy is “the character of a historical roof, including its form and materials, should be preserved” (p. 68). Amended or otherwise, therefore, Guidelines 7.7-7.9 and their supplementary statements must reflect, maintain, and clarify this statement. The character of a historic roof includes, but is not limited to, its material composition. Effectively, the authenticity of the material may be secondary to the overall visual qualities. Retaining the overall historic character should guide selection of an appropriate replacement material. Because historic character is unique to each property, so too is the criteria for selecting an appropriate roofing material. The character of similar-seeming historic resources may be best preserved by installing different materials, and disparate resources may warrant a common material. Allowing for the broadest range of potentially suitable materials requires more oversite, a more nuanced understanding of each property, and a more detailed analysis than would a narrow set of approvable materials. 62 Page 3 of 3 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: With these constraints in mind, staff propose amendments to Guidelines 7.7-7.9 (Exhibit B) to have the smallest textual modification with the biggest practical effect. Except for the section calling a metal roof “inappropriate for an Aspen Victorian primary home,” most struck text appears elsewhere in the amended guidelines. Additionally, what may appear to be new supplementary statements largely derive directly from other Guidelines, including 6.1, 6.3-6.5, 10.6, 11.7 and 12.3. Staff believe the proposed amendments uphold, clarify, and advance existing policies while finding additional flexibility to endure a changing climate. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Commission approve HPC Resolution #05, Series of 2024. EXHIBITS: A. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, p. 71: Strike throughs and underlines to respectively show proposed deletions and additions to the existing text. B. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, p.71: Proposed 63 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 Vice - Chairperson Halferty opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission at 4:30pm. Commissioners in attendance: Jeff Halferty, Roger Moyer, Jodi Surfas, Kim Raymond, and Charlie Tarver. Absent were Peter Fornell, Riley Warwick, Barb Pitchford and Kara Thompson. Staff present: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation Stuart Hayden, Planner - Historic Preservation Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Toni Kronberg commented that she is running for Pitkin County Commissioner and wanted to introduce herself. She noted that one her reasons for running was due to the existing dangerous conditions on Highway 82. She explained some of her concerns with proposed speed limit increases and a potential stop light near Smith Hill Rd. Mr. Halferty interjected to ask Ms. Kronberg if her comments were related to Historic Preservation. She said they were not and asked if she could just leave a flyer with the commissioners. Mr. Halferty said that this was not a place for political platforms and thanked her for coming. Ms. Kronberg again introduced herself and thanked the commissioners for their time. MINUTES: Mr. Moyer motioned to approve the draft minutes from 4/10/24 & 4/24/24. Ms. Raymond seconded. All in favor, motion passes. COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS: None. DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Ms. Raymond noted that she was conflicted on the first agenda item and would leave the meeting at that point. PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Armstrong noted that since the last HPC meeting there had been two approved project monitoring items. One at 135 W Francis and one at 418 E. Cooper Ave. She then went over the details of each item as outlined in the agenda packet. STAFF COMMENTS: None. CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None. CALL UP REPORTS: None. SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS: Ms. Johnson confirmed that public notice was completed in compliance with the Code as needed for the first agenda item. Ms. Raymond left the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 820 E Cooper Ave – Final Major Development - PUBLIC HEARING Exhibit M 64 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 Applicant Presentation: Sarah Adams – Bendon Adams; Patrick Westfeldt – F&M Architects Ms. Adams began by introducing the owners of the property, Lauren, and Anton Bullard. Ms. Bullard thanked the HPC for being here and said that they were excited to move forward with the project. Ms. Adams noted that they are presenting a slight amendment to the height of the addition that was approved at conceptual review for HPC’s consideration. She reviewed what was approved by HPC at the conceptual review in September of 2023. She then briefly reviewed the context of the neighborhood. As in the conceptual review, Ms. Adams noted that the owners had already completed several restoration projects to the historic resource without asking for any benefits and that this project will not be touching the historic resource. Ms. Adams went on to describe the details of the final review and showed the site plan of the project. She went over the simple landscaping plan, parking spaces, and noted that the walkways and patios will match the existing brick. She reminded the members that part of digging the basement will be lifting the house to give it a proper foundation and positive drainage. Next, she described the proposed railings for the lightwells and described the placement of the condensing unit. She moved on to the floor plans, including the historic resource, connecting element and new addition. Ms. Adams then described the reasoning for the height change on the addition. She showed the elevations of the approved roof height and noted that after working with the mechanical consultants, it was discovered that they would need a bit more height in the stairwell to accommodate the heating and cooling systems. Showing an overlay of the new proposed height on the elevations she noted that it would be about a one-foot increase. She also showed updated renderings of the project and noted that the height increase would not be very noticeable for the street due to shrubbery coverage on one side and the existing house on the other. She mentioned that they find the project to be still in line with the historic design guidelines. Next, she went over the proposed materials for the addition and passed around samples. She also went of the proposed lighting for the project. Mr. Tarver asked if the new height of the historic resource after the basement was dug was represented in the proposed site plans and renderings that included the new height stairwell in the addition. Ms. Adams said yes. Mr. Moyer asked about the FDC Fire strobe light that was a proposed condition of approval by staff. Ms. Adams said they would address that at building permit but would comply with the condition. Mr. Halferty asked for some more clarification about the height increase and what it was needed for. Mr. Westfeldt said that after working with the mechanical engineer, they found it best to locate the fan coil and some of the ducting in the ceiling above the stairs. This led to the proposed increase in height. Staff Presentation: Kirsten Armstrong - Planner - Historic Preservation Ms. Armstrong began her presentation by reviewing the item and went over the background of the project including the conceptual approvals, Land Use Review request and description of the lot. She noted the applicant’s request to increase the height of a portion of the addition’s roof. This was in addition to the standard final review. She went on to describe the 2-inch height increase to the main roof gable and the one-foot 2-inch increase to the stairwell of the addition. She said that staff found the change strikes a balance between minimizing the addition and the usability of the space. She noted that staff found design guidelines 10.4, 10.87, 10.10 and 10.11 to be met. Next, she described staff’s 65 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 reasoning for supporting the horizontal rails on the fencing of the egress lightwells. She then showed the proposed landscape plan and said that staff finds it to be appropriate per the relevant design guidelines. She did note that a recommended condition of approval was that the standard 1-foot-wide pea gravel maintenance boarder around the historic resource be created. She also said that staff generally finds the proposed materials to meet the design guidelines. She concluded by detailing the recommended conditions of approval for final review contained in the draft resolution and noted that staff is recommending HPC approval with these conditions. Ms. Surfas asked about the location of the proposed drywell. Ms. Armstrong noted that a preliminary stormwater plan was included in the application packet and that the drywell was proposed for the rear of the property. Public Comment: None Board Discussion: Mr. Halferty summarized the relevant design guidelines and topics for review and discussion. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #06 with the conditions proposed by staff. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 4-0, motion passes. Ms. Surfas volunteered to be project monitor. Ms. Raymond returned to the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: Resolution #05, Series of 2024 - Amendment to Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 7.7-7.9 - PUBLIC HEARING Staff Presentation: Stuart Hayden – Planner - Historic Preservation Mr. Hayden wanted to note for the record that this agenda item was noticed as a public hearing in the newspaper as required. Mr. Hayden stated that this item was to discuss the direction given staff by the HPC on April 10th, 2024 to draft an amendment to Chapter 7 of the Historic Design Guidelines regarding roof materials. He noted that per section 26.415.060 of the Land Use Code, the HPC is given authority to amend the Guidelines. He then went over some the general elements of the Design Guidelines that apply to all historic properties, specifically detailing the ideas related to the replacement of historic materials. He moved on to Chapter 7 of the Guidelines and noted that the character of a historic roof, including its form and materials should be preserved. Next, he went over staff’s proposed amendments to Guidelines 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 by reviewing the strikethroughs and underlines that respectively showed the proposed deletions and additions to the existing text, as outlined in Exhibit A of the staff memo. For each deletion and addition, he explained staff’s reasoning for the change and how it addressed the HPC’s requests while not overstepping the boards’ authority in amending the guidelines. 66 REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MAY 22ND, 2024 He stated that staff recommends HPC approval of Resolution #5 amending Historic Design Guidelines 7.7 7.9. Mr. Halferty asked for clarification that these changes only applied to historic resources and not on additions. Mr. Hayden confirmed that it only dealt with historic resources. Public Comment: None. Board Discussion: Ms. Johnson went over HPC’s role in this matter and noted that this would be a legislative act by the board as authorized in the Land Use Code section that Mr. Hayden referenced in his presentation. Ms. Raymond asked if this should be something that everyone looks at, knowing a few members were absent. Ms. Johnson said that the item could be continued to allow additional input from other board members. She also noted that if the resolution was to be passed, at the next meeting, if at least two member that voted to approve the resolution was present, they could move to reconsider the resolution. Ms. Surfas said that she knew Ms. Thompson was very interested in being here, but an emergency came up that kept her from attending. Mr. Hayden noted that because he would be the only Historic Planner going forward, he would only have the capacity to bring one item before HPC at each meeting. This being said, he felt he could add this item to a future meeting if necessary. He also mentioned that there are currently community members actively waiting on a result to this in order to pursue building permits. Ms. Raymond noted her support for the amendments. Mr. Hayden also noted that he had received an email from Ms. Pitchford stating her general support. MOTION: Mr. Moyer moved to approve Resolution #05 as presented by staff. Ms. Surfas seconded. Roll call vote: Mr. Moyer, yes; Ms. Surfas, yes; Ms. Raymond, yes; Mr. Tarver, yes; Mr. Halferty, yes. 5-0, motion passes. ADJOURN: Ms. Raymond motioned to adjourn the regular meeting. Mr. Halferty seconded. All in favor; motion passes. Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 67 1 A D E F 3.1 4 5 C G 2 3 2 A407 _______ 1 A407 _______ BA1 1 A403 _______ 1 A403 _______ 1 A406 _______1 A406 _______ 1 A404 _______1 A404 _______ 1 A405 _______ 1 A405 _______ L HISTORIC HOUSE ROOF LINE TO REMAIN 24 ' - 1 0 1 / 8 " FLASHING AND GUTTERS TO BE UPDATED 11' - 6 7/8" NEW ROOF EXTENSION H J 2 A402 _______2 A402 _______ H1 K 2 A409 _______ 2 A410 _______ D1 I J1 0 2.2 B1 4.3 4.4 2.3 2.1 3.2 4.5 4.2 4.1 56 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 1' - 1 1 1 / 4 " 4 1 / 4 " 9' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 7' - 4 5 / 8 " 11 1 1 / 1 6 " 11 1 / 2 " 4' - 5 7 / 8 " 1' - 8 9 / 1 6 " 2' - 1 1 1 / 1 6 " 1 ' - 6 " 7' - 6 1 3 / 1 6 " 1' - 7 1 5 / 1 6 " 7' - 1 5 / 1 6 " 5' - 4 1 1 / 1 6 " 3' - 0 1 / 2 " 87' - 9 5/16" 7' - 4 1/16"2' - 8 13/16" 3' - 10 3/16" 2' - 0"9' - 4 1/8"8' - 5"3' - 1 5/8"4' - 6 3/4"10' - 0 3/4"5' - 1"4' - 8 5/8" 1' - 11 13/16" 1' - 7 9/16" 8' - 9 1/4"11' - 6 5/8"2' - 7 3/16" NEW TERRACE OVER NEW GARAGE LOCATION ROOF SHINGLES TO BE REPLACED PER ROOF ASSEMBLY TYPE TO MATCH AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF EXISTING STRUCTURE. CURRENT RIDGE FLASHING LOOKS TO BE NON- HISTORIC, SO FULL REPLACEMENT IS PROPOSED ROOF SHINGLES TO BE REPLACED WITH APPROVED HPC SAMPLE. EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN AND BE REVISED PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS DL DL DL DLDL DL DL DL SPA 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 11:12 11 : 1 2 9:12 9:12 11 : 1 2 11:12 4:12 7: 1 2 CHIMNEY TO BE RESTORED TO ITS HISTORIC CONDITION SEE CIVIL FOR DRAINAGE PLAN DL PLUMBING VENT PLUMBING VENT PLUMBING VENT PLUMBING VENT NEW RIDGE FLASHING TO MATCH HISTORIC IMAGES PLUMBING VENT EMT-02 EMT-02 EMT-02 EWD-02 EMT-02 EMT-03 EMT-03 EMT-02 PROPOSED SNOW CLIPS TO BE PLACED PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS R3 R5 2% MIN. 2% MI N . R4 R3 1 A402b _______1 A402b _______ EMT-02 EMT-02 EMT-02 EMT-02 EMT-02 E28 03.FOH 04.FOH b.FOH c.FOH DL DL SKYLIGHT OVER ELEVATOR HOISTWAY R1 1 A408 _______ DETACHED DWELLING EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN. ROOF SHINGLES TO BE REPLACED PER ROOF ASSEMBLY TYPE TO MATCH AESTHETIC CHARACTER OF EXISTING STRUCTURE. CURRENT RIDGE FLASHING LOOKS TO BE NON-HISTORIC, SO FULL REPLACEMENT IS PROPOSED R10 11 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 12 : 1 2 12:12 18: 1 2 18: 1 2 12 : 1 2 12:12 11:12 6' - 5 1/4" 5' - 4 7 / 8 " 1' - 8 3 / 4 " 1' - 7 1 / 2 " PLANTER ABANDONED NON- HISTORIC SKYLIGHT REMOVED 7' - 2 3/8" 6' - 5 5 / 8 " 2' - 6 3 / 4 " 3 ' - 1 0 7 / 8 " 10.31.2020 Th e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e t h e p r o p e r t y o f EA D . A n y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e w i t h o u t t h e wr i t t e n c o n s e n t o f E A D i s p r o h i b i t e d b y la w . E A D d i s c l a i m s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e s e d o c u m e n t s i f t h e y a r e u s e d w h o l e or i n p a r t a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n a n d f o r an y o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e or i g i n a l i n t e n t . I f y o u a r e n o t t h e in t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t , y o u a r e h e r e b y no t i f i e d t h a t a n y d i s s e m i n a t i o n , di s t r i b u t i o n o r r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s e do c u m e n t s i s p r o h i b i t e d b y l a w . 350 MARKET ST. UNIT 309, BASALT, CO 81623 N Co p y r i g h t c 2 0 1 9 b y E I G E L B E R G E R A R C H I T E C T U R E & D E S I G N SCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue 1/4" = 1'-0" Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 1 8 0 1 9 - 1 3 5 E a s t C o o p e r / U S _ A S E _ E C 1 3 5 _ A _ V 2 3 . r v t A107 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 13 5 E . C O O P E R A V E . 13 5 E . C O O P E R A V E . AS P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 18019 Natacha Denis Cassondra Westerlind SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0"A107 1 ENLARGED ROOF PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD BY CONTRACTOR 2. REFER TO CIVIL PLANS FOR ALL DRAIN LOCATIONS 3. SNOW CLIPS PROVIDED ON ROOFS IN ORDER TO PREVENT SHEDDING OF ICE AND SNOW ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, POTENTIALLY OCCUPIED AREAS, AND VEHICULAR ACCESS PER SECTION R910 7 7 14 14 2018.02.09 1 PERMIT SUBMITTAL 2018.09.05 2 HPC REVIEW 2019.08.12 3 CHANGE ORDER 2020.04.27 4 RND 1 COMMENT 2020.07.21 5 RND 2 COMMENT 2021.07.01 7 C.O. 2 2024.08.09 14 C.O. 04 Exhibit N 68 10.31.2020 Th e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e t h e p r o p e r t y o f EA D . A n y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e w i t h o u t t h e wr i t t e n c o n s e n t o f E A D i s p r o h i b i t e d b y la w . E A D d i s c l a i m s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e s e d o c u m e n t s i f t h e y a r e u s e d w h o l e or i n p a r t a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n a n d f o r an y o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e or i g i n a l i n t e n t . I f y o u a r e n o t t h e in t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t , y o u a r e h e r e b y no t i f i e d t h a t a n y d i s s e m i n a t i o n , di s t r i b u t i o n o r r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s e do c u m e n t s i s p r o h i b i t e d b y l a w . 350 MARKET ST. UNIT 309, BASALT, CO 81623 Co p y r i g h t c 2 0 1 9 b y E I G E L B E R G E R A R C H I T E C T U R E & D E S I G N SCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 1 8 0 1 9 - 1 3 5 E a s t C o o p e r / U S _ A S E _ E C 1 3 5 _ A _ V 2 3 . r v t 8/29/2024 8:50:13 AM A700 MATERIALS 13 5 E . C O O P E R A V E . 13 5 E . C O O P E R A V E . AS P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 18019 Author Checker BRONZE CLAD EMPIRE GRAY GRANITE STONE HONED FINISH MFR: STONE CONTACT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BASALT STONE WINDOWS FLATWORK AND FOUNDATION AND WATER FEATURE GUTTERS, FLASHING, DOWNSPOUTS, AND SNOW STOPS HALF ROUND 6" GUTTER, REVERE FREEDOM GRAY T-Z ALLOY COATED COPPER (TIN-ZINC) EXTERIOR RAILING LOW IRON STRUCTURAL GLASS WITH CR LAWRENCE SHOE AND GUAR RAIL CAP ROOF SHINGLE CLASS 'A' CEDAR SHINGLE TO MATCH EXISTING MFR: MAIBEC ORIGINAL SINGLE COURSE SHINGLE EMT-02EWD-02 EGL-01EMT-01 EST-01 THIS IMAGE SHOWN FOR PATTERN AND SIZE ONLY 7 7 14 2018.09.05 2 HPC REVIEW 2019.08.12 3 CHANGE ORDER 2020.04.27 4 RND 1 COMMENT 2021.07.01 7 C.O. 2 2024.08.09 14 C.O. 04 69 Product description for Fine Metal Roof Tech's Roofing shingle Fine Metal Roof Tech 79 W 4500 S Suite 6 Murray, Utah 84107 Phone: 801 - 462 - 5264 71 Fine Metal RT Metal Shingles Application Instructions When installing metal Shingles: - OSHA fall protection guidelines for sloped roofing should be followed at all times. - Heat can be generated in any metal roof system. If using a self-adhered membrane as an underlayment, consult manufacturer’s guidelines or specifications to ensure that the membrane is designed for use under high-temperature conditions. Applicable Standards and Codes - For applicable Florida rating and Metro Dade County Product Control Acceptance please comply with the applicable fastener requirements listed below. - Class A fire-rated system may be achieved by installing under the roof panels a minimum 1/2”-thick (12.7mm) water-resistant core gypsum sheathing complying with ASTM C 79, 1/4”-thick (6.4 mm) Dens-Deck overlayment board manufactured by Georgia Pacific, or “Versa-shield” non-asphalt fiberglass-based roll roofing manufactured by Elk Corporation, installed over the plywood sheathing. The gypsum and Dens-Deck materials are to be attached to the roof deck with eight 1-1/2”-long (38mm) nails per 4’ x 8’ sheet. Length of the nails used to attach the metal shingles must be increased by the thickness of the barrier boards. - Minimum roof pitch 4/12 (18°) for the standard shingle system. Installation on 3/12 (14°) possible, please call. Fine Metal Roof Tech 79 W 4500 S Suite 6 Murray, Utah 84107 Phone: 801 - 462 - 5264 72 Fine Metal RT Metal Shingles Diamond Shaped Metal Shingle Descriptions and Specifications - Metal shingles interlock on all four sides with adjacent shingles and into the shingle accessories. - Metal shingles are hidden and indirectly fastened with metal clips. - FMRT (Fine Metal Roof Tech) supplies all shingle clips and fasteners for its metal shingles for an additional fee. Shingle size: 16 - Length 14-1/2" – visible after installation - measured on parallel site - Width 14-1/2" – visible after installation - measured on parallel site - Tip angle 72° - Standard seam width 9/16" each - Roof cover per shingle 1.45 square feet - Roofing square (100 Sq. Ft) requires 68 pieces - Shingle material: - Aluminum 0.026" thick special coated finish (Finish description elsewhere) Weight per shingle 0.72 lbs. Weight per roofing square 49 lbs +/- 1 lb fasteners and accessories - Copper 16 oz or 20 oz thick, bare or/and a variety of finishes there of Weight per shingle 1.45 lbs. Weight per roofing square 98 lbs +/- 1 lb fasteners and accessories - Zinc 0.027" thick natural zinc or special surface finish Weight per shingle 1.48 lbs. Weight per roofing square 99 lbs +/- 1 lb fasteners and accessories - Stainless steel 26 ga thick material, coated or uncoated finish. Weight per shingle 0.96 lbs. Weight per roofing square 75 lbs +/- 1 lb fasteners and accessories - Galvalume 24 gauge thick special coated finish (Finish description elsewhere) Weight per shingle 1.16 lbs. Weight per roofing square 93 lbs +/- 1 lb fasteners and accessories - - Florida, Alaska and other high wind areas require using 4 clips and 8 screws per shingle. - Different size, shape, accessory and installation description on separate documents. Installation instruction of metal roofing shingles To install the shingles start at the bottom of the roof or wall (at the drip edge flashing) After installing the drip edge flashing, described elsewhere, draw up the guide lines onto the roof, using a chalk line for example. Make sure that the drawn lines are: - Perpendicular (90°) to the drip edge for the metal shingle columns - Parallel to the drip edge for the metal shingle rows - accurate measurements for the lines are provided in the product delivery Interlock the shingles with each other after you apply the necessary fasteners to the individual shingles and secure them properly to the roof sheathing. Fine Metal Roof Tech 79 W 4500 S Suite 6 Murray, Utah 84107 Phone: 801 - 462 - 5264 73 Fine Metal Roof Tech 79 W 4500 S Suite 6 Murray, Utah 84107 Phone: 801 - 462 - 5264 74 105104 75 9392 76 9594 77 10.31.2020 Th e s e d o c u m e n t s a r e t h e p r o p e r t y o f EA D . A n y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e w i t h o u t t h e wr i t t e n c o n s e n t o f E A D i s p r o h i b i t e d b y la w . E A D d i s c l a i m s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e s e d o c u m e n t s i f t h e y a r e u s e d w h o l e or i n p a r t a t a n y o t h e r l o c a t i o n a n d f o r an y o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e or i g i n a l i n t e n t . I f y o u a r e n o t t h e in t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t , y o u a r e h e r e b y no t i f i e d t h a t a n y d i s s e m i n a t i o n , di s t r i b u t i o n o r r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s e do c u m e n t s i s p r o h i b i t e d b y l a w . 350 MARKET ST. UNIT 309, BASALT, CO 81623 Co p y r i g h t c 2 0 1 9 b y E I G E L B E R G E R A R C H I T E C T U R E & D E S I G N SCALE: Plot Date Drawn By Checked By Project No. Date Issue Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 1 8 0 1 9 - 1 3 5 E a s t C o o p e r / U S _ A S E _ E C 1 3 5 _ A _ V 2 4 . r v t 2/21/2025 10:36:17 AM HPC 16e PROPOSED ROOF MATERIALS 13 5 E . C O O P E R A V E . 13 5 E . C O O P E R A V E . AS P E N , C O L O R A D O 8 1 6 1 1 18019 Author Checker VIEW OF PROPOSED (LEFT) AND APPROVED ROOFING MATERIALS B-VIEW OF PROPOSED (LEFT) AND APPROVED ROOFING MATERIALS VIEW OF PROPOSED ROOFING MATERIALS-FREEDOM GREY (RIGHT) SIZE AND PATTERN WILL VARY TO MATCH HISTORIC SIZES APPROVED ROOFING MATERIALS-DIAMOND COPPER ON ADDITION, FREEDOM GREY ON DETCHED DWELING UNIT, NOW PROPOSED ON HISTORIC HOUSE Exhibit N 78 79 Page 1 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com Memorandum TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director MEETING DATE: June 25, 2025 RE: 623 & 625 E. Hopkins Ave. – Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development – PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT/OWNER: 623 Hopkins LLC Representative: Sara Adams, BendonAdams, LLC Location: 623 & 625 E. Hopkins Ave. Legal Description: Lot F and G, Block 99, and Cabin Commercial Unit, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado Parcel Identification Number: 2737-182-12-803 2737-182-12-050 Current Zoning & Use: C-1 Commercial Proposed Use: Residential SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, consolidated commercial design review, growth management review, and relocation to expand existing subgrade space beneath both historic resources located at 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Ave. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As the application does not meet at least one of the required relocation criteria, staff is unable to recommend an approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation. Figure 1. 623 & 625 E. Hopkins Ave.. – Site Location Aerial Image 80 Page 2 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com BACKGROUND: The subject property is a 6,000 square foot lot located in the Commercial Zone District and contains two individually designated historic resources. Both resources located at 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Ave. are ca. 1886 late Victorian Miner’s Cottages with a street-facing gable ends and double hung windows. The Resource at 623 E. Hopkins has a simplified entry porch with two doors. In 2012, the HPC granted approvals for the property that included temporary relocation of the 623 E. Hopkins Ave. resource to allow for a basement to be constructed. Additionally, non-historic additions were removed and the construction of a new detached, mixed use building was built at the rear of the property. In 2014, one free market residential unit and expansion of the existing commercial space was permitted with housing mitigation exemption. Figure 2: 1904 Sanborn Map of property (left), and current survey of property (right). REQUEST OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals: • Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development (Section 26.415.070(c)): The applicant is proposing exterior changes to the landmark property in order to excavate a larger basement. Included in this proposal is removal of a lightwell on the east elevation of 623 East Hopkins Avenue, relocation of HVAC equipment from the side yard of 623 to the alley, revegetation and grading to match existing conditions, and construction of a wildlife protection fence around the trash/recycle and mechanical equipment along the alley. • Relocation of Designated Historic Properties (Section 26.415.090): The existing basement is proposed to be enlarged by lifting both 623 and 625 East Hopkins in their 81 Page 3 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com current locations. A letter from a structural engineering attesting to the method to stabilize and lift the landmarks, excavate the basement, and place the landmarks back in the current location has been provided. • Growth Management Quota System (Section 26.470.080): The removal of a lightwell decreases floor area from 5,521 sf to 5,413 sf; however, the expansion of net leasable area on the basement level requires affordable housing review. The proposed enlargement of commercial space in the basement results in an increase of 636 sf of net leasable area or 1.46 FTEs at Category 4. • Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412): Pursuant to Section 26.412.020 Applicability, the applicant has requested, and received, exemption from Commercial Design Standard review as the project does not change the exterior of the building. The HPC is the final review authority for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation of Designated Historic Properties. City Council, however, will have the opportunity to employ the call-up procedure for the relocation of the designated property as set forth in Subsection 26.415.120(c) and (d). Staff will place this notification on the agenda of a regular City Council meeting within 30 days of the approval, or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation Review to allow for temporarily lifting two historic resources to allow for an expansion to existing subgrade space. Additional scope includes an upgraded trash and recycle enclosure, relocation of existing HVAC equipment from the west yard to the rear of the property, and a wood fence around the mechanical and trash area along the alley. Minor exterior changes to the historic resources are proposed including removal of a lightwell on the east façade of 623 E. Hopkins and revegetation and regrading of portions of the site. Figure 3: Elevation provided by applicant showing the Hopkins Ave. façade. 82 Page 4 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com STAFF EVALUATION The application (LPA-25-024) for minor development and relocation at 623 & 625 E. Hopkins Ave. deserves commendation for its general approach to satisfying the City’s intent to “draw a reasonable balance between private property rights and the public interest in preserving the City's cultural, historic, and architectural heritage” as set forth in Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.415. Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development (Section 26.415.070(c)): As noted in Exhibit A, the application satisfies most of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As there is limited scope involving the exterior of either historic resource, many of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are not applicable. The applicant has satisfied applicable guidelines related to the site, landscaping, and fencing requirements including Guidelines 1.7, 1.12, 1.13, 1.18, 1.20, 1.25, and 1.27. Additionally, Staff found that this proposal met the majority of the applicable Guidelines within Chapter 9, including 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.7. Below are the Guidelines staff found as not met. Staff found that Guideline 2.1, which calls for the preservation of original building materials, was partially met, as the temporary relocation of the historic resources will require the removal of certain original building materials. As 623 E. Hopkins Ave. has been lifted previously and had a new foundation constructed within the last 15 years, staff is less concerned with original building materials being impacted on this resource. However, 625 E. Hopkins Ave. has not been relocated previously and so the proposed scope will necessitate the removal of historic material via the removal of the existing original foundation. Additionally, as with any relocation project, the applicant may encounter issues once the process begins that could potentially affect more original building materials on either resource. Given this, Staff has recommended a condition that once work commences should any additional historic material be identified as needing to be removed or altered, the applicant will need to have it reviewed by Staff and HPC Monitor. Staff found that Guideline 9.1, which calls for underpinning and excavating a basement while the resource remains in place, has not been met, as the applicant is proposing to lift the historic resources in order to expand the basement space, not underpin them. Guideline 9.5, which calls for a new foundation to appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation, was found to be partially met, as the proposed foundation detail was not provided by the applicant. As only one of the existing foundations is historic, and is not visible prior to selective demo, staff has recommended a condition that once work commences, the applicant will document the existing foundation to ensure the new foundation will appear similar. Staff will review this at building permit submittal. 83 Page 5 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com Figure 4: Current street view from Hopkins Ave with 625 E. Hopkins on the left and 623 E. Hopkins on the right. Relocation of Designated Historic Properties (Section 26.415.090): Lacking a “written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated”, as required per Section 26.415.090(a)(4), it is yet to be determined that the resources can withstand the physical impacts of this proposed relocation. Staff have notified the applicant that this report will be required prior to building permit submittal. It is staff opinion that the temporary relocation of the historic resources is not an acceptable preservation method in this instance, as the request to disturb the resources and remove historic material in order to expand an existing basement is not necessary for the longevity, preservation, or continued use of the resources. Additionally, as unanticipated issues can arise during the relocation process, the proposed scope has potential to adversely affect the historic integrity of the resources. As none of the other relocation standards are applicable, staff is unable to recommend approval of this relocation proposal as it does not meet at least one of the relocation standards. The applicant should consider underpinning the foundation as an alternative to relocation. Staff analysis of relocation criterion is attached to this memo as Exhibit B. 84 Page 6 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com Growth Management Quota System (Section 26.470.080): Per Aspen’s Municipal Code Section 26.470.100(e), the expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. As this review has been consolidated into one application before the HPC, the HPC is granted the authority to review and make a decision in regard to this criterion. Per Section 26.470.080, the applicant is required to mitigate sixty-five (65) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space. According to Section 26.470.050(b), this shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The generation rate for a basement commercial space in the C1 zone district is as follows: 3.525 FTEs/ 1,000 sf of net leasable area * 636.25 = 2.24 FTEs generated 2.24 FTEs * 65% = 1.46 FTEs requiring mitigation at Category 4. The applicant proposes to mitigate for 1.46 FTEs with a mix of cash in lieu and housing credits per the Land Use Code allowances. REFERRAL COMMENTS The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that may affect the permit review. The combined referral comments are included as Exhibit C. RECOMMENDATION: Should the HPC choose to move forward with an approval for LPA-25-024, staff recommend the following conditions: 1. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant is to provide a written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 2. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant is to provide a deposit, in an amount determined by the HPC as appropriate, to the City of Aspen as collateral for the safe execution of this relocation treatment. 3. Once the relocation process begins, should any historic material besides the existing foundation at 625 E. Hopkins Ave. need to be removed/altered, the applicant is to work with Staff and HPC Monitor to determine the best path forward. 85 Page 7 of 7 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5000 | cityofaspen.com 4. The existing foundation at 625 E. Hopkins Ave. is to be documented prior to demo, with documentation submitted at building permit to ensure the proposed new foundation appears similar in design. ATTACHMENTS Resolution #__, Series of 2025 Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Findings Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria Staff Findings Exhibit C – Referral Comments Exhibit D – Application 86 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2025 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #__ (SERIES OF 2025) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND RELOCATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 623 AND 625 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS F AND G, BLOCK 99, AND CABIN COMMERCIAL UNIT; CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-182-12-803; 2737-182-12-050 WHEREAS, the applicant, 623 HOPKINS LLC, 5505 Blue Lagoon Dr., Miami, FL 33126, represented by Sara Adams, BendonAdams, LLC, 300 South Spring Street #202, Aspen, CO 81611, has requested HPC approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, and Relocation for the property located at 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots F and G, Block 99; 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 approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, 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) of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. 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; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090, Relocation; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with applicable review standards; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting on July 9, 2025, the HPC considered the application, the staff memo, and public comment, and voted X to X in support of a motion to approve the application with conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Approval Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants the a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and Relocation to allow for temporary relocation of two historic structures in order to expand existing subgrade space at property located at 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Ave., and 87 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2025 Page 2 of 3 legally described as Block 99, Lot F and G; City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant is to provide a written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 2. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant is to provide a deposit, in an amount determined by the HPC as appropriate, to the City of Aspen as collateral for the safe execution of this relocation treatment. 3. Once the relocation process begins, should any historic material besides the existing foundation at 625 E. Hopkins Ave. need to be removed/altered, the applicant is to work with Staff and HPC Monitor to determine the best path forward. 4. The existing foundation at 625 E. Hopkins Ave. is to be documented prior to demo, with documentation submitted at building permit to ensure the proposed new foundation appears similar in design. 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. Section 5: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 88 HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2025 Page 3 of 3 26.104.050 (Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right. No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site-specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Ave. Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this approval. The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 9th day of July, 2025. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: ________________________________ ________________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ________________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 89 Page 1 of 7 Exhibit A Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria Staff Findings 26.415.070(c) – Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines & Findings The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development at 623 & 625 E. Hopkins Ave. for the purposes of temporarily lifting both historic resources and expanding existing subgrade space. Chapter 1: Site Planning and Landscape Finding 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. MET 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 overtextured 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. MET 90 Page 2 of 7 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. MET 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. 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 91 Page 3 of 7 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. • Do not add features that damage the integrity of the historic landscape. • Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and siting of structures. • Maintain the historic relationship of the built landscape to natural features on the site. • All additions to these landscapes must be clearly identifiable as recent work. • New artwork must be subordinate to the designed landscape in terms of placement, height, material, and overall appearance. Place new art away from significant landscape features. • Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural landscapes if possible. MET 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. 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. MET/ NOT MET Chapter 9: Excavation, Building Relocation, and Foundations Finding 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. NOT MET 92 Page 4 of 7 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. • In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than those in a historic district. • In a district, where numerous adjacent historic structures may exist, the way that buildings were placed on the site historically, and the open yards visible from the street are characteristics that should be respected in new development. • Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building relocation. • In some cases, the historic significance of the structure, the context of the site, the construction technique, and the architectural style may make on- site relocation too impactful to be appropriate. It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation is the best preservation alternative in order for approval to be granted. • If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct a substantial area of the original exterior surface of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate preservation option. MET 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 MET 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 MET 93 Page 5 of 7 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. • On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and is not allowed. • Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate. • Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints. • New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation of the design intent. MET/ NOT MET 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. MET Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, and Signage Finding 94 Page 6 of 7 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. MET Staff Findings: The application satisfies most of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As there is limited scope involving the exterior of either historic resource, many of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are not applicable. The applicant has satisfied applicable guidelines related to the site, landscaping, and fencing requirements including Guidelines 1.7, 1.12, 1.13, 1.18, 1.20, 1.25, and 1.27. Additionally, Staff found that this proposal met the majority of the applicable Guidelines within Chapter 9, including 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.7. Below are the Guidelines staff found as not met. Staff found that Guideline 2.1, which calls for the preservation of original building materials, was partially met, as the temporary relocation of the historic resources will require the removal of certain original building materials. As 623 E. Hopkins Ave. has been lifted previously and had a new foundation constructed within the last 15 years, staff is less concerned with original building materials being impacted on this resource. However, 625 E. Hopkins Ave. has not been relocated previously and so the proposed scope will necessitate the removal of historic material via the removal of the existing original foundation. Additionally, as with any relocation project, the applicant may encounter issues once the process begins that could potentially affect more original building materials on either resource. Given this, Staff has recommended a condition that once work commences should any additional historic material be identified as needing to be removed or altered, the applicant will need to have it reviewed by Staff and HPC Monitor. Staff found that Guideline 9.1, which calls for underpinning and excavating a basement while the resource remains in place, has not been met, as the applicant is proposing to lift the historic resources in order to expand the basement space, not underpin them. Guideline 9.5, which calls for a new foundation to appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation, was found to be partially met, as the proposed foundation detail was not provided by the applicant. As only one of the existing 95 Page 7 of 7 foundations is historic, and is not visible prior to selective demo, staff has recommended a condition that once work commences, the applicant will document the existing foundation to ensure the new foundation will appear similar. Staff will review this at building permit submittal. 96 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. 97 Page 2 of 3 Relocation Review Criteria for 623 & 625 E. Hopkins Ave. The applicant requests a relocation review to lift and excavate beneath the historic resources, and thus, must meet the 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: 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. Not 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. TBD 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 98 Page 3 of 3 Staff Findings: It is staff opinion that the temporary relocation of the historic resources is not an acceptable preservation method in this instance, as the request to disturb the resources and remove historic material in order to expand an existing basement is not necessary for the longevity, preservation, or continued use of the resources. Additionally, as a relocation can encounter issues not anticipated, the temporary relocation has the potential to adversely affect the historic integrity of the resources. As none of the other standards are applicable, staff is unable to recommend approval of this relocation proposal as it does not meet at least one of the relocation standards. Staff Recommendation: Should the HPC wish to approve the relocation, staff recommend the following conditions: 1. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant is to provide a written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the physical move and its rehabilitation needs, once relocated. 2. Prior to permit submittal, the applicant is to provide a deposit, in an amount determined by the HPC as appropriate, to the City of Aspen as collateral for the safe execution of this relocation treatment. 3. Once the relocation process begins, should any historic material besides the existing foundation at 625 E. Hopkins Ave. need to be removed/altered, the applicant is to work with Staff and HPC Monitor to determine the best path forward. 4. The existing foundation at 625 E. Hopkins Ave. is to be documented prior to demo, with documentation submitted at building permit to ensure the proposed new foundation appears similar in design. 99 Memorandum TO: Gillian White, gillian.white@aspen.gov Community Development Department FROM: Kyla Smits, kyla.smits@aspen.gov Engineering Department DATE: April 25, 2024 SUBJECT: Engineering Department Referral Comments PROJECT: LPA-25-024, 623, 625,627 E Hopkins HP Minor 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. UTILITIES TRANSFORMER 1. An easement is required for the 3-phase transformer on site. a. The City of Aspen Utility department is open to discussions about abandoning the current utility easement on the alley. All electric and communications utility entities need to acquiescence to the abandonment of this easement. 2. No fencing, trash enclosure, or other hinderance is allowed anywhere within the prescriptive easement surrounding the transformer. The proposed trash enclosure presents a major hazard and blocks the transformer from being safely accessed. Another plan must be developed. a. Non-flammable material for the trash enclosure is required due to proximity to the transformer. WATER SERVICE LINES 1. The water service lines shown in the survey do not match the City’s tap map records. Potholing to confirm the utility alignment is required. The alignment as shown in the survey cannot remain when the basement is dug. 2. A basic proposed utility plan is required. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANAYLSIS 1. The City no longer accepts TOP membership as a viable TDM measure as this program is at membership capacity. Another TDM measure must be selected. 2. The transportation department recommends the bus pass option as an additional TDM mitigation measure. 3. There are no identified minor MMLOS measures that can be completed by this project in the direct vicinity. Furthermore, it appears that one MMLOS measure and the two required TDM measures will be sufficient in mitigating the trips generated. 100 OTHER COMMENTS 1. Hydrodynamic separators are not a permitted WQCV treatment option. Why are the existing detention ponds not being utilized? There does not appear to be an expansion of impervious area, and these detention ponds should be maintained and reused if possible instead of adding infrastructure to the right of way. 2. The trash enclosure doors may not intrude into the ROW. The doors should be sliding or there should be adequate room for the swinging motion within property limits. 3. The survey error of closure must be 1:15,000. 101 Memorandum To: Gillian White Historic Preservation Community Development From: Joseph Pewitt, joseph.pewitt@aspen.gov Permit Coordinator Parks & Open Space Date: April 21, 2025 Subject: Parks and Open Space Referral Comments Project: 623 East Hopkins Avenue Comments: These comments are not intended to be exhaustive, but an initial response to the project conceptual packet submitted for the purpose of temporary relocation/lifting of two historic resources to expand subgrade space. Other requirements may be requested at the time of permit submittal. Parks and Open Space Department: The Applicant’s design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Chapter 13.20, and all tree preservation standards published by Parks and Open Space. Land Use Application Comments: 1. As a condition of approval for the removal of trees situated upo n City property, the applicant is required to replace any removed trees with trees of comparable value on the affected property. a. The applicant shall propose the planting of two (2) Littleleaf Linden or Norway Maple trees in the City right-of-way at building permit application. b. The applicant shall propose irrigation infrastructure or repair to the existing irrigation infrastructure within the City right-of-way at building permit application. 102 Building Permit Requirements: 1. Permit documents shall include an accurate tree survey for each site dated within one- year identifying locations of all trees four (4) inches or over identified by trunk diameter and species; three (3) inches or over for native species as defined by Ch.13.20.020(a). 2. Permit documents shall include tree removal plans, site specific tree protection and preservation plan, tree planting plan, and irrigation plans. Critical Root Zones to be protected and preserved shall be accurately illustrated to scale on development plan sheets with 1” of surveyed diameter at breast height (DBH) equaling 1’ radius of required Tree Protection Zone. Protection and preservation plans shall indicate the location of all protective zones and methodologies for approval by the City Forester and shall prohibit excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfills, storage of equipment, and access over or through the zone(s) by foot or vehicle. 3. Permit documents shall include, and note, proposed grade changes within Critical Root Zones to be protected and preserved throughout site disruption. 4. Permit documents shall include the location of all site improvements including subsurface improvements such as utilities, irrigation infrastructure, or foundation work. 5. Tree Protection Zones shall be erected and verified at the limits of Critical Root Zones to be protected and preserved throughout site disruption until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the development(s) or otherwise approved by the City Forester. 6. A Development-Related Tree Removal / Critical Root Zone Excavation Permit shall be submitted, reviewed, and issued by the City Forester upon completion of the Parks and Open Space building permit application review for the proposed development. a. Development-Related Tree Removal / Critical Root Zone Excavation Permit issuance is required prior to activity occurring on site. 7. The applicant shall explore potential planting sites on the affected property and in the public right-of-way to ensure sustainable planting and full maturation of all trees planted. 103 To: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer From: Patrick Dressler, Planner Technician Date: April 23, 2025 RE: 623 East Hopkins Avenue Zoning Comments - LPA-25-024 The following comments can be addressed at building permit. Staff performed an initial review to confirm that the proposal complies with the dimensional requirements of the zone district. There is available commercial floor area on the property. Refinement of floor area calculations will be needed at building permit. For zoning review, verification that 627 E. Hopkins Ave. is allowed 415 square feet of exempt garage area is required along with sections demonstrating the crawl space is less than six feet. a. Plan Sheets: G-200, G-202 b. Code Sections: i. 26.575.020.d.8- Garages and Carports ii. 26.575.020.d.4- Attic and Crawl Space 104 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM January 22, 2025 Revised May 28, 2025 Aspen Historic Preservation Commission RE: 623 East Hopkins Avenue Dear HPC and Community Development Staff: Please accept this application for minor historic preservation review, consolidated commercial design review, growth management review, and temporary relocation to enlarge an existing basement beneath 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue. Upgrades are proposed to the trash and recycle area to comply with Cide requirements and HVAC equipment is proposed to be relocated from the west side yard adjacent to the landmark to the rear of the property adjacent to a non-historic building. A wood fence is proposed around the mechanical equipment and trash area along the alley. The 6,000 sf historic property is in the C-1 Commercial Zone District and contains two detached historic landmarks and a detached three story mixed use building that contains office on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. No changes to rear non-historic building or the residential unit are proposed. Figure 1: Aerial view of 623 East Hopkins Avenue property highlighted in red. 105 Page 2 of 3 Background Two 19 th century historic landmarks – 625 East Hopkins (left of Figure 1) and 623 East Hopkins (middle of Figure 1). In 2012 HPC granted approval for a complete redevelopment of the property that including temporary relocation of 623 East Hopkins Avenue to construct a basement, removal of non-historic additions on 623 East Main, and construction of a detached mixed use building (HPC Resolutions 14-2012 and 23-2012). In 2014 a growth management exemption was administratively approved for the 2012 project that permitted one free market residential units and an expansion of the existing commercial space without housing mitigation pursuant to the Code in place at the time. Proposal Minor Historic Preservation Review Minor exterior changes are proposed to the landmark property in order to excavate a larger basement. Included in this proposal is removal of a lightwell on the east elevation of 623 East Hopkins Avenue, relocation of HVAC equipment from the side yard of 623 to the alley, revegetation and grading to match existing conditions, and construction of a wildlife protection fence around the trash/recycle and mechanical equipment along the alley. 625 East Hopkins Avenue sits along the west property line – according to the architect, excavating beneath the building does not trigger any additional fireproofing of the exterior west elevation. Relocation The existing basement is proposed to be enlarged by lifting both 623 and 625 East Hopkins in their current locations. A letter from a structural engineering attesting to the method to stabilize and lift the landmarks, excavate the basement, and place the landmarks back in the current location. Relocation review is required even though the buildings are not technically proposed to be relocated. Financial assurances for the safe excavation beneath the two structures will be provided at building permit in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. Commercial Design Pursuant to Section 26.412.020 Applicability, we request exemption from Commercial Design Standard review as the project does not change the exterior of the building. This project is exempt from second tier commercial requirements, as second tier commercial space is not reduced, and demolition is not triggered. There is no change to Pedestrian Amenity calculations. Growth Management The removal of a lightwell decreases floor area from 5,521 sf to 5,413 sf; however, the expansion of net leasable area on the basement level requires affordable housing review. The proposed enlargement of commercial space in the basement results in an increase of 636 sf of net leasable area or 1.46 FTEs at Category 4. Figure 2: 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue. Photograph courtesy Aspen Historical Society, Mary Eshbaugh Hayes Collection. 106 Page 3 of 3 Parking and Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Cash in lieu will be provided for 0.64 parking spaces to mitigate the increase in 635.75 sf of new net leasable area. The cost is $38,000 per parking space pursuant to Section 26.515.090 of the Land Use Code. The TIA is addressed in Exhibit 13 per direction from Engineering on May 19, 2025. Engineering A preliminary civil drainage narrative and plan are included in the application to demonstrate compliance with URMP requirements. An existing detention pond in the west side yard adjacent to 623 East Hopkins is proposed to remain as shown on A-001. Civil drawings are revised in Exhibit 16 per direction from Engineering on May 19, 2025. Trash/Recycle Commercial net leasable is expanded by more than 250 sf, which requires compliance with Chapter 12 Solid Waste. The trash and recycle area approved during the 2012 redevelopment project remains along the alley and meets City of Aspen requirements. A wildlife protection fence is proposed to enclose the trash/recycle area and mechanical equipment. We look forward to discussing this remodel project with you. Please do not hesitate to contact me for a site visit or for additional information that will aid your review. Kind Regards, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams, LLC Exhibits revisions dated 5/27/2025 noted in bold italics 1. Response to Review Criteria a. Commercial Design and HP Reviews b. Growth Management Exemption c. Transportation &Parking Management 2. Pre-Application Summary 3. Land Use Application 4. Authorization to Represent 5. Agreement to Pay 6. HOA Form 7. Proof of Ownership 8. Vicinity Map 9. Mailing List 10. Preliminary civil letter from civil engineer 11. Excavation letter from structural engineer 12. GMQS exemption granted in 2014 13. TIA 14. Survey 15. Drawing set and neighborhood context 16. Revised Civil drawings to address Engineering comments 107 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Page 1 of 5 1.a Commercial Design and HP Design Reviews Historic Preservation Minor Development Sec. 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. (c) Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development. (1) The review and decision on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness for minor development shall begin with a determination by the Community Development Director that the proposed project constitutes a minor development. Minor development work includes a. Expansion or erection of a structure wherein the increase of the floor area of the structure is two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or less or b. Alterations to a building façade, windows, doors, roof planes or material, exterior wall materials, dormer porch, exterior staircase, balcony or ornamental trim when three (3) or fewer elements are affected and the work does not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect or c. Erection or installation of a combination or multiples of awning, canopies, mechanical equipment, fencing, signs, accessory features and other attachments to designated properties such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect; d. Alterations that are made to non historic portions of a designated historic property that do not qualify for a certificate of no negative effect; or e. The erection of street furniture, signs, public art and other visible improvements within designated historic districts of a magnitude or in numbers such that the cumulative impact does not allow for the issuance of a certificate of no negative effect. The Community Development Director may determine that an application for work on a designated historic property involving multiple categories of minor development may result in the cumulative impact such that it is considered a major development. In such cases, the applicant shall apply for a major development review in accordance with Subsection 26.415.07(d). Response - No exterior changes are proposed on the property with the exception of removing a lightwell on the east elevation of the historic landmark. Landscaping will be restored after the excavation of the basement. Removal of the lightwell complies with HPDG 9.6 that requests lightwells be minimized. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. 108 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Page 2 of 5 Simple landscape will be installed on the west elevation after the lightwell is removed in compliance with Guidelines 1.7, 1.12, 1.13 below. HVAC equipment and small bushes will be removed as part of this project. Grade will match surround grades. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. A 6 foot metal fence along the alley is proposed to screen mechanical equipment and to meet wildlife protection requirements. The fence is adjacent to a non-historic building along the alley and does not block views of the two historic landmarks on the property from the street. HVAC equipment located near Hopkins Avenue is relocated to the rear of the property as shown on the proposed site plan. The fence appropriately screens trash and mechanical equipment from the alley. All of these changes are in compliance with Guidelines 1.18, 1.20, and 12.4. A non-combustible metal fence is required per Engineering Department standards due to proximity to the transformer. Relocation Sec. 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. (a) 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 109 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Page 3 of 5 (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 – The project proposes to lift both historic structures in place and enlarge the existing basement under 623 East Hopkins Avenue. The building will not be relocated as part of this project. This approach complies with HPDG 9.1. 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. The proposal to lift the existing buildings in place meets criteria 4. Criteria 1 -3 of the second half of the review criteria are met as well - a letter from a structural engineer demonstrates ability to lift the structures. The existing buildings will remain in their original locations, and the applicant agrees to provide the appropriate financial security necessary to safely protect the buildings during excavation. The structural letter describes the “relocation” plan to shore the buildings in place and work underneath to excavate. Commercial Design Review Sec. 26.412.020. - Applicability. Except as outlined below, this Section applies to all commercial, lodging and mixed-used development within the City requiring a building permit. All development shall be reviewed pursuant to the Character Area in which it is located. The Community Development Director shall assign an appropriate Character Area to properties subject to Commercial Design Review that are not located within a defined Character Area. (b) Exemptions. No application for a Commercial Design Review Development Order is exempt from this Chapter unless the Community Development Director determines that the proposed development: (1) Is an addition or remodel of an existing structure that does not change the exterior of the building; or (2) Is a remodel of a structure where proposed alterations change the exterior of the building, but are not addressed by the Commercial, Lodging or Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines or Section 26.412.070, Pedestrian Amenity. (See Section 26.412.020(c) below.) Response- There are no exterior changes proposed other than the removal of a lightwell and grate, relocation of HVAC equipment from a side yard to the alley, and landscape installation. We respectfully request exemption from Commercial Design Review under exemption b.1 above. Landscape and grade will be restored to match existing after the basement is excavated. Pedestrian Amenity A. Applicability and Requirement. The requirements of this Section shall apply to the development of all commercial lodging and mixed use development within the …CC Zone Districts…This area represents the City’s primary pedestrian-oriented downtown, as well as important mixed use service and lodging neighborhoods. Development in these zone districts consisting of entirely residential uses is exempt from these provisions. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain 100% of the existing pedestrian amenity present of the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to pedestrian amenity space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from compliance with the 25% requirement if demolition is not triggered. 110 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Page 4 of 5 Response – No exterior changes are proposed in this project with the exception of the removal of a lightwell. Second Tier Commercial Space A. Applicability. 1. Development or redevelopment. This section applies to all new development and redevelopment in the C1…districts. Proposals that are 100% lodge projects shall be exempted from this requirement. Remodel and renovation activities that do not trigger demolition, and which maintain 100% of the existing second tier space present on the site are exempt from this Section. Changes to second tier space as a result of required accessibility or building code compliance are exempt from compliance with the section if demolition is not triggered. Response – There is no existing second tier commercial on the property; therefore the project is exempt from second tier requirements as demolition is not triggered by the project. 1.b 26.470 Growth Management Sec. 26.470.100. - Planning and zoning commission applications. The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the general requirements of Section 26.470.080. Except as noted, the following types of growth management approvals shall be deducted from the annual development allotments. Approvals apply cumulatively. (e)Expansion or new commercial development. The expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building or the development of a new commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed-use building shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on general requirements outlined in Section 26.470.080. Response – The project proposes to increase net leasable area by 646.5 sf by enlarging the basement. A lightwell is removed which reduces floor area on the property. Table 1: Floor Area and Net Leasable Existing Proposed Difference Net Leasable 3,009.5 sf 3,645.75 sf +636.25 sf Floor Area 5,521.44 sf 5,412.75 sf (-108.69 sf) Sec. 26.470.080. - General review standards. All Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. (a) Sufficient allotments. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Section 26.470.040 (b) Applications for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Section 26.470.110(a) shall be required to meet this standard for the growth management years from which the allotments are requested.(b)Development conformance. The proposed development conforms to the requirements and limitations of this Title, of the zone district or a site-specific development plan, any adopted regulatory master plan, as well as any previous approvals, including the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Planned Development - Project Review approval, as applicable. 111 Exhibit 1 Review Criteria Page 5 of 5 (c) Public infrastructure and facilities. The proposed development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. (d) Affordable housing mitigation. 1. For commercial development, sixty-five (65) percent of the employees generated by the additional commercial net leasable space, according to Section 26.470.050(b), Employee Generation Rates, shall be mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. 2. – 13 not applicable. Response – The proposed basement expansion adds 636.25 sf of net leasable area in the basement. The generation rate for a basement commercial space in the C1 zone district is as follows: 3.525 FTEs/ 1,000 sf of net leasable area * 636.25 = 2.24 FTEs generated 2.24 FTEs * 65% = 1.46 FTEs requiring mitigation at Category 4. The applicant proposes to mitigate for 1.46 FTEs with a mix of cash in lieu and housing credits per the Land Use Code allowances. 1.c 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management Sec. 26.515.050. - Meeting Parking Requirements. (a) General requirements. Parking Requirements shall be satisfied through the following provisions alone or in combination and described in a project's Mobility Plan: (1) Cash-in-lieu. Cash-in-lieu payments may be made to satisfy Parking Requirements as outlined by zone district in Table 26.515-2, and according to Section 26.515.090. Response - Cash in lieu for 0.64 parking spaces at $38,000/space is proposed. The property is located in the C-1 zone which allows cash in lieu for 100% of the parking requirement. 112 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: November 22, 2022 PLANNER: Amy Simon, Planning Director, amy.simon@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 625 E. Hopkins REQUEST: Historic Preservation – Minor Development Review & Commercial Design Review, GMQS, Relocation DESCRIPTION: 625 E. Hopkins is a Victorian era structure that appears to sit in its original location, along the east lot line of Lot G, of Block 99. During a substantial build out of the site around 2014, this structure was renovated in place. The property owner at the time did not ask to lift it for a basement, and HPC indicated that they did not want to see the building repositioned. A new owner proposes to excavate a basement, which will require Relocation review by HPC. The review will need to include vetting of the building code implications for setting the structure back down on the lot line. There is an easement on the adjacent property to accommodate some concerns, but codes related to fire protection will likely require modifications to the building. Construction access and storage of the building during excavation will need to be addressed. Assuming that the first level and basement of the remodeled building will be connected internally, the project does not appear to involve any exterior changes. To the extent that these arise, including landscape changes, Minor Development and Commercial Review criteria will be applied to demonstrate compliance with all applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines. No existing Second Tier space is affected by this project, but new net leasable will be created and could require mitigation, depending on the application of the Administrative GMQS exemption language. A preliminary look at the 2014 approvals indicate that 299 square feet of net leasable expansion was already approved through an exemption, and exemptions are cumulative. In addition, authorization from the HOA to consume any GMQS exemption for this project will be needed. Following approval, if granted, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them the opportunity to uphold the HPC’s decision or to “Call-Up” aspects of the approval for further discussion. This is a standard practice for Relocation and Commercial Design Review. 1904 Sanborn Map of property. Subject building is on Lot G Current survey of property. 113 RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.412 Commercial Design Review 26.412.040.E Consolidation of Applications and Combining of Reviews 26.412.040.F Appeals, Notice of Approval and Call-up 26.415.070.C Historic Preservation – Minor Development Review 26.470.090.C GMQS, Administrative Review 26.470.100.E GMQS, Board Review 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.150 Commercial (C-1) Zone District For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Application Packet Commercial Design Standards Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Municipal Code Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for approval. Public Hearing: Yes, HPC review. Referrals: Engineering, a deposit of $325 per hour. Parks, a flat fee of $975 Planning Fees: $1,300 for 4 billable hours of staff time. (Additional/ lesser hours will be billed/ refunded at a rate of $325 per hour.) Total Deposit: $2,600. APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements. Please email the entire application as one pdf to amy.simon@aspen.gov. The fee will be requested after the application is determined to be complete.  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. 114  Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.  HOA Compliance form. Please demonstrate acknowledgement of any GMQS administrative approval requested, and acknowledgement that the proposed use of the remodeled building is accepted by the HOA.  List of adjacent property owners within 300’ for public hearing.  An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.  Site improvement survey showing all existing conditions including topography and vegetation, certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado.  A written description of the proposal (scope of work) and written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards and design guidelines relevant to the application.  A proposed site plan showing setbacks and property boundaries and any landscape or lighting changes that are proposed.  Existing and proposed scaled drawings of the affected structure clearly depicting its form, height, mass/scale and roof plan and any exterior alterations that are proposed.  An accurate representation of all building materials and finishes to be used in the development. Please include relevant cut-sheets for all materials for review.  Supplemental materials to provide a visual description of the context surrounding the designated historic property including photographs and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location and extent of proposed work.  A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the miner’s cottage to be relocated.  Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the safe relocation, preservation and repair of the miner’s cottage through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.  Existing and net leasable area for the property, and past exemptions related to GMQS. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 115 116 City of Aspen Community Development Department Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet City of Aspen | 130 S. Galena Street. | (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March, 2020 ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form (Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.) Project: Applicant: Project Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: (For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high-water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: _______________________________ Proposed % of demolition: ____________________________________% DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district) Floor Area: Height Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Accessory Bldg.: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On-Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Existing: Required: Proposed: _______________ Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance between buildings Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): Exhibit 3 117 November 2017 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE APPLICATION Project Name and Address:_________________________________________________________________________ Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) _____________________________ APPLICANT: Name: ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #: ___________________________ email: __________________________________ REPRESENTIVATIVE: Name: _________________________________________________________________________________________________ Address:________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone#: _____________________________ email:___________________________________ Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Have you included the following?FEES DUE: $ ______________ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage _________ Lodge Pillows______ Free Market dwelling units ______ Affordable Housing dwelling units_____ Essential Public Facility square footage ________ 2,600 118 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM December 7, 2022 Amy Simon Planning Director City of Aspen 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: 623 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen CO Ms. Simon: Please accept this letter authorizing BendonAdams LLC to represent our ownership interests in 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Avenue and act on our behalf on matters reasonably associated in securing land use approvals for the property. If there are any questions about the foregoing or if I can assist, please do not hesitate to contact me. Property – 623 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Legal Description – Aspen Block 99 Condominiums, Cabin Commercial Unit. ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 13, 2015 IN PLAT BOOK 109 AT PAGE 95 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED APRIL 13, 2015 AS RECEPTION NO. 618943. Parcel ID – 2737-182-12-051 Owner – 623 Hopkins LLC Kind Regards, Steev Wilson Authorized signatory for 623 Hopkins LLC Steev Wilson Architecture Group 715 W. Main Street, Suite 103 Aspen CO 81611 swilson@swag.design 970-200-2898 119 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Agreement to Pay Application Fees Please type or print in all caps Representative Name (if different from Property Owner) Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone: I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 30, Series of 2017, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: PRINT Name: Title: BendonAdams An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Property Owner Name: Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: 1300 4 623 Hopkins LLC 623 and 625 E. Hopkins Ave Steev Wilson, SWAG 10 Pioneer Point, Carbondale CO 81623 (970) 200-2898swilson@swag.design 1300 4 325 1 975 Parks 120 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: 623 Hopkins LLC Email: swilson@swag.design Phone No.: 970-200-2898 Address of Property: 623 E. Hopkins Ave, Aspen, CO 81611 (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowners association or other form of private covenant. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association orcovenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvementsproposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. date: date: Owner signature: Owner printed name: or, Attorney signature: Attorney printed name: 121 July 19, 2022 UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SOLE MEMBER OF 623 HOPKINS LLC The undersigned, Stuart Miller, being the sole member (the “Member”) of 623 HOPKINS LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the “Company”), acting pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act and the Company’s Operating Agreement, does hereby consent to the adoption of the following resolutions (this “Consent”): NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Member hereby appoints the Company’s attorney, Chris LaCroix of the law firm Garfield & Hecht, P.C. and the Company’s architect, Steev Wilson of Steev Wilson Architecture Group LLC, as the Company’s authorized signatories to: (a) sign all documents, agreements and other instruments related in any way to the Company’s ownership and use of real property in Pitkin County, Colorado described as Cabin Commercial Unit, Aspen Block 99 Condominiums, and known as 623 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the “Property”) (including but not limited to agreements, contracts, easements, loan documents, plats, and other instruments) of every kind and nature upon such terms and conditions and as the Company’s authorized signatories may deem necessary and convenient or as shall be reasonably required in connection with the Company’s ownership of the Property, in each case only after any such documents, agreements and other instruments have been approved by the Member or by the Member’s designated representative Eric Feder (all such documents, agreements and other instruments, including the Closing Documents are referred to as “Authorized Documents”); and (b) either of the above-named authorized signatories, acting alone, shall have the power and authority to execute any Authorized Documents on behalf of, and in the name, of the Company as set forth herein; and it is further RESOLVED, the Member hereby agrees to defend, assume liability for, and does hereby indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Company’s authorized signatories and Garfield & Hecht, P.C. and Steev Wilson Architecture Group LLC, and their respective officers, shareholders, employees, successors, assigns, legal representatives, agents, and heirs (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, fines, taxes, attorneys’ fees, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind and nature whatsoever which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against any of the Indemnified Parties in any way relating to or arising out of execution or delivery of any Authorized Documents. The foregoing provisions shall survive any termination or revocation of this Consent. This Consent may be executed by facsimile, DocuSign, PDF or other electronic means. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Consent as of the date first set forth above. MEMBER: _______________________________ Stuart Miller DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B0E5700-5F1E-4328-849C-C0C1929BBCFF 122 July 19, 2022 UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SOLE MEMBER OF 625 HOPKINS LLC The undersigned, Stuart Miller, being the sole member (the “Member”) of 625 HOPKINS LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (the “Company”), acting pursuant to the provisions of the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act and the Company’s Operating Agreement, does hereby consent to the adoption of the following resolutions (this “Consent”): NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Member hereby appoints the Company’s attorney, Chris LaCroix of the law firm Garfield & Hecht, P.C. and the Company’s architect, Steev Wilson of Steev Wilson Architecture Group LLC, as the Company’s authorized signatories to: (a) sign all documents, agreements and other instruments related in any way to the Company’s ownership and use of real property in Pitkin County, Colorado described as Barn Commercial Unit, Aspen Block 99 Condominiums, and known as 625 E. Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the “Property”) (including but not limited to agreements, contracts, easements, loan documents, plats, and other instruments) of every kind and nature upon such terms and conditions and as the Company’s authorized signatories may deem necessary and convenient or as shall be reasonably required in connection with the Company’s ownership of the Property, in each case only after any such documents, agreements and other instruments have been approved by the Member or by the Member’s designated representative Eric Feder (all such documents, agreements and other instruments, including the Closing Documents are referred to as “Authorized Documents”); and (b) either of the above-named authorized signatories, acting alone, shall have the power and authority to execute any Authorized Documents on behalf of, and in the name, of the Company as set forth herein; and it is further RESOLVED, the Member hereby agrees to defend, assume liability for, and does hereby indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Company’s authorized signatories and Garfield & Hecht, P.C. and Steev Wilson Architecture Group LLC, and their respective officers, shareholders, employees, successors, assigns, legal representatives, agents, and heirs (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, fines, taxes, attorneys’ fees, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind and nature whatsoever which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against any of the Indemnified Parties in any way relating to or arising out of execution or delivery of any Authorized Documents. The foregoing provisions shall survive any termination or revocation of this Consent. This Consent may be executed by facsimile, DocuSign, PDF or other electronic means. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Consent as of the date first set forth above. MEMBER: _______________________________ Stuart Miller DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B0E5700-5F1E-4328-849C-C0C1929BBCFF 123 Customer Distribution Prevent fraud - Please call a member of our closing team for wire transfer instructions or to initiate a wire transfer. Note that our wiring instructions will never change. Order Number: Q62017679 Date: 11/08/2024 Property Address: 623 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 For Closing Assistance For Title Assistance Land Title Roaring Fork Valley Title Team 533 E HOPKINS #102 ASPEN, CO 81611 (970) 927-0405 (Work) (970) 925-0610 (Work Fax) valleyresponse@ltgc.com Seller/Owner 623 HOPKINS LLC Delivered via: No Commitment Delivery BENDONADAMS LLC Attention: ERIN WACKERLE 300 S SPRING STREET SUITE 202 Aspen, CO 81611 (406) 531-0806 (Cell) (970) 925-2855 (Work) erin@bendonadams.com Delivered via: Electronic Mail 124 Estimate of Title Fees Order Number: Q62017679 Date: 11/08/2024 Property Address: 623 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 Seller(s): 623 HOPKINS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Buyer(s): Thank you for putting your trust in Land Title. Below is the estimate of title fees for the transaction. The final fees will be collected at closing. Visit ltgc.com to learn more about Land Title. Estimate of Title Insurance Fees "TBD" Commitment $279.00 TOTAL $279.00 Note: The documents linked in this commitment should be reviewed carefully. These documents, such as covenants conditions and restrictions, may affect the title, ownership and use of the property. You may wish to engage legal assistance in order to fully understand and be aware of the implications of the documents on your property. Chain of Title Documents: Pitkin county recorded 01/27/2020 under reception no. 662242 Plat Map(s): Pitkin county recorded 04/13/2015 at book 109 page 95 125 Copyright 2006-2024 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. Property Address: 623 E HOPKINS AVE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1.Effective Date: 10/25/2024 at 5:00 P.M. 2.Policy to be Issued and Proposed Insured: "TBD" Commitment Proposed Insured: $0.00 3.The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: FEE SIMPLE 4.Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the effective date hereof vested in: 623 HOPKINS LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY 5.The Land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: CABIN COMMERCIAL UNIT,​ ASPEN BLOCK 99 CONDOMINIUMS,​ ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF RECORDED APRIL 13, 2015 IN PLAT BOOK 109 AT PAGE 95 AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED APRIL 13, 2015 AS RECEPTION NO. 618943.​ COUNTY OF PITKIN,​ STATE OF COLORADO. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule A Order Number:Q62017679 126 ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part I (Requirements) Order Number: Q62017679 All of the following Requirements must be met: This proposed Insured must notify the Company in writing of the name of any party not referred to in this Commitment who will obtain an interest in the Land or who will make a loan on the Land. The Company may then make additional Requirements or Exceptions. Pay the agreed amount for the estate or interest to be insured. Pay the premiums, fees, and charges for the Policy to the Company. Documents satisfactory to the Company that convey the Title or create the Mortgage to be insured, or both, must be properly authorized, executed, delivered, and recorded in the Public Records. THIS COMMITMENT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY, AND NO POLICY WILL BE ISSUED PURSUANT HERETO. 127 This commitment does not republish any covenants, condition, restriction, or limitation contained in any document referred to in this commitment to the extent that the specific covenant, conditions, restriction, or limitation violates state or federal law based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, handicap, familial status, or national origin. 1.Any facts, rights, interests, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 2.Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records. 3.Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 4.Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the Public Records. 5.Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing in the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but prior to the date of the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. 6.(a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 7.(a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water. 8.RESERVATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS AS SET FORTH IN THE DEED FROM THE CITY OF ASPEN RECORDED JULY 20, 1889 IN BOOK 59 AT PAGE 573, PROVIDING AS FOLLOWS: THAT NO TITLE SHALL BE HEREBY ACQUIRED TO ANY MINE OF GOLD, SILVER, CINNABAR OR COPPER OR TO ANY VALID MINING CLAIM OR POSSESSION HELD UNDER EXISTING LAWS. 9.RESERVATION OF ALL ORE AND MINERAL BEARING ROCK BENEATH THE SURFACE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AS GRANTED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED JUNE 6, 1889 IN BOOK 98 AT PAGE 470. 10.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS AS SET FORTH IN MULTIPURPOSE EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATION UTILITIES RECORDED JUNE 15, 1976 IN BOOK 313 AT PAGE 285. 11.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 14, SERIES OF 2012 RECORDE JULY 26, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 590892. 12.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RESOLUTION BY THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, NO. 23, SERIES OF 2012 RECORDED OCTOBER 9, 2012 AS RECEPTION NO. 592925. 13.EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE IMPROVEMENT AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY RECORDED JANUARY 04, 2013 IN BOOK 101 AT PAGE 54. 14.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF ENCROACHMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 9, 2013 AS RECEPTION NO. 606332. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62017679 128 15.THOSE PROVISIONS, COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS, EASEMENTS, AND RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE A BURDEN TO THE CONDOMINIUM UNIT DESCRIBED IN SCHEDULE A, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 13, 2015, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 618943. 16.EASEMENTS, CONDITIONS, COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS AND NOTES ON THE PLAT OF ASPEN BLOCK 99 CONDOMINIUMS RECORDED APRIL 13, 2015 IN BOOK 109 AT PAGE 95. 17.TERMS, CONDITIONS, PROVISIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF STORMWATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 8, 2016 AS RECEPTION NO. 626891. ALTA COMMITMENT Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Schedule B, Part II (Exceptions) Order Number: Q62017679 129 Land Title Guarantee Company Disclosure Statements Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-122, notice is hereby given that: Note: Effective September 1, 1997, CRS 30-10-406 requires that all documents received for recording or filing in the clerk and recorder's office shall contain a top margin of at least one inch and a left, right and bottom margin of at least one half of an inch. The clerk and recorder may refuse to record or file any document that does not conform, except that, the requirement for the top margin shall not apply to documents using forms on which space is provided for recording or filing information at the top margin of the document. Note: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-2 requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed". Provided that Land Title Guarantee Company conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lenders Policy when issued. Note: Affirmative mechanic's lien protection for the Owner may be available (typically by deletion of Exception no. 4 of Schedule B, Section 2 of the Commitment from the Owner's Policy to be issued) upon compliance with the following conditions: No coverage will be given under any circumstances for labor or material for which the insured has contracted for or agreed to pay. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-11-123, notice is hereby given: The Subject real property may be located in a special taxing district.(A) A certificate of taxes due listing each taxing jurisdiction will be obtained from the county treasurer of the county in which the real property is located or that county treasurer's authorized agent unless the proposed insured provides written instructions to the contrary. (for an Owner's Policy of Title Insurance pertaining to a sale of residential real property). (B) The information regarding special districts and the boundaries of such districts may be obtained from the Board of County Commissioners, the County Clerk and Recorder, or the County Assessor. (C) The land described in Schedule A of this commitment must be a single family residence which includes a condominium or townhouse unit. (A) No labor or materials have been furnished by mechanics or material-men for purposes of construction on the land described in Schedule A of this Commitment within the past 6 months. (B) The Company must receive an appropriate affidavit indemnifying the Company against un-filed mechanic's and material-men's liens. (C) The Company must receive payment of the appropriate premium.(D) If there has been construction, improvements or major repairs undertaken on the property to be purchased within six months prior to the Date of Commitment, the requirements to obtain coverage for unrecorded liens will include: disclosure of certain construction information; financial information as to the seller, the builder and or the contractor; payment of the appropriate premium fully executed Indemnity Agreements satisfactory to the company, and, any additional requirements as may be necessary after an examination of the aforesaid information by the Company. (E) 130 This notice applies to owner's policy commitments disclosing that a mineral estate has been severed from the surface estate, in Schedule B-2. Note: Pursuant to CRS 10-1-128(6)(a), It is unlawful to knowingly provide false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to an insurance company for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the company. Penalties may include imprisonment, fines, denial of insurance, and civil damages. Any insurance company or agent of an insurance company who knowingly provides false, incomplete, or misleading facts or information to a policyholder or claimant for the purpose of defrauding or attempting to defraud the policyholder or claimant with regard to a settlement or award payable from insurance proceeds shall be reported to the Colorado Division of Insurance within the Department of Regulatory Agencies. Note: Pursuant to Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 8-1-3, notice is hereby given of the availability of a closing protection letter for the lender, purchaser, lessee or seller in connection with this transaction. Note: Pursuant to CRS 24-21-514.5, Colorado notaries may remotely notarize real estate deeds and other documents using real-time audio-video communication technology. You may choose not to use remote notarization for any document. That there is recorded evidence that a mineral estate has been severed, leased, or otherwise conveyed from the surface estate and that there is substantial likelihood that a third party holds some or all interest in oil, gas, other minerals, or geothermal energy in the property; and (A) That such mineral estate may include the right to enter and use the property without the surface owner's permission. (B) 131 Joint Notice of Privacy Policy of Land Title Guarantee Company Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurancy Company This Statement is provided to you as a customer of Land Title Guarantee Company as agent for Land Title Insurance Corporation and Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. We want you to know that we recognize and respect your privacy expectations and the requirements of federal and state privacy laws. Information security is one of our highest priorities. We recognize that maintaining your trust and confidence is the bedrock of our business. We maintain and regularly review internal and external safeguards against unauthorized access to your non-public personal information ("Personal Information"). In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from: applications or other forms we receive from you, including communications sent through TMX, our web-based transaction management system; your transactions with, or from the services being performed by us, our affiliates, or others; a consumer reporting agency, if such information is provided to us in connection with your transaction; and The public records maintained by governmental entities that we obtain either directly from those entities, or from our affiliates and non-affiliates. Our policies regarding the protection of the confidentiality and security of your Personal Information are as follows: We restrict access to all Personal Information about you to those employees who need to know that information in order to provide products and services to you. We may share your Personal Information with affiliated contractors or service providers who provide services in the course of our business, but only to the extent necessary for these providers to perform their services and to provide these services to you as may be required by your transaction. We maintain physical, electronic and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to protect your Personal Information from unauthorized access or intrusion. Employees who violate our strict policies and procedures regarding privacy are subject to disciplinary action. We regularly assess security standards and procedures to protect against unauthorized access to Personal Information. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT STATED ABOVE OR PERMITTED BY LAW. Consistent with applicable privacy laws, there are some situations in which Personal Information may be disclosed. We may disclose your Personal Information when you direct or give us permission; when we are required by law to do so, for example, if we are served a subpoena; or when we suspect fraudulent or criminal activities. We also may disclose your Personal Information when otherwise permitted by applicable privacy laws such as, for example, when disclosure is needed to enforce our rights arising out of any agreement, transaction or relationship with you. Our policy regarding dispute resolution is as follows: Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to our privacy policy, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration 132 Association, and judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 133 Commitment For Title Insurance Issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company NOTICE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY: THIS COMMITMENT IS AN OFFER TO ISSUE ONE OR MORE TITLE INSURANCE POLICIES. ALL CLAIMS OR REMEDIES SOUGHT AGAINST THE COMPANY INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT OR THE POLICY MUST BE BASED SOLELY IN CONTRACT. THIS COMMITMENT IS NOT AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE, REPORT OF THE CONDITION OF TITLE, LEGAL OPINION, OPINION OF TITLE, OR OTHER REPRESENTATION OF THE STATUS OF TITLE. THE PROCEDURES USED BY THE COMPANY TO DETERMINE INSURABILITY OF THE TITLE, INCLUDING ANY SEARCH AND EXAMINATION, ARE PROPRIETARY TO THE COMPANY, WERE PERFORMED SOLELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY, AND CREATE NO EXTRACONTRACTUAL LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A PROPOSED INSURED. THE COMPANY’S OBLIGATION UNDER THIS COMMITMENT IS TO ISSUE A POLICY TO A PROPOSED INSURED IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE A IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THIS COMMITMENT. THE COMPANY HAS NO LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION INVOLVING THE CONTENT OF THIS COMMITMENT TO ANY OTHER PERSON. . COMMITMENT TO ISSUE POLICY Subject to the Notice; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and the Commitment Conditions, Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), commits to issue the Policy according to the terms and provisions of this Commitment. This Commitment is effective as of the Commitment Date shown in Schedule A for each Policy described in Schedule A, only when the Company has entered in Schedule A both the specified dollar amount as the Proposed Policy Amount and the name of the Proposed Insured. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within 6 months after the Commitment Date, this Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. COMMITMENT CONDITIONS 1. DEFINITIONS 2. If all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have not been met within the time period specified in the Commitment to Issue Policy, Commitment terminates and the Company’s liability and obligation end. 3. The Company’s liability and obligation is limited by and this Commitment is not valid without: 4. COMPANY’S RIGHT TO AMEND The Company may amend this Commitment at any time. If the Company amends this Commitment to add a defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim, or other matter recorded in the Public Records prior to the Commitment Date, any liability of the Company is limited by Commitment Condition 5. The Company shall not be liable for any other amendment to this Commitment. 5. LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY i. comply with the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; ii. eliminate, with the Company’s written consent, any Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; or iii. acquire the Title or create the Mortgage covered by this Commitment. 6. LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY MUST BE BASED ON THIS COMMITMENT “Knowledge” or “Known”: Actual or imputed knowledge, but not constructive notice imparted by the Public Records.(a) “Land”: The land described in Schedule A and affixed improvements that by law constitute real property. The term “Land” does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described in Schedule A, nor any right, title, interest, estate, or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways, or waterways, but this does not modify or limit the extent that a right of access to and from the Land is to be insured by the Policy. (b) “Mortgage”: A mortgage, deed of trust, or other security instrument, including one evidenced by electronic means authorized by law.(c) “Policy”: Each contract of title insurance, in a form adopted by the American Land Title Association, issued or to be issued by the Company pursuant to this Commitment. (d) “Proposed Insured”: Each person identified in Schedule A as the Proposed Insured of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment.(e) “Proposed Policy Amount”: Each dollar amount specified in Schedule A as the Proposed Policy Amount of each Policy to be issued pursuant to this Commitment. (f) “Public Records”: Records established under state statutes at the Commitment Date for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without Knowledge. (g) “Title”: The estate or interest described in Schedule A.(h) the Notice;(a) the Commitment to Issue Policy;(b) the Commitment Conditions;(c) Schedule A;(d) Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and(e) Schedule B, Part II—Exceptions; and(f) a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form.(g) The Company’s liability under Commitment Condition 4 is limited to the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in the interval between the Company’s delivery to the Proposed Insured of the Commitment and the delivery of the amended Commitment, resulting from the Proposed Insured’s good faith reliance to: (a) The Company shall not be liable under Commitment Condition 5(a) if the Proposed Insured requested the amendment or had Knowledge of the matter and did not notify the Company about it in writing. (b) The Company will only have liability under Commitment Condition 4 if the Proposed Insured would not have incurred the expense had the Commitment included the added matter when the Commitment was first delivered to the Proposed Insured. (c) The Company’s liability shall not exceed the lesser of the Proposed Insured’s actual expense incurred in good faith and described in Commitment Conditions 5(a)(i) through 5(a)(iii) or the Proposed Policy Amount. (d) The Company shall not be liable for the content of the Transaction Identification Data, if any.(e) In no event shall the Company be obligated to issue the Policy referred to in this Commitment unless all of the Schedule B, Part I—Requirements have been met to the satisfaction of the Company. (f) In any event, the Company’s liability is limited by the terms and provisions of the Policy.(g) Only a Proposed Insured identified in Schedule A, and no other person, may make a claim under this Commitment.(a) Any claim must be based in contract and must be restricted solely to the terms and provisions of this Commitment.(b) Until the Policy is issued, this Commitment, as last revised, is the exclusive and entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Commitment and supersedes all prior commitment negotiations, representations, and proposals of any kind, whether written or oral, express or implied, relating to the subject matter of this Commitment. (c) 134 7. IF THIS COMMITMENT HAS BEEN ISSUED BY AN ISSUING AGENT The issuing agent is the Company’s agent only for the limited purpose of issuing title insurance commitments and policies. The issuing agent is not the Company’s agent for the purpose of providing closing or settlement services. 8. PRO-FORMA POLICY The Company may provide, at the request of a Proposed Insured, a pro-forma policy illustrating the coverage that the Company may provide. A pro-forma policy neither reflects the status of Title at the time that the pro-forma policy is delivered to a Proposed Insured, nor is it a commitment to insure. 9. ARBITRATION The Policy contains an arbitration clause. All arbitrable matters when the Proposed Policy Amount is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Proposed Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. A Proposed Insured may review a copy of the arbitration rules at http://www.alta.org/arbitration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Land Title Insurance Corporation has caused its corporate name and seal to be affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A to be valid when countersigned by a validating officer or other authorized signatory. Issued by: Land Title Guarantee Company 3033 East First Avenue Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80206 303-321-1880 Craig B. Rants, Senior Vice President This page is only a part of a 2016 ALTA® Commitment for Title Insurance issued by Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. This Commitment is not valid without the Notice; the Commitment to Issue Policy; the Commitment Conditions; Schedule A; Schedule B, Part I—Requirements; and Schedule B, Part II —Exceptions; and a counter-signature by the Company or its issuing agent that may be in electronic form. Copyright 2006-2016 American Land Title Association. All rights reserved. The use of this Form (or any derivative thereof) is restricted to ALTA licensees and ALTA members in good standing as of the date of use. All other uses are prohibited. Reprinted under license from the American Land Title Association. The deletion or modification of any Schedule B, Part II—Exception does not constitute an agreement or obligation to provide coverage beyond the terms and provisions of this Commitment or the Policy. (d) Any amendment or endorsement to this Commitment must be in writing and authenticated by a person authorized by the Company.(e) When the Policy is issued, all liability and obligation under this Commitment will end and the Company’s only liability will be under the Policy.(f) 135 July 19, 2022 UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF SOLE MEMBER OF CF HOPKINS LLC The undersigned, Stuart Miller, being the sole member (the “Member”) of CF HOPKINS LLC, a Florida limited liability company (formerly known as MURANO GRANDE AT PORTOFINO UNIT 3201, LLC) (the “Company”), acting pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Limited Liability Company Act and the Company’s Operating Agreement, does hereby consent to the adoption of the following resolutions (this “Consent”): NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Member hereby appoints the Company’s attorney, Chris LaCroix of the law firm Garfield & Hecht, P.C. and the Company’s architect, Steev Wilson of Steev Wilson Architecture Group LLC, as the Company’s authorized signatories to: (a) sign all documents, agreements and other instruments related in any way to the Company’s ownership and use of real property in Pitkin County, Colorado described as Lots H & I, Block 99, City and Townsite of Aspen, and known as 205 S. Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (the “Property”) (including but not limited to agreements, contracts, easements, loan documents, plats, and other instruments) of every kind and nature upon such terms and conditions and as the Company’s authorized signatories may deem necessary and convenient or as shall be reasonably required in connection with the Company’s ownership of the Property, in each case only after any such documents, agreements and other instruments have been approved by the Member or by the Member’s designated representative Eric Feder (all such documents, agreements and other instruments, including the Closing Documents are referred to as “Authorized Documents”); and (b) either of the above-named authorized signatories, acting alone, shall have the power and authority to execute any Authorized Documents on behalf of, and in the name, of the Company as set forth herein; and it is further RESOLVED, the Member hereby agrees to defend, assume liability for, and does hereby indemnify, protect, save and hold harmless the Company’s authorized signatories and Garfield & Hecht, P.C. and Steev Wilson Architecture Group LLC, and their respective officers, shareholders, employees, successors, assigns, legal representatives, agents, and heirs (collectively, “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, injuries, penalties, fines, taxes, attorneys’ fees, claims, actions, suits, costs, expenses or disbursements of any kind and nature whatsoever which may be imposed on, incurred by, or asserted against any of the Indemnified Parties in any way relating to or arising out of execution or delivery of any Authorized Documents. The foregoing provisions shall survive any termination or revocation of this Consent. This Consent may be executed by facsimile, DocuSign, PDF or other electronic means. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Consent as of the date first set forth above. MEMBER: _______________________________ Stuart Miller DocuSign Envelope ID: 5B0E5700-5F1E-4328-849C-C0C1929BBCFF 136 630 630 630 620 630 630 620 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 620 630 630 620 630 611 616 208 208 627 623 632 627 205 625 627 615 632 E HOP K I N S A V E S S P R I N G S T S S P R I N G S T E HOP K I N S A V E Date: 12/5/2022 Geographic Information Systems This map/drawing/image is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation. The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. Copyright 2022 City of Aspen GIS 0 0.01 0.010 mi When printed at 8.5"x11" 4 Legend City of Aspen Historic Sites Parcels Roads Zoomed In Scale: 1:562 623 E. Hopkins Ave. Vicinity Map 137 Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. The information maintained by the County may not be complete as to mineral estate ownership and that information should be determined by separate legal and property analysis. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the margins such that they no longer line up on the labels sheet. Print actual size. From Parcel: 273718212051 on 01/22/2025 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit 9 138 100 S SPRING STREET LLC BOSTON, MA 02116 31 ST JAMES AVE #740 119 SOUTH SPRING STREET 301 LLC NEW YORK, NY 10154 345 PARK AVE 208 S SPRING ST LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 208 S SPRING ST #2 300 SOUTH SPRING 303 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 610 E HYMAN 300 SOUTH SPRING ST CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 300 S SPRING ST 301 ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT #200 530 HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 530 1/2 E HOPKINS 601 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 601 E HOPKINS AVE 602 EAST HYMAN AVE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 602 E HYMAN AVE 610 EAST HYMAN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 610 E HYMAN AVE 616 E HYMAN AVE LLC WILMINGTON, DE 19807 251 LITTLE FALLS DR 620 ASPENHOP CONDO LLC PARKER, CO 80134 10851 S CROSSROADS DR #E 620 E HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 620 E HOPKINS AVE 620 HYMAN ASSOCIATES LLC GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 51027 HWY 6&24 #100 625 HOPKINS LLC MIAMI, FL 33126 5505 BLUE LAGOON DR 625 MAIN ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 420 E MAIN ST 627 E HOPKINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 101 S MILL ST #200 630 E HYMAN #207 LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 190 RIVERDOWN DR 633 SPRING II LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8485 700 E HYMAN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 700 E HYMAN AVE 710 HOPKINS LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73154 PO BOX 54390 719 EAST HOPKINS AVE TOWNHOME CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 719 E HOPKINS AVE AJAX DB INVESTMENTS LLC LOS ANGELES, CA 90020-4820 418 S MCCADDEN PL ALPINE BANK GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE ALPINE BANK ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 2200 GRAND AVE AMORPHOUS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 312 AABC #D AP RT 29 LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8485 ART MUSEUM LLC OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73124 PO BOX 24540 ASPEN 719 HOLDINGS LLC SAN MARINO, CA 91118 PO BOX 81016 ASPEN ART MUSEUM ASPEN, CO 81611 590 N MILL ST 139 ASPEN BLOCK 99 CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 532 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN MAIN CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 709 E MAIN ST ASPEN MUSE PH LLC HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035 1850 SECOND ST ASPEN PLAZA LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 7815 AUMAN HOWARD F III & LINDSEY W GREENSBORO, NC 27408 812 COUNTRY CLUB DR AUMAN HOWARD FRANK III & LINDSEY W ASPEN, CO 81611 730 E DURANT AVE #200 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 532 E HOPKINS AVE AVP PROPERTIES LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 630 E HYMAN AVE #25 B & L LAND ACQUISITIONS LLC GLENCOE, IL 60022 750 PRAIRIE RD BASS CAHN 601 LLC BOCA RATON, FL 334343288 20155 BOCA WEST DR #C102 BAY MOUNTAIN B 2017 REV TRUST DENVER, CO 80209 870 SOUTH SAINT PAUL BAY MOUNTAIN J 2017 REV TRUST DENVER, CO 80209 870 SOUTH SAINT PAUL BERN FAMILY ASPEN PROPERTY LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 835 CHATFIELD RD BG SPRING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 300 S SPRING ST #202 BIG HOPKINS LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 421 N BEVERLY DR #300 BOOHER ANDREA LYNN ASPEN, CO 81621 PO BOX 4411 BOULANGEE ERICA ASPEN, CO 81611 300 S SPRING ST #203 BOWDEN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP HOUSTON, TX 77056 1780 S POST OAK LN BROWNSTONE TOWNHOUSE CONDO ASPEN, CO 81611 208 S SPRING ST BRYANT CAROLINA H SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5217 CAREM LLC NEW YORK, NY 10019 712 FIFTH AVE FL12 CASTEEL JODEE RUSSELL CARBONDALE, CO 81623 1592 GREYSTONE DR CASTRONICS LLC HOUSTON, TX 77049 7814 MILLER RD #3 CF HOPKINS LLC MIAMI, FL 33126 5505 BLUE LAGOON DR CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 427 RIO GRANDE PL CONNER CABINS & LOFTS CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 530 E HOPKINS AVE CRANDALL BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 532 E HOPKINS AVE CULLEN RENTAL PROPERTIES II LLC COLUMBUS, OH 43219 2 EASTON OVAL 3RD FL DLH CAPITAL LLC DALLAS, TX 75225 5956 SHERRY LN #1500 DUNN JUDITH A REV LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 208 S SPRING ST # 2 140 EDGE OF AJAX CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 715 E HOPKINS AVE EMCAR LLC NEW YORK, NY 10019 712 FIFTH AVE FL12 GLAUSER STEVEN & BARBARA DENVER, CO 80206 3033 1ST AVE STE 408 GOLDBERG ASPEN FAMILY QPRT BOCA RATON, FL 33431 647 OSPREY POINT CIR HALTON SARAH JANE JINDABYNE NSW AUSTRALIA 2627, PO BOX 262 HJ HOLDINGS LLC GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 1112 GRAND AVE HOPKINS DEV LLC NEW YORK, NY 10154 345 PARK AVE 33RD FLR HORSEFINS LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HOPKINS AVE #3 HOVERSTEN PHILIP & LOUISE VAIL, CO 81657 2990 BOOTH CREEK DR HUNTER & HOPKINS PROF BUILDING CONDO ASSOC BASALT, CO 81621 711 E VALLEY RD #103 600 E HOPKINS AVE HUNTER SQUARE LLC SONOMA, CA 95476 PO BOX 2 IMMO PARKWOOD LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 610 S WEST END ST #H101 INDY HOUSE LLC SUNNYT ISLES BEACH , FL 33160 17749 COLLINS AVE PH41 JSJ ASPEN LLC BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 816 N ROXBURY DR JURINE LLC SONOMA, CA 95476 PO BOX 2 KAWAII DOG LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 729 E BLEEKER ST KN ASPEN CORE LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 0133 PROSPECTOR RD #4102B KOUFAX LLC SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94111 3 EMBARCADARO CENTER #2310 LAEMCAT LLC NEW YORK, NY 10065 655 MADISON AVE 11TH FLR LAWROM LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 533 E HOPKINS AVE LIGURIA LLC VAIL, CO 81658 PO BOX 3149 MARIPOSA REAL ESTATE II LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 331397318 500 S POINTE DR #240 MARSH HUGH ASPEN , CO 81611 631 E MAIN ST MATTHEWS ZACHARY ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10582 MAXIMUM EFFORT LLC SNOWMASS, CO 81654 5084 SNOWMASS CREEK RD MCPHETRES SEBASTIAN J REV TRUST CANBERRA ACT 2604 AUSTRALIA, PO BOX 6179 KINGSTON MH ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC MIAMI BEACH, FL 33109-0324 6825 FISHER ISLAND DR MJB MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES LLC GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49544 2345 WALKER AVE MONTEMAYOR ERIC CARBONDALE, CO 81623 1592 GREYSTONE DR MOUNTAIN NEST LLC SAN ANTONIO , TX 78205 112 E PECAN ST STE 175 141 MUSE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN AVE MV COLORADO LLC BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303-7870 PO BOX 787 NDW ASPEN RENTALS LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 9063 OBERHOLTZER JORDAN ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 10582 PDR ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E HYMAN #201 PENEL LLC NEW YORK, NY 10019 712 FIFTH AVE FL12 PITKIN COUNTY BANK LEXINGTON , KY 40555 PO BOX 54288 PITKIN ROW CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 720 E HOPKINS QUARRY INTERESTS LTD DALLAS, TX 75230 9932 LAKEWAY CT REUSS/LIGHT LLC SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5000 ROSENFIELD LYNNE CARYN ASPEN, CO 816112059 709 E MAIN ST #203 ROY ADAM C & SARAH G ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #203 RUST TRUST BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902123896 233 S BEVERLY DR#B SACKS BARBARA A & BRADLEY M ASPEN, CO 81611 710 E HYMAN AVE SHAFFER MARGARET REV TRUST NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33408 11300 US HWY ONE #100 SLS 5 LLC WOODY CREEK, CO 816560444 PO BOX 444 SOL ASPEN SNOWMASS, CO 81654 110 GATEWAY RD SOUTH SPRING LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 312 AABC STE D SPRING BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 632 E HOPKINS AVE SPRING STREET CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 117 S SPRING ST #202 STUDIO SIX LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX DD SUTTON TREVOR MICHAEL JINDABYNE NSW AUSTRALIA 2627, PO BOX 262 TAMARAWOOD BUILDING CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 620 E HYMAN AVE THOMAS KATHRYN ASPEN, CO 81611 631 E MAIN ST TOF ASPEN LLC ROSLYN, NY 11576 36 THE OAKS TRACY KATHLEEN ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #202 TRIVAS JONATHAN LIV TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 610 S WEST END ST K-101 TROYER TROUSDALE TOWNHOMES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 COMMON AREA 611 E HOPKINS AVE VICTORIAN SQUARE CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 601 E HYMAN AVE #202 VICTORIAN SQUARE LLC ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8485 142 WILSON STACE S SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PO BOX 5217 143 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue Historical Preservation Committee Engineering Report December 7, 2022 Prepared By: Vince Tomczak, P.E. Crystal River Civil, LLC Carbondale, CO 81623 vince@crystalrivercivil.com (970) 510-5312 144 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 2 of 9 Table of Contents 1.0 General Information ......................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................... 4 2.0 Drainage Basins and Subbasins ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Onsite Drainage Basins ............................................................................................... 5 2.2 Offsite Drainage Basins ............................................................................................... 5 3.0 Low Impact Site Design ................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Principles ..................................................................................................................... 5 4.0 Hydrologic Criteria ........................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Runoff Calculation Method ........................................................................................... 7 4.2 Basin Analysis ............................................................................................................. 7 4.3 Water Quality and Storage Requirements .................................................................... 8 145 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 3 of 9 1.0 General Information 1.1 Existing Conditions The property being discussed in this report is addressed at 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The site is located within downtown City of Aspen and is 6,000 sq. ft. in area. It is documented as parcel # 273718212803 (General Common Element Area) as shown on the survey, and is described as Lots F and G, Block 99, Townsite (City) of Aspen. It is located in the middle of the East Hopkins Avenue block, between South Spring Street and South Hunter Street, and is surrounded by other residential developments. 623-625 East Hopkins Avenue Vicinity Map 623 and 625 East Hopkins are two separate, existing single-story buildings used for commercial purposes, with landscaping features surrounding the site. The vegetation includes a small amount of mature deciduous trees, as well as several landscaped areas. 623 East Hopkins includes a wood deck located in the front, as well as on the southwestern corner of the unit. There is a third structure in the rear of the site addressed as 627 East Hopkins, a three story “multi use” commercial building with a basement. All three structures utilize the brick paver walkways within the parcel for access, which connect to East Hopkins to the north and the alley to the south. There is a garage access point for 627 located off the asphalt alley, however there is no vehicle access to either 623 or 625 East Hopkins. Street parking is utilized for these units. Curb and gutter with a detached sidewalk are located within the East Hopkins Right-Of-Way. A fence is used to separate the public Right-Of-Way from the parcel for privacy. Topography on the site is generally flat and consist mostly of patio space and walkways. Grades are flush with the concrete sidewalk Site 146 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 4 of 9 along East Hopkins Right-Of-Way and with the alley Right-Of-Way. A step and a ramp are located at the east side of 623, allowing for a grade transition between the buildings. There are two detention ponds located on the property, one at the northwestern corner and another centered along the eastern property line. The northwestern pond is believed to detain runoff for the 623 and 625 units, while the eastern system is designed for 627. Trench drains are located along the north and south property lines to keep drainage contained on site. Downspouts are assumed to be routed to the detention ponds shown on the survey. Offsite drainage to the property appears to be very minor. All offsite drainage from the alleyway is captured via the trench drain mentioned previously. An inlet is located in the Right-Of-Way just north of the parcel, which collects drainage from the curb and gutter along East Hopkins Avenue. Water services for all structures are routed from the main line located under East Hopkins Avenue. Water shut offs are located near the northern property line in the landscaping and within the brick paver patio for 625 East Hopkins. A sanitary sewer service extends from each structure to the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District sewer main located within the alley Right-Of-Way. The sewer service ties into 627 East Hopkins at the southeastern corner of the building, while two sanitary sewer services are routed along the eastern property line for both 623 and 625. Each service has a cleanout located within five feet of the structure, which are shown on the survey. The electric services extend to each unit from the transformer located at the southern property line. The services are routed along the eastern property line to each structure. Electric meters are located on the south wall of 627 East Hopkins. Telephone and communications services are supplied by the pedestals located at the southeastern property corner. The telephone and communication services follow the western property line and are routed to each unit. Gas service taps are located under the alley, where they continue along the eastern property line and are routed to each unit. The gas meter is located at the southeastern corner of the 627 building. Refer to the survey for additional information regarding all utilities on and around the site. 1.2 Proposed Conditions The proposed conditions for 623 and 625 East Hopkins include a large below grade addition to 623, as well as interior remodels of both 623 and 625. The above grade footprints of both structures shall remain the same. Improvements to the existing decks and surrounding landscaping are included with the project. This does not include any alterations or improvements to 627 East Hopkins. Both structures being remodeled are deemed historic. The development is considered a “Major Project” as per Table 1.1 of the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The parcel is zoned as Commercial and will not require a change in land use or zoning. Utility services to the structures are anticipated to remain. If utility conflicts occur due to the basement addition at 623 East Hopkins, utility realignments will be designed and included in the permitted drawings. All disturbance will be kept to a minimum, including the existing vegetation within the parcel limits. Given the inability to maintain the existing stormwater management of 623 and 625 on site, the project is requesting to utilize City Right-Of-Way. A Contech Vortechs system is proposed in the Right-Of-Way for treatment of the runoff from the development. The curb and gutter inlet located within the Right-Of-Way will be redesigned and would collect the street runoff in the Contech system as well. This would effectively treat runoff from the offsite basin in exchange for treatment of 623 and 625 stormwater in the Right-Of-Way. The proposed stormwater system will be designed to meet the requirements of the URMP, including the 147 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 5 of 9 conveyance of flows, inlet capacity and the stormwater detention facility sizing. The drainage infrastructure for 627 East Hopkins shall remain. Currently there are no known studies performed on or around the site. The project is not within a mudflow area as defined within the URMP. The project will review the public stormwater system’s master plan to confirm the stormwater conveyance system within the right-of-way with the City of Aspen Engineering Department upon permit level drawing submission. 2.0 Drainage Basins and Subbasins 2.1 Onsite Drainage Basins The site has been analyzed as one drainage basin, containing the entirety of the proposed conditions. The point of concentration for the basin will be the Contech Vortechs Unit that is tied into the public stormwater system within East Hopkins Avenue. Basin 1 is proposed as 2,652 square feet and is 80% impervious. This basin includes existing roof areas, the brick paver walkways, wood decks surrounding the buildings and landscaped areas. The basin is collected by downspouts from the roof structure, several inlets, and linear drains strategically spaced around the site. All stormwater is conveyed through the Contech Vortechs unit, which shall be located to the north of the site in the Right-Of-Way. The unit will be sized to treat storm events adequately and would overflow through the system for any events over a 10-year storm event. The Vortechs unit and the manhole housing the unit will be sized accordingly upon further analysis of the drainage system. 2.2 Offsite Drainage Basins Runoff from East Hopkins Avenue is included in the offsite drainage basin analysis as it is to be collected by the proposed treatment system. The Offsite Basin 1 is 7,625 square feet and is 100% impervious, which includes the asphalt pavement south of the centerline of East Hopkins Avenue between Spring Street to Hunter Street. This is currently being collected by the existing inlet, but will be updated as necessary for stormwater conveyance into the Contech Vortechs unit. The inlet and additional stormwater conveyance will be sized to ensure capacity for a 100-year storm event. The storm main under East Hopkins Avenue will be analyzed to ensure conveyance upon permit level drawings. 3.0 Low Impact Site Design Low Impact Development (LID) aims to mimic the natural pre-development hydrologic patterns. The goal is to manage storm water as close to its source as is possible. The captured onsite basin is 80% impervious. 3.1 Principles Principle 1: Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process. 148 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 6 of 9 The design team coordinated throughout the schematic design phase to minimize the impacts to the site, while effectively conceptualizing a stormwater system that meets requirements and needs. It was understood that the footprint of the building, existing trees, and the historic relevance was going to drive the design to minimize space for infrastructure and site disturbance. Principle 2: Use the entire site when planning for storm water quality treatment. Given the existing conditions, minimal space could be utilized for stormwater collection and treatment. Because of this, utilizing the public storm system within East Hopkins Right-Of-Way is necessary. Patios are proposed as pervious, and areas will be sloped to sheetflow through landscaped areas into inlets to allow for a treatment train prior to entering the storm networks. Principle 3: Avoid unnecessary impervious area. Increases to the impervious patio area will be kept to a minimum to retain landscaped areas within the site. Footprints of the structures will remain on the site for the proposed conditions. Principle 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the property is collected and conveyed to a Contech Vortechs system, which have been sized for water quality treatment with a properly sized overflow system. The unit provides filtration to stormwater prior to entering the public storm system. All runoff from the proposed site will be captured and conveyed on site. Principle 5: Integrate storm water quality management and flood control. Adequately sizing the inlets and piping systems on site will manage the potential flooding on site and into the neighboring parcels in the area. Principle 6: Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. The onsite and offsite basin will be filtered via the Vortechs unit prior to entering the public storm system. This will minimize impacts of stormwater on neighboring residences from the existing residence. The design allows for more than adequate drainage while having minimal visual impacts. Treatment of the onsite and the offsite runoff increases stormwater quality prior to entering the storm system. This effectively minimizes impacts on the existing infrastructure and the Roaring Fork River. Principle 7: Use treatment train approach. The design proposes patios to release into landscaping to allow treatment prior to entering the storm system in multiple areas on the site. Sumps will be proposed for the inlets in the pipe network to ensure treatment throughout the system. The filtration system within the Vortechs unit will increase stormwater quality prior to entering the public storm system. Principle 8: Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. Inlets, piping, and the Vortechs unit will be vacuumed or flushed periodically to maintain adequate flows and proper treatment. The designed system includes cleanouts at roof drain connections and downspouts, simplified collection systems that minimize maintenance, and easy access to the whole system. 149 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 7 of 9 Principle 9: Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. The proposed design for the walkways and patios will allow for adequate drainage and reduces ice buildup and dangerous conditions. Walkways and stairways will be pitched at recommended slopes and within building code thresholds to allow for safe circulation within the property. Grading will be kept to a minimum and retainage has been minimized. Transitions into existing conditions will be smooth and natural. Inlets and piping will be sized to reduce potential flooding within the area. 4.0 Hydrologic Criteria 4.1 Runoff Calculation Method Calculations and analyses defined in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the URMP were used to define the runoff from the basins on the property. The property is classified as a “sub-urban area served by public storm sewer.” Pre-developed and developed runoff rates were determined for both the 5-year, 1-hour and the 10-year, 1-hour storm events for capacity designs as required by this classification. The peak discharge shown in this analysis uses the Rational Method, as described in section 3.4 of the URMP. This requires several variables to be determined, including values for intensity, the runoff coefficient, and basin area. Using the rainfall depths from Table 2-2 and the basin time of concentration in conjunction with Equation 2-1, the rainfall intensity for the basins can be calculated. The rainfall intensity equation shown in the URMP is a direct correlation of the Aspen area Intensity Duration Frequency Curve derived from the NOAA Atlas 14 database. As stated within the URMP, the time of concentration can be no less than 5 minutes for the calculations to be effective. Due to the size of the basins on the site, the time of concentration within the basins is less than 5 minutes. The runoff coefficient for each basin was established using the percent impervious of the basin and the soil type in combination with the most up-to-date values as presented in the Mile High Flood District Drainage Design Values for the specified soil type in the area. For this project, an NRCS Soil Classification of B was utilized. 4.2 Basin Analysis The tables below summarize the calculations that were performed on the basins using the methods described in Section 4.1 of this report. Rainfall depth, P1 (in)0.634 Soil Class B Intensity (in/hr)Discharge (ft3/Sec)Q=CIAt Note: For basins with a flow length of less than 500 feet, a Time of Concentration is assumed at 5 minutes. These calculations are assuming a NRCS Hydrologic Soil Class B. Rainfall depth values derived from NOAA Atlas 14 data. Intensity equation has been derived from the Aspen area NOAA Atlas 14 IDF Curve. Predeveloped Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec) 1 2652 0 0.00%0.010 5 3.26 0.00 Developed Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec) 1 2652 2120 79.94%0.630 5 3.26 0.13 5-Year 1-Hour Onsite Peak Discharge Calculations 150 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 8 of 9 4.3 Water Quality and Storage Requirements For a property classified as a “Sub-urban area served by public storm sewer”, runoff from the site must be treated for the WQCV when releasing into a public storm system. The Contech Vortechs unit will be sized to ensure the WQCV is treated before being released into the public storm system. An overflow for the 10-year, 1-hour storm event will be designed for the Vortechs unit to reduce the potential for flooding within the East Hopkins Right-Of-Way. All equations used in the spreadsheets are directly from the URMP. A WQCV analysis of the drainage basins has been calculated using the impervious area on the site and multiplying by the WQCV depth as described in the URMP. The calculation that has been used to determine the volume required to be detained on the property is shown in the spreadsheet below. The Vortechs unit and manhole housing the unit shall have capacity for this calculated volume. Rainfall depth, P1 (in)0.769 Soil Class B Intensity (in/hr)Discharge (ft3/Sec)Q=CIAt Note: For basins with a flow length of less than 500 feet, a Time of Concentration is assumed at 5 minutes. These calculations are assuming a NRCS Hydrologic Soil Class B. Rainfall depth values derived from NOAA Atlas 14 data. Intensity equation has been derived from the Aspen area NOAA Atlas 14 IDF Curve. Predeveloped Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec) 1 2652 0 0.00%0.040 5 3.95 0.01 Developed Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec) 1 2652 2120 79.94%0.660 5 3.95 0.16 10-Year 1-Hour Onsite Peak Discharge Calculations Rainfall depth, P1 (in)0.634 Soil Class B Intensity (in/hr)Discharge (ft3/Sec)Q=CIAt Note: For basins with a flow length of less than 500 feet, a Time of Concentration is assumed at 5 minutes. These calculations are assuming a NRCS Hydrologic Soil Class B. Rainfall depth values derived from NOAA Atlas 14 data. Intensity equation has been derived from the Aspen area NOAA Atlas 14 IDF Curve. Predeveloped Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec) OS1 7625 0 0.00%0.010 5 3.26 0.01 Developed Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec) OS1 7,625 7625 100.00%0.860 5 3.26 0.49 5-Year 1-Hour Offsite Peak Discharge Calculations Rainfall depth, P1 (in)0.769 Soil Class B Intensity (in/hr)Discharge (ft3/Sec)Q=CIAt Note: For basins with a flow length of less than 500 feet, a Time of Concentration is assumed at 5 minutes. These calculations are assuming a NRCS Hydrologic Soil Class B. Rainfall depth values derived from NOAA Atlas 14 data. Intensity equation has been derived from the Aspen area NOAA Atlas 14 IDF Curve. Predeveloped Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec) OS1 7625 0 0.00%0.040 5 3.95 0.03 Developed Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2) Ai (ft2)Ai/At (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec) OS1 7625 7625 100.00%0.860 5 3.95 0.60 10-Year 1-Hour Offsite Peak Discharge Calculations 151 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 9 of 9 Basin Point Of Concentration Total Area Impervious Percentage Water Quality Depth Factor Of Safety Water Quality Capture Volume (Name)(Name)At (ft2)Ai/At (%)(in)(FOS)WQCV (ft3) 1, OS1 Contech Vortechs Unit 10277 95%0.23 1 196.98 Water Quality Capture Volume Storage Calculation Water Quality Capture Volume (ft3)FOS Drywells=1.5, FOS Other BMP's=1.0 152 December 12, 2022 Client: Structural Engineer: SWAG DB Structural Design Ltd. 715 W Main St, #103 1229 Sage Ct. Aspen, CO 81611 Rifle, CO 81650 Attention: Brett Lohr (801)529-6481 Reference: 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: The proposed improvements to the above-referenced project include enlarging the existing basement to extend beneath both existing historic structures. Due to the small site, the structures will need to be lifted and temporarily shored in-place to facilitate construction of the new basement footprint. Observation of the existing structures will be required to determine their ability to withstand the temporary shoring involved prior to lifting/moving the structures. The existing structures located at 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue were remodeled previously in 2014 according to as-built drawings. This included reframing of the roofs and adding a full basement beneath the 623 East Hopkins structure. A full structural review and analysis of the existing structure will be necessary to determine if any retrofit will be required to accommodate the new design. The existing floor structure will likely need to be replaced or modified to coordinate with the new floor plans. The existing roof structure may also need modifications. Sincerely, DB Structural Design Ltd. Nate Decker, PE, SE 12/12/2022 153 March 12, 2025 Client: Structural Engineer: SWAG DB Structural Design Ltd. 715 W Main St, #103 1229 Sage Ct. Aspen, CO 81611 Rifle, CO 81650 Attention: Jarrett Mork (801)529-6481 Reference: 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom It May Concern: The proposed improvements to the above-referenced project include enlarging the existing basement to extend beneath both existing historic structures. Due to the small site, the structures will need to be temporarily shored in place to facilitate excavation/construction of the new basement footprint. A combination of horizontal beams supported by a vertical shoring system (underpinning and micropiles) will be necessary to keep these structures supported in place during construction. The existing structures located at 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue were remodeled previously in 2014 according to as-built drawings. This included reframing of the roofs and adding a full basement beneath the 623 East Hopkins structure. Based on observations, the existing structures appear to be structurally sound and should be able to withstand the physical lifting/shoring necessary to accommodate the proposed improvements as outlined above. The physical move of the building should be conducted by a qualified building mover with appropriate experience in stabilizing and moving similar structures. A full structural review and analysis of the existing structure will be necessary to determine if any retrofit will be required to accommodate the new design. The existing floor structure will likely need to be replaced or modified to coordinate with the new floor plans. The existing roof structure may also need modifications. This report is based solely on visual observations only. No finish materials were removed to observe concealed conditions and no analyses were provided. Sincerely, DB Structural Design Ltd. Nate Decker, PE, SE ODAROLOC D E S N ECIL A L E NGINEER NOISS E F O R P 03/12/2025 154 155 156 DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Peak Hour Max Trips Generated MMLOS TDM Total Trips Mitigated PM 2.7 5 0.02 5.02 0.00 A minimum of two TDM measures must be utilized for minor projects. Please return to Sheet "3. TDM" and select a minimum of two measures. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Summary and Narrative: Narrative: 5/22/2025 623 East Hopkins Avenue 623 East Hopkins Avenue Trip Generation SUMMARY Trip Mitigation NET TRIPS TO BE MITIGATED Click on the "Generate Narrative" Button to the right. Respond to each of the prompts in the space provided. Each response should cover the following: 1. Explain the selected measure. 2. Call out where the measure is located. 3. Demonstrate how the selected measure is appropriate to enhance the project site and reduce traffic impacts. 4. Explain the Enforcement and Financing Plan for the selected measure. 5. Explain the scheduling and implementation responsibility of the mitigation measure. 6. Attach any additional information and a site map to the narrative report. Project Description In the space below provide a description of the proposed project. The project requests approval to expand an existing commerical basement by 646 square feet of net leasable area. Minimal above grade changes are proposed: the removal of a lightwell, revegetation after lightwell is removed, relocation of HVAC to the alley, and a wildlife enclosure fence along the alley. MMLOS Include any additional information that pertains to the MMLOS plan in the space provided below. A TIA credit will be paid to Wecycle to satisfy this requirement as discussed with the Engineering Department on 5/19/2025. TDM Explain the proposed trip reduction marketing/incentive program in the space provided. A trip reduction marketing programs should include a number of the following strategies: orientation to trip reduction programs and benefits; orientation to specific alternative transportation modes such as bus service information, bike/walk route maps, etc.; publishing of web or traditional informational materials; events and contests such as commuter fairs, new employee orientations, bike to work days, etc.; educational opportunities such bicycle commute/repair classes; web or traditional materials aimed at guests/customers such as bike/walk maps, free transit day passes, etc.; incentive programs such as prizes, rewards or discounts for alternative commuting. Transportation options wil be provided to all employees to discourage personal vehicle use. 157 Include any additional information that pertains to the TDM plan in the space provided below. Enter Text Here MMLOS Site Plan Requirements Include the following on a site plan. Clearly call out and label each measure. Attach the site plan to the TIA submittal. Slopes Between Back of Curb and Sidewalk 2% Slope at Pedestrian Driveway Crossings Pedestrian Directness Factor (See callout number 9 on the MMLOS sheet for an example) Bicycle Parking Enforcement and Financing Provide an overview of the Enforcement and Financing plan for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. The City may inquire about the transportation plan to confirm compliance. Scheduling and Implementation Responsibility of Mitigation Measures Implementation of the transportation measures are the responsibility of the tenant. Monitoring and Reporting Provide a monitoring and reporting plan. Refer to page 17 in the Transportation Analysis Guidelines for a list of monitoring plan requirements. Components of a Monitoring and Reporting Plan should include (1) Assessment of compliance with guidelines, (2) Results and effectiveness of implemented measures, (3) Identification of additional strategies, and (4) Surveys and other supporting data. Provide an overview of the scheduling and implementation responsibility for the proposed transportation mitigation measures. A report may be provided if requested by the City of Aspen. 158 = input= calculation DATE: PROJECT NAME: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION: NAME, COMPANY, ADDRESS, PHONE, EMAIL Minor Entering Exiting Total Entering Exiting Total Commercial (sf)646.5 sf 1.01 0.45 1.47 1.07 1.61 2.68 Free-Market Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Affordable Housing (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lodging (Units)0 Units 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Essential Public Facility (sf)0.0 sf 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 0.45 1.47 1.07 1.61 2.68 Land Use Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Trip Rate %Entering %Exiting Commercial 2.27 0.69 0.31 4.14 0.4 0.6 Free-Market Housing 0.67 0.29 0.71 0.82 0.56 0.44 Affordable Housing 0.75 0.48 0.52 0.89 0.55 0.45 Lodging 0.25 0.57 0.43 0.31 0.52 0.48 Essential Public Facility 0.86 0.62 0.38 1.66 0.4 0.6 AM Peak Average PM Peak Average Trips Generated AM Peak-Hour PM Peak-Hour TOTAL NEW TRIPS ASSUMPTIONS ASPEN TRIP GENERATION Is this a major or minor project? 623 East Hopkins Avenue 623 East Hopkins Avenue Net New Units/Square Feet of the Proposed ProjectProposed Land Use *For mixed-use (at least two of the established land uses) sites, a 4% reduction for AM Peak-Hour and a 14% reduction for PM Peak-Hour is applied to the trip generation. Sara Adams BendonAdams 300 S. Spring St. #202, Aspen CO 81611 970-925-2855 sara@bendonadams.com Trip Generation 12/7/2024 Instructions: IMPORTANT: Turn on Macros: In order for code to run correctly the security settings need to be altered. Click "File" and then click "Excel Options." In the "Trust Center"category, click "Trust Center Settings", and then click the "Macro Settings"category. Beneath "Macro Settings" select "Enable all Macros." Sheet 1. Trip Generation: Enter the project's square footage and/or unit counts under Proposed Land Use. The numbers should reflect the net change in land use between existing and proposed conditions. If a landuse is to be reduced put a negative number of units or square feet. Sheet 2. MMLOS: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable under each of the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections.Points are only awarded for proposed (not existing) and confirmed aspects of the project. Sheet 3. TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Sheet 4. Summary and Narrative: Review the summary of the project's mitigated trips and provide a narrative which explains the measures selected for the project. Click on "Generate Narrative" and individually explain each measure that was chosen and how it enhances the site or mitigates vehicle traffic. Ensure each selected measure make sense Minor Development -Inside the Roundabout Major Development -Outside the Roundabout Helpful Hints: 1. Refer to the Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines for information on the use of this tool. 2. Refer to TIA Frequently Asked Questions for a quick overview. 2. Hover over red corner tags for additional information on individual measures. 3. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. Transportation Impact Analysis TIA Frequently Asked Questions 159 = input = calculation 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 1 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk where an attached sidewalk currently exists? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 2 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width greater than the standard minimum width?NA 0 3 Does the project propose a landscape buffer greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 4 Does the project propose a detached sidewalk on an adjacent block? Does the proposed sidewalk and buffer meet standard minimum widths? No 0 5 Is the proposed effective sidewalk width on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 6 Is the proposed landscape buffer on an adjacent block greater than the standard minimum width?No 0 0 7 Are slopes between back of curb and sidewalk equal to or less than 5%?Yes 0 8 Are curbs equal to (or less than) 6 inches?Yes 0 9 Is new large-scale landscaping proposed that improves the pedestrian experience? Properties within the Core do not have ample area to provide the level of landscaping required to receive credit in this category. No 0 10 Does the project propose an improved crosswalk? This measure must get City approval before receiving credit. No 0 0 11 Are existing driveways removed from the street?NA 0 12 Is pedestrian and/or vehicle visibility unchanged by new structure or column?Yes 0 13 Is the grade (where pedestrians cross) on cross-slope of driveway 2% or less?Yes 0 14 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points from the ROW? This includes improvements to ADA ramps or creating new access points which prevent pedestrians from crossing a street. NA 0 15 Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian or bicyclist interaction with vehicles at driveway areas?NA 0 0 16 Is the project's pedestrian directness factor less than 1.5?Yes 0 17 Does the project propose new improvements which reduce the pedestrian directness factor to less than 1.2? A site which has an existing pedestrian directness factor less than 1.2 cannot receive credit in this category. No 0 18 Is the project proposing an off site improvement that results in a pedestrian directness factor below 1.2?* No 0 19 Are traffic calming features proposed that are part of an approved plan (speed humps, rapid flash)?*No 0 0 20 Are additional minor improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 21 Are additional major improvements proposed which benefit the pedestrian experience and have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff? No 0 0 0Pedestrian Total* MMLOS Input Page Subtotal Subtotal Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on A d j a c e n t B l o c k s Si d e w a l k C o n d i t i o n on P r o j e c t F r o n t a g e Subtotal Instructions: Answer Yes, No, or Not Applicable to each measure under the Pedestrian, Bike and Transit sections. Subtotal Subtotal Pe d e s t r i a n s Subtotal Ad d i t i o n a l Pr o p o s e d Im p r o v e m e n t s TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS MITIGATED: Pe d e s t r i a n R o u t e s Tr a f f i c C a l m i n g a n d Pe d e s t r i a n N e t w o r k Dr i v e w a y s , P a r k i n g , a n d A c c e s s Co n s i d e r a t i o n s 160 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 22 Is a new bicycle path being implemented with City approved design?No 0 23 Do new bike paths allow access without crossing a street or driveway?No 0 24 Is there proposed landscaping, striping, or signage improvements to an existing bicycle path?No 0 25 Does the project propose additional minor bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 26 Does the project propose additional major bicycle improvements which have been agreed upon with City of Aspen staff?No 0 0 Bi c y c l e Pa r k i n g 27 Is the project providing bicycle parking?Yes 5 5 5 Category Sub.Measure Number Question Answer Points 28 Is seating/bench proposed?No 0 29 Is a trash receptacle proposed?No 0 30 Is transit system information (signage) proposed?No 0 31 Is shelter/shade proposed?No 0 32 Is enhanced pedestrian-scale lighting proposed?No 0 33 Is real-time transit information proposed?No 0 34 Is bicycle parking/storage proposed specifically for bus stop use?No 0 35 Are ADA improvements proposed?No 0 0 36 Is a bus pull-out proposed at an existing stop?NA 0 37 Is relocation of a bus stop to improve transit accessibility or roadway operations proposed?NA 0 38 Is a new bus stop proposed (with minimum of two basic amenities)?NA 0 0 0 Bicycles Total* Transit Total* Bi c y c l e s Mo d i f i c a t i o n s t o E x i s t i n g B i c y c l e Pa t h s Tr a n s i t Ba s i c A m e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal En h a n c e d Am e n i t i e s Subtotal Subtotal 161 Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will an onsite ammenities strategy be implemented?No Which onsite ammenities will be implemented? Will a shared shuttle service strategy be implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the company size? What percentage of customers are eligible? 3 Nonmotorized Zones Will a nonmotorized zones strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will a network expansion stragtegy be implemented?No What is the percentage increase of transit network coverage? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? Will a service frequency/speed strategy be implemented?No What is the percentage reduction in headways (increase in frequency)? What is the existing transit mode share as a % of total daily trips? What is the level of implementation? Will a transit access improvement strategy be implemented?No What is the extent of access improvements? 7 Intercept Lot Will an intercept lot strategy be implemented?No 0.00% 0.00% Category Measure Number Sub. Question Answer Strategy VMT Reductions Will there be participation in TOP?No What percentage of employees are eligible?100% Is a transit fare subsidy strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? What is the amount of transit subsidy per passenger (daily equivalent)? Is an employee parking cash-out strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a workplace parking pricing strategy implemented?No What is the daily parking charge? What percentage of employees are subject to priced parking? Is a compressed work weeks strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are participating? What is the workweek schedule? Is an employer sponsered shuttle program implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool matching strategy implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligble? Is carshare participation being implemented?No How many employee memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees are eligble? Is participation in the bikeshare program WE-cycle being implemented?No How many memberships have been purchased? What percentage of employees/guests are eligble? Is an end of trip facilities strategy being implemented?No What is the degree of implementation? What is the employer size? Is a self-funded emergency ride home strategy being implemented?No What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a carpool/vanpool priority parking strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What number of parking spots are available for the program? Is a private employer shuttle strategy being implemented?No What is the employer size? What percentage of employees are eligible? Is a trip reduction marketing/incentive program implemented?Yes What percentage of employees/guests are eligible?100% 0.87% 0.00% 0.87% 1. 22% work trips represents a mixed-used site (SF Bay Area Travel Survey). See Assumptions Tab for more detail. Maximum Reduction Allowed in CategoryTr a n s i t S y s t e m I m p r o v e m e n t s St r a t e g i e s 1 2 4 5 6 8 9 10 4.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category Maximum Reduction Allowed in Category 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Bikeshare Program 0.00% TDM Input Page 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Co m m u t e T r i p R e d u c t i o n P r o g r a m s S t r a t e g i e s Onsite Servicing Shared Shuttle Service Ne i g h b o r h o o d / S i t e En h a n c e m e n t s S t r a t e g i e s 0.00% 0.00% Network Expansion Service Frequency/Speed Transit Access Improvement Participation in TOP Transit Fare Subsidy Employee Parking Cash-Out Workplace Parking Pricing Compressed Work Weeks Employer Sponsored Vanpool Carpool Matching Carshare Program Self-funded Emergency Ride Home Carpool/Vanpool Priority Parking Private Employer Shuttle Trip Reduction Marketing/Incentive Program End of Trip Facilities Cross Category Maximum Reduction, Neighborhood and Transit Global Maximum VMT Reductions 11 12 13 14 15 21 16 17 18 19 20 Instructions TDM: Choose the mitigation measures that are appropriate for your project. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should be new and/or an improvement of existing conditions. A project will not receive credit for measures already in place. Proposed TDM or MMLOS measures should also make sense in the context of project location and future use. 162 Docusign Envelope ID: FFCA303D-C35A-47F8-A89F-534A14BD8233 16 3 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave CVR COVER 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC GENERAL SHEET INDEX CVR G-100 G-200 G-201 G-202 G-203 COVER SURVEY 205 S SPRING ST SURVEY SURVEY COMBINED DEMOLITION CALCS EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS ARCHITECTURAL SHEET INDEX A-001X A-001 A-001 A-002 A-003 A-101X A-101 A-201X A-201 EXISTING SITE PLAN PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROPOSED SNOWMELT PLAN PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE TIA SITE PLAN EXISTING/DEMO PLANS PROPOSED PLANS EXISTING ELEVATIONS PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Aspen, CO 81611 623 EAST HOPKINS AVE HPC LAND USE APPLICATION CODE EDITIONS: 2015 IRC, 2015 IMC, 20159 IECC, 2015 IPC, 2015 IFGC, 2011 NEC, CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: NFPA 13D (EXISTING TO BE REVISED PER PLANS) SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDES: RENOVATING EXISTING DECK. INTERIOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO BASEMENT. Exhibit 15 164 165 166 167 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave G-10 0 DEMOLITION CALCS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 1 2 3 4 FRONT PORCH DECK WINDOW WELL TO BE REMOVED 249.25 sq ft 15.25 sq ft 26.00 sq ft16.25 sq ft 2 201.25 sq ft 4 8.75 sq ft 19.75 sq ft 8.75 sq ft 448.50 sq ft 104.00 sq ft 1 21.50 sq ft 24.50 sq ft 410.00 sq ft 26.25 sq ft 21.00 sq ft12.00 sq ft 3 67 1 2 3 4 5 623 E HOPKINS BELOW 292.25 sq ft 244.50 sq ft 371.25 sq ft 200.00 sq ft 1 2 6 7 302.50 sq ft 98.00 sq ft 64.25 sq ft 3 4 5 Wall Label Individual Wall Area (Sq. Ft.) Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq. Ft.) Area of Wall to be Removed (Sq. Ft.) 1 448.5 46.00 104.00 2 249.25 57.50 3 410 59.25 4 201.25 37.25 Wall Surface Area Total 1309 Area Reduced for Fenestration Total 200.00 Area Used For Demo Calculation 1,109.00 Wall Surface Area to be Removed 104.00 Demolition Totals Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation 2,681.75 Roof + Wall Surface Area to be Removed 104.00 Total 3.9% Existing Wall Demolition Calculations Roof Label Individual Roof Area (Sq. Ft.) Area Reduced for Fenestration (Sq. Ft.) Area of Wall to be Removed (Sq. Ft.) 1 292.25 2 244.5 3 302.5 4 98 5 64.25 6 200 7 371.25 Wall Surface Area Total 1572.75 Area Reduced for Fenestration Total 0.00 Area Used For Demo Calculation 1,572.75 Roof Surface Area to be Removed 0.00 Demolition Totals Roof + Wall Area Used for Demo Calculation 2,681.75 Roof + Wall Surface Area to be Removed 104.00 Total 3.9% Existing Roof Demolition Calculations DEMOLITION ELEVATION LEGEND EXISTING WALL FENESTRATION AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING MAIN LEVEL DEMOLTION PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" WALL DEMO CALCS 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING ROOF DEMOLTION PLAN 0 4'8'16'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ROOF DEMOLITION CALCS 168 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave G-200 EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 74.75 sq ft 201.75 sq ft 752.50 sq ft 453.00 sq ft 1,340.25 sq ft 250.00 sq ft 183.50 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS 625 E HOPKINS 1 2 3 4 14 11 1,027.00 sq ft 131.00 sq ft CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE MECH ROOM ELEVATOR ABOVE 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS 13 12 258.50 sq ft441.75 sq ft 86.00 sq ft 354.25 sq ft87.50 sq ft 41.00 sq ft86.00 sq ft41.00 sq ft 258.50 sq ft 2 13111213144 Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,251.75 4,233.25 Total 5,521.44 5,412.75 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,262.00 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,645.25 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt Lower Level Sub-grade Calculations (26.575.020.d.9)Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft. Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 1 441.75 87.50 2 258.50 3 441.75 4 258.50 Overall Total Wall Areas 1,400.50 87.50 % of Exposed Wall 6.25% Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 11 41.00 12 86.00 13 41.00 14 86.00 Overall Total Wall Areas 254.00 0.00 % of Exposed Wall 0.00% Level Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level - 623 - (1027 SF x 6.25%)64.19 93.75% Exempt per table above Lower Level - 627 - (131 SF x 0%)0.00 100% Exempt per table above Main Level - 623 752.50 Main Level - 625 453.00 Main Level - 627 1,358.75 Main Level - 627 Garage - (433.50 SF - 250 SF)183.50 250 SF/residence (per 26.575.020.d.8) Second Level - 627 1,719.25 Third Level - 627 990.25 Deck Area Main Level Deck - 623 201.75 Main Front Porch - 623 0.00 Exempt per 26.575.020.d.6 Third Level Deck - 627 (324.5 SF + 198.5 SF)523.00 Upper Level Deck 12.50 Deck Area over 15% Allowable Floor Area (1,800 SF)0.00 Sec. 26.575.020.5 Total Existing Floor Area 5,521.44 Existing Floor Area 623 E HOPKINS 627 E HOPKINS FAR PLAN LEGEND COUNTABLE DECK GARAGE EXEMPT - OPEN TO BELOW EXEMPT - FRONT PORCH DEMOLITION ELEVATION LEGEND EXISTING WALL FENESTRATION AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING SUBGRADE CALCS 169 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave G-201 EXISTING FAR CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 198.50 sq ft 990.25 sq ft 324.50 sq ft 623 E HOPKINS BELOW 625 E HOPKINS BELOW 627 E HOPKINS 1,719.25 sq ft 623 E HOPKINS BELOW 625 E HOPKINS BELOW 627 E HOPKINS Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,251.75 4,233.25 Total 5,521.44 5,412.75 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,262.00 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,645.25 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt Lower Level Sub-grade Calculations (26.575.020.d.9)Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft. Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 1 441.75 87.50 2 258.50 3 441.75 4 258.50 Overall Total Wall Areas 1,400.50 87.50 % of Exposed Wall 6.25% Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 11 41.00 12 86.00 13 41.00 14 86.00 Overall Total Wall Areas 254.00 0.00 % of Exposed Wall 0.00% Level Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level - 623 - (1027 SF x 6.25%)64.19 93.75% Exempt per table above Lower Level - 627 - (131 SF x 0%)0.00 100% Exempt per table above Main Level - 623 752.50 Main Level - 625 453.00 Main Level - 627 1,358.75 Main Level - 627 Garage - (433.50 SF - 250 SF)183.50 250 SF/residence (per 26.575.020.d.8) Second Level - 627 1,719.25 Third Level - 627 990.25 Deck Area Main Level Deck - 623 201.75 Main Front Porch - 623 0.00 Exempt per 26.575.020.d.6 Third Level Deck - 627 (324.5 SF + 198.5 SF)523.00 Upper Level Deck 12.50 Deck Area over 15% Allowable Floor Area (1,800 SF)0.00 Sec. 26.575.020.5 Total Existing Floor Area 5,521.44 Existing Floor Area 623 E HOPKINS 627 E HOPKINS FAR PLAN LEGEND COUNTABLE DECK GARAGE EXEMPT - OPEN TO BELOW EXEMPT - FRONT PORCH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING THIRD LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING SECOND LEVEL FAR PLAN 170 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave G-202 PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 74.75 sq ft 453.00 sq ft 1,340.25 sq ft 250.00 sq ft 215.25 sq ft 726.50 sq ft 183.50 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS 625 E HOPKINS 1 2 3 4 13 10 12 11 1,709.25 sq ft 131.00 sq ft CRAWL SPACE CRAWL SPACE MECH ROOM ELEVATOR ABOVE 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary 633.50 sq ft441.75 sq ft 86.00 sq ft41.00 sq ft86.00 sq ft41.00 sq ft 441.75 sq ft633.50 sq ft 23 11121314 14 Lower Level Sub-grade Calculations (26.575.020.d.9)Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft. Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 1 461.00 2 633.50 3 476.25 4 618.75 Overall Total Wall Areas 2,189.50 0.00 % of Exposed Wall 0.00% Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 11 41.00 12 86.00 13 41.00 14 86.00 Overall Total Wall Areas 254.00 0.00 % of Exposed Wall 0.00% Level Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level - 623 - (1,709 SF x 0%)0.00 100% Exempt per table above Lower Level - 627 - (131 SF x 0%)0.00 100% Exempt per table above Main Level - 623 726.50 Main Level - 625 453.00 Main Level - 627 1,340.25 Main Level - 627 Garage - (433.50 SF - 250 SF)183.50 250 SF/residence (per 26.575.020.d.8) Second Level - 627 1,719.25 Third Level - 627 990.25 Deck Area Main Level Deck - 623 215.25 Main Front Porch - 623 0.00 Exempt per 26.575.020.d.6 Third Level Deck - 627 (324.5 SF + 198.5 SF)523.00 Upper Level Deck 12.50 Deck Area over 15% Allowable Floor Area (1,800 SF)0.00 Sec. 26.575.020.5 Total Proposed Floor Area 5,412.75 Proposed Floor Area 623 E HOPKINS 627 E HOPKINS Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,251.75 4,233.25 Total 5,521.44 5,412.75 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,262.00 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,645.25 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt FAR PLAN LEGEND COUNTABLE DECK GARAGE EXEMPT - OPEN TO BELOW EXEMPT - FRONT PORCH DEMOLITION ELEVATION LEGEND EXISTING WALL FENESTRATION AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING SUBGRADE CALCS 171 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave G-203 PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 198.50 sq ft 990.25 sq ft 324.50 sq ft 623 E HOPKINS BELOW 625 E HOPKINS BELOW 627 E HOPKINS 1,719.25 sq ft 623 E HOPKINS BELOW 625 E HOPKINS BELOW 627 E HOPKINS Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary Lower Level Sub-grade Calculations (26.575.020.d.9)Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft. Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 1 461.00 2 633.50 3 476.25 4 618.75 Overall Total Wall Areas 2,189.50 0.00 % of Exposed Wall 0.00% Wall Label Total Wall Area Exposed Wall Area 11 41.00 12 86.00 13 41.00 14 86.00 Overall Total Wall Areas 254.00 0.00 % of Exposed Wall 0.00% Level Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level - 623 - (1,709 SF x 0%)0.00 100% Exempt per table above Lower Level - 627 - (131 SF x 0%)0.00 100% Exempt per table above Main Level - 623 726.50 Main Level - 625 453.00 Main Level - 627 1,340.25 Main Level - 627 Garage - (433.50 SF - 250 SF)183.50 250 SF/residence (per 26.575.020.d.8) Second Level - 627 1,719.25 Third Level - 627 990.25 Deck Area Main Level Deck - 623 215.25 Main Front Porch - 623 0.00 Exempt per 26.575.020.d.6 Third Level Deck - 627 (324.5 SF + 198.5 SF)523.00 Upper Level Deck 12.50 Deck Area over 15% Allowable Floor Area (1,800 SF)0.00 Sec. 26.575.020.5 Total Proposed Floor Area 5,412.75 Proposed Floor Area 623 E HOPKINS 627 E HOPKINS Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,251.75 4,233.25 Total 5,521.44 5,412.75 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,262.00 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,645.25 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt FAR PLAN LEGEND COUNTABLE DECK GARAGE EXEMPT - OPEN TO BELOW EXEMPT - FRONT PORCH SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED THIRD LEVEL FAR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SECOND LEVEL FAR PLAN 172 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave G-300 EXISTING NET LEASEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 623 E Hopkins Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level 887.00 Main Level 739.25 625 E Hopkins Sq. Ft.Reference Main Level 421.75 627 E Hopkins Sq. Ft.Reference Main Level 1 237.25 Main Level 2 724.25 Total Existing Net Leaseable Area 3,009.50 Existing Net Leaseable Area 12'-011/32" 1'-227/64" 6'-223/32" 6'-223/32" 739.25 sq ft 421.75 sq ft 237.25 sq ft 724.25 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS 625 E HOPKINS 887.00 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,068.25 4,068.25 Total 5,337.94 5,247.75 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,272.75 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,656.00 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary COUNTABLE NET LEASABLE LEGEND SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL NET LEASEABLE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING LOWER LEVEL NET LEASEABLE PLAN 173 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -301 PROPOSED NET LEASEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 739.25 sq ft 421.75 sq ft 237.25 sq ft 724.25 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS 625 E HOPKINS 1,522.75 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,068.25 4,049.75 Total 5,337.94 5,229.25 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,262.00 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,645.25 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt 623 E Hopkins Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level 1,522.75 Main Level 739.25 625 E Hopkins Sq. Ft. Main Level 421.75 627 E Hopkins Sq. Ft. Main Level 1 237.25 Main Level 2 724.25 Total Proposed Net Leaseable Area 3,645.25 Proposed Net Leaseable Area COUNTABLE NET LEASABLE LEGEND SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASEABLE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASEABLE PLAN 174 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -001X EXISTING SITE PLAN 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC EXISTING 6" CONTOUR PROPOSED 6"' CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT SITE LINE LEGEND ELECTRIC LINEUEUE GAS LINEGG PHONE / INTERNET LINECC WATER LINEWW 33'-105/64" 85.25 sq ft 12'-011/32" 1'-227/64" 6'-223/32" 6'-223/32" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 623 E. HOPKINS HVAC EQUIP TO BE RELOCATED HVAC EQUIP TO BE RELOCATED LIGHTWELL TO BE REMOVED CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETENTION POND 615 E HOPKINS PROPERTY LINE GRASS FLOWER BED FLOWER BED FLOWER BED W S O WSO DETENTION POND TRANSFORMER TRENCH DRAIN INLET W S O 6" CURB GUTTER EAST HOPKINS AVENUE S OVERHANG ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE WOOD FENCE S PHONE & CATV RISERS S MECH SLAB PATIO HVAC EQUIP TO BE RELOCATED TRENCH DRAIN EXISTING 300 SF TRASH AREA TO BE UPDATED TO MEET CURRENT WILDLIFE RESISTANT FENCED TRASH AREA REQUIREMENTS PER 12-08 WATER LINE TO BE ABANDONED TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT TO BE ABANDONED TRENCH DRAIN 9'-219/64" 625 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK 623 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 205 S SPRING ST NO PROPOSED WORK 205 S SPRING ST NO PROPOSED WORK WATER SHUT OFF VALVESWO ELECTRIC METER HERRINGBONE BRICK DECK CONCRETE SITE LEGEND LANDSCAPING GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN AT GRADE 175 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 6/19/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -001 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 6/19/25SCHEMATIC EXISTING 6" CONTOUR PROPOSED 6"' CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT SITE LINE LEGEND ELECTRIC LINEUEUE GAS LINEGG PHONE / INTERNET LINECC WATER LINEWW 33'-101/8" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 623 E. HOPKINS CONCRETE SIDEWALK 615 E HOPKINS PROPERTY LINE GRASS FLOWER BED FLOWER BED FLOWER BED W S O WSO DETENTION POND TRANSFORMER PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT TRENCH DRAIN INLET W S O 6" CURB GUTTER EAST HOPKINS AVENUE S OVERHANG ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE WOOD FENCE S PHONE & CATV RISERS HVAC UNITS EXISTING 300 SF TRASH AREA TO BE UPDATED TO MEET CURRENT WILDLIFE RESISTANT FENCED TRASH AREA REQUIREMENTS PER 12-08 S MECH SLAB PATIO TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN PROPOSED BIKE RACK 9'-21/4" 625 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK 623 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 205 S SPRING ST NO PROPOSED WORK 205 S SPRING ST NO PROPOSED WORK LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW WINDOW WELL REMOVAL AREA TO BE RESODDED EXISTING DETENTION POND TO REMAIN WATER SHUT OFF VALVESWO ELECTRIC METER HERRINGBONE BRICK DECK CONCRETE SITE LEGEND LANDSCAPING GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN AT GRADE 176 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -002 PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC #DrgID #LayID 3 A-002 2 A-002 33'-101/8" 3'-0" 85.25 sq ft 12'-03/8" 1'-23/8" 6'-23/4" 6'-23/4" TRANSFORMER PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT TRENCH DRAIN OVERHANG ABOVE RELOCATED HVAC UNITS EXISTING 300 SF TRASH AREA TO BE UPDATED TO MEET CURRENT WILDLIFE RESISTANT FENCED TRASH AREA REQUIREMENTS PER 12-08 S MECH SLAB SLIDING GATE ACCESS SLIDING GATE ACCESS TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN 300.00 sq ft 9'-21/4" 4'-5" 4'-5" 3'-0" 623 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK 1" MAX. GAP 6'-0" VARIES VARIES 31/2" VARIES 31/2"31/2" SLIDING GATE ACCESS METAL FENCE WITH HOT WIRE ON TOP 4'-5"4'-5"1'-21/4"12'-01/2" 34'-61/4" 1" MAX. GAP 6'-0" SLIDING GATE ACCESS METAL FENCE WITH HOT WIRE ON TOP EXISTING TRANSFORMER 6'-23/4"6'-23/4" 34'-61/4" 1" MAX. GAP SLIDING GATE ACCESS METAL FENCE WITH HOT WIRE ON TOP EXISTING TRANSFORMER 0 1'2'4'SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"1 TRASH ENCLOSURE PLAN SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"3 TRASH ENCLOSURE NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0"2 TRASH ENCLOSURE WEST ELEVATION 177 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -003 TIA SITE PLAN 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 33'-101/8" 3'-0" 85.25 sq ft 12'-03/8" 1'-23/8" 6'-23/4" 6'-23/4" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 623 E. HOPKINS CONCRETE SIDEWALK 615 E HOPKINS PROPERTY LINE GRASS FLOWER BED FLOWER BED FLOWER BED W S O WSO DETENTION POND TRANSFORMER PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT TRENCH DRAIN INLET W S O 6" CURB GUTTER EAST HOPKINS AVENUE S OVERHANG ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE WOOD FENCE S PHONE & CATV RISERS RELOCATED HVAC UNITS EXISTING 300 SF TRASH AREA TO BE UPDATED TO MEET CURRENT WILDLIFE RESISTANT FENCED TRASH AREA REQUIREMENTS PER 12-08 S MECH SLAB PATIO SLIDING GATE ACCESS TRENCH DRAIN PROPOSED BIKE RACK SITE ACCESS SITE ACCESS 48'-6" 64'-11" 54'-7" 3 8 ' - 6 " DIRECTNESS FACTOR: 1.3 DIRECTNESS FACTOR: 1.2 SLIDING GATE ACCESS TRENCH DRAIN TRENCH DRAIN 9'-21/4" 4'-5" 4'-5" 3'-0" 625 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK 623 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 205 S SPRING ST NO PROPOSED WORK 205 S SPRING ST NO PROPOSED WORK LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW WINDOW WELL REMOVAL AREA TO BE RESODDED EXISTING DETENTION POND TO REMAIN PROPOSED WATER CONNECTION TO 623 GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY N EXISTING 6" CONTOUR PROPOSED 6"' CONTOUR PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT SITE LINE LEGEND ELECTRIC LINEUEUE GAS LINEGG PHONE / INTERNET LINECC WATER LINEWW WATER SHUT OFF VALVESWO ELECTRIC METER HERRINGBONE BRICK DECK CONCRETE SITE LEGEND LANDSCAPING 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 TIA SITE PLAN 178 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -10 1X EXISTING/DEMO PLANS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL WALL LEGEND DW 1 G-301 CONFERENCE ROOM LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN RESTROOM TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE HVAC EQUIP TO BE RELOCATED LIGHTWELL TO BE REMOVED HVAC EQUIP TO BE RELOCATED FLOOR TO BE REMOVED FOR NEW STAIR AND ELEVATOR PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FRONT PORCH 625 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK DN ALIGNALIGN 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 D D B B A A C C 4 A-201X 1 A-201X 3 A-201X 2 A-201X TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE 615 E HOPKINS PORCH LINE OF ROOF ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE DW F 1 G-301 TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE 627 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE UP WINDOW WELL TO BE REMOVED TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 D D B B A A C C GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING/DEMO MAIN LEVEL 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING/DEMO LOWER LEVEL 179 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -101 PROPOSED PLANS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC EXISTING TO REMAIN TO BE DEMOLISHED NEW WALL WALL LEGEND DW 1 G-301 1 A-201 2 A-201 4 A-201 6'-0" 51/2" 10'-85/8" 51/2" 16'-93/4" 6'-65/8" 31/2" 4'-91/2" 17'-21/8" TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE FRONT PORCH 625 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK DN ALIGNALIGN ELEVATOR DRINK CENTER COFFE BARRESTROOM REAR ENTRY C C 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 D D B B A A CONFERENCE ROOM 3 A-201 3'-111/4" 31/2" 7'-13/4" TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE 615 E HOPKINS PORCH LINE OF ROOF ABOVE LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW LINE OF BASEMENT BELOW LINE OF ROOF ABOVE LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 1 G-301 22'-53/4" 24'-10" 8" 29'-43/4" MEASURED TO EXISTING FRAMING ABOVE - GC TO VERIFY 8" 15'-11" 8" 8"5'-01/2" MEASURED TO EXISTING FRAMING ABOVE GC TO VERIFY 8"30'-81/4"8" 3'-21/4" MEASURED TO EXISTING FRAMING ABOVE GC TO VERIFY 8" 8"40'-3"8" 47'-33/4" 31/2" 8'-13/4" 51/2" 6'-73/4" 31/2" 51/2" 6'-63/4" 31/2" 93/4" 51/2" 3'-11" 51/2" 10'-101/2" 51/2" 5'-73/4" 31/2" 33'-51/4" 31/2" 41'-7" 5'-101/4"5'-83/4" 5'-61/4" 31/2" 5'-13/4" 31/2" 5'-5" 43/4" 1'-543/64" 1'-15/8" ELEVATOR UP TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE 627 E. HOPKINS NO PROPOSED WORK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE COMMERCIAL USE OPEN OFFICE RESTROOM C C 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 D D B B A A TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE TO FACE OF EXISTING WALL STRUCTURE LINE OF BARN ABOVE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY N 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL 180 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -201X EXISTING ELEVATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC A B C D EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" 1 2 3 4 EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY 4 3 2 1 EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" D C B A EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 623 & 625 E HOPKINS NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 623 E HOPKINS EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 623 E HOPKINS WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 623 & 625 E HOPKINS SOUTH ELEVATION 181 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -201 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC GENERAL PLAN NOTES 1) EXISTING FRAMING & SHEATHING TO REMAIN AT AREAS NOT SHOWN AS DEMOLISHED. TYPICAL. 2) ALL DIMENSIONS TO EXISTING WALLS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD. TYPICAL. 3) ABOVE GRADE STRUCTURE AND RESPECTIVE FINISHES TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. MAJORITY OF WORK TO BE BELOW GRADE. 4) NO CHANGE TO PEDESTRIAN AMENITY A B C D EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" 1 2 3 4 EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" 4 3 2 1 EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" D C B A EXST MAIN LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 100'-0" EXST LOWER LEVEL T.O. F.F. = 88'-0" 0 2'4'8'SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 623 & 625 E HOPKINS NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 623 E HOPKINS EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 623 E HOPKINS WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 623 & 625 E HOPKINS SOUTH ELEVATION 182 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -300 PROPOSED VIEWS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 183 COPYRIGHT DRAWN BY: SWAG DATE OF PUBLICATION 5/27/25 BL Aspen CO 81611 623 & 625 East Hopkins Ave A -301 PROPOSED NET LEASEABLE AREA CALCULATIONS 10 Pioneer Point Carbondale, CO, 81623 715 W Main St, #103 Aspen, CO 81611 970-618-8014 DRAWING ISSUANCE INDEX 1 ID NAME ISSUED DATE 5/27/25SCHEMATIC 739.25 sq ft 421.75 sq ft 237.25 sq ft 724.25 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS 625 E HOPKINS 1,522.75 sq ft 627 E HOPKINS 623 E HOPKINS Proposed Development Remodel Parcel #273-718-212-051 Zone District C-1 Setbacks Principal Accessory Reference Front 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Rear 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Side 0'Sec. 26.710.150 Height Limit 28'Sec. 26.710.150 Transferable Development Right (TDR) Received TDR Certificate No Sent TDR Certificate No Transferred TDR Certificate No Zoning Allowance & Project Summary Allowable Floor Area sq. ft.sq. ft.Reference 2:1 12,000 (6,000 SF Lot Area x 2)Sec. 26.710.150 Unique Approvals Variances Exemptions Deck Exemption Sec. 26.575.020.5 Front Porch Sec. 26.575.020.6 Floor Area Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area 623 E Hopkins 816.69 726.50 625 E Hopkins 453.00 453.00 627 E Hopkins 4,068.25 4,049.75 Total 5,337.94 5,229.25 Net Leaseable Area Existing Net Leaseable Area Proposed Net Leaseable Area 623 E Hopkins 1,626.25 2,262.00 625 E Hopkins 421.75 421.75 627 E Hopkins 961.50 961.50 Total 3,009.50 3,645.25 1,800 (15% Allowable Floor Area) Floor Area Summary NOTE: Exempt 623 E Hopkins Sq. Ft.Reference Lower Level 1,522.75 Main Level 739.25 625 E Hopkins Sq. Ft. Main Level 421.75 627 E Hopkins Sq. Ft. Main Level 1 237.25 Main Level 2 724.25 Total Proposed Net Leaseable Area 3,645.25 Proposed Net Leaseable Area COUNTABLE NET LEASABLE LEGEND SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL NET LEASEABLE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL NET LEASEABLE PLAN 184 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 1 of 3 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue Historical Preservation Committee Review Engineering Comment Responses 05.21.2025 Kyla Smits | CFM | Project Manager City of Aspen Engineering Department Kyla.smits@aspen.gov 970.274.7244 Kyla, Below are the comments provided by the City of Aspen Engineering Department regarding the Historical Preservation Committee referral comments for 623 and 625 East Hopkins Avenue, in addition to comment responses in Orange provided by Crystal River Civil. Additional documents are provided with this submittal to clarify items discussed, and the concerns regarding the development have been addressed. UTILITIES TRANSFORMER 1. An easement is required for the 3-phase transformer on site. An easement has been added to the architectural drawings, allowing a 3’ perimeter around the transformer where feasible. Due to the existing structure, portions of this easement cannot meet the standard 3’ setback. Refer to the Architectural Site Plan included in this submittal. a. The City of Aspen Utility department is open to discussions about abandoning the current utility easement on the alley. All electric and communications utility entities need to acquiescence to the abandonment of this easement. Understood, Abandonment of the existing easement will be desired and will be discussed further during the permitting process. 2. No fencing, trash enclosure, or other hinderance is allowed anywhere within the prescriptive easement surrounding the transformer. The proposed trash enclosure presents a major hazard and blocks the transformer from being safely accessed. Another plan must be developed. a. Non-flammable material for the trash enclosure is required due to proximity to the transformer. Exhibit 16 185 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 2 of 3 All fencing and the trash enclosure have been removed from within the easement and have been updated to be non-flammable materials. See the updated Architectural Site Plan included with this submittal. WATER SERVICE LINES 1. The water service lines shown in the survey do not match the City’s tap map records. Potholing to confirm the utility alignment is required. The alignment as shown in the survey cannot remain when the basement is dug. A memo By CRC has been included with this submittal to discuss the process of confirming information on the existing water service and what process will be performed to bring the service up to standards 2. A basic proposed utility plan is required. As Discussed, given that the water service and the transformer easement are the only alterations in the site utilities, the Architectural Site Plan has been updated to reflect these changes. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANAYLSIS 1. The City no longer accepts TOP membership as a viable TDM measure as this program is at membership capacity. Another TDM measure must be selected. 2. The transportation department recommends the bus pass option as an additional TDM mitigation measure. 3. There are no identified minor MMLOS measures that can be completed by this project in the direct vicinity. Furthermore, it appears that one MMLOS measure and the two required TDM measures will be sufficient in mitigating the trips generated. Transport Impact Analysis Items have been addressed by the project’s planner. Please refer to documents provided by Bendon Adams for Traffic Impact Analysis Items. OTHER COMMENTS 1. Hydrodynamic separators are not a permitted WQCV treatment option. Why are the existing detention ponds not being utilized? There does not appear to be an expansion of impervious area, and these detention ponds should be maintained and reused if possible instead of adding infrastructure to the right of way. CRC had addressed a previous iteration of the design that impacted the existing detention ponds for the engineering report. Given that the currently proposed design maintains the existing detention pond locations, the existing system will be utilized and the hydraulic separator will not be proposed for the development. CRC has provided a memo discussing how the existing system will be repaired and updated as necessary to ensure the system is still adequate for water quality. 186 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 3 of 3 2. The trash enclosure doors may not intrude into the ROW. The doors should be sliding or there should be adequate room for the swinging motion within property limits. Trash enclosure doors have been updated and do not swing into the right-of-way. Please refer to the updated Architectural drawings. 3. The survey error of closure must be 1:15,000. The survey’s Error of Closure is 1:15,000 and is referred to in the notes within the survey provided. Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your promptness and clarity regarding this development. Please reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Jay Engstrom Owner and Principal Engineer, P.E. Crystal River Civil LLC jay@crystalrivercivil.com (970) 510 - 5312 187 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 1 of 1 623 and 625 E Hopkins Avenue Historical Preservation Committee Review Existing Stormwater System Memo 05.21.2025 Kyla Smits | CFM | Project Manager City of Aspen Engineering Department Kyla.smits@aspen.gov 970.274.7244 Kyla, This memo is regarding the utilization of the existing stormwater infrastructure for the proposed development at 623 and 625 East Hopkins. The current system has been designed previously by a civil engineer and was constructed just over 10 years ago. It was reviewed and approved by the City of Aspen to meet the standards of the City of Aspen URMP and is still considered to be compliant with the existing code. The proposed development will not impact the system, and the existing drainage patterns will remain. The detention ponds located on the western and eastern side of the property had been previously designed to provide Water Quality treatment for the entire site. Stormwater is collected within these ponds, and the capacity within the ponds were designed to meet the Water Quality Capture Volume, or WQCV, needed to meet the URMP. Flows exceeding the capacity of the ponds is released into the right-of-way, where it is collected by city infrastructure. Crystal River Civil (CRC) will provide an inspection of the existing system to verify that it has been maintained and is functioning as intended. If repairs are deemed necessary, documentation for the updates will be provided for the building permit submittal. Given the proximity of the proposed development, portions of the existing system may require replacement and repairs, if necessary, as disturbance of the system may occur from construction. This will also be addressed for building permit submittal by CRC, and documentation will be provided for review. Please reach out with any questions, Sincerely, Jay Engstrom Owner and Principal Engineer, P.E. Crystal River Civil LLC jay@crystalrivercivil.com (970) 510 - 5312 188 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 1 of 2 623 and 625 E Hopkins Avenue Historical Preservation Committee Review Water Service Verifications 05.21.2025 Kyla Smits | CFM | Project Manager City of Aspen Engineering Department Kyla.smits@aspen.gov 970.274.7244 Kyla, This letter is in response to concerns regarding the existing water service extending to 623 East Hopkins Avenue. There are several unknowns and conflicting documentation regarding the water services for the existing structures that will need to be clarified for the development. The site currently has two lines extending off the water main servicing 3 separate buildings, 623 625 and 627 East Hopkins. 625 has its own service that extends onto the property on the eastern side, tying directly into the existing structure. 623 and 627 have what appears to be a shared service extending from the right of way onto the property on the western side. Once it reaches the property, it is assumed that there is a tee, with a curb stop after the tee for each 623 and 627. The service for 627 extends along the western side of the property and continues past the 623 structure, directly into the 627 building. On the survey, the service for 623 extends from the curb stop along the northern side of the structure, around the east side of the structure and connects into the southeast corner of the building. Documentation from the City of Aspen shows the service tying directly from the curb stop directly into the northwest corner of the structure. To verify the size of each service and ensure the existing infrastructure is adequate. CRC proposes that the existing tee and curb stops for 623 and 627 are to be potholed prior to building permit submittal. Upon verification of the existing system, a new service for 623 will be provided from its curb stop to the proposed basement. This will match the existing documentation provided by the city and will tie into the northwest corner of the proposed basement. Service sizes will be considered and if additional alterations are necessary to the services, they will be addressed within the permit drawings. This will simplify the system and verify that the existing system is adequate, and formal documentation of the design will be documented and as-built for future reference. 189 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your review, and we look forward to working with you on this development for the building permit. Sincerely, Jay Engstrom Owner and Principal Engineer, P.E. Crystal River Civil LLC jay@crystalrivercivil.com (970) 510 - 5312 190 To: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer From: Patrick Dressler, Planner Technician Date: April 23, 2025 RE: 623 East Hopkins Avenue Zoning Comments - LPA-25-024 The following comments can be addressed at building permit. Staff performed an initial review to confirm that the proposal complies with the dimensional requirements of the zone district. There is available commercial floor area on the property. Refinement of floor area calculations will be needed at building permit. For zoning review, verification that 627 E. Hopkins Ave. is allowed 415 square feet of exempt garage area is required along with sections demonstrating the crawl space is less than six feet. a. Plan Sheets: G-200, G-202 b. Code Sections: i. 26.575.020.d.8- Garages and Carports ii. 26.575.020.d.4- Attic and Crawl Space See A-301 Updated Garage Area &FAR seen on G-202 191