Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20260722AGENDA ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION July 22, 2026 4:30 PM, City Council Chambers - 3rd Floor 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 I.SITE VISIT II.ROLL CALL III.MINUTES IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VII.PROJECT MONITORING VIII.STAFF COMMENTS IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED X.CALL UP REPORTS XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS XII.SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT XIII.OLD BUSINESS XIV.NEW BUSINESS XIV.A Resolution #14, Series of 2026 216 E Hallam Street - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development HPC site visit to 126 West Francis St. beginning at 12:00pm 1 1 XIV.B Resolution #15, Series of 2026 126 West Francis Street – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition, and Relocation XIV.C Ki Davis Fountain Temporary Modification - Public Projects Administrative Review, Request for HPC Comment XV.ADJOURN XVI.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER StaffReport_HPC Minor Development_216 E Hallam_LPA-26-042.pdf HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2026.pdf Attachment A_Application.pdf Attachment B_Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Analysis.pdf 126WFrancis.StaffReport.pdf HPC Resolution # 15 , Series of 2026.pdf Attachment A_Application.pdf Attachment B_Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Analysis.pdf Attachment C_Demolition Criteria.pdf Attachment D_Relocation Criteria.pdf Attachment E_Combined Referral Comments.pdf Ki Davis Temp Request Staff Report 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 2 2 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 3 3 STAFF REPORT TO: Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Harry Valentine-Wilson, Planner Technician THROUGH: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner Daniel Folke, Planning Director MEETING DATE: July 22nd, 2026 SUBJECT: Resolution #14, Series of 2026 216 E Hallam Street - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development ______________________________________________________________________ INTENDED OUTCOME: The request of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is to consider the following land use code review processes: • Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development (Section 26.415.070(c)) The HPC is the final review authority for the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development. The intended outcome for this request is to maintain the integrity of the historic resource, the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program, and align with Aspen’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and applicable code sections to the greatest extent possible. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide the HPC with details on the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and associated requests so the HPC can make an informed decision. Per Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.415.070(c), the HPC may approve, deny, or approve the application with conditions. The HPC may also continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 4 Overview of Project: The applicant is proposing to replace the existing cedar shingle roof of the historic resource with a Davinci synthetic composite shake roofing material made to look like wood. The application can be found in Attachment A. Figure 1 - Subject Parcel Outlined in Yellow. Staff Recommendation: Planning staff do not support the proposed replacement material as the applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines are not met. However, as staff understand the concern regarding fire safety, a draft resolution with conditions has been provided to allow the applicant to move forward with a more appropriate material. Staff also recognize that the existing roof style and height of the resource may result in the roof material being less perceptible from the right-of-way and may allow for more flexibility in meeting applicable guidelines. 5 DISCUSSION: Background The property at 216 East Hallam Street is an individually designated historic resource (Ordinance #34, Series of 1992) located in the West End of Aspen. The Victorian era building was constructed ca. 1888. Staff Comments: Overall, staff does not support the applicants’ request to replace the existing cedar shingle roof of the historic resource with the proposed DaVinci composite shake. However, staff recognize that given the style and height of the roof, it may be less recognizable from the right-of-way than other projects. Staff have provided a recommended condition of approval allowing an alternative roof material to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. Should the HPC not be agreeable this condition, staff recommend directing the applicant to replace the roof with an architectural asphalt shingle rather than the proposed synthetic shake. Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development - Section 26.415.070(c) The proposal to replace the existing cedar roof shingles with DaVinci composite Shake on the main house does not meet the Guidelines outlined in Chapter 2 and Chapter 7 of the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. Guideline 2.3 states that replacements should “match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces” and Guideline 2.4 states “Do not use synthetic building materials as replacements for original building materials. Guideline 7.7 states that “when replacement is necessary use a material that is similar to the original in both style and physical qualities” and Guideline 7.8 states that “replacement roof materials should maintain or restore the character of the historic roof.” Figure 3 – The Historic Resource as viewed from East Hallam Street Figure 2 – 1904 Sanborn Map with historic resource circled in red. 6 The proposed roofing material does not fully meet these applicable guidelines. Unlike the matte surface of real wood, the proposed plastic roofing product (Figure 5) appears to have a glossy surface. Rather than absorbing light like wood, the plastic finish tends to reflect light, giving the material a sheen unseen on the historic material it is intended to replicate. Although it may not be obvious to all observers that the proposed material is plastic, it is not similar enough to the existing wood shingles given the reflectivity, dimensions, texturing/striations, and the fact the proposed material is a shake and not a shingle, which is not present in Aspen’s historic context. Full analysis of the project as it relates to the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines can be found in Attachment B. Referral Comments: Staff did not refer the application to other City departments for comments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development and have provided the following conditions for consideration: 1. Applicant to submit an alternative roofing material that is more consistent with applicable guidelines. Material will be reviewed by staff and HPC monitor. Figure 4 - Proposed DaVinci Shake in “Aged Cedar” Figure 5 – Existing Cedar Shingle Roof 7 ATTACHMENTS: HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2026 Attachment A – Application Attachment B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Analysis 8 HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2026 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #14 (SERIES OF 2026) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MINOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 216 EAST HALLAM STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS D AND E, BLOCK 71, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, TOGETHER WITH THE PROPERTY DESCIRBED IN THE QUIET TITLE DECREE CASE NO. 02 CV 40 RECORDED AUGUST 5, 2002 AS RECEPTION NO. 470593, AND THE NORTHERLY HALF OF THE VACATED ALLEY SOUTHERLY THEREOF. ALL AS SHOWN ON THE FROST PROPERTY PLAT RECORDED APRIL 4, 2003 IN PLAT BOOK 65 AT PAGE 9 AS RECEPTION NO. 481018. COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-14-004 WHEREAS, the applicant, Daniel Waters, has requested HPC approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development for the property located at 216 East Hallam Street, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; 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(c) 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, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable code sections, standards, and guidelines, and, finding it inconsistent therewith, have provided a recommended condition of approval; and, WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting on July 22, 2026, the HPC reviewed the project, including the application, staff memo, and public comments, and voted X to X (X – X) in support of a motion to approve the request with conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION THAT: 9 HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2026 Page 2 of 3 Section 1: Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby approves a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development with the following condition(s): 1. Applicant to submit alternative roofing material that is more consistent with applicable guidelines. Material will be reviewed by staff and HPC monitor. 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 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: 10 HPC Resolution #14, Series of 2026 Page 3 of 3 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: 216 East Hallam Street. 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 22nd day of July, 2026. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: _____________________________ _____________________________ Luisa Violet Sondie Berne, Assistant City Attorney Kara Thompson, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Mike Sear, Deputy City Clerk 11 HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND USE PACKET- NO NEGATIVE EFFECT City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 For more info, visit https://www.aspen.gov/193/Historic-Preservation Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Location: _______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID #: ______________________________________________________________________________ PROJECT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ Fax#: ____________________ E-mail: _______________________ APPLICANT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Address: ________________________________________________________________________________ Phone # : _______________________ Fax#: ____________________ E-mail: _______________________ REPRESENTATIVE: ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Daniel Waters 216 East Hallam Aspen, CO 086112 (Parcel A lot H) R019111 Daniel Waters 216 East Hallam Aspen CO 81611 203-570-3322. dw@fppartners.com Existing wood shingle part of the roof needs to be replaced due to fire risk Replace with DiVince Aged Cedar Shake Roof - Class A fire rating 12 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND USE PACKET- NO NEGATIVE EFFECT City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 For more info, visit https://www.aspen.gov/193/Historic-Preservation 1. Contained within a letter signed by the applicant, the applicant’s name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 2. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. 3. A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current certificate from a Title insurance company, 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. 4. An 8 1/2” x 11” vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 5. A site plan depicting the proposed layout and the project’s physical relationship to the land and its surroundings. 6. A site improvement survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Director if the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review criteria and The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines relevant to the development application. 8. Additional materials, documentation, or reports as deemed necessary by the Community Development Director. 9. Completed Land Use Application Form, Signed Fee Agreement, and Fee. 10. Photographs, building material samples and other exhibits, as needed, to accurately depict location, extent and design of the proposed work. 11. Scaled elevations and/or drawings of the proposed work and its relationship to the designated historic buildings, structures, sites and features in its context. The following items must be provided for an application to be deemed complete. When no site changes are proposed, the requirement for a survey may be waived. If that is the case, contact City of Aspen Historic Preservation staff for a determination before submitting. Section 26.415.070.B of the Aspen Land Use Code provides additional detail on the application for a Certificate of No Negative Effect including review authority (Community Development Director), review procedures, associated development order issuance and sunset, and when necessary, procedures for review under the Historic Preservation Commission. Work considered for a Certificate of No Negative Effect generally needs to not affect or obscure the exterior appearance or character defining features of the building or structure – this includes replacements or repairs, restoration work, awnings or similar items, mechanical equipment, fencing, signage, alterations to non-primary facades, installation of site improvements such as sidewalks and patios, and alterations to non-contributing structures within the historic district. 13 LAND USE REVIEW POLICY HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND USE PACKET- NO NEGATIVE EFFECT City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 For more info, visit https://www.aspen.gov/193/Historic-Preservation The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) will also be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative – meaning an application with multiple flat fees must be pay the sum of those flat fee. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff may also charge their time spent on the case in addition to the case planner. Deposit amount may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the proMect is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee. The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant¶s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a proMect review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. ,n the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled, and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval all billing shall be again reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is  or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of  days or more may be subMect to additional actions as may be assigned by the 0unicipal Court -udge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development 2rder or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, and unpaid invoice of  days or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. 14 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2023 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place | (970) 920-5000 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Please type or print in all caps Property Owner Name: Representative Name (if different from Property Owner) Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: 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. $ϴϭ flat fee for Eo EeŐatiǀe ffect . $. 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: 216 East Hallam Daniel Waters 8 Copper Beech Road Greenwich CT 06830 dw@fppartners.com. 203-570-3322 15 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: ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel Waters dw@fppartners.com 203-570-3322 216 East Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 Replacing existing cedar wood shingled Roof 16 Daniel Waters 216 East Hallam – Roof Replacement 216 East Hallam Street / Aspen / Roof Replacement Project / DaVinci Multi-Width. - Protection of existing home and landscaping as necessary. - Remove existing cedar wood shingles roof system to original ice and water shield. - Existing standing seam roof at the two front porch, chimney counter flashing and all related roof flashing under wood siding or stone in remain as is (no replacement). - Inspect wood sheathing for water and/or structural damage. - Install high temperature ice and water shield over entire roof surface, two course valleys and transitions. - Custom fabricate and install 24 gauge coated style (D) drip edge, valley, wall, transition, and all roof related flashing (color TBD). - Strip in all drip edge, valley, wall, transition, and roof related flashing with high temperature ice and water shield. - Install Solar Hide over entire roof surface to meet class "A" fire assembly requirements. - Install 30# 18" felt underlayment, interlaced at each course of synthetic shakes at all low pitch roofs under 6/12 pitch as needed. - Install DaVinci Multi Width synthetic shakes over entire roof surface (color TBD). - Install DaVinci shakes with a 10" exposure, straight coursing to match existing. - Install all DaVinci roof system components, including stainless steel fasteners to meet DaVinci Roofscape specifications. - All chimney crickets to be 60 mil TPO single ply membrane, using fully adhered method. - Install all new steel penetration flashings. - Install DaVinci hip/ridge at all hip/ridge locations as needed. - Install TRA Apex-F style snow retention as needed by the building code. - Clean up and removal of all construction debris, including disposal fees. See DaVinci Aged Cedar Shake Picture Below 17 18 216 East Hallam, Aspen, Colorado 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Subject: Roofing Material Determination – Enviroshake vs. DaVinci Composite Shake Property: 216 E Hallam, Aspen, CO To the Historic Preservation Commission, Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the proposed roof replacement at 216 E Hallam, Aspen, Colorado. We appreciate the Commission’s role in preserving Aspen’s architectural integrity and are committed to supporting both aesthetic and performance standards for this project. As part of the review process, we would like to clarify that the proposed roofing assembly submitted to the City of Aspen was specifically for DaVinci composite shake . In response to that submission, we received the following confirmation: “The proposed assembly would be approved. Thank you for sending the documents. Let me know if you have any other questions at any point.” — Sean, City of Aspen This correspondence confirms that the DaVinci roofing system itself has already been reviewed and deemed approvable at the City level. That said, Umbrella Roofing must formally express strong concerns regarding the use of Enviroshake roofing products. Based on both industry feedback and contractor experience, Enviroshake has demonstrated performance concerns that are not well-suited for Aspen’s alpine environment. These include premature material degradation, inconsistencies in product quality, and susc eptibility to cracking and warping under temperature extremes. In a climate defined by intense UV exposure, heavy snow loads, and repeated freeze-thaw cycles, these risks are significantly amplified. Additionally, Enviroshake is a Canadian -manufactured product, which can introduce complications related to warranty processing, material replacement timelines, and overall service responsiveness. Cross-border coordination may lead to delays or limitations in support, which is a critical consideration for long-term roofing performance in this region. For these reasons, Umbrella Roofing does not install Enviroshake products. This is a firm company policy based on our responsibility to provide roofing systems we can confidently warrant, service, and stand behind overtime. 43 In contrast, DaVinci composite shake roofing is our primary composite product and has been extensively installed throughout Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley with proven success. We have consistently seen reliable performance from this material in the exact environmental conditions this property will face. By way of reference, the following Aspen properties feature DaVinci Multi -Width Shake installations completed by Umbrella Roofing: • 42 Northway Dr. • 610 S Riverside Ave. • 1103 Waters Ave. • 74 Pfister Dr. • 26 S Willow Ct. DaVinci products offer: • Class A fire rating, critical in wildfire-prone areas • Proven durability in high-altitude and high -UV environments • Resistance to impact, moisture, and thermal movement • Consistent manufacturing quality and strong warranty support • An authentic cedar shake appearance appropriate for historic applications We firmly stand behind DaVinci composite shake as a roofing solution that meets both the aesthetic expectations of the Historic Preservation Commission and the functional demands of Aspen’s climate. Based on our professional experience and responsibility to the homeowner, we strongly recommend approval of the originally submitted DaVinci composite shake roofing system in lieu of Enviroshake for this project. We respectfully request approval of the originally submitted DaVinci system, consistent with prior City guidance. We are available to provide material samples, site visits to completed installations, or any additional information to assist with your review . Deric Barton 970-309-7823 deric@umbrella-roofing.com 44 Umbrella Roofing, Inc. Apr 10, 2026 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Cover Page 1 / 89496 / 216 East Hallam Street - Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street,…45 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado This document includes photographic exhibits depicting the existing conditions of the roof at 216 E Hallam Street. The images illustrate: • Existing cedar shake roofing material • Roof layout, pitch, and architectural features • Current material condition and weathering • Snow load and environmental exposure typical of Aspen conditions These photographs are intended to accurately represent the location, extent, and design of the existing roof, which is proposed to be replaced in-kind with a visually consistent DaVinci Multi-Width Composite Shake roofing system. Additional exhibits include manufacturer information and material samples to demonstrate the proposed roofing material. 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 2 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street46 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 Front of Home - Street View Rear of Home - Yard View Rear of Home - Alley Side Rear of Home - Alley Side 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 3 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street47 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 Rear of Home - Alley Side Left Rear of Home - Alley Side Rear of Home – Yard View Rear of Home – Yard View 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 4 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street48 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 Deck Above Back Side Deck Above Back Side Deck Above Back Side Deck Above Back Side 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 5 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street49 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 Deck Above Back Side Deck Above Back Side Deck Above Back Side Deck Above Back Side 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 6 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street50 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 Deck Above Back Side Left Rear Alley Side Ridge Cap Ridge Cap 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 7 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street51 Item #10 – Supporting Exhibits 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado Apr 10, 2026 Front of House from Street 216 E Hallam Street, Aspen, Colorado 8 / 8 9496 / 216 East Hallam Street52 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 1 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org www.qai.org QAI LABORATORIES LOS ANGELES | TULSA | MIAMI | TORONTO | VANCOUVER | SEOUL | SHANGHAI PUBLISHED: REVISED: EXPIRATION: June 2025 June 2025 June 2028 PRODUCT: DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings REPORT HOLDER: Westlake Davinci Roofscapes, LLC CONTACT DETAILS: 13890 W 101st Street Lenexa, Kansas 66215 USA https://www.davinciroofscapes.com CSI DIVISION: 07 00 00 - Thermal and Moisture Protection CSI SECTION: 07 32 26 – Plastic Roof Tiles APPLICABLE CODES: 2024, 2021, 2018, 2015 International Building Code (IBC) 2024, 2021, 2018, 2015 International Residential Code (IRC) 2022 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 (CBC) EVALUATED: Weather Resistance Wind Resistance Roof Fire-Classification Hail-Impact Resistance CODE EVALUATION REPORT CERUS-1049 53 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 2 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 1.0 APPROVED FOR FOLLOWING: APPROVED TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION: Type I-V/ AB APPROVED USE: Roof coverings for use in Class A, Class B and Class C roof assemblies. APPROVED INSTALLATIONS: New and existing roofs, including fire-classified assemblies as detailed in Section 4 of this report, including areas prone to hail impact. 2.0 DESCRIPTION: 2.1 General: DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Covering products are composite polymeric-based roof coverings including accessories molded from proprietary formulations to create the look of natural slate and cedar roof tiles for use on roof slopes ≥ 3:12 (25%). DaVinci roofing products are durable exterior roof coverings available in various colors. When installed in accordance with Table 3 of this report DaVinci roofing systems provide Class A, Class B or Class C roof fire classified assemblies as determined in accordance with Section 1505 of the 2024 / 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IBC and Section R902.1 of the 2024 / 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IRC. DaVinci roofing products have a Class 4 resistance to hail and impact when evaluated in accordance with UL 2218 as outlined in Table 4 of this report. DaVinci roofing products have a spontaneous ignition temperature ≥ 650oF (343oC) when tested to ASTM D1929 and are classified as CC2 when tested to ASTM D635. DaVinci roofing products comply as an alternative to prescribed roof coverings. See Table 1 below for recognized models of DaVinci roofing products. See Figures 2 through 6 in Section 9 of this report for drawings of the products listed in Table 1. 54 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 3 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org Table 1. DAVINCI ROOF COVERING PRODUCT DIMENSIONS PRODUCT LENGTH WIDTH INSTALLED EXPOSURE INSTALLED WEIGHT inches mm inches mm inches mm lbs/ft2 kg/m2 Slate DaVinci 18 457 6 152 6 152 3.5 17.3 7 178 7 178 3.0 14.8 9 229 7.5 191 2.8 13.8 10 254 8 203 2.7 13.0 12 305 Province 11.5 292 12.5 318 8 203 2.0 9.9 Shake DaVinci 22 559 4 102 9 229 3.4 16.6 6 152 10 254 3.1 15.1 7 178 8 203 9 229 Fancy1 18 457 5 127 5 127 4.2 20.3 7 178 6 152 3.5 16.9 12 305 Select 22 559 8 203 9 229 3.3 15.9 10 254 10 254 2.9 14.3 Inspire Slate Classic A 18 432 12 305 6 152 2.8 13.9 7.5 191 2.3 11.1 Classic C 18 432 12 305 6 152 3.0 14.5 7.5 191 2.4 11.6 Note 1: Fancy products are provided in a Diamond and Beaver Tail profiles. DaVinci roofing products have various accessory elements including starter tiles, preformed hip/ridge caps, rake, bullnose, closure pieces, and solid back tiles. DaVinci roofing products comply as roof coverings, including roof-fire classified Class A, Class B, and Class C in accordance with Section 1505 of the 2022 CBC when installed in accordance with this report. See Section 10 of this report for further details. 2.2 PRODUCTS 2.2.1 DAVINCI SLATE (MULTI-WIDTH / SINGLE-WIDTH): DaVinci Slate Multi-Width and Single-Width products are supplied with dimensions of 18 inches (457 mm) length and various width options with installed weights as outlined in Table 1 of this report. DaVinci Slate products are molded to create natural slate style finish available in a variety of colors. Multi-width installations include a mix of the various width tiles. Single-width installations include 12- inch (305 mm) width tiles only. 2.2.2 DAVINCI SHAKE (MULTI-WIDTH / SINGLE-WIDTH, FANCY, SELECT SHAKE): DaVinci Shake products are supplied with dimensions of 22 inches (559 mm) (DaVinci and Select) or 18 inches (457 mm) (Fancy) lengths and various width options with installed weights as outlined in Table 1 of this report. Shake products are molded to create a wood shake style finish available in a variety of colors. Multi-width installations include a mix of the various width tiles. Single-width installations include 9-inch (229 mm) width tiles only. 55 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 4 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 2.2.3 PROVINCE SLATE: Province Slate products are supplied with dimensions of 11.5 inches (292 mm) length and 12 inches (305 mm) width. Province Slate and products are molded to create natural slate style finish and are available in a variety of colors. 2.2.4 INSPIRE CLASSIC SLATE: Inspire Classic products are available in Class A, and Class C product formulations. Inspire Classic are supplied in dimensions of 18 inches (432 mm) length x 12 inches (305 mm) width with installed weights as outlined in Table 1 of this report. Inspire Classic are molded to create a natural slate tile style finish. Inspire Classic products are available in a variety of colors. 3.0 DESIGN: DaVinci roofing products are intended for installation over code complying roof sheathings and underlayment. Use of DaVinci roofing products do not require professional design when installed in accordance with Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this report. Use in applications outside those described in this report requires approval by the authority having jurisdiction. DaVinci roofing products are intended for use as the finished roof covering on new and over existing construction where existing roof coverings have been removed in accordance with Section 4.2 and 4.3 of this report as applicable. DaVinci roofing products are recognized for use in areas of maximum wind uplift for installations as outlined in Section 8.1 Table 2 of this report. Use of DaVinci roofing products in applications of wind resistance greater than those described in the respective supplemental engineering documents cited in Section 8.1 are outside the scope of this report and requires approval by the authority having jurisdiction. When used in applications requiring fire classified roof assemblies, installation shall be in accordance with Section 4.4 and Table 3 of this report. When installed in areas defined as hail-prone, installation shall be in accordance with Section 4.5 and Table 4 of this report for the hail-impact classification levels described. 56 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 5 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 4.0 INSTALLATIONS: 4.1 General: Installation of DaVinci roofing products must comply with the manufacturer’s published installation instructions, this report, and the applicable code(s). Where differences are found, this report and the applicable building code shall be followed. DaVinci roofing products require installation over solid wood panel or lumber sheathing. Sheathing thickness, type and attachment of the roofing shakes and slates to sheathing is to be in accordance with applicable code and Table 2 found in Section 8.1 of this report. Attachment of the sheathing to underlying framing elements shall be in accordance with applicable code and sufficient to resist service wind loads. Roof slopes are to be ≥ 3:12 (25%) slope. Fasteners used for attachment of DaVinci roofing products are to be corrosion resistant complying with the applicable code and Table 2 Section 8.1 of this report for resistance to uplift. Flashing, counterflashing, and valley flashing shall be sheet metal complying with the applicable code, where the sheet metal is G90 galvanized of minimum 0.0179 inches (0.455 mm) uncoated thickness. Valley flashing shall be a minimum 15 inches (381 mm) wide sheet metal of minimum 0.0179 inches (0.455 mm) uncoated thickness. Flashing including fasteners shall not be in contact with dissimilar metals to avoid corrosion. Flashing shall prevent moisture from entering the wall and roof in accordance with Section 1503.2 of the 2024 / 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IBC and Section R903.2 of the 2024 / 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IRC. While not required, drip edge flashings and rake edge flashings are recommended installed with good roofing practice. 4.1.1 Underlayment: Underlayment must comply with and be installed in accordance with the applicable code and the manufacturer’s published installation instructions. For fire-classified roof assemblies underlayment shall be installed in accordance with Section 4.4 and Table 3 of this report. 4.1.1.1 Ice Barriers: In areas where there is potential for or has been a history of ice forming along eaves causing the backup of water an ice barrier is required. The ice barrier may consist of: a)Two layers of ASTM D226 Type I, ASTM D4869 Type I or ASTM D6757 underlayment cemented together, or, b)A self-adhering polymer modified bitumen sheet complying to ASTM D1970. Alternate ice barriers are outside the scope of this report but may be used where approved by the authority having jurisdiction. The ice barrier shall be used in place of the normal underlayment, extending from the lowest edges of all roof surfaces to a point at least 24 inches (610 mm) inside the exterior wall line of the structure. Attachment and overlapping of the ice barrier and underlayment are outside the scope of this report and is to be in accordance with the applicable code and the ice barrier manufacturer’s published installation instructions. 57 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 6 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 4.2 New Construction: Starter tiles are installed with a 1-inch (25 mm) overhang at the gable end fascia board and ½ inch (13 mm) overhang at eaves fascia boards across the roof deck, however, the overhang can be reduced where use of Style D or Style F drip edge flashings are used where necessary to accommodate gutter systems. Following, DaVinci products are installed at the exposures described in Table 1 of this report, with tile joints staggered between alternating rows and a 3/8-inch (10 mm) keyway spacing between adjacent tiles to allow for expansion in warm weather. Approved fasteners as outlined in Table 2 found in Section 8.2 are installed through designated fastener locators on the respective product as illustrated in Figures 2 through 6 found in Section 9 of this report. Upon reaching the roof peak, the last row of tiles are trimmed flush with the peak to accommodate the ridge and hip caps. All penetrations and chimneys are to be flashed in accordance with the appropriate code to prevent water ingress with compatible sheet metal complying with Section 4.1 of this report. Ridge caps, hip caps and valleys are to be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the applicable codes. 4.3 Reroofing Applications: DaVinci products are not intended for installation over existing roof systems. Existing roof coverings and underlayment are to be removed, and the underlying roof sheathing and penetrations as appropriate are to be inspected to ensure the roof structure is free of rot and damage prior to installation of DaVinci products. All past existing roof coverings shall be completely removed, following all installation conditions noted in Section 4.1 and 4.2 shall apply. 4.4. Roof Fire Classified Assemblies: DaVinci roofing products comply for use in Class A, Class B or Class C roof-assemblies per the 2024 / 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IBC Section 1505.1 and 2024 / 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IRC Section R902.1 when installed in accordance with Section 8.2 Table 3 of this report, respectively. 4.5 Hail-Impact Resistant Assemblies: DaVinci roofing products installed in accordance with Section 8.3 Table 4 of this report are Class IV impact resistance rated evaluated following UL 2218. 5.0 LIMITATIONS •Installation of DaVinci roofing products are to comply with the applicable codes, this report and the manufacturer’s installation instructions. Where differences are found, the applicable code and this report govern. •DaVinci roofing products are intended for use on roof slopes 3:12 (25%) or greater. •DaVinci roofing products are recognized for use in areas where maximum uplift pressures are as stated in Section 3.0 and Section 8.1 Table 2 of this report. Use in applications greater than those stated require design by a registered design professional and approval by the authority having jurisdiction. •DaVinci roofing products used in Class A, Class B or Class C roof-assemblies are to be installed in accordance with Sections 4.4 and 8.2 Table 3 of this report. •DaVinci roofing products used in hail-prone areas are to be installed in accordance with Sections 4.5 and 8.3, Table 4 of this report. •DaVinci roofing products are manufactured in Lenexa, KS and Metamora, MI with inspections by QAI Laboratories. 58 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 7 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 6.0 SUPPORTING INFORMATION: The following data has been evaluated for DaVinci roofing products: o Data for use in roof fire classified assemblies determined in accordance with ASTM E108. o Data outlining < 10% loss of tensile strength after aging to ASTM G155 or 4500 hours. o Data outlining CC2 rate of burning determined in accordance with ASTM D635. o Data outlining spontaneous ignition temperature > 650oF (343oC) determined in accordance with ASTM D1929. o Data for Wind Uplift evaluated in accordance with TAS 125 and / or UL 580. o Data outlining compliance for wind driven rain per TAS 100. o Data for outlining Class IV (Class 4) impact resistance per UL 2218. o Data outlining compliance with ICC-ES AC07. o Wind uplift determinations in accordance with ASCE 7. 7.0 MARKINGS: Finished DaVinci roofing products are either direct stamped, or labeled with the following information: •DaVinci company name. •Product name. •Location of manufacture •QAI CERUS-1049 •QAI certification logo shown below: Figure 1. Information Included on DaVinci Products 59 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: June 2025 Expiration: June 2028 Page 8 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 8.0 RATINGS: 8.1 Wind Uplift Resistance: Table 2 – Maximum Allowable Wind Uplift Pressures on Roofing Panels1,2 PRODUCT SHEATHING3,4 MAXIMUM EXPOSURE inches (mm) INSTALLATION5 Allowable Pressure6,7, ASD psf (kPa) Davinci Slate Minimum 7/16-inch- thick (11 mm) wood structural panel. 8 (203) Minimum two (2) 1-3/4-inches (44 mm) length 11- gauge (3 mm) ring shank roofing nails per shingle. 65 (3.1) Davinci Shake Minimum 7/16-inch- thick (11 mm) wood structural panel. 10 (254) Minimum two (2) 1-3/4-inches (44 mm) length 11- gauge (3 mm) ring shank roofing nails per shingle. 71 (3.4) Select Shake Minimum 7/16-inch- thick (11 mm) wood structural panel. 10 (254) Minimum two (2) 1-3/4-inches (44 mm) length 11- gauge (3 mm) ring shank roofing nails per shingle. 73 (3.5) Fancy Shake Minimum 7/16-inch- thick (11 mm) wood structural panel. 6 (152) Minimum two (2) 1-3/4-inches (44 mm) length 11- gauge (3 mm) ring shank roofing nails per shingle. 105 (5.0) Inspire Classic Minimum 7/16-inch- thick (11 mm) wood structural panel. 7.5 (191) Minimum two (2) 1-3/4-inches (44 mm) length 11- gauge (3 mm) ring shank roofing nails per shingle. 82 (3.9) Province Slate Minimum 7/16-inch- thick (11 mm) wood structural panel. 8 (203) Minimum four (4) 1-3/4-inches (44 mm) length 11- gauge (3 mm) ring shank roofing nails per shingle. 89 (4.3) 1.Referenced allowable pressures are determined by Boca Engineering Co. Report No. 0064-15-4-5985 issued 2025-03-06 that contains these base installations and additional assemblies detail options, inclusive of corresponding wind pressure and wind speeds determined in accordance with ASCE 7-22 for various building types up to 60 ft (18.3 m) height, which are included as a supplement to this report and recognized as solutions in accordance with the referenced codes. 2.Installation of the noted assemblies is to be in accordance with the manufacturer’s published installation instructions, this report and the applicable code. 3.Wood structural sheathing is to comply with the applicable code for use as roof sheathing. Wood structural sheathing can be substituted with solid lumber of minimum nominal 1 -inch (25 mm) thickness. 4.Attachment of framing to structure and sheathing to framing for resisting the applicable service loads is to be in accordance with the applicable code and is outside the scope of this report. 5.All fasteners are to be corrosion-resistant per the applicable code. Nails are 11-gauge (3 mm) 1.75-inch galvanized ring-shank roofing nail complying with ASTM F1667. Noted ring shank nails can be substituted with #10 x 2-inch (51 mm) length wafer or washer head galvanized screws complying with ASME B18.6.1. 6.Allowable pressures based of tested assemblies’ ultimate pressure with a factor of safety of 2.0 applied. 7.To convert to Factored Design Resistance Pressure (psf) (LRFD), multiply Allowable Pressure (psf) (ASD) by 1.67. 60 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: July 2024 Expiration: July 2027 Page 9 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 8.2 Roof Fire Classified Assemblies: Table 3 – Roof Fire Classified Assemblies1 SYSTEM NUMBER MINIMUM SHEATHING2 APPROVED UNDERLAYMENT3,4 APPROVED5 COVERING(s) MAXIMUM EXPOSURE (in) (mm) MAXIMUM SLOPE CLASS 1 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood Any Approved Underlayment Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake Province Slate Inspire Classic A or C 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) 8 (203) 7.5 (191) Unlimited C 2 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layer Eco Chief Solarhide™ Optional, 1 base layer of ASTM D1970 peel-and-stick Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake Province Slate Inspire Classic A 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) 8 (203) 7.5 (191) Unlimited A 3 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layer 30 lbs ASTM D226 Type II felt covered with 1 layer 0.1’’ (2.5 mm) thickness ASTM D3909 capstock Optional, 1 base layer of ASTM D1970 peel-and-stick Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake Province Slate 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) 8 (203) 7.5 (191) Unlimited A 4 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 2 layers Fontana VulcaSeal G40 Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake Province Slate 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) 8 (203) 7.5 (191) Unlimited A 5 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layer ELK VersaShield™ Optional, 1 base layer of ASTM D1970 peel-and-stick Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) Unlimited A 6 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layer of 30 lbs (13.6 kg) ASTM D226 Type II or 2 layers of 15 lbs (6.8 kg) ASTM D226 Type I felt Optional, 1 base layer of ASTM D1970 peel-and-stick Davinci Slate 6 (152) Unlimited A 7 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layer Fontana VulcaSeal G40 Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) Unlimited A 61 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: July 2024 Expiration: July 2027 Page 10 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org Table 3 – Roof Fire Classified Assemblies Continued SYSTEM NUMBER MINIMUM SHEATHING2 APPROVED UNDERLAYMENT3,4 APPROVED5 COVERING(s) MAXIMUM EXPOSURE MAXIMUM SLOPE CLASS 8 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 2 layers of MB Technology Layfast TU35 lbs SBS Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake 7 (178) 10 (254) 10 (254) Unlimited A 9 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layers of MB Technology Layfast TU35 lbs SBS Fancy Shake Diamond/Beaver Shake 8 (203) 5 (127) Unlimited A 10 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 1 layer of Grace Ice/Water Shield 200 with 1 layer Soprema Self-Adhered Cap Sheet Fancy Shake Diamond/Beaver Shake 7 (178) 5 (127) Unlimited A 11 7/16’’ (11 mm) Exposure 1 Oriented Strand Board (OSB) 1 layer Eco Chief Solarhide™ Optional, 1 base layer of ASTM D1970 peel-and-stick Davinci Slate 8 (203) Unlimited A 12 7/16’’ (11 mm) Exposure 1 OSB 2 layers of PolyGlass Polystick XFR Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) Unlimited A 13 7/16’’ (11 mm) Exposure 1 OSB 1 layer Eco Chief Solarhide™ Optional, 1 base layer of ASTM D1970 peel-and-stick Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake Province Slate Inspire Classic A 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) 8 (203) 7.5 (191) Unlimited B 14 15/32’’ (12 mm) Exposure 1 Plywood 2 layers 30 lbs (13.6 kg) ASTM D226 Type II felt Davinci Slate Davinci Shake Select Shake Province Slate 8 (203) 10 (254) 10 (254) 8 (203) 7.5 (191) Unlimited B 1. Assemblies referenced are outlined in QAI certification file B1050-1 for Westlake DaVinci, Roofscapes, LLC. For the most up to date roof-fire classified assemblies, please visit www.qai.org. 2. Wood structural panels noted are to comply with the applicable code specifications for use as wood roof sheathing for product wood sheathing type. 3. Underlayment is to comply with the applicable code and / or product type shown, bearing the mark of an accredited certificati on body for compliance to the applicable code. 4. Installation of underlayment to sheathing is to comply with the applicable manufacturer installation instructions and the applicable code, including overl apping end lap minimums. 5. Product sub-models included within each respective listing: Where Davinci Slate is named, it allows for all Single-width and multi-width installations. Where Davinci Shake is named, it allows for all Single-width and multi-width installations, and, for Fancy Shake at maximum 8” exposure, or Fancy Diamond or Fancy Beaver Tail at maximum 5” exposure. 62 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: July 2024 Expiration: July 2027 Page 11 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 8.3 Hail Impact Resistant Assemblies: Table 4 – Impact Rated Assemblies Substrate Approved Underlayment Approved Roof Coverings Installation Guidelines Hail-Impact Classification1 Minimum 15/32-inch- thick plywood Unrestricted Shake Slate Select Shake Fancy Shake Diamond/Beaver Shake Province Slate Inspire Classic A & C See Sections 2.2. 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 Class IV (Class 4) Note 1: Hail-impact classification determined in accordance with UL 2218. 63 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: April 2025 Expiration: April 2028 Page 11 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 9.0 PRODUCT DETAILS: 9.1 Profile Drawings Figure 2. DaVinci Shake Product Drawings Figure 3. DaVinci Slate Product Drawings Figure 4. DaVinci Select Shake Product Drawings Figure 5. DaVinci Fancy Shake Product Drawings 64 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: April 2025 Expiration: April 2028 Page 12 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org Figure 6. Inspire Classic Slate Product Drawings Figure 7. DaVinci Province Slate Product Drawings 65 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: April 2025 Expiration: April 2028 Page 13 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 10.0 SUPPLEMENTAL CODES 10.1 2022 California Building Code: DaVinci roofing products comply with the requirements of Section 1505.2, 1505.3 and 1505.4 of the 2022 CBC for Class A, Class B and Class C fire-classified roof assemblies respectively as outlined in Sections 2 through 8 of this report. Where used in areas identified by the state as a Fire Hazard Severity Zone or any Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) designated by the enforcing agency, DaVinci roofing products are approved for use as Class A rated assemblies evaluated in accordance with ASTM E108 when installed in accordance with the respective Class A assembly outlined in Table 3 Section 8.2 of this report. 66 DaVinci Slate, DaVinci Shake, DaVinci Select Shake, Province Slate, and Inspire Classic Slate Roof Coverings CERus-1049 Revision: April 2025 Expiration: April 2028 Page 14 of 15 CODE EVALUATION REPORT WWW.QAI.ORG info@qai.org 11.0 ELIGIBILITY OF REPORT QAI’s Code Evaluation Report complies with the 2024 Section 104.2.3 and 2021 / 2018 / 2015 IBC Section 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment subsection 104.11.1 Research Reports. QAI’s Code Evaluation Report complies with the 2024 IBC Section 104.2.3.6.1 Evaluation Reports. Supporting data has been evaluated by QAI for compliance of the noted materials and assemblies to the applicable code by QAI, and approved source as detailed below. Per section 1703 of the IBC, QAI is an independent third-party testing, inspection and certification agency accredited by the International Accreditation Service, Inc. (IAS) for this specific scope (see IAS PCA-118). QAI can confirm that based on its IAS accreditation it meets IBC Section 1703.1 on Independence, Section 1703.1.2 on Equipment and Section 1703.1 on Personnel. This Evaluation report has been designed to meet the performance requirements of IBC Section 1703.4 and contains the required information to show the product, material or assembly meets the applicable code requirements. The product is labeled per section IBC 1703 and subject to follow -up inspection per IBC 1703.6 using QAI IAS accredited ISO/IEC 17020 inspection program (see IAS AA-723). For more information regarding QAI Laboratories, please visit www.qai.org. The above is an example of the QAI registered Listing mark. The Listing mark may only be used by the Report Holder per the QAI service agreement on products defined in this report. The ‘us’ indicator in the 4 o’clock position indicates the product complies with the properties evaluated with limitations outlined in this report for use in the US market. A ‘c’ indicator in the 8 o’clock position indicates the product has been evaluated for use in the Canadian market. 11.0 REFERENCED STANDARDS ASTM E108 Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Roof Coverings. ASTM G155 Standard Practice for Operating Xenon Arc Light Apparatus for Exposure of Non-Metallic Materials. ASTM D635 Test Method for Rate of Burning and/or Extent and Time of Burning of Plastics in a Horizontal Position . ASTM D1929 Test Method for Determining Ignition Temperature of Plastics. TAS 125 Standard Requirements for Metal Roofing Systems. UL 580 Safety Testing for Uplift Resistance of Roof Assemblies. TAS 100 Test Procedure for Wind and Wind Driven Rain Resistance of Discontinuous Roof Systems. UL 2218 Standard for Safety Impact Resistance of prepared Roof Covering Materials . ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 67 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 1 of 4 Polymer Roofing Tiles May 24, 2010 1. CHEMICAL PRODUCT AND COMPANY IDENTIFICATION Product Name: Polymer Roofing Tiles Product Description: DaVinci Roofscapes has manufactured award-winning synthetic slate and shake roofing since 1999. The polymer roofing tiles are virtually maintenance free and far more cost effective than the natural product. DaVinci leads the industry in tile thickness, the tile width variety and the greatest selection of subtle earth-toned colors. Company products have a 50-year warranty and are 100 percent recyclable. DaVinci proudly makes its products in America and is a member of the National Association of Home Builders, the Cool Roof Rating Council and the U.S. Green Building Council. For additional information call 1-800-328-4624 or visit. www.davinciroofscapes.com. Company Identification: DaVinci Roofscapes, LLC 1413 Osage Avenue Kansas City, KS 66105 800-328-4624 Toll Free 913-599-0766 913-599-0065 Fax 2. COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS: Chemical Name CAS# Percent ACGIH TLV OSHA PEL Polyethylene Homopolymer 9002-88-4 15 – 20% NE NE Copolymer Proprietary 20 – 25% NE NE Calcium Carbonate 1317-65-3 55 – 60% 10 mg/m³ Total 15 mg/m³ Total Each of the other components present are less than 1 percent concentration or less than 0.1% concentration for potential carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or respiratory tract sensitizers NE = Not Established NOTE: This product is classified as an “article” according to Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, OSHA Part 1910.1200. “Article means a manufactured item other than a fluid or particle, which is formed to a specific shape or design during manufacture which has end use function dependent in whole or in part upon its shape or design during end use, and which under normal conditions of use does not release more than very small quantities or trace amounts of a hazardous chemical, and does not pose a physical hazard or health risk to employees.” This product is odorless, stable, and poses no immediate hazard to health. However, respiratory, hand and eye protection may be needed to prevent excess exposure to airborne particulates if dust is produced by cutting, sanding, grinding or if dust is produced by any other operation. These dusts may be harmful if inhaled. HAZARDS DISCLOSURE: This product does not contain known hazardous materials as defined by the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard 29 CFR 1910.1200. As defined under Sara 311 and 312, this product does not contain known hazardous materials. 68 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 2 of 4 Polymer Roofing Tiles May 24, 2010 3. HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION EMERGENCY OVERVIEW – Non-hazardous PRODUCT when used as intended. NFPA Rating: Health - 0, Flammability - 0, Reactivity - 0 NFPA Definitions: (0-Least, 1-Slight, 2-Moderate, 3-High, 4-Extreme). Potential Health Effects Inhalation: This product does not represent an inhalation hazard. However, dust produced by cutting, sanding, grinding or if dust is produced by any other operation may irritate respiratory tract. Ingestion: This product does not represent an ingestion hazard. Skin Contact: Dust may irritate skin on prolonged or repeated contact. Eye Contact: Dust produced by cutting, sanding, grinding or if dust is produced by any other operation may irritate eyes. Chronic Exposure: No Chronic effects known or reported Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions: None known. Carcinogenicity: This product and its components are not listed by the NTP, IARC, or regulated by OSHA as carcinogens. 4. FIRST AID MEASURES Inhalation: Not expected as a result of exposure to this product. However, if breathing becomes difficult remove individual to fresh air. If breathing difficulty continues seek medical attention. Ingestion: Not expected as a result of exposure this product. Skin Contact: Wash skin with water after handling this product. Eye Contact: Not expected as a result of exposure to this product. If dust from this product enters the eyes , flush with plenty of water. If irritation persists seek medical attention. 5. FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES Flash Point (PMCC): Not Applicable Auto-ignition temperature: >340ºC (650ºF) Flammable limits in air % by volume: LEL: NA UEL: NA Explosion: None Fire Extinguishing Media: Use any means suitable for extinguishing surrounding fire. Special Fire Fighting Procedures: In the event of a fire, wear full protective clothing and NIOSH- approved self-contained breathing apparatus with full facepiece operated in the pressure demand or other positive pressure mode. 6. ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES Pick-up for re-use or recycle. 7. HANDLING AND STORAGE HANDLING (PERSONNEL): Handle in accordance with good hygiene and safety procedures. STORAGE PRECAUTIONS: None Established. 8. EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION Airborne Exposure Limits: General Dust exposure Limits apply Ventilation System: No special ventilation required. Personal Respirators (NIOSH Approved): None required. 69 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 3 of 4 Polymer Roofing Tiles May 24, 2010 Skin Protection: Observe good industrial hygiene practices. Eye Protection: Use Good safety practices. 9. PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES FORM: Solid COLOR: Varies ODOR: Odorless SPECIFIC GRAVITY: N/A SOLUBILITY IN WATER: None PH: N/A MELTING/FREEZING POINT: N/A BOILING POINT: N/A EVAPORATION RATE (BuAc=1): N/A VISCOSITY: N/A AUTOIGNITION TEMPERATURE: N/A VAPOR DENSITY (Air=1): N/A % VOLATILES BY VOLUME @ 21°C (70°F): N/A VAPOR PRESSURE (mm Hg): N/A VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOC #/gal): N/A 10. STABILITY AND REACTIVITY Stability: Stable under ordinary conditions of use and storage. Hazardous Decomposition Products: Combustion may generate carbon monoxide, olefinic and paraffinic compounds. Hazardous Polymerization: Will not occur. Incompatibilities: Strong oxidizers Conditions to Avoid: Excessive heat, sparks and flame. 11. TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION Toxicity Data: No known health effects connected with long term use or contact with these products. Cancer Lists ---NTP Carcinogen--- Ingredient Known Anticipated IARC Category All Components No No None 12. ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION Environmental Fate: No Data Available Environmental Toxicity: No Data Available 13. DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS Dispose of in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. 14. TRANSPORTATION INFORMATION Domestic (Land, D.O.T.) International (Water, I.M.O. & Air, I.C.A.O.) SHIPPING NAME: Non-Regulated Material PRODUCT LABEL: Polymer Roof Tiles UN NUMBER: N/A ADR: N/A IMO CLASS: N/A D.O.T. HAZARD CLASS: N/A PACKING GROUP: N/A ERG #: N/A 70 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET Page 4 of 4 Polymer Roofing Tiles May 24, 2010 Max container size for Air Shipments: N/A 15. REGULATORY INFORMATION Federal, State & International Regulations SARA 302 -SARA 313- CERCLA RCRA TSCA Ingredient RQ TPQ List Chemical Catalog 261.33 8(d) All Components NO NO NO NO NO NO NO Chemical Weapons Convention: No TSCA 12(b): No CDTA: No SARA 311/312: Acute: No; Chronic: No; Fire: No; Pressure: No; Reactivity: No (Mixture / Liquid) Australian Hazchem Code: None allocated Poison Schedule: None allocated. WHMIS: This MSDS has been prepared according to the hazard criteria of the Controlled Products Regulations (CPR) and the MSDS contains all of the information required by the CPR. This material or all of its components are listed on the Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). This material or all of its components are listed on the Canadian D omestic Substances List (DSL). This material or all of its components are listed (or considered as having been notified) on the European Inventory of Existing Chemical Substances (EINECS). Other inventory lists: ENCS (Japan), Korea, Australia, China (Draft), PICCS (Philippines), Japan (ENCS). 16. OTHER INFORMATION Prepared By: Paul Eigbrett; MSDS Authoring Services Approval Date: May 24, 2010 Supersedes Date: New This Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) has been reviewed to fully comply with the guidance contained in the ANSI MSDS standard (ANSI Z400.1-2004). This information is furnished gratuitously and independent of the sales of the product without warranty, expressed or implied , except that it is accurate to the best knowledge of DaVinci Roofscapes, LLC NO WARRANTY, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WHETHER OF MERCHANTABILITY OF FITNESS OF ANY NATURE OR OTHERWISE WITH RESPECT TO THE PRODUCT OR TO THE DATA HEREIN IS MADE HEREUNDER. The data in this Material Safety Data Sheet relates only to the specific material designated herein. It does not relate to use in combination with any other material or in any process. 71 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Findings Page 1 of 1 26.415.070(c) Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development For approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Minor Development, the HPC must determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” have been removed Chapter 2: Building Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to replace the existing cedar roof shingles with Davinci Composite Shake. The proposed roofing material does not fully meet the above guidelines. Unlike the matte surface of real wood, the proposed plastic roofing product appears to have a glossy surface. Rather than absorbing light like wood, the plastic finish tends to reflect light, giving the material a sheen unseen on the historic material it is intended to replicate. Although it may not be obvious to all observers that the proposed material is plastic, it is not similar enough to the existing wood shingles given the reflectivity, dimensions, texturing/striations, and the fact the proposed material is a shake and not a shingle. Staff find that the above guidelines are not met. Chapter 7: Roofs 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should maintain or restore the character of the historic roof. Staff Finding: Unlike the matte surface of real wood, the proposed plastic roofing product appears to have a glossy surface. Although it may not be obvious to all observers that the proposed material is plastic, it is not similar enough to the existing wood shingles given the reflectivity, dimensions, texturing/striations, and the fact the proposed material is a shake and not a shingle. Staff find that the above guidelines are not met. 72 STAFF REPORT TO: Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer, Principal Planner THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director MEETING DATE: July 22, 2026, continued from July 8, 2026 SUBJECT: Resolution #15, Series of 2026 126 West Francis Street – Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition, and Relocation __________________________________________________________________ INTENDED OUTCOME: The request of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is to consider the following land use code review processes: • Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development (Section 26.415.070(d)) • Demolition (Section 26.415.080) • Relocation (Section 26.415.090) The HPC is the final review authority of these requests, however, the Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review is subject to City Council call up procedures. The intended outcome for this request is to maintain the integrity of the historic resource, the historic preservation program, and align with Aspen’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and applicable code sections to the extent possible. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to provide the HPC with details on the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review and associated requests so the HPC can make an informed decision. Per Land Use Code (LUC) Section 26.415.070(d), the HPC may approve, disapprove, or approve the application with conditions. The HPC may also continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. 73 Overview of Project: The applicant proposes to alter the historic resource located at 126 West Francis Street. The scope of work includes demolition and reconfiguration of existing non-historic additions, temporarily lifting the resource to update the subgrade space and foundation, reestablish alley access, and restore the front façade of the resource based on historic photos. Staff Recommendation: The proposed conceptual development plan aligns with applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines but does not strictly meet all guidelines. Staff find that the proposal finds a reasonable balance within the Guidelines and helps to restore portions of the resource to better reflect its historic character. Staff have drafted a resolution with a recommendation for approval with conditions. DISCUSSION: Background: The subject property is a 4,409-square-foot parcel located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District. It contains an AspenVictorian structure constructed in 1887 and was added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures per Ordinance #34, Series of 1992. Over the years, the resource has seen several alterations, most notably the large rear addition and the alterations to the front façade including the enclosure of the porch. Staff Comments: Staff find that the proposal is an appropriate preservation project that preserves the main resource and reconfigures the existing non-historic addition to better align with applicable guidelines. While the proposed dormers on the addition are not the ideal design due to interior spatial desires, the overall restoration effort benefits the historic resource and its continued preservation. Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review - Section 26.415.070(d) The proposal is consistent with several applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines but does not strictly meet all of them. Staff analysis of the applicable Design Guidelines is included with this staff report as Attachment B. The application includes removal of the non-historic addition on the west side of the resource and a reconfiguration of the non-historic addition on the rear of the resource. Currently, the addition on the west side of the resource adds massing to the front façade that is not consistent with historic photos. The removal of this addition aligns with Guideline 10.2 and pulls the existing development out of the 5-foot side yard setback, 74 bringing the property into compliance. The existing rear addition attempts to relate to the resource through form and materials, but the overall design could be more successful. The varying roof forms, window size, and window placement lend to a more chaotic design that could draw attention from the resource. The proposal to remove several gable dormers and faux architectural details will simplify the design. Although the proposed new window styles on the addition are not the most appropriate choice, the addition relates to the resource through form and materials which allow for the fenestration to be differentiated per Guideline 11.6. The new dormers proposed on the rear addition use a gable and shed roof style combination to meet the interior spatial desires. These proposed dormers may not be the best design choice, however, as these dormers are not visible from the front façade the HPC may be more flexible on the design. Fig. 1. Existing east elevation showing Fig. 2. Proposed east elevation 75 The historic portion of the resource is also proposed to be altered through the removal of non-historic dormers, removal of faux architectural details including the roof cresting, and restoration of the front porch. Historic photos have been used to guide the restoration effort. The photo from 1969 depicts an open front porch, a more detailed chimney, and shows that the gable over the porch was not yet added. The applicant has agreed to include a condition related to the potential of historic framing being uncovered during the demolition process and using that to inform the design. The applicant has provided material samples and images for consideration. Although this is not required until final review, the HPC is asked to provide feedback on the proposed materials. The materials list includes synthetic shingles and synthetic trim, with the proposed shingles being a Brava shake style that is not supported by staff. Demolition – Section 26.415.080 Because the non-historic elements proposed to be demolished exceed 40% of the resource, a review under the Demolition code is required. As the portions being demolished have no historic significance and the resource is remaining, much of the criteria do not apply to this situation. Staff have no concerns about the proposed demolition of non-historic portions of the resource and the scope appeas to meet the exception for removal of non-historic components and therefore does not trigger a demolition. Per Section 26.580.050(f) Exception for the removal of Non-Historic Additions to Designated Historic Structures, if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that in the development of a structure that is designated on Aspen's list of Historic Landmarks, that non-historic elements of the project shall be removed in returning the historic resource to its original configuration or character, the portion of the project attributed to the non-historic elements shall not be calculated toward the forty (40) percent threshold. Staff response to Demolition criteria is included as Attachment C. Relocation – Section 26.415.090 The applicant proposes to lift the resource to excavate a single level basement and crawl space. Once lifted, the resource will be temporarily shifted towards the rear property line and will remain elevated during the construction of the subgrade space and new foundation. The existing foundation veneer is currently a painted skirt board, which is proposed to be replicated for the new foundation. Although the proposal is not to underpin the resource per Guideline 9.1, the applicant has provided reasoning as to why the lifting of the resource and temporary relocation is the preferred approach. This reasoning includes avoiding the extended timeline needed for curing related to underpinning and having the ability to better waterproof the new foundation. 76 As required per Section 26.415.090, staff find that “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.” The HPC should discuss the amount of financial assurance they would like to require for the proposed relocation if approved; this will be included as a condition of approval within the resolution. Staff analysis of the Relocation review criteria is included with this staff report as Attachment D. Referral Comments: Staff referred the application to city departments for comments. The aggregated referral comments for both the first application and the updated application are included in Attachment E. Some of the feedback may have already been incorporated into subsequent application revisions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommend approval of HPC Resolution #15, Series of 2026, with the following conditions: 1. Should any historic evidence (material, framing, etc.) be uncovered during the course of construction, the applicant is to work with Staff and HPC monitor to review and determine if it is appropriate to use the evidence to inform/alter portions of the design. 2. Financial assurance for the relocation of the resource in the amount of $30,000, or an amount deemed appropriate by the HPC, is required at the time of permit submittal. ATTACHMENTS: HPC Resolution #15, Series of 2026 Attachment A – Application Attachment B – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Staff Analysis Attachment C – Demolition Criteria Attachment D – Relocation Criteria Attachment E – Combined Referral Comments 77 HPC Resolution #15, Series of 2026 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION #15, (SERIES OF 2026) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL REVIEW, DEMOLITION, AND RELOCATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 126 WEST FRANCIS STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY ONE-HALF OF LOT L AND ALL OF LOT M, EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING TWO PARCELS: "REAR PARCEL": A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOT M, BLOCK 55, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT M, WHENCE THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT M BEARS N 14°50'49" E 0.86 FEET; THENCE S 14°50'49" W 36.99 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF LOT M, THENCE N 76°52'43" W 1.84 FEET ALONG A BOARD FENCE; THENCE N 15°18'19" E 18.53 FEET, ALONG SAID BOARD FENCE; THENCE N 14°47'57" E 18.50 FEET, ALONG SAID BOARD FENCE; THENCE S 75°57'28" E 1. 71 FEET, ALONG SAID BOARD FENCE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. "FRONT PARCEL": A PARCEL OF LAND BEING PART OF LOT M, BLOCK 55, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO. SAID PARCEL IS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT M, THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT M, N 75°09'11" W 1.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A BOARD FENCE; THENCE N 16°23 '05" E 28. 64 FEET ALONG SAID BOARD FENCE; THENCE LEAVING SAID BOARD FENCE, S 75°09'11 "E 0.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT M,· THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SAID LOT M, S 14°50'49" W 28. 63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-18-002 WHEREAS, the applicant, Popinjay Holdings LLC, represented by Sara Adams with BendonAdams, has requested HPC approval for Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition Review, and Relocation Review, for the property located at 126 West Francis Street; 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 Major 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 78 HPC Resolution #15, Series of 2026 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, for approval of Demolition Review, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.080; and WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation Review, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.090; and WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards and recommended approval with conditions of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public meeting on July 8, 2026, the applicant requested a continuance to July 22, 2026; and WHEREAS, on July 22, 2026, the HPC reviewed the project, including the application, staff report, and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval by a vote of X to X (X-X). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1: Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition, and Relocation: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development Conceptual Review, Demolition, and Relocation with the following conditions: 1. Should any historic evidence (material, framing, etc.) be uncovered during the course of construction, the applicant is to work with Staff and HPC monitor to review and determine if it is appropriate to use the evidence to inform/alter portions of the design. 2. Financial assurance for the relocation of the resource in the amount of $30,000, or an amount deemed appropriate by the HPC, is required at the time of permit submittal. 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 79 HPC Resolution #15, Series of 2026 Page 3 of 3 a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 22nd day of July, 2026. Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content: __________________________________ ____________________________________ Luisa Violet Sondie Berne Kara Thompson Assistant City Attorney HPC Chair ATTEST: _________________________________ Mike Sear Deputy City Clerk 80 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM December 31, 2025 Revised June 3, 2026 126 West Francis Street Conceptual Design Reviews Dear Gillian and HPC, Please accept this application to remodel the existing historic home located at 126 West Francis Street. The historic property is located within the City of Aspen’s R-6 Zone District in Aspen’s West End neighborhood, and is approximately 4,409 sf in size. The existing property exceeds the allowable floor area – this project reduces floor area to comply with zoning. Designated a landmark in 1992, 126 West Francis, aka the Charles Burns House, was built in 1887 and has been heavily altered over time - a portion of the porch was enclosed, windows appear to be replaced, and original siding was removed (or potentially covered). Additions to the rear and west elevations have evolved over the decades with the most impactful changes in 1993. Images below show the evolution of the property to its current appearance. Top left: 126 West Francis before porch was altered 1969.017.0067, Aspen Historical Society. Top right: Current appearance, 2025. Bottom right: Partially enclosed front porch, 2004.020.0111, Aspen Historical Society, Litchfield Collection. 81 2 | Page Proposal The new owners, Brian and Erin Kelly, propose a remodel project to reconfigure the rear and side additions to better relate to the historic landmark. The existing crawl and basement spaces are proposed to be fully excavated, and non-historic elements are proposed to be removed in compliance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (HPDG). The front porch and front façade of the landmark are proposed to be restored to match historic photographs and physical evidence. Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Temporary Relocation are requested of HPC. The project is under the allowable floor area and under the maximum height limit. No variances or any historic preservation benefits are requested, and the property reduces floor area to bring the property into compliance with zoning. Restoration This remodel project focuses on restoration of the street facing elevation, based on historic photographs, and reconfiguration of the non-historic addition at the rear of the property. Faux detailing has been added to the landmark over the years and it is proposed to removed. All Front and west elevations in February 1990. Rear and east elevations in February 1990. 82 3 | Page restoration is based on historic photographs and physical evidence (during demolition). The front porch is proposed to be reopened and the bay window restored. Windows will be replaced based on historic photographs and historic framing (if uncovered). The biggest question is the location of the front door – based on a high resolution historic photograph it seems that the front door does not face the street. The proposed window is a tentative placeholder until demolition and inspection of the framing. The Kellys live in the house full time so demolition is not a viable option until the project commences. Reconfiguration of non-historic additions The existing non-historic addition at the rear and the west elevation contains overly complicated roof forms, dormers, roof cresting, and blurs the line between historic and new construction. The proposed project proposed a minor expansion to the east of the existing footprint to ensure above grade and below grade walls are properly stacked. A large portion of the west elevation sits within the side yard setback and is proposed to be removed and the setback restored. Dormers directly behind the landmark that are visible from the street and complicated roof forms are proposed to be removed and simplified (HPDG 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6, 10.11). The goal is for the existing home to better meet the design guidelines through these alterations and restoration, while maintaining the footprint which preserved the original location of the home and maintains the generous front yard reinforcing the pattern of front yards along Francis Street. Existing front elevation (left) and proposed rendering of front elevation (right). 83 4 | Page The property is located midblock which limits the public view to the front façade. The landmark is 19.5 feet setback from the property line which pushes new construction almost out of view from the street (HPDG 10.3, 10.4, 10.9). As shown above, the restoration of the front porch and bay window, removal of non-historic roof forms, and reworking of the rear addition highlights the landmark as the focus of the property and better differentiates between historic and new construction(HPDG 10.3, 10.8, 10.12). Renderings of northwest and southeast views of project. Front elevation (south): existing (left) proposed (right) red outlines existing addition. Existing footprint with red outline showing historic footprint (left) and 1898 Sanborn map (right) 84 5 | Page Existing west elevation (top) and proposed elevation with red outline showing existing condition (bottom) Existing east elevation (top) and proposed elevation with red outline showing existing condition (bottom). 85 6 | Page Demolition Removal of the non-historic west addition located within the west setback is proposed to increase porosity on the property and comply with zoning requirements. The majority of demolition occurs on the roof to simplify the existing addition and consolidate dormers as shown below. An existing roof deck is reduced in size and the roof profile on the east elevation restored. Temporary relocation Over the decades the crawl and basement spaces have been altered and added as the property was expanded. Temporary relocation to excavate a single level basement and crawl space with Code required waterproofing is requested. Review criteria are found at Exhibit A3 and supporting documents at Exhibit K. Proposed demolition (top) and proposed roof plan (bottom). 86 7 | Page Parking The existing property has no onsite parking, and the City’s alley has been covered with grass and bollards. The project proposes to restore the 10’ wide alley to provide vehicular access to a one car garage and a surface parking space to meet the parking requirement of two spaces onsite. Engineering Conceptual storm water plans are included in the application. A conceptual drainage plan by Crystal River Civil is included in the drawing set (C.01 – C.03). The conceptual plan includes bioretention areas toward the rear of the property, pervious pavers, and tying into the existing storm system located in Francis Street. These options have the least amount of visual impact on the landmark. Parks We have met with the Parks department onsite to review tree protection requirements and tree removals. The attached landscape plans reflect these discussions. We look forward to hearing your feedback on this remodel project and would like to schedule a site visit with HPC. Please reach out with any questions or additional information. Thank you. Sincerely, Sara Adams, AICP BendonAdams LLC Image of alley looking east toward 126 West Francis (left) and alley standing at 126 West Francis looking west (right). 87 8 | Page Exhibits A. Review Criteria 1. Historic Preservation Design Guidelines 2. Partial Demolition of non-historic additions 3. Relocation to underpin i. Relocation report ii. Evidence of financial ability to underpin B. Application 1. Dimensional Requirement form C. Agreement to Pay D. Authorization Letter E. HOA Form F. Proof of Ownership 1. Statement of Authority G. Pre-application Summary H. Vicinity Map I. Mailing List J. Survey K. Structural Report L. Civil Report M. Neighborhood Context N. Material Selection O. Architectural Drawings updated May 22, 2026 to address zoning comments P. Response to Referral Comments 88 Exhibit A.1 HP Review Sec. 26.415.060.A Approvals Required Any development involving properties designated on the aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, as an individual property or located within the boundaries of a Historic District, unless determined exempt, requires the approval of a development order and either a certificate of no negative effect or a certificate of appropriateness before a building permit or any other work authorization will be issued by the City. HPC shall provide referral comments for major projects to rights of way located within the boundaries of a Historic District. Response: Applicable Design Guidelines are addressed below: Streetscape 1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block, neighborhood or district. Response – The existing building location is not proposed to change. It is perpendicular to Francis Street. Existing non-historic additions that extend into the west side yard are proposed to be removed which will increase porosity on the site. The generous front yard is maintained to reinforce and preserve the rhythm of front yards within the block. 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. Response – The existing alley is proposed to be reopened to provide access to the proposed garage. 1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas accessed directly from the street if they were not part of the original development of the site. Response – 126 West Francis does not have any onsite parking. Access from the alley is proposed for two onsite parking spaces – one in a garage and one surface space. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. Response – Access to the property is proposed from the alley. 1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces. Response – A simple walkway to the restored and reopened historic porch is the primary entry into the property. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. Response – A simple light grey 3’ wide stone paver walkway is proposed. A secondary walkway with informal pavers provides access to a side door and mudroom. 89 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. Response – The proposed remodel project improves existing open space conditions by removing the non- historic west addition. Open space is provided in the west side yard and the front yard is about 19.5 feet where 10 feet is the R6 zone district requirement. The generous front yard creates a large passive open space in between the landmark and the street. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. Response – A conceptual drainage plan by Crystal River Civil is included in the application (C.01 – C.03). The conceptual plan includes bioretention areas toward the rear of the property, pervious pavers, and tying into the existing storm system located in Francis Street. These options have the least amount of visual impact on the landmark. 1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern landmarks shall be addressed on a case by case basis. Response – n/a. 1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Response – Built in outdoor elements are not proposed at this time. Any future permanent site furnishings will be located behind the historic landmark in the west side yard. 1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees and shrubs. Response – The applicant worked closely with the Forester regarding removal and protection of existing trees. There is no historically significant landscaping on the property. Proposed landscape plan and proposed conceptual paving materials. 90 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria 1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram. Response – A simple landscape is proposed around the historic resource as illustrated on L300. The landmark is not blocked by the proposed plantings- sod and perennial beds are proposed around the landmark with a maintenance edge. The Final Design application will include more details on plant species. 1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block views of historic structures are inappropriate. Response – Please refer to the response to Guideline 1.12 and the landscape plan provided as L300 Planting is not proposed to block views of the landmark – ground cover and perennial planting will be limited to 36” in mature height around the landmark. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. Response – Landscape lighting is not proposed at this time. Any landscape lighting will be included in the Final Design application. 1.15 Preserve original fences. Response – The existing fence is not original as evidenced in historic photographs that do not contain a fence and visual inspection of the fence. It is proposed to be removed. 1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic fence based on photographic evidence. Response – n/a. Any new fencing intends to reference the historic photograph and will be provided at Final Design Review. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. Response – Fencing will be finalized in the Final Design application. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. Response –As noted above, a fence design will be included in the Final Design application for review and approval by HPC. 1.19 A new fence should have a transparent quality, allowing views into the yard from the street. Response – n/a. Historic photograph of original fence, open front porch and original chimney. 1969.017.0067: Aspen Historical Society 91 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria 1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be designed so that it avoids blocking public views of important features of a designated building. Response – No fence proposed at this time. Please refer to Guideline 1.17. 1.21 Preserve original retaining walls Response – n/a. 1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary, its height and visibility should be minimized. Response – n/a. 1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that changes historic grade is generally not allowed and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response – Slight grade changes are proposed to create positive drainage and a single step onto the front porch. 1.24 Preserve historically significant landscapes with few or no alterations. Response – n/a. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. Response – A simple landscape with traditional plant species is proposed. 1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system. Response – All vehicular access will be located off the alley to restore the historic circulation system. 1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site. Response – All new plantings are simple, and reference historically used native species. 92 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Restoration Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Response – The drawing set includes preliminary preservation details for the restoration of the front porch and east elevation of the landmark. It appears that siding and windows have been replaced over time. Wood siding will be painted as it was historically. A more detailed preservation plan will be provided at Final Review. Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. Response – There is two historic windows on the east elevation, the rest are non-historic. Non-historic windows will be replaced with wood windows to match historic photographs or based on historic framing (if possible – to be revealed during demolition). No new openings are proposed in the landmark. Please refer to A2.00 and A2.03 for elevations. Proposed window removal and demolition of east elevation. 93 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. Response – The location of the historic front door is unclear. Traditionally the historic front door faces the street. The historic photograph below has a shadow where either a window or door was located. We intend to restore the original condition and are hopeful to uncover historic framing during demolition that explains whether there was a window or door facing the street. We are currently showing a window as a placeholder. Historic photographs 1969.017.0067: Aspen Historical Society (top left) 2004.020.0111: Aspen Historical Society, Litchfield Collection (top right) At right - proposed tentative front porch door location pending inspection of framing. 94 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. Response – The front bay window, window trim, east elevation, chimney, and the front porch are proposed to be restored based on historic photographs. Details for the front and east elevations are provided in the drawings set. All restoration is based on historic photographs purchased from the Aspen Historical Society and similar miner’s cabins in the west end. Non-historic architectural details like the roof cresting, non-historic front porch elements, non-historic bay window and star in the gable end are proposed to be removed. Roof 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should convey a scale, color and texture similar to the original. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. Details of restored front bay window and chimney. 95 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Response – The existing building is heavily altered with a large two story addition directly behind the landmark and a one story west side addition. There is a roof deck behind the historic portion of the hoe and numerous dormers on the east and west elevations. The remodel project proposes to remove the most visible dormers on the west elevation and the south elevation, and to combine dormers on the northeast corner of the home from two to one shed roof dormer. A new dormer is proposed on the northwest elevation of the addition to balance the east elevation and provide more usable space on the second floor. The roof deck is significantly reduced in size, and the overframed roof cricket removed to restore the original roof profile on the east elevation. The removal of the visible street facing dormers meets guideline 7.6. The proposed combined and new dormers at the rear of the property are well below the primary ridge and are set in from the eaves. Gable and shed roof forms are proposed to reflect the proportions and the form of the landmark - in line with guideline 7.6. Overall, removal of the street facing dormers and simplification of the existing dormers on the east with new dormers on the west meets the intent of guideline 7.6 for dormers to provide additional living space without impacting the historic landmark. The historic chimney is proposed to be restored and gutters/downspout locations will be included for Final Design Review. Proposed demolition (top) and proposed roof plan (bottom). 96 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria New Addition 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. Response – The additions to the landmark are not considered historic or significant. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. Response – The existing non-historic addition to the west is proposed to be removed and the 5’ required setback restored. The existing two story rear addition, and shed roof one story addition on the west elevation are proposed to be remodeled to better meet the design guidelines. Front elevation (south): existing (left) proposed (right) red outlines existing addition. Existing footprint with red outline showing historic footprint (left) and 1898 Sanborn map (right) 97 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Existing west elevation (top) and proposed elevation with red outline showing existing condition (bottom) Existing east elevation (top) and proposed elevation with red outline showing existing condition (bottom). 98 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. Response – The remodeled addition includes new roof forms, dormers and windows to differentiate between historic and new construction and to simplify massing. Faux Victorian detailing is proposed to be removed. The remodel focuses on simplifying the existing forms and proportions without changing the footprint and overall mass, and brings the property into closer compliance with the design guidelines. Window style, shape, and size differentiate between new and historic character. 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. Response – The landmark is visually dominant on the property as it is the main entrance and is more intricately detailed than the proposed addition. Above grade massing is largely the same other than the addition of an exempt one car garage and a slight increase to the upper level with the addition/consolidation of dormers. The proposed remodel project reduces the amount of above grade floor area; however, the property is still slightly over the 1:1 ration. The project involves removal of non- historic additions, the interior of the resource if fully utilized, and no variances are requested. Table 1: Overall floor area comparison Existing Floor Area Proposed Floor Area Basement 0 86 First Floor 2,076 1,835 Second Floor 824 770 Totals 2,900 sf 2,691 sf 99 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Table 2: Historic vs. non-historic floor area comparison Historic Above Grade Floor Area Existing Non-historic Above Grade Floor Area Proposed Above Grade Floor Area First Floor 1,032 1,045 804 Second Floor 0 824 770 Totals 1,032 1,869 1,574 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. Response – Working with an existing non-historic addition is challenging but worthwhile considering the City’s goals to reduce building waste and construction impacts on neighborhoods. The remodeled addition focuses on form and materials as strongly related to the landmark, with windows and architectural details of the addition representing a different but complimentary style. Simplifying roof forms and consolidating dormers better meets the design guidelines and highlights the landmark as the focus of the property. Proposed renderings of remodel project. 100 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria Form: Gable roof forms and a rectangular footprint are similar to the landmark. Complicated roof forms are removed and simplified to be secondary to the landmark. The non-historic roofs are barely visible from the street. Fenestration: Proposed windows in the new addition are metal clad windows with divided lights compared to the vertical wood double hung windows in the historic home. The new windows are similar shapes to the landmark but proportions and style subtly differentiate between historic and new construction. Materials: Horizontal wood siding is proposed for the historic and new addition. Roof materials are synthetic cedar shake with standing seam metal roof proposed for the shed dormers. 10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on the street. Response – n/a. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. Response – The existing height of the addition is not proposed to change. It is currently taller than the landmark – however the complicated form of the addition is simplified. 10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a “connector” to link it to the historic building. Response – A one story connector is not possible with the existing non-historic addition and the scope of the remodel project. The project simplifies the existing complicated roof forms and the addition is significantly setback from the landmark. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. Response – The addition is located at the rear of the landmark and is not proposed to significantly change. The west side addition that sits within the west side yard setback is proposed to be removed. A basement is proposed to replace the existing foundation and provide additional living space for the Kelly’s growing family. 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. Response – Gable roofs are proposed for the addition to relate to the landmark. Existing complicated forms are consolidated and simplified. Proposed dormers are located at the rear of the property and not visible from the street. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. Response –The addition does not obscure historically important features. There is very limited, if any, historic material left on the building after the numerous remodels over time. The eave detail on 101 Exhibit A.1 Review Criteria the east elevation, as shown in the historic photograph, is preserved and architectural details are restored based on historic documentation. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. Response – Exterior lighting will be developed for Final Design. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Response – The mechanical equipment will be located in a proposed crawl space, and above grade mechanical equipment is screened in the northeast corner of the property. All venting locations will be identified for final Review when mechanical is further developed. A conceptual mechanical plan is provided in the drawing set – sheet ME1.0. Lighting and Mechanical 102 Exhibit A.2 Demolition of non-historic additions Exhibit A.2 Demolition Sec. 26.415.080. Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. It is the intent of this Chapter to preserve the historic and architectural resources that have demonstrated significance to the community. Consequently, no demolition of properties designated on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Site and Structures or properties within a Historic District will be allowed unless approved by the HPC in accordance with the standards set forth in this Section. 4. The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner, b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure, c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located and b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Response – Demolition of the non-historic additions is proposed as shown on Demolition sheets D0.01 – D2.01. Removal of these non-historic additions do not adversely impact the historic landmark and are inconsequential to the preservation needs of the area and bring the property into conformance with setback requirements. Exploratory demolition was not conducted as the owners live in the home with their young daughter. We are hopeful that historic framing is discovered during demolition to reveal the original front door location and window locations. The Aspen Historic Society has photographs of the front and east elevations that we are using for restoration. 103 104 Exhibit A.3 Relocation Exhibit A.3 Relocation 26.415.090. Relocation of designated historic properties. The intent of this Chapter is to preserve designated historic properties in their original locations as much of their significance is embodied in their setting and physical relationship to their surroundings as well as their association with events and people with ties to particular site. However, it is recognized that occasionally the relocation of a property may be appropriate as it provides an alternative to demolition or because it only has a limited impact on the attributes that make it significant. C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building, structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards: 1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district, and its relocation will not affect the character of the historic district; or 2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is located, and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or 3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or 4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic, architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met: 1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the physical impacts of relocation. 2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and 3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security. Response – The historic structure has a series of foundations somewhat tied together beneath the historic home. Picking up the house to replace the foundation with a new foundation ensures the longevity of the historic resource which is an acceptable preservation method considering the character and integrity of the building. Underpinning was explored, as discussed in Exhibit K, and is not a viable option for this property. Exhibit K and attached letters address the proposed reason for “relocation”, ability for the landmark to withstand “relocation”, and the proposed plan to pick up, temporarily shift the house, dig the foundation, and replace the house. Here is an excerpt from DB Structural’s letter: Constructing a new foundation using modern engineering methods offers substantial long-term benefits to the historic landmark at 126 W Francis. The primary objective of this project is to ensure the building’s structural integrity, safety, and longevity while fully preserving its historic character. A modern foundation system provides: • Predictable structural performance under current building code requirements, including gravity, lateral, and seismic demands • Improved durability, waterproofing, and resistance to long-term deterioration • Reduced risk of settlement, cracking, or distress to historic above-grade elements 105 Exhibit A.3 Relocation • A significantly shorter and more controlled construction timeline compared to deep underpinning By replacing the foundation in a controlled and engineered manner, the historic superstructure can be adequately supported throughout construction, minimizing risk to the existing building fabric. This approach ensures the building remains safe and serviceable for decades to come, aligning with the intent of landmark preservation by extending the usable life of the structure rather than exposing it to prolonged construction-related risk. Importantly, this strategy does not diminish the historical value of the building. Instead, it supports preservation by placing the historic elements on a reliable structural system that allows them to be maintained, restored, and appreciated well into the future. Please reference the letters from Koru, Bailey House Movers, and evidence of financial ability from Erin and Brian Kelly for additional documentation. The structural report is attached as Exhibit K. Design Guidelines are addressed below. Relocation 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. Response – Underpinning was explored with the structural engineer and it was determined to not be a viable option for this property as described in Exhibit K and the excerpt from Exhibit K provide below: Section 4 - Construction Limitation: Underpinning Not Feasible for Required Depth Underpinning is traditionally applied for relatively shallow depth adjustments. The required underpinning depth for this project, approximately 25 feet, is far beyond standard practice and introduces significant construction, sequencing, and safety concerns. 4.1 Underpinning Process Constraints The underpinning procedure must occur in 5-foot horizontal sections, and 5-foot vertical lifts, with strict curing timelines between each stage. Each section requires: • Excavation and concrete placement • A minimum 5-day wait before grouting the wall-to-underpinning interface • A minimum 28-day curing period before adjacent sections may begin Because the proposed excavation requires 5 vertical lifts, each with two section groups, the overall duration imposed by curing requirements alone totals: • 280 days minimum (concrete cure time only) • Excavation and construction time for each lift and section • Work cannot occur in parallel due to structural staging limitations This duration represents an extreme and atypical construction effort for underpinning. The risks of soil movement, construction error, and incremental settlement multiply significantly at such depth and over such an extended schedule. 106 Exhibit A.3 Relocation 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Response – The house is proposed to be lifted, stored onsite, and placed back in the original location. The advantages of a new foundation are described in Exhibit K with an excerpt provided below: Constructing a new foundation using modern engineering methods offers substantial long-term benefits to the historic landmark at 126 W Francis. The primary objective of this project is to ensure the building’s structural integrity, safety, and longevity while fully preserving its historic character. A modern foundation system provides: • Predictable structural performance under current building code requirements, including gravity, lateral, and seismic demands • Improved durability, waterproofing, and resistance to long-term deterioration • Reduced risk of settlement, cracking, or distress to historic above-grade elements • A significantly shorter and more controlled construction timeline compared to deep underpinning By replacing the foundation in a controlled and engineered manner, the historic superstructure can be adequately supported throughout construction, minimizing risk to the existing building fabric. This approach ensures the building remains safe and serviceable for decades to come, aligning with the intent of landmark preservation by extending the usable life of the structure rather than exposing it to prolonged construction-related risk. Importantly, this strategy does not diminish the historical value of the building. Instead, it supports preservation by placing the historic elements on a reliable structural system that allows them to be maintained, restored, and appreciated well into the future. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. Response – The building is proposed to remain in its current (original) location. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. Response – The building will be relocated similar to the existing grade. A slight grade change is proposed to facilitate positive drainage away from the building. The site is flat – grading will be provided at Final Design Review. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. Response – The foundation veneer is currently a painted skirt board, which is proposed to be replicated as shown in the renderings and elevations. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. Response – Two lightwells are proposed for the basement space and are both significantly setback from the historic landmark- in the northeast corner and the northwest corners. Simple metal grates are proposed for both lightwells. 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. 107 Exhibit A.3 Relocation Response – The project will comply with this requirement. Letters from DB Structural, Bailey House Movers, and Koru are included in the application for your review. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. • Permanently relocating a structure from where it was built to a new site is only allowed for special circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the only preservation alternative. Response – n/a. 108 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET LAND USE APPLICATION FORM PROJECT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________ Location: ________________________________________________________________________________! _______________________________________________________________________________________! (Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property) Parcel ID #: ______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________! Address: ________________________________________________________________________________! Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE: Name: __________________________________________________________________________________! Address: ________________________________________________________________________________! Phone # : _______________________ E-mail: __________________________________________________ EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 Exhibit B 109 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Project: __________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________________________ Project Location: ___________________________________________________________________________________ Zone District: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Lot Size: _________________________________________________________________________________________ Gross Lot Area:________________________________ Net 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. Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued: Variations requested (identify the exact variations being requested): 110 LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET TYPE OF APPLICATION ESA Review (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, View Plane, or Hallam Lake Bluff) Non Conformities Pre-Development Topography Temporary Use Accessory Dwelling Unit/Carriage House Dimensional Variance Growth Management Review Outdoor Vending Planned Development Review Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit Establishment of Zoning or Rezoning Subdivision Review Condominiumization Approval Documents Special Review Wireless Facilities Residential Design Standard Review Conditional Use Review Historic Designation Certificate of Appropriateness Minor Historic Development Major Historic Development (select one below) Conceptual Development Final Development Relocation (temporary, on or off-site) Demolition (total demolition) Substantial Historic Preservation Amendment Historic Landmark Lot Split Establishment of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) Other City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEWS 111 City of Aspen | City Hall, 427 Rio Grande Place Aspen, CO 81611 | (970) 920-5000 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM LAND USE APPLICATION PACKET Commercial net leaseable:Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Pillows: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Lodge Units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of residential units:Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Free-Market residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Number of Affordable residential units: Existing: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Proposed % of demolition: ________________ % DIMENSIONS: Write N/A where no requirements exists in the zone district. Floor Area: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Height Principal Building: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Accessory Building: Existing:_____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ On-Site Parking: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Site Coverage: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ % Open Space: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Front Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Rear Setback: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined Front/Rear: Indicate N, S, E, W Side Setback: EAST Side Setback: WEST Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Combined SIDE YARD: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ Distance between Buildings: Existing: _____________ Allowable: _____________ Proposed: _____________ 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PRE-24-110 DATE: September 19, 2025 PLANNER: Stuart Hayden, stuart.hayden@aspen.gov REPRESENTATIVE: Sara Adams, Bendon Adams, sara@bendonadams.com PROJECT LOCATION: 126 W. Francis St. PARCEL ID: 2735-124-18-002 REQUEST: HP Major Development, HP Relocation, and HP Benefits DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 4,409-square-foot parcel located in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District. It contains an AspenVictorian structure constructed prior to 1889 and was added to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures per Ordinance #34, Series of 1992. The prospective application includes the following work items: • Underpinning the building, including the historic resource, to excavate a full basement and repair the foundation; • (Potentially) removing and reconstructing the dining area located within the west side setback; • Restoring the front porch; • Altering additions, windows, and dormers; • Repairing the rooftop deck; • Removing ornamental attachments, like cresting and fish-scale shingle siding; • Reopening alley; and • Adding a one-car garage at the rear (north) of the property. The prospective application also seeks the following Historic Preservation benefits: • Variations for development in setbacks; and • On-site parking reductions. Given these requests, Historic Preservation Major Development, Historic Preservation Relocation, and Historic Preservation Benefits reviews are anticipated. Historic Preservation Major Development is a two-step process requiring the approval of a conceptual development plan and a final development plan. During its review of the conceptual development plan the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will evaluate the proposed mass, scale and site plan; assess the proposed underpinning and excavation (“relocation”); and consider the requested benefits for dimensional variations and on-site parking reduction. The HPC will make a determination to approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny the application. Following the conceptual development plan review, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision regarding the major development and relocation, allowing Council the opportunity to uphold or to “Call Up” aspects thereof for further discussion. This is a standard practice for all significant projects. Following the Exhibit G 121 Notice of Call Up, and submittal of a final design application, the HPC will conduct a final design review to consider the landscape, lighting and materials of the major development. The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and the Land Use Code Sections that are applicable to each aspect of this project will be used to evaluate the proposal. The project is also subject to Administrative Growth Management mitigation for affordable housing. This property is exempt from Residential Design Standard Review (RDS). RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.415.070(d) Historic Preservation – Major Development 26.415.090 Historic Preservation – Relocation 26.415.110 Historic Preservation – Benefits 26.470.090 Administrative Growth Management 26.515 Transportation and Parking Management 26.575.020 Calculations and Measurements 26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6) HELPFUL LINKS: • Land Use Application (PDF) • Land Use Code (PDF) • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines (PDF) REVIEW BY: • Staff for completeness and recommendations; • HPC for final decision of HP Major Development, HP Relocation, and HP Benefits reviews; • City Council for Notice to City Council for Major Development and Relocation and possible Call-Up REQUIRED LAND USE REVIEW(S): • HP – Major Development • HP – Relocation • HP – Benefits PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, at the Historic Preservation Commission PLANNING FEES: HP - Major Development review: $1950 (for 6 billable hours of planning staff time). Additional/fewer hours will be billed/refunded at a rate of $325 per hour. REFERRAL FEES: Engineering Review: $5,350 (Flat Fee) Parks Review: $975.00 (Flat Fee) TOTAL DEPOSIT: $8,275 APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements for this review. Please email the entire application as one pdf to cdehadmins@aspen.gov. Include “PRE-24-110” 122 in the subject line. If more than 18 months has lapsed since this letter was issued, please reach out to hp@aspen.gov.  Completed Land Use Application, signed Fee Agreement, and signed HOA Compliance form  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Contained within a letter signed by the property owner, the owner's name, address and telephone number and the name, address and telephone number of any representative authorized to act on behalf of the owner.  The street address, legal description and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development.  A disclosure of ownership of the parcel proposed for development, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company or attorney licensed to practice in the state, 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.  An 8½ by 11 inches vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen.  Proposed and existing site plans depicting the proposed layout and the project's physical relationship to the land and its surroundings.  A site improvement survey (no older than a year from submittal) certified by a registered land surveyor licensed in the state, showing property boundaries, the location and orientation of existing and proposed improvements and predominant site characteristics, including the current topography and vegetation, and all legal easements and restrictions.  An existing and proposed site plan showing property boundaries, setbacks and parking.  Scaled drawings of all proposed structure(s) or addition(s) depicting their form, including their height, massing, scale, proportions and roof plan; and the primary features of all elevations.  Existing and proposed floor area calculations.  A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application.  A written explanation of the type of relocation/basement excavation requested (temporary, on-site or off-site).  A written report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the building, structure or object, its ability to withstand the basement excavation, and any rehabilitation needs related to the work.  Evidence of the financial ability to undertake the excavation safely, preservation and repair of the building, structure or object; site preparation and construction of necessary infrastructure through the posting of bonds or other financial measures deemed appropriate.  A preliminary stormwater design.  A preliminary landscape plan.  Preliminary selection of primary building materials to be used in construction represented by samples and/or photographs.  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. 123 For Final Review, the following items will need to be submitted in addition to the items listed above:  Final drawings of all proposed structures(s) and/or addition(s) included as part of the development at 1/4" = 1.0' scale.  An accurate representation of all major building materials to be used in the development, depicted through samples or photographs.  A statement, including narrative text or graphics, indicating how the final development plan conforms to representations made or stipulations placed as a condition of the approval of the conceptual development plan.  A lighting plan.  A final landscape plan. 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. 124 1,128 188.1 Legend 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet0188.194.04 Notes 126 W Francis Vicinity Map 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 4:10 PM 11/04/25 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Full Address State Highway Road Centerline 4K Primary Road Secondary Road Service Road Parcel Boundary Town Boundary Exhibit H 125 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: 273512418002 on 09/30/2025 Instructions: Disclaimer: http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Exhibit I 126 100 W FRANCIS LLC COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 3595 ANCHORAGE WY 101 FRANCIS LLC COMPTON, CA 90220 401 W ARTESIA BLVD 111 WEST FRANCIS LLC GREENWICH, CT 06831 28 ROCK RIDGE AVE 124 HALLAM ASPEN LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 625 E MAIN ST #102B314 201 WEST SMUGGLER LLC HOUSTON , TX 77056 2121 SAGE RD #333 210-212 W FRANCIS LLC KETCHUM, ID 83340 PO BOX 14001-174 308 NORTH FIRST LLC FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932 325 COLUMBIA TURNPIKE #202 ARGON LLC MIAMI, FL 33131 1000 BRICKELL AVENUE, STE 300 ASPEN CTR FOR ENVIRON STUDIES ASPEN, CO 81611 100 PUPPY SMITH ST BEASPEN LLC SAN PEDRO GARZA GARCIA NL 66260 MEXICO, AVE LAZARO CARDENAS 2400 A43 BRADY WILLIAM JB III LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 1038 SUNRISE RIDGE DR BRUNDIGE CHELSEA C ASPEN , CO 816111336 202 W FRANCIS ST CITY OF ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 427 RIO GRANDE PL CMML PROPERTIES LLC NEW YORK, NY 100751826 50 E 77TH ST APT 3A CONTINENTAL HOTEL HOLDINGS LLC NEW YORK, NY 10010 15 E 26TH ST #602 DILLON DEE E MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 5910 OAKWOOD RD DOVFAM LAKE AVE LLC TORONTO ONTARIO CANADA M5R 0C7, 135 YORKVILLE AVE #800 FAMILLIE ALPENHAUS LLC MILWAUKEE, WI 53202 1509 N PROSPECT AVE FRANCIS STREET HOLDINGS LLC MALIBU, CA 90265 28884 CLIFFSIDE DR GERSCHEL EDOUARD 2020 QPRT NEW YORK, NY 10022 600 MADISON AVE 16TH FLR HALLAM PINES CONDO ASSOC ASPEN, CO 81611 220-224 W HALLAM ST HANSON LUCY C PORT TOWNSEND, WA 98368 1775 FIR ST HENRY FREDERICK B TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 100 W HALLAM ST JAMMB LLC EL DORADO HILLS , CA 95762 PO BOX 5560 KAPLAN NATHALIE 2020 QPRT NEW YORK, NY 10022 600 MADISON AVE 16TH FLR LAMB KARYN 2020 QPRT NEW YORK, NY 10022 600 MADISON AVE 16TH FLR LEWIS JONATHAN D TRUST ASPEN, CO 81611 414 N FIRST ST LEWIS MARK C MARITAL TRUST I ASPEN, CO 81611 120 W FRANCIS ST VIBA LLC ASPEN, CO 81611 224 W HALLAM ST VICENZI GEORGE A TRUST ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 2238 127 Exhibit J 128 Structural Letter Structural Letter November 21, 2025 Client: Structural Engineer: Northworks Architects DB Structural Design Ltd. 23286 Two Rivers Rd 1229 Sage Ct. Basalt, CO 81621 Rifle, CO 81650 (970)319-5934 Project: Francis Street Residence 126 W Francis Aspen, CO 81611 To whom it may concern: DB Structural Design serves as the Structural Engineer of Record for the renovation and expansion of the historic building located at 126 W Francis Street. We appreciate the committee’s commitment to the preservation of existing historic elements and understand the desire to maintain as much of the existing structure as possible. This letter is intended to clearly outline the structural reasons why retaining and underpinning the existing foundation is not feasible, along with recommended alternative preservation approaches. Section 1 - Structural Limitation: Existing Foundation Wall Capacity The existing foundation wall at 126 W Francis extends approximately 48 inches below grade. The proposed design for the new structure requires a foundation depth of, up to, 25 feet, creating a substantial vertical extension below the existing wall. Underpinning in this configuration would subject the existing foundation wall to bending moments and shear demands that would exceed its structural capacity. Our analysis shows: • The maximum moment induced in the existing wall after completing the underpinning sequence is greater than the wall can safely resist. • The existing foundation wall cannot reasonably be reinforced in place to meet these new demands. • Any reinforcement capable of resisting the calculated forces would require removal and full reconstruction of the existing foundation wall. Exhibit K 129 Structural Letter Section 2 - Temporary Relocation During Construction The historic structure at 126 W Francis can safely withstand temporary relocation during construction when executed using established engineering and construction methods. Temporary relocation of historic buildings is a well-documented and commonly employed technique when new foundations are required. With proper planning, structural bracing, load transfer systems, and continuous monitoring, the building can be stabilized and protected throughout the process. From a structural perspective, the existing superstructure is capable of being supported on temporary shoring and transport systems without inducing distress to historic materials. The relocation would be carefully sequenced to maintain uniform support, limit differential movement, and avoid damage to architectural elements. Once the new foundation is constructed, the building can be returned to its original position and permanently supported on a modern, code-compliant foundation system. This approach allows the historic building to remain intact while providing the safest and most reliable path to long-term preservation. Section 3 - Modern Foundation Replacement as long term Preservation Strategy Constructing a new foundation using modern engineering methods offers substantial long-term benefits to the historic landmark at 126 W Francis. The primary objective of this project is to ensure the building’s structural integrity, safety, and longevity while fully preserving its historic character. A modern foundation system provides: • Predictable structural performance under current building code requirements, including gravity, lateral, and seismic demands • Improved durability, waterproofing, and resistance to long-term deterioration • Reduced risk of settlement, cracking, or distress to historic above-grade elements • A significantly shorter and more controlled construction timeline compared to deep underpinning By replacing the foundation in a controlled and engineered manner, the historic superstructure can be adequately supported throughout construction, minimizing risk to the existing building fabric. This approach ensures the building remains safe and serviceable for decades to come, aligning with the intent of landmark preservation by extending the usable life of the structure rather than exposing it to prolonged construction-related risk. Importantly, this strategy does not diminish the historical value of the building. Instead, it supports preservation by placing the historic elements on a reliable structural system that allows them to be maintained, restored, and appreciated well into the future. 130 Structural Letter Section 4 - Construction Limitation: Underpinning Not Feasible for Required Depth Underpinning is traditionally applied for relatively shallow depth adjustments. The required underpinning depth for this project, approximately 25 feet, is far beyond standard practice and introduces significant construction, sequencing, and safety concerns. 4.1 Underpinning Process Constraints The underpinning procedure must occur in 5-foot horizontal sections, and 5-foot vertical lifts, with strict curing timelines between each stage. Each section requires: • Excavation and concrete placement • A minimum 5-day wait before grouting the wall-to-underpinning interface • A minimum 28-day curing period before adjacent sections may begin Because the proposed excavation requires 5 vertical lifts, each with two section groups, the overall duration imposed by curing requirements alone totals: • 280 days minimum (concrete cure time only) • Excavation and construction time for each lift and section • Work cannot occur in parallel due to structural staging limitations This duration represents an extreme and atypical construction effort for underpinning. The risks of soil movement, construction error, and incremental settlement multiply significantly at such depth and over such an extended schedule. Section 5 - Local Expertise and Construction Capability Considerations The Roaring Fork Valley has excellent contractors; however, the scale and depth of underpinning required for this project exceeds typical regional experience and equipment resources. Deep underpinning of this magnitude is usually performed in large metropolitan areas with specialized subcontractors, engineered shoring systems, and extensive monitoring programs. As the Structural Engineer of Record, we must consider: • The extreme complexity and risk of underpinning at this depth • The potential for damage to the existing historic building • The potential impact to adjacent property and structures • The long duration during which the building would be partially supported and vulnerable Given these factors, we do not believe deep underpinning is a responsible or viable approach. The risk to both the structure and surrounding properties is too great, and the method does not offer the level of control or predictability required for a safe outcome. We strongly recommend the traditional approach of replacing the foundation wall in its entirety, which allows: 131 Structural Letter • Controlled excavation • Installation of modern reinforced concrete foundation elements • Protection of existing vertical loads during construction • A predictable construction schedule and reduced risk profile Section 6 - Alternative Preservation Solutions We recognize and respect the HPC’s mission to preserve the historic character of Aspen’s buildings. While the existing foundation cannot be safely retained or underpinned, there are viable ways to preserve the structure’s historic appearance and authenticity. We propose the following alternatives: 6.1 Salvage and Reinstallation of Existing Foundation Elements Select portions of the existing foundation could be carefully removed, cataloged, and later reinstalled as a historic façade element in front of the new structural foundation wall. This approach: • Retains the visual historic fabric • Ensures the building remains structurally sound and code-compliant • Allows safe construction of the new deeper foundation 6.2 Interior or Exterior Display of Original Materials Recovered foundation elements may also be incorporated into: • Interior interpretive displays • Landscape or site integration features • Exterior non-structural aesthetic walls 6.3 Photographic and Dimensional Documentation Prior to removal, the existing foundation can be thoroughly documented to preserve historical records. These approaches strike a balance between structural necessity and historic preservation values. 132 Structural Letter Section 7 - Conclusion DB Structural Design has carefully evaluated all available options and concludes that underpinning the existing historic foundation is neither structurally safe nor constructible for the proposed depth. We strongly recommend full foundation replacement paired with targeted historic preservation strategies that maintain the spirit and physical record of the building. We appreciate the Aspen HPC’s thoughtful review of this project and welcome any questions or requests for clarification. Sincerely, DB Structural Design Ltd. Nate Decker, PE, SE Structural Engineer of Record ODAROLOC DE S N ECIL A L E NGINEERNOISS E FORP 12/12/2025 133 Subject: 126 West Francis Street, Historic Structure Lift, Move, and Temporary Storage Koru Ltd, as the general contractor, submits this summary of the planned lifting, relocation, and temporary storage of the historic structure at 126 West Francis Street, in coordination with Bailey House Movers and as further depicted on the attached site plan and Bailey House Movers report. Lifting: The existing historic structure at 126 West Francis Street will be lifted by Bailey House Movers in accordance with their “Method of Lift / Move” report, utilizing micro-lam members and temporary shoring steel as required to safely raise the building from the existing floor system. To facilitate installation of stabilization and lifting beams, approximately 30 to 36 inches of siding will be temporarily removed around the perimeter of the structure, as required by the lifting method. Prior to lifting, designated historic windows and doors will be carefully removed and stored off-site in a secure facility, and will be reinstalled following completion of the foundation and relocation work. Move: After lifting, Bailey House Movers will support the structure on steel beams and move it in accordance with the procedures outlined in their report, transporting the building on rails and rollers as necessary toward its temporary storage position indicated on the attached plan. Storage: For the duration of the foundation and floor system work, the structure will be stored on the north side of the property in the approximate location shown on the site plan, where it will be barricaded and otherwise protected to preserve the historic fabric until it is returned to its new permanent foundation. All temporary removal, protection, and reinstallation measures are intended to minimize disturbance to historic materials and maintain the integrity of the designated historic structure. Bailey House Movers will be responsible for all means and methods associated with lifting, moving, and temporary storage of the structure, with Koru Ltd providing overall project coordination and construction of the new foundation and related improvements. Sincerely, Ants Cullwick Koru Ltd. 134 KING BEDKING BEDWASHER / DRYER WASHER / DRYER TWIN BEDS ABOVEGYM012HALL001SHARED BATH014SHOWER & W.C.013BUNK ROOM015REC ROOM016KIDS BED 01010LAUNDRY011KING BED3'-6"0"4'-0"GUEST BED002BATH I003KIDS BED 02005KIDS BATH 02007KIDS CLO 02006KIDS BATH 01008KIDS CLO 01009ELEV.112STAIR113CLOSET I004LINEN45'-3 1/2"1'-1 3/4"30'-0 1/2"32'-2 3/4"2'-8"15'-8"4'-8 1/2"KING BED4'-0"1'-11"SAUNA012A4'-2"6'-0"3'-9"11'-10 3/4"8'-6 1/2"13'-0 1/2"14'-0"5'-4"2'-0"1'-6"2'-8"5'-10"16'-2 3/4"13'-1 1/2"8'-1 1/4"5'-6"3'-4 1/2"2'-0"14'-4"11'-9 1/4"4'-0"18UP5'-5"TWIN BEDS ABOVETV18UPCLOSET0175'-0 3/4"1/4 " = 1'-0"8.19.2025FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCEPROJECTNORTHBASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - OPTION AApproximate storagelocation of structure in REDExisting location ofstructure in BLACKExisting structure at 126 W. FrancisSt. to be moved and stored by BaileyHouse Movers to the North border ofproperty, as approximated here.Property Boundary135 136 126 West Francis Street Historical Preservation Committee Engineering Report November 26, 2025 Prepared By: Jay Engstrom, P.E. Crystal River Civil, LLC Carbondale, CO 81623 jay@crystalrivercivil.com (970) 510-5312 Exhibit L 137 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 2 of 10 Table of Contents 1.0 General Information ........................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Proposed Conditions .................................................................................................. 4 2.0 Drainage Basins and Subbasins ..................................................................................... 4 2.1 Onsite Drainage Basins .............................................................................................. 4 2.2 Offsite Drainage Basins .............................................................................................. 5 3.0 Low Impact Site Design .................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Principles .................................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Hydrologic Criteria .......................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Runoff Calculation Method.......................................................................................... 7 4.2 Basin Analysis ............................................................................................................ 7 4.3 Water Quality and Storage Requirements ................................................................... 8 5.0 Proposed Facilities ......................................................................................................... 9 5.1 Green Roof Systems .................................................................................................. 9 5.2 Permeable Pavers ...................................................................................................... 9 5.3 Bioretention Area ........................................................................................................ 9 5.4 Grass Buffer ..............................................................................................................10 138 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 3 of 10 1.0 General Information 1.1 Existing Conditions The property being discussed in this report is addressed at 126 West Francis Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611. The site is located within downtown City of Aspen and is 4,407 sq. ft. in area. It is documented as parcel # 273512418002 The site is located on the north side of West Francis Street between North 1st Street and North Garmish Street and is surrounded by other residential developments. Single-family homes are located to the west and east, with West Francis Street Right-Of-Way to the south and an Alley Right-Of-Way to the north. 325 West Hopkins Avenue Vicinity Map 126 West Francis has a historic building that was built in 1888 and is located centrally on the lot. This building has been added onto, and several portions and additions are not considered historic portions of the building. The grade throughout the site is flat, with the overall grade change on the property not exceeding one foot, with a slight slope from the south to the north. The grades in front of the property within the West Francis Right-Of-Way are also considerably flat. A City of Aspen Water Department water main is located under the West Francis Street Right-Of- Way. An existing water service runs north from the main line at the center of the property and into the structure. The existing size and material is unknown at this time. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, or ACSD, has a sewer main within the alley Right-Of-Way to the north. The Site 139 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 4 of 10 existing home has a sewer service that extends north and ties into this sewer main. A City of Aspen Electric Department electric transformer is located to the northeast of the site and appears to be within the Alley Right-Of-Way with service extending to the site. Gas and communications are also located in the alley, with services extending onto the site. A survey has been completed and is included with this submittal. Refer to this survey for additional information regarding all utilities and other existing conditions on and around the site. 1.2 Proposed Conditions The proposed conditions for 325 West Hopkins Avenue include the demolition of the non-historic additions of the residence. The historic building will then be restored on the front façade, and a new addition will be constructed behind. A large, below-grade basement will encompass the entire site outside of the ten-foot offset from the historic building. Patios, walkways, and landscaping are proposed around the site. A garage will be located on the northern side of the structure that will be accessed from the alleyway. A civil site plan with grading and drainage has been provided within the civil drawings included in this submittal, dated 11/24/2025. Currently there are no known drainage studies performed on or around the site. The project is not within a mudflow area as defined within the URMP. The project is intending to directly tie into the existing stormwater infrastructure within West Francis Street. This will allow the project to provide water quality treatment for any stormwater generated from the site, and release via a pipe network into the city infrastructure. Coordination with the city, as well as verifications on the existing stormwater system will be necessary to ensure the system will function as intended. A variety of water quality treatment will be provided, consisting of green roof areas with integrated detention, pervious paver systems, a subgrade stormwater retention system, and level spreaders with grass buffers. All hardscaping and walkways around the structure are proposed to be pervious and do not need to be collected unless desired. All water quality systems release into a pipe network that will be sized to convey a 100-year, 1-hour storm event into the existing city infrastructure. A Stormwater Analysis is provided within the Civil drawings for further clarity on the layout and intent. Utility services will be improved to the site for the development. A new water service will be necessary to accommodate fire suppression. A new sanitary sewer service will replace the existing service to the main in the alley. The existing transformer is intended to be maintained, with upgrades provided as necessary for capacity. Additionally, the gas and communications services will be upgraded and extended from the alley to the residence. A utility plan has been provided within the civil drawings included with this submittal. 2.0 Drainage Basins and Subbasins 2.1 Onsite Drainage Basins The property has been analyzed as one drainage basin, containing the entirety of the existing and proposed conditions. The point of concentration for the basin will be the connection into the city infrastructure. 140 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 5 of 10 Basin 1 is composed of 3,826 square feet and is 61% impervious. This basin includes existing and proposed roof area, as well as landscape areas collected by the water quality treatment systems. Due to the pervious nature of the surrounding areas of the development, there are no impacts due to offsite drainage. Subbasin 1.1 is roof area that is collected within a green roof area, which will have detention for the water quality capture volume, or WQCV. Any flows leaving the green roof system will be collected by an underdrain and conveyed to the subgrade storm system. If the storm exceeds a 5-year, 1-hour storm event, an overflow will bypass the treatment system. Subbasin 1.2 is roof area that is released onto a pervious paver patio, which is labeled subbasin 1.3. Both subbasin 1.2 and 1.3 will release into the screened rock bed beneath the paver system and will be collected by an underdrain that also releases into the storm pipe network. Subbasin 1.4 is a roof and deck area that will be collected within another green roof area with integrated detention for the WQCV. This system will also have an underdrain and an overflow that functions similarly to the green roof in subbasin 1.1. Subbasin 1.5 is a roof area that releases into the landscaping to the east, where it is collected by an inlet. This collects runoff and releases it into a bioretention area. Subbasin 1.6 is a pervious area that will sheet flow and be collected by this system as well. This system will include an inlet that will act as an overflow once the bioretention pond capacity is met. Subbasins 1.7 and 1.9 are additional roof areas that will be dispersed into the lawn area in the front of the residence via a level spreader system. The lawn will act as a grass buffer and provide water quality treatment prior to being collected by a series of inlets along the property line. These inlets also collect any additional flows from the lawn areas described as subbasins 1.8 and 1.10. All runoff collected will be conveyed through the storm system sized for a 100-year, 1-hour storm event. This storm system conveys stormwater south and into the existing city infrastructure. A stormwater pipe follows under West Francis Street, conveying the neighborhood’s Right-Of-Way stormwater to the East. This stormwater line will be scoped, located, and depth verified to ensure that the proposed system will work as intended. 2.2 Offsite Drainage Basins There are minimal offsite drainage patterns releasing onto 126 West Francis Street. Any runoff from the street will be verified upon further development of the design and can be collected by the proposed inlets along the southern property line. Sizing for this infrastructure will be provided upon further development of this project. 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 61% impervious. 141 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 6 of 10 3.1 Principles Principle 1: Consider storm water quality needs early in the design process. The design team coordinated throughout the schematic design phase as effectively as possible, while 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 these constraints, stormwater detention is not feasible so water quality treatment with integration into the city infrastructure was necessary. Principle 3: Avoid unnecessary impervious area. All walkways and patios around the building are proposed as pervious. There are no impervious areas proposed outside of the roof. Principle 4: Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. All runoff from impervious surfaces on the property is collected and treated, and small detention areas have been sized for WQCV, or a 5-year, 1-hour storm event. Given this, runoff from the site will be greatly reduced, and runoff from the site will directly tie into the city infrastructure and will not impact any neighboring structures. Principle 5: Integrate storm water quality management and flood control. All impervious areas will be collected and conveyed subgrade from the site. Adequately sizing the inlets and piping systems on site will significantly reduce the potential of flooding on site and into the neighboring parcels in the area. Principle 6: Develop storm water quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. The onsite basin will be conveyed directly to the city stormwater system after the water quality treatment systems. This will minimize impacts of stormwater on neighboring residences from the project. The design allows for more than adequate drainage capacity while having minimal visual impacts. The proposed water quality systems minimize contaminants from reaching the river. This effectively minimizes impacts on the existing infrastructure and the Roaring Fork River. Principle 7: Use treatment train approach. Downspout are released into landscaping or onto pervious pavers prior to being collected. Sumps will be proposed for the inlets in the pipe network to ensure treatment throughout the system. Principle 8: Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. Inlets, piping, pervious paver systems, and subgrade retention will be routinely maintained for 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. 142 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 7 of 10 Principle 9: Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. The proposed design for the walkways and patios will allow for adequate drainage, and minimizes ice buildup and dangerous conditions. Walkways and stairways will be pitched at recommended slopes and within building code thresholds to allow for safe circulation within the property. Grading will be kept to a minimum and retainage has been minimized. Transitions into existing conditions will be smooth and natural. Inlets and piping will be sized to reduce potential flooding within the area. 4.0 Hydrologic Criteria 4.1 Runoff Calculation Method Calculations and analyses defined in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 of the URMP were used to define the runoff from the basins on the property. The property is classified as a “sub-urban area served by public storm sewer.” Pre-developed and developed runoff rates were determined for both the 5-year, 1-hour and the 100-year, 1-hour storm events for capacity designs as required by this classification. The peak discharge shown in this analysis uses the Rational Method, as described in section 3.4 of the URMP. This requires several variables to be determined, including values for intensity, the runoff coefficient, and basin area. Using the rainfall depths from Table 2-2 and the basin time of concentration in conjunction with Equation 2-1, the rainfall intensity for the basins can be calculated. The rainfall intensity equation shown in the URMP is a direct correlation of the Aspen area Intensity Duration Frequency Curve derived from the NOAA Atlas 14 database. As stated within the URMP, the time of concentration can be no less than five minutes for the calculations to be effective. Due to the size of the basins on the site, the time of concentration within the basins is less than five minutes. The runoff coefficient for each basin was established using the percent impervious of the basin and the soil type in combination with the most up-to-date values as presented in the Mile High Flood District Drainage Design Values for the specified soil type in the area. For this project, an NRCS Soil Classification of B was utilized. 4.2 Basin Analysis The tables below summarize the calculations that were performed on the onsite basins using the methods described in Section 4.1 of this report. 143 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 8 of 10 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 does not have to meet the predeveloped peak discharge of a 100-year, 1-hour storm event, but has to maintain water quality treatment for any runoff leaving the site. The project is proposing a series of treatment systems following the URMP standards to attain these requirements. An analysis was provided to determine the water quality capture volume (WQCV) for all subbasins on the site. Below is a table showing these volumes. Following the standards set by the URMP, the roof area labeled Subbasin 1.2 does not have to incorporate the WQCV within the system, as the impervious area being released onto the paver system is less than the 2:1 pervious paver area ratio. Additionally, the grass buffer systems do Rainfall depth, P1 (in)0.64 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/A t (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec) 1 3826 0 0.00%0.010 5 3.29 0.00 Developed Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2)Ai (ft2)Ai/A t (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec) 1 3826.00 2315.00 60.51%0.490 5 3.29 0.14 5-Year 1-Hour Onsite Peak Discharge Calculations Rainfall depth, P1 (in)1.23 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/A t (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qp (ft3/sec) 1 3826 0 0.00%0.430 5 6.33 0.24 Developed Conditions Basin Total Area Impervious Area Percent Impervious C Value Time of Concentration Intensity Peak Discharge (Name)At (ft2)Ai (ft2)Ai/A t (%) Tc (min)I (in/hr)Qd (ft3/sec) 1 3826.00 2315.00 60.51%0.710 5 6.33 0.39 100-Year 1-Hour Onsite Peak Discharge Calculations 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) 1.1 Green Roof 180.00 36%0.07 1 1.07 1.2 Pervious Pavers 608.00 100%0.26 1 13.17 1.3 Pervious Pavers 412.00 0%0.00 1 0.00 1.4 Green Roof 307.00 88%0.19 1 4.81 1.5 Bioretention Pond 623.00 100%0.26 1 13.50 1.6 Bioretention Pond 120.00 0%0.00 1 0.00 1.7 Grass Buffer 282.00 100%0.26 1 6.11 1.8 Grass Buffer 326.00 0%0.00 1 0.00 1.9 Grass Buffer 467.00 100%0.26 1 10.12 1.10 Grass Buffer 506.00 0%0.00 1 0.00 Water Quality Capture Volume Storage Calculation Water Quality Capture Volume (ft3)FOS Drywells=1.5, FOS Other BMP's=1.0 144 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 9 of 10 not incorporate the WQCV values, as again the treatment is provided by the overland flow, and the impervious area is being released into a larger grass buffer area. 5.0 Proposed Facilities The following analyses were performed using the peak flows of the basins described in Section 4 of this report. Additional sub-basin analysis will be provided for the permit set, as well as a hydraulic analysis of all conveyance infrastructure, including inlets and piping. 5.1 Green Roof Systems There are two roof areas with green roof sections, one being above the garage and one being within the rooftop deck. These two locations can collect any impervious roof areas above the green roof. CRC has utilized the calculations found within the Section 8.5.1.5 of the URMP to calculate the storage capacity of the green roof to ensure it has adequate storage of the WQCV, as shown below. The green roof area above the garage will be 116 square feet, with 78 square feet useable for the detention area. From the WQCV calculations shown within section 4.3, the planter will provide 13.76 cubic feet of storage. The green roof on the rooftop patio is currently 36 square feet and will provide 6.35 cubic feet of storage of the WQCV. Both volumes can be provided within the green roof sections given a six inch material depth and a 30% sand within the medium. These systems will be further developed for future phases and will incorporate the underdrain system as well as the overflow. 5.2 Permeable Pavers The project is proposing all hardscaped areas outside of the footprint of the building to utilize permeable pavers. This will allow for these areas to infiltrate into the soils around the structure and minimize the amount of runoff flowing into the drywell within the basement. The patio in the northwest corner of the site is 440 square feet and will collect the daylighting roof downspout (subbasin 1.2). As per the URMP in section 8.5.1.4, the 2:1 ratio would allow for 880 square feet of impervious area to be released into the paver section. 5.3 Bioretention Area The proposed bioretention area for the collection of basins 1.5 and 1.6 have been sized for capacity of the Water Quality Capture Volume, as summarized in Section 4.4 of this report. As Basin Point Of Concentration Green Roof Area Depth Of Material Percent Sand Subbasin WQCV Green Roof Storage Capacity (Name)(Name)(ft2)(Inches)(%)WQCV (ft3)(ft3) 1.1 Green Roof 78 6 30%1.07 13.76 1.4 Green Roof 36 6 30%4.81 6.35 Green Roof Storage Capacity Calculation Green Roof Storage Capacity a 145 Crystal River Civil LLC 970.510.5312 Page 10 of 10 per the City of Aspen URMP, a calculation was performed to determine the Flat Surface Area for each system utilizing the water quality depth. See table below showing results from the analysis. From the calculated flat surface area, the bioretention areas were laid out with slopes not exceeding 3:1 slopes and the full surface area and depth were determined, as shown in the table below. These calculations were utilized to design the systems that are shown in the civil drawings to meet the requirements of the URMP. 5.4 Grass Buffer Two separate roof areas release via a downspout on the south side of the structure and will utilize the grass buffer strategy described within section 8.5.1.3 of the URMP. Grass Buffer 1 is located to the east of the walkway and consists of subbasin 1.7 being released onto subbasin 1.8. The grass buffer is 16 feet wide and 20 feet long, allowing for the 285 square feet of grass area to provide treatment of the 282 square feet of roof area. A pervious paver walkway cuts through the grass paver, but this will allow for additional infiltration and will encourage additional disbursement across the buffer area. Slopes are proposed at 2% and do not exceed the maximum 4%. Grass Buffer 2 is located to the west of the walkway and consists of subbasin 1.9 being released onto subbasin 1.10. The grass buffer is 25 feet wide and 20 feet long, allowing for the 484 square feet of grass area to provide treatment of the 467 square feet of roof area. Slopes are proposed at 2% and do not exceed the maximum 4%. Both grass buffer areas are collected by area drains along the property line. Bioretention Area Associated Basin Total Area Impervious Percentage Water Quality Depth Bioretention Area Design Volume Flat Surface Area (Name)(Name)(ft2)(%)(in)(ft3)(ft2) 1 1.5 and 1.6 743.00 83.85%0.17 13.5 6.6 Bioretention Area Flat Surface Area Calculation Flat Surface Area Bioretention Area Associated Basin Bioretention Top Surface Area Bioretention Area Depth Flat Surface Area Provided Detention Basin Capacity Volume Calculated Volume Necessary (Name)(Name)Ab (ft2)db (ft)(ft2)Vb (ft3)(ft3) 1 1.5 and 1.6 70.0 0.35 8.50 13.7 13.5 Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV), ft3 Bioretention Area Size Calculations 146 3 HPC APPLICATION - FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCE SITE CONTEXT PHOTOS Exhibit M 147 1 HPC APPLICATION - FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS WOOD SIDING 1. Clapboard Siding; White Paint TBD SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE 3. Brava - Lake Forest PORCH DECKING 4. Douglas Fir Planks; Stain TBD CHIMNEY CLADDING 5. Red Brick FISHSCALE SIDING 8. White Paint TBD SYNTHETIC CEDAR FISHSCALE 6. Gray Stain TBD 3 6 4 2 1 5 7 PAINTED WOOD: TIMBER, TRIM, FASCIA, WINDOW 7. Blue/Grey Paint TBD METAL CLAD WINDOW 9. Leaded Grey or Sim. WOOD SIDING 2. Vertical Siding; White Paint TBD 7 8 8 9 Exhibit N 148 2 HPC APPLICATION - FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS 6 2 9 4 3 1 EXTERIOR MATERIALS WOOD SIDING 1. Clapboard Siding; White Paint TBD SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE 3. Brava - Lake Forest METAL PLANTER BOXES 4. Galvanized Zinc or Sim. SOFFIT AND TRIM 5. Painted to Match Siding FOUNDATION 8. Exposed Concrete PAINTED WOOD DOORS, TRIM, FASCIA 6. Blue/Grey Paint TBD METAL GUARDRAIL 7. Aluminum or Sim. METAL CLAD WINDOW 9. Leaded Grey or Sim. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2. Zinc 2 5 5 6 7 8 3 149 3 HPC APPLICATION - FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCE EXTERIOR MATERIALS 6 2 4 5 1 EXTERIOR MATERIALSEXTERIOR MATERIALS WOOD SIDING 1. Clapboard Siding; White Paint TBD SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE 3. Brava - Lake Forest METAL PLANTER BOXES 4. Galvanized Zinc or Sim. SOFFIT AND TRIM 5. Painted to Match Siding FOUNDATION 8. Exposed Concrete PAINTED WOOD DOORS, TRIM, FASCIA 6. Blue/Grey Paint TBD METAL GUARDRAIL 7. Aluminum or Sim. METAL CLAD WINDOW 9. Leaded Grey or Sim. STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2. Zinc 3 7 8 9 150 4 HPC APPLICATION - FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCE 6 2 4 4 5 1 EXTERIOR MATERIALSEXTERIOR MATERIALSEXTERIOR MATERIALS WOOD SIDING 1. Clapboard Siding; White Paint TBD SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE 3. Brava - Lake Forest PORCH DECKING 4. Douglas Fir Planks; Stain TBD SOFFIT AND TRIM 5. Painted to Match Siding FOUNDATION 8. Exposed Concrete PAINTED WOOD DOORS, TRIM, FASCIA 6. Blue/Grey Paint TBD METAL GUARDRAIL 7. Aluminum or Sim. WOOD SIDING 9. Vertical Siding; White Paint TBD STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 2. Zinc 8 3 6 6 7 8 5 9 151 23286 Two Rivers Road, Ste 24B Basalt, CO 81621 T 970-924-0514 NORTHWORKS.COM NORTHWORKS ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS 23286 TWO RIVERS ROAD, STE 24B, BASALT, CO 81621 SCOPE OF WORKAPPLICABLE CODES BY JURISDICTION PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS PROJECT DATA THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THESE PLANS WERE PREPARED UNDER MY PERSONAL SUPERVISION AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE CONFORM TO LOCAL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. ARCHITECT'S STATEMENT ARCHITECT OWNER DRAWING SHEET INDEX PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS AREA MAP PROPERTY INDEX NUMBER PROJECT ADDRESS BUILDING OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ZONING DISTRICT ZONING OVERLAY TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS LOT SIZE TOTAL FLOOR AREA W/ BASEMENT FIRE SPRINKLERS DESIGN CRITERIA 20 MAY 2026ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 11. REHABILITATION TO HISTORIC LANDMARK PORTION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 2. RENOVATION TO THE NON-HISTORIC PORTION OF THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3. ADDITION TO THE BASEMENT LEVEL 4. NEW LANDSCAPING BUILDING CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC) ENERGY CODE 2021 ASPEN ENERGY CODE MECHANICAL CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE (IMC) ELECTRICAL CODE 2023 NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE PLUMBING CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE FIRE PROTECTION CODE 2021 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE BRIAN & ERIN KELLY126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 ENERGY-1MEP ENGINEER744 HORIZON CT. STE 100 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 DB STRUCTURAL DESIGNSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER1001 GRAND AVE, SUITE 211, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 BENDONADAMSPLANNING CONSULTANT300 S. SPRING ST. #202 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLUEGREENLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT300 S SPRING ST SUITE 202 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRYSTAL RIVER CIVILCIVIL ENGINEER1101 VILLAGE ROAD UL-3C CARBONDALE, CO 81623 KORUGENERAL CONTRACTOR2551 DOLORES WAY CARBONDALE, CO 81623 TAPLINEA ARCHITECTURE DESIGNASSOCIATE ARCHITECT16 N 4th ST CARBONDALE CO 81623 126 W FRANCISSINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TYPE VB 2 1 R-6 N/A 273512418002 2 4,409 sf 2,709.78 sf YES HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 PROJECT SITE SHEET NUMBERSHEET NAME HPC APPLICATION Z0.00COVER SHEET ● G0.001EXISTING SITE SURVEY ● G0.05EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ● G0.06PROPOSED SUBGRADE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ● G0.07PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ● C.01GRADING AND DRAINAGE ● C.02DRAINAGE ANALYSIS ● C.03UTILITY PLAN ● X0.01EXISTING ARCH. SITE PLAN ● X1.00EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN ● X1.01EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN ● X1.02EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN ● X1.03EXISTING ROOF PLAN ● X2.00EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● X2.01EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● D0.01DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS ● D0.02DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS ● D1.00DEMOLITION BASEMENT PLAN ● D1.01DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLAN ● D1.02DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN ● D1.03DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN ● D2.00DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● D2.01DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● A0.00PROPOSED ARCH. SITE PLAN ● A1.00PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ● A1.01PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN ● A1.02PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN ● A1.03PROPOSED ROOF PLAN ● A2.00EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● A2.01EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● A2.02EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● A2.03EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ● SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME HPC APPLICATION A5.00 FRONT PORCH RESTORATION ● A5.01 CHIMNEY AND BAY RESTORATION ● A5.02 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST EAVE DETAIL ● A9.00 RENDERINGS ● A9.01 RENDERINGS ● A9.02 RENDERINGS ● A9.03 RENDERINGS ● A9.04 RENDERINGS ● ME1.0 MAIN LEVEL MEP HPC SITE ● L1.00 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN ● L3.00 LANDSCAPE PLAN ● 152 ASSUMED HISTORIC LANDMARK BOUNDARY BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS ASSUMED HISTORIC LANDMARK BOUNDARY SCALED SANDBORN MAP OVERLAY TRUE NORTH GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" HABITABLE SF: 305.08 SF TRUE NORTH 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.13. 3. 1.2.3.4. 7.5.9.6.8.10. 14. 12.11.13.14. 60.86 SF34.08 SF78.12 SF62.19 SF 14.90 SF31.11 SF28.21 SF23.55 SF53.52 SF54.23 SF 5.15 SF7.19 SF 34.83 SF27.36 SF TOTAL (EXISTING) SUBGRADE WALL AREA: 515.3 SF EXPOSED WALL WALL BELOW GRADE SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS LEGEND GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" HABITABLE SF: 2076.25 SF TRUE NORTH GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" HABITABLE SF: 823.77 SF DECKS: 162.07 SFTRUE NORTH OPEN TO BELOW ATTIC SPACE ATTIC SPACE GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1FIRST FLOOR - EXISTING CONDITIONS PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1G0.05 EXISTING FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR AREA SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"4 SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR COMPLETELY SUBGRADE AREA; NO EGRESS OR LIGHTWELLS OR EXPOSED WALL NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 NOT TO SCALE5HISTORIC SANDBORN MAP (1898) 153 UP A C D E F G 2 34567 1 H B 79' - 3"2,654.88 SQ FT INTERIOR SPACE 33' - 6" 1. 2. 3. 4.14' - 10 7/8"7' - 0"54' - 10 7/8"3' - 2 1/2"GARAGE SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YAR D S E T B A C K 5' - 0" SIDE YAR D S E T B A C K 5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK10' - 0"77' - 7"13' - 4"0' - 4"11' - 10"1' - 10"63' - 5 3/4"3' - 8 3/4"10' - 3"3' - 5"3' - 0" 1. 1040.03 SF30.75 SF 2. 421.81 SF30.75 SF 3. 4. 1022.71 SF 376.69 SF EXPOSED WALL WALL BELOW GRADE 0' - 8"13' - 0"1' - 10"11' - 10"77' - 7" 39' - 4 3/8" 31' - 10"11' - 10"13' - 4"23' - 11 1/8"7' - 10 7/8"13' - 0"31' - 10"3' - 5"9' - 7"0' - 4"3' - 2 1/2" 30.75 SF 3' - 0" WIDTH FROM FACE OF FINISH WALL AT GRADE ABOVE3' - 0" PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1G0.06 PROPOSED SUBGRADE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD PROPOSED SUBGRADE CALCULATIONS LEGEND SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 154 UP UP DN DN HABITABLE SF: 2654.88 SF TRUE NORTH GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" HABITABLE SF: 1835.15 SF GARAGE: 229.97 SF FRONT PORCH: 86.84 SFTRUE NORTH OPEN TO BELOW GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" OPEN TO BELOW TRUE NORTH HABITABLE SF: 769.91 SF ROOF DECKS: 203.41 SF ATTIC ACCESS FROM 22" X 30" WALL HATCH GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1G0.07 PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 BASEMENT AREA PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2 FIRST FLOOR AREA PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3 SECOND FLOOR AREA PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 155 EXISTING BRICK WALKWAY EXISTING F E N C E EXISTING SHED TO BE DEMOLISHED7886 410 N. FIRST ST. 120 W FRANCIS ST. EDGE OF P A V E M E N TTO WEST FRANCIS STREETALLEY BL O C K 5 57886 100.00 'BRICK PATIO EXISTING FENCE ON A CONCRETE WALL ON ADJACENT PROPERTY EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE RESTORED TO HISTORICAL FORM 10' R.O.W. LINE OF WALLS BELOW, TYP. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING SKYLIGHT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ASPEN TREE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FENCE EXISTING FENCE LINE OF WALLS BELOW, TYP. 5' - 0"788678867886788678867886788678864' - 6 1/4" 5' - 0" 1' - 3 1/2" 5' - 0" 2' - 9 1/4"GARAGE SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD S E T B A C K 5' - 0" SIDE YAR D S E T B A C K 5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK10' - 0"45.00 ' EXISTING DECK TO REMAIN EXISTING HARDSCAPE BOUNDARY EXISTING HARDSCAPE BOUNDARY EXISTING HARDSCAPE BOUNDARY EXISTING HARDSCAPE BOUNDARY 7911' - 9 1/2" 7906' - 0" EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X0.01 EXISTING ARCH. SITE PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ARCH. SITE PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 3/16" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 156 UP - --- _____________________________________________________________________________________ - --- _____________________________________________________________________________________ GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" 7879' - 1" PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X1.00 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH 100% BELOW GRADE; NO EGRESS OR WINDOW WELLS NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 157 DN UP _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.011 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.012 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.001_____________________________________________________________________________________X2.002 - --- _____________________________________________________________________________________ - --- _____________________________________________________________________________________ 19' - 5 1/8" GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" 7887' - 1 1/2" 7886' - 10 1/2" PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X1.01 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 158 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.011 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.012 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.001_____________________________________________________________________________________X2.002- --- _____________________________________________________________________________________ - --- _____________________________________________________________________________________ GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" 7898' - 4" 7898' - 2" PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X1.02 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 159 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.011 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.012 _____________________________________________________________________________________X2.001_____________________________________________________________________________________X2.002 GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" 7911' - 9 1/2" PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X1.03 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 160 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2"23' - 11 7/8"10' - 5 1/2"12' - 8"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEFIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2"23' - 11 7/8"12' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X2.00 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 161 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2"23' - 11 3/4"12' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEFIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2"23' - 9 1/2"12' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINESCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION -SOUTH PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1X2.01 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 162 DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION N.05 N.06 S.02 S.13 S.14 S.12 N.07 S.10 N.08 S.08 E.04 W.07 W.10 E.05 W.12 W.13 S.07 S.06 W.08 (ABOVE) E.06 (ABOVE) GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0"N.04 N.04 N.01 N.02 N.03 S.01 S.03 S.04 S.05 E.01E.03 E.02 W.01 W.02 W.03 W.04 W.05S.15 W.06 GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0"E.07 S.16 20.62 SF22.17 SF20.62 SF 23.08 SF 15.64 SF 200.75 SF 84.28 SF 11.29 SF 3.16 SF 36.05 SF 60.19 SF52.30 SF179.93 SFW.01W.02W.03W.04W.05W.06 W.08 W.10W.07W.1323.08 SFW.12 24.03 SF93.64 SF 7.44 SF7.44 SF 16.96 SF 3.36 SF3.36 SF 170.08 SF 165.00 SF 13.89 SF 74.17 SFE.01E.02 E.04 434.08 SFE.03146.31 SF 16.28 SF12.11 SF 11.29 SF E.05 2.63SF E.06 11.12 SF E.07 18.65 SF 37.03 SF42.40 SF 4.28 SF 5.33 SF13.36 SF9.56 SF 11.28 SF 47.35 SF3.28 SF 3.28 SF 52.24 SF 32.88 SF 15.72 SF 99.57 SF 6.61 SF8.33 SF S.02 S.04S.05 S.06 S.15 S.07 S.10 S.12S.14S.08 77.61 SFS.03 57.27 SFS.13 145.58 SFS.01 5.67 SF 20.25 SF31.37 SF6.47 SF S.16 S.16 19.63 SF14.05 SF16.66 SF 18.55 SF 17.88 SF 11.93 SF 87.51 SF 6.47 SF 323.94 SF 77.12 SF 20.15 SF N.05 N.04 N.06 N.03N.01 3.28 SF 3.28 SF N.08 N.07 39.50 SF 21.32 SF 20.59 SF 18.10 SF8.50 SF 7.08 SF 100.57 SF EXISTING WALL AREA TO REMAIN WALL AREA TO BE REMOVED AREA REDUCED FOR FENESTRATION LEGEND PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D0.01 DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2 DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 0 324816 SCALE: 1/8" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"3DEMO WALL CALCULATIONS - WEST SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"4DEMO WALL CALCULATIONS - EAST SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"5DEMO WALL CALCULATIONS - SOUTH SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"6DEMO WALL CALCULATIONS - NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 163 R.01 R.02 R.03 R.04 R.05 R.06 R.07 R.37 R.09 R.11 R.12 R.13 R.14 R.15 R.16 R.26 R.17 R.18 R.19 R.24 R.20R.21R22R23 R.25 R.27 R.32R.33 R.31 R.30 R.29 R.28 R.34 R.35 331.55 SF 50.28 SF 193.83 SF 8.03 SF 25.99 SF 38.25 SF 28.47 SF 28.11 SF 45.58 SF 21.33 SF 3.46 SF 3.46 SF 21.07 SF63.29 SFR.36 46.70 SF 130.48 SF 119.34 SF 39.37 SF 39.37 SF 39.37 SF39.37 SF 35.11 SF 92.47 SF 27.95 SF 27.95 SF 91.74 SF97.04 SF 32.87 SF 58.57 SF 14.28 SF 32.63 SF 34.89 SF 93.28 SF 90.97 SF 392.17 SF R.08 R.10 123.08 SF 88.91 SF R.38 38.34 SF 8.33 SF 7.36 SF 82.31 SF 10.70 SF 222.28 SF 2.06 SF GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0"1'-0 1/4" / 1'-0"5 3/4" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"11 5/8" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"11 7/8" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0" 10" / 1'-0" 2 1/2" / 1'-0"6" / 1'-0"10 3/8" / 1'-0"9 3/4" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"4 7/8" / 1'-0"1'-1 1/2" / 1'-0"11 7/8" / 1'-0"5 1/8" / 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0" 3 3/4" / 1'-0" 3 7/8" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0"8 1/4" / 1'-0"4 1/8" / 1'-0"1'-1 1/2" / 1'-0"1'-1 1/2" / 1'-0"1'-1 1/2" / 1'-0"1'-1" / 1'-0"4 1/8" / 1'-0" 4 1/8" / 1'-0"11" / 1'-0"1'-1" / 1'-0"1 1/2" / 1'-0"1'-0 1/4" / 1'-0"DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION EXISTING ROOF AREA TO REMAIN ROOF AREA TO BE REMOVED AREA REDUCED FOR FENESTRATION LEGEND PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D0.02 DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"2 DEMO ROOF CALCULATIONS SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"1 DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN 0 324816 SCALE: 1/8" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 164 STORAGE STORAGE CAREFULLY REMOVE EXISTING FOUNDATION WALLS & SLABS, BASEMENT STAIRS, DOORS, & WALLS, ETC. AS INDICATED & DISCARD MATERIAL. MAINTAIN LOAD- BEARING SUPPORT THROUGHOUT DEMOLITION & CONSTRUCTION WITH INSTALLATION OF JACK SUPPORTS PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" LINE OF EXISTING WALL ABOVE DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D1.00 DEMOLITION BASEMENT PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DEMOLITION BASEMENT PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 165 LIVING ROOM HALL ENTRY BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN FAMILY ROOM DEN BATHROOM STAIR HALL CLOSETCLOSET CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET BATHROOM DINING ROOM ONLY NON-HISTORICAL ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED @ HISTORIC STRUCTURE, TYP. EXTERIOR FINISHES TO BE REMOVED; FRAMING TO REMAIN @ HISTORIC STRUCTURE, TYP. GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" FRAMING OF THESE WALLS TO REMAIN UNTIL CONFIRMED NON-HISTORIC AFTER REMOVAL OF FINISHES EXISTING BRICK HEARTH EXTENSION TO BE REMOVED EXISTING NICHE W/ BUILT-IN SHELVES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING MASONRY FIREBOX & CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED IN FULL EXISTING EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL CLOSET TO BE REMOVED, TYP. OF (2) PORTION OF EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW SHOWN DASHED TO BE REMOVED, TYP. LINE OF SECOND FLOOR WALL ABOVE TO BE REMOVED DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D1.01 DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 166 PRIMARY BEDROOMPRIMARY BATHROOM EXTERIOR DECK BEDROOM STAIR HALL CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" SEE DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN FOR ROOF DEMOLITION EXISTING WALL SHOWN DASHED TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL TO REMAIN DECORATIVE ROOF RAILING TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF DECK OVER-FRAMING & BOARDS TO BE REMOVED, HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE BELOW TO REMAIN EXISITNG HISTORICAL ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED PORTION OF EXISTING DECK STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED FOR NEW EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION EXISTING ROOF DECK JOISTS TO REMAIN, DECK BOARDS TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ATTIC ACCESS DOOR TO BE REMOVED DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D1.02 DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 167 DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION EXISTING PORCH ROOF TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DECORATIVE ROOF RAILING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING DECORATIVE ROOF RAILING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, ROOF FINISHES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED EXISTING HISTORICAL ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING HISTORICAL ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE RESTORED TO HISTORICAL FORM EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED1'-1 1/2" / 1'-0"1'-1" / 1'-0"PORTION OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMER LINE OF EXISTING WALL BELOW EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0"5 1/8" / 1'-0" EXISTING ROOF DECK OVER-FRAMING TO BE REMOVED, HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE BELOW TO REMAIN EXTERIOR DECK EXISTING PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL TO REMAIN DECORATIVE ROOF RAILING TO BE REMOVED PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D1.03 DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 168 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" PROPOSED BASEMENT CEILING95' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPORTION OF EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL FRAMING TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED; SEE DEMO PLAN EXSITING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL CLOSET TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING GUTTER TO BE REMOVED, TYP. FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" PROPOSED BASEMENT CEILING95' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" HISTORIC ELEMENTS TO BE RESTORED ONLY NON-HISTORIC ELEMENTS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED EXISTING FRONT ENTRY DOOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW IN HISTORIC STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED & REPLACED NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE REMOVED EXTERIOR FINISHES TO BE REMOVED; FRAMING TO REMAIN @ HISTORIC STRUCTURE, TYP.SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEEXISTING HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF RAILING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION -SOUTH PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D2.00 DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 169 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" PROPOSED BASEMENT CEILING95' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" FACE BRICK @ EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED FOR RESORATION OF HISTORICAL CHIMNEY, STRUCTURE TO REMAIN HISTORICAL SIDING PROFILES TO BE RESTORED EAVE @ HISTORICAL ROOF TO BE RESTORED EXISTING SKYLIGHT TO BE REMOVED NON-HISTORIC ADDITION TO BE REMOVED FOR RESORATION OF HISTORICAL PORCH EXISTING HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ROOF RAILING TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING HISTORICAL WINDOW TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A NEW, HISTORICALLY ACCURATE WINDOW EXISTING SPARK ARRESTOR TO BE REMOVED EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL TO BE REMOVED EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, TYP.SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEEXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED EXISTING ELECTRICAL CLOSET TO BE REMOVED PORTION OF EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED, SEE DEMO PLAN PORTION OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMER EXISTING ROOF TO BE REMOVED, PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL BEYOND TO REMAIN, SEE PLAN FOR EXTENTS EXISTING PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL & DECK SEATING TO BE REMOVED FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" PROPOSED BASEMENT CEILING95' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEEXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING HISTORIC ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO REMAIN, FASCIA, SOFFIT & TRIM TO BE REMOVED, TYP. EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN, FINISHES TO BE REMOVED. EXISTING DORMER TO BE REMOVED PORTION OF EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DORMER DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION TO REMAIN DEMOLISHED WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1D2.01 DEMOLITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2 DEMOLITION ELEVATION - EAST SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 DEMO EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 170 A C D E F G 2 345 67 TO WEST F R A N C I S S T R E E T ALLEY BL O C K 5 5 10' R.O.W. EXISTING FENCE ON A CONCRETE WALL AT ADJ. PROPERTY 410 N. FIRST ST.7886EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE RESTORED TO HISTORICAL FORM PORTION OF EXISTING ROOF DECK STRUCTURE TO REMAIN PROPOSED EGRESS WELL W/ GUARDRAIL PROPOSED EGRESS WELL W/ GUARDRAIL COVERED FRONT PORCH <30" ABOVE GRADE PROPOSED DORMERS PROPOSED PERVIOUS PAVERS PER LANDSCAPE EXISTING TREE PER SURVEY, TYP. LINE OF EXTERIOR WALL BELOW, TYP. LINE OF PROPOSED 18'-0" x 8'-6" PARKING SPACE 1 H B PROPOSED HEAT PUMPS RE: A2.03 PROPOSED ELECTRICAL SERVICE RE: A2.03 GREEN ROOF PER LANDSCAPE METAL GUARDRAIL @ PROPOSED ROOF DECK EDGE OF P A V E M E N T 5' - 8 5/8"9' - 0"5' - 0"18" MAX ROOF OVERHANG INTO SETBACK7886788678867886 788678867886788678867886LINE OF BASEMENT WALL BELOW 17' - 0 3/8"16' - 10 1/8" 21' - 7 3/4" 23' - 0 5/8" 21' - 11 1/4" 21' - 11 1/4" 10' - 4" 21' - 1 1/2" 10' - 6 5/8" 11' - 5 1/2" 120 W FRANCIS ST. 4" / 1'-0" 4" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"1'-1 1/2" / 1 ' - 0 " 4 7/8" / 1'-0 "5 1/8" / 1'-0"1'-1" / 1'-0"1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0"3 1/2" / 1'-0"PROPOSE D D E C K EXTERIOR PATIO AT GRADE 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0"GARAGE SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YAR D S E T B A C K 5' - 0" SIDE YAR D S E T B A C K 5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK10' - 0"1' - 6" 0' - 2 1/2" 7903' - 11"7897' - 6" 7909' - 11 1/8" 1'-0 1/4" / 1 ' - 0 " 11 7/8" / 1'- 0 " PROPOSED 36" H GUARDRAIL W/ PLANTER EXISTING ROOF DECK PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A0.00 PROPOSED ARCH. SITE PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 3/16" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ARCH. SITE PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 171 WDUP ACDE F G 2 3 4 5 6 7 4' - 0"79' - 3"3' - 2 1/2"GUEST BEDROOM 1 006 GUEST BEDROOM 2 009 GUEST CLOSET 2 007 GUEST BEDROOM 3 010 REC ROOM 015 SHARED BATH 018 W.C 016 SHOWER 017 LAUNDRY 020 CLOSET 019B DEN 021 GYM 013 SAUNA 014 GUEST BATH 2 008 GUEST BATH 3 011 GUEST CLOSET 3 012 COLD PLUNGE3' - 2 3/8"3' - 0" STAIR HALL 001 GUEST SUITE 1 HALL 003 GUEST CLOSET 1 005 GUEST BATH 1 004 BEDROOM HALL 002 TVREF. DRAWERS CLOSET 002B VEST. 019A 1 HB 4' - 2 3/8"5' - 2 1/2"24' - 1 1/8"34' - 10 3/4" BEV CENTER LINE OF WALL ABOVE OPEN TO ABOVE33' - 6"4' - 2 3/8"15' - 1 1/2"9' - 0"55' - 1 1/2" 3' - 0"3' - 0" GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0"FROM FINISH3' - 0"FROM FINISH3' - 0"7872' - 1 1/2" LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION NEW WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A1.00 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 172 UP DN _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.001 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.021 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.011_____________________________________________________________________________________A2.031 ACDE F G 2 3 4 5 6 7 ERIN'S OFFICE 106 K/L/D 101 PANTRY 102 HALL 104 GUEST BATH 108 POWDER 105 1 33' - 6"EXISTING FRAMING HB DN (1)RHP1HP2 0' - 8 1/4"3' - 9 3/4"1' - 2"2' - 9"23' - 0"2' - 1 1/8"MUD 103 GUEST BED 107 6' - 5 3/4"WOOD DECKING AT COVERED FRONT PORCH <30" ABOVE GRADE PAVER PATH PER LANDSCAPE 6' - 5 3/4"5' - 4" 0' - 7 1/4" 0' - 8 3/4"0' - 8 3/4"FACE OF CONC. BASEMENT WALL BELOW OPEN TO ABOVE/BELOW48" REF/FRZGARAGE 111 EXTERIOR PATIO AT GRADE3' - 0"PROPOSED EGRESS WELL PROJECTION FROM FACADE PROPOSED EGRESS WELL PROJECTION FROM FACADE 73' - 5 3/4" 5' - 5 1/4"4' - 6 3/4"23' - 8 1/2"33' - 7 1/8"6' - 2 1/8"11' - 2 5/8"3' - 0"GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" EGRESS WELL EGRESS WELLEGRESS WELL 7886' - 9 3/4" 7886' - 10 1/2" 7886' - 3" 7886' - 3 1/2" LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION NEW WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A1.01 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR - FLOOR PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 173 UP _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.001 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.021 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.011_____________________________________________________________________________________A2.031 ACD E F G 2 3 4 5 6 7 PRIMARY BEDROOM 202 ERIN'S CLOSET 204 BRIAN'S CLOSET 206 1 HB PRIMARY BATHROOM 203 W.C. 205 10' - 0"23' - 8 1/2"16' - 1"17' - 6 1/8"6' - 2 1/8"11' - 2 5/8"33' - 6"84' - 8 1/4"0' - 8 1/4"3' - 9 3/4"1' - 2"2' - 9"23' - 0"2' - 1 1/8"GREEN ROOF PER LANDSCAPE 36" H METAL GUARDRAIL OPEN TO BELOW 1' - 0" EXTERIOR DECK READING NOOK 201 PRIMARY VEST. 202A 22" X 30" ATTIC ACCESS HATCH ATTIC 2XX STAIR LANDING 200 EXISTING ATTIC ABOVE PROPOSED DINING ROOM TO BE ABANDONDED; CEILING AT PROPOSED DINING ROOM TO BE VAULTED 4' - 1"12' - 10"REAR DECK GARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" 7897' - 4"BRIAN'S OFFICE 207 BUILT-IN PLANTERLEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION NEW WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A1.02 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 174 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.001 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.021 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.011_____________________________________________________________________________________A2.031 ACDE F G 2 3 4 5 6 7 INFILL EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE AT DEMOLISHED DORMERS, CHIMNEY, AND OPENINGS AS REQUIRED, TYP. EXTERIOR WOOD DECK EXISTING HISTORICAL ROOF TO REMAIN EXISTING CHIMNEY TO RESTORED TO HISTORICAL FORM PROPOSED SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF AND DORMERS ON EXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE, INFILL ROOF STRUCTURE FROM DEMOLISHED DORMERS, CHIMNEY, AND OPENINGS AS REQUIRED, TYP. GREEN ROOF PER LANDSCAPE (NOT ACCESSIBLE) SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 1 HB STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF 10' - 0"23' - 8 1/2"16' - 1"17' - 6 1/8"6' - 2 1/8"11' - 2 5/8"33' - 6"84' - 8 1/4"0' - 8 1/4"3' - 9 3/4"1' - 2"2' - 9"23' - 0"2' - 1 1/8"1'-0" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"4" / 1'-0"10" / 1'-0" 10" / 1'-0"1'-1 1/2" / 1'-0"1'-1" / 1'-0"3 1/2" / 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0"5 1/8" / 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" / 1'-0"4 7/8" / 1'-0"SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF PAVERS PER LANDSCAPE GARAGE SETBACKGARAGE SETBACK 5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"SIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' - 0" PROPOSED PORCH ROOF TO MATCH HISTORICAL HOME PHOTOS; SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF FINISH EXISTING HISTORICAL ROOF TO REMAIN 1' - 4 1/4"NEW/PROPOSED ROOF PROJECTION EXISTING NON-HISTORIC ROOF; IN FILL WHERE DORMERS ARE REMOVED 7909' - 11 1/8" 7903' - 11"1'-0 1/4" / 1'-0"11 7/8" / 1'-0"BUILT-IN PLANTER1'-1" / 1'-0"PROPOSED INTERNAL GUTTER @ BASE OF HISTORIC ROOF NEW WD CAP ON EXISTING PARTIAL HEIGHT WALL LEGEND EXISTING WALL OR PARTITION NEW WALL OR PARTITION PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A1.03 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"TRUE NORTH NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 175 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" HISTORIC LANDMARK BOUNDARY LINE EXTENTS OF EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BASEMENT SUB FLOOR85' - 0" PROPOSED CRAWL SPACE - FIN FLR78' - 5" 234567 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL - T.O. F.F.85' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" 1 12' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"0' - 8"7' - 1 1/2"6' - 11 1/2"0' - 3"6' - 7"CHIMNEY PROJECTION < 10' FROM HEIGHT OF BUILDING CONNECTION RESTORE LANDMARK SIDING TO HISTORICAL DIMENSIONS AND STYLE RESTORE CHIMNEY TO HISTORICAL FORM SILL DETAILS TO BE RESTORED TO HISTORIC FORM RESTORE WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS RESTORE ROOF TO FISH SCALE SHINGLES 1'-1 1/2" 1'-0" 4 7/8" 1'-0" HISTORIC WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW; DIMENSIONS AND LOCATION TO BE COMFIRMED AT DEMOLITION EGRESS LIGHT WELL PER IRC R.310.2 (10'-6" SQ FT) PER 26.575.020.F.4.J. ________________________________________A5.00 2 ________________________________________A5.01 1 ________________________________________A5.01 2 1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE13' - 4 1/8"4" 1'-0"1/2 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE20' - 1 3/4"MAX 6' CLEAR TO FLOOR FRAMING6' - 0"07.31.01 04.21.01 08.51.00 05.52.00 03.30.00 07.46.01 07.46.00 07.46.04 07.46.06 07.31.01 07.46.05 SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED GRADE TO MATCH EXISTING, FINISHED GRADE AT EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE IMPROVED AS NEEDED FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGAE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE11' - 2 1/2"1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 1/2 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 1/2 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE9' - 10 1/4"ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT PER 26.710.04025' - 0"23' - 9 1/2"SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION -SOUTH PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A2.00 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 03.30.00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 04.21.01 VENEER BRICK, RED BRICK, TYP., FINAL SPEC TBD 05.52.00 METAL GAURDRAIL, ALUMINUM OR SIM. 07.31.01 SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF, BRAVA - LAKE FOREST 07.46.00 WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.01 WOOD VERTICAL SIDING TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.04 PAINTED WOOD: TIMBER, TRIM, FASCIA, WINDOW; PAINT TBD 07.46.05 FISHSCALE SIDING, TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.06 SYNTHTIC CEDAR FISHSCALE, TYP., GRAY STAIN, FINAL SPEC TBD 08.51.00 METAL CLAD WINDOW, LEADED GREY OR SIM. 176 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" PROPOSED BASEMENT SUB FLOOR85' - 0" PROPOSED CRAWL SPACE - FIN FLR78' - 5" ACDE F G PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL - T.O. F.F.85' - 3" 3' - 5"7' - 0"FIN.GRADE99' - 4" HB 11' - 7" EQEQ ARCH. LOUVERS TO VENT FP; PAINTED TO MATCH SDIING 12' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"0' - 8"7' - 1 1/2"6' - 11 1/2"0' - 3"6' - 7"10" 1'-0" 4" 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" 1'-0" CHIMNEY PROJECTION < 10' FROM HEIGHT OF BUILDING CONNECTION 1'-1 5/8" 1'-0"ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT PER 26.710.04025' - 0"EGRESS LIGHT WELL PER IRC R.310.2 (10'-6" SQ FT) PER 26.575.020.F.4.J.1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE15' - 10"1/2 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE19' - 7 1/2"1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE19' - 2 5/8"MAX 6' CLEAR TO FLOOR FRAMING6' - 0"23' - 9 1/2"07.46.00 07.46.04 07.46.01 08.51.00 04.21.01 03.30.00 07.46.00 07.46.00 07.31.01 07.61.01 SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED GRADE TO MATCH EXISTING, FINISHED GRADE AT EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE IMPROVED AS NEEDED FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGAE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE11' - 2 1/2"9' - 10 1/4"9 1/2" 1'-0" 1/2 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 13' - 4 1/8"1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 14' - 5"1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 1/2 PT EAVE TO RIDGE TOP-MOST PORTION11' - 0"PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A2.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 03.30.00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 04.21.01 VENEER BRICK, RED BRICK, TYP., FINAL SPEC TBD 07.31.01 SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF, BRAVA - LAKE FOREST 07.46.00 WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.01 WOOD VERTICAL SIDING TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.04 PAINTED WOOD: TIMBER, TRIM, FASCIA, WINDOW; PAINT TBD 07.61.01 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, TYP., ZINC, FINAL SPEC TBD 08.51.00 METAL CLAD WINDOW, LEADED GREY OR SIM. 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 177 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" EXISTING BASEMENT - FIN FLR92' - 2 1/2" EXTENTS OF EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BASEMENT SUB FLOOR85' - 0" PROPOSED CRAWL SPACE - FIN FLR78' - 5" 2 3 4 5 6 7 PROPOSED BASEMENT CEILING95' - 3" PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL - T.O. F.F.85' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" 1 11' - 6"11' - 6"ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT PER 26.710.04025' - 0"1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE14' - 5"EGRESS LIGHT WELL PER IRC R.310.2 (10'-6" SQ FT) PER 26.575.020.F.4.J.TOP-MOST PORTION11' - 0"1'-0" 1'-0"1/2 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE9' - 4"MAX 6' CLEAR TO FLOOR FRAMING6' - 0"23' - 9 1/2"12' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"4' - 1"3' - 0 1/2"6' - 11 1/2"0' - 3"6' - 7"0' - 8"07.46.00 07.31.01 07.46.04 07.46.04 08.51.00 05.52.00 03.30.004" 1'-0"SETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED GRADE TO MATCH EXISTING, FINISHED GRADE AT EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE IMPROVED AS NEEDED FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGAE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING NEIGHBOR'S FENCE EGRESS LIGHT WELL PER IRC R.310.2 (10'-6" SQ FT) PER 26.575.020.F.4.J.0' - 5 3/4"19' - 2 5/8"1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 19' - 7 1/2"1/2 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 15' - 10"SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTH PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A2.02 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 03.30.00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 05.52.00 METAL GAURDRAIL, ALUMINUM OR SIM. 07.31.01 SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF, BRAVA - LAKE FOREST 07.46.00 WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.04 PAINTED WOOD: TIMBER, TRIM, FASCIA, WINDOW; PAINT TBD 08.51.00 METAL CLAD WINDOW, LEADED GREY OR SIM. NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 178 FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" SECOND FLOOR - FIN FLR110' - 5 1/2" T/ROOF123' - 1 1/2" HISTORIC LANDMARK BOUNDARY LINE EXTENTS OF EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED BASEMENT SUB FLOOR85' - 0" PROPOSED CRAWL SPACE - FIN FLR78' - 5" ACDEFG PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL - T.O. F.F.85' - 3" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" H B ELECTRICAL SERVICE HP1HP22' - 6"6' - 7"0' - 3"14' - 1"0' - 8"10' - 5 1/2"12' - 8"SILL DETAILS TO BE RESTORED TO HISTORICAL FORM BUILDING CORNER TO BE RESTORED WITH HISTORICAL TRIM PROFILE 3 1/2" 1'-0" 1'-1 5/8" 1'-0"5 1/8" 1'-0" 10" 1'-0" RESTORE WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS AND TRIM PROFILES NEW FRONT DOOR; MATCH TO HISTORIC TYPOLOGY EGRESS LIGHT WELL PER IRC R.310.2 (10'-6" SQ FT) PER 26.575.020.F.4.J.TOP-MOST PORTION11' - 0"ZONE DISTRICT HEIGHT LIMIT PER 26.710.04025' - 0"________________________________________A5.00 3 ________________________________________A5.02 11/2 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE10' - 4 7/8"1/3 POINT FROM RIDGE TO EAVE13' - 1 1/2"1/2 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE12' - 10 7/8"1/3 POINT BETWEEN RIDGE & EAVE19' - 2 5/8"MAX 6' CLEAR TO FLOOR FRAMING6' - 0"23' - 9 1/2"03.30.00 07.46.00 07.31.01 07.46.04 07.46.00 07.61.01 04.21.01 07.46.04 07.46.05 ALL MECH EQUIPMENT WITHIN SETBACK TO BE LESS THAN 30" ABOVE GRADE AND NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREETSETBACK LINESETBACK LINEPROPOSED GRADE TO MATCH EXISTING, FINISHED GRADE AT EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE IMPROVED AS NEEDED FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGAE AWAY FROM THE BUILDING 9' - 0"20' - 1 3/4"1/2 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 1/3 PT EAVE TO RIDGE 14' - 5"07.46.00 EAVE TO BE RESTORED TO HISTORICAL FORM SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A2.03 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 KEYNOTE LEGEND KEY VALUE KEYNOTE TEXT 03.30.00 CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE 04.21.01 VENEER BRICK, RED BRICK, TYP., FINAL SPEC TBD 07.31.01 SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOF, BRAVA - LAKE FOREST 07.46.00 WOOD CLAPBOARD SIDING TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.46.04 PAINTED WOOD: TIMBER, TRIM, FASCIA, WINDOW; PAINT TBD 07.46.05 FISHSCALE SIDING, TYP., WHITE PAINT, FINAL SPEC TBD 07.61.01 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF, TYP., ZINC, FINAL SPEC TBD 0 2 4 8 16 SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0" 179 F G 2 1 6' - 2 1/8"EXISTING FRAMING DN (1)R6' - 5 3/4"DOUG FIR DECKING AT COVERED FRONT PORCH PAVER PATH PER LANDSCAPE 6' - 5 3/4"5' - 4" 0' - 7 1/4" 0' - 8 3/4"0' - 8 3/4"RESTORED EXTERIOR WALL AND SIDING 6' - 5 3/4"6' - 3"WALLS CURRENTLY INTERIOR THAT WILL BE EXTERIOR WHEN FRONT PORCH IS RESTORED; NEW SIDING AT THESE WALLS NEW DECK, POSTS/ROOF, SIDING AT FRONT PORCHSIDE YARD SETBACK5' - 0"1 A3.02 _____________________________________________________________________________________ FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" 1 TIMBER STRUCTURE RESTORED PER HISTORIC REFERENCE PHOTO SHED ROOF PER HISTORIC REFERENCE PHOTO HISTORIC WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW; EXACT DIMENSIONS TO BE CONFIRMED AT DEMOLITION PAINTED TRIM PER HISTORIC REFERENCE PHOTO SYNTHETIC CEDAR SHAKE ROOFING STYLE TO MATCH HISTORIC PRECEDENT CLAPBOARD SIDING; DIMENSIONS AND STYLE TO MATCH HISTORIC REFERENCE PHOTO EQEQ FG SHED ROOF END TO BE FILLED IN WITH PANELING; PAINTED TO MATCH CLAPBOARD SIDING EXISTING WALL; NEW CLAPBOARD SIDING; DIMENSIONS AND STYLE TO MATCH HISTORIC REFERENCE PHOTO RESTORE TRIM AT CORNERS SINGLE LITE OVER RAISED WOOD PANEL FRONT DOOR NEW FRONT DOOR TO MATCH HISTORIC TYPOLOGY ACCOYA WD DECKING TIMBER STRUCTURE RESTORED PER HISTORIC REFERENCE PHOTO HISTORIC ROOF FORM WITH NEW SHINGLES PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A5.00 FRONT PORCH RESTORATION 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED RESTORED FRONT PORCH PLAN DETAIL SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RESTORED FRONT PORCH ELEVATION DETAIL - SOUTH SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED RESTORED FRONT PORCH ELEVATION DETAIL - EAST HISTORICAL PHOTO REFERENCEEXISTING CONDITION NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 180 ONE FULL COURSE FOUR FULL COURSES FOUR FULL COURSES ESTIMATED HEIGHT ABOVE RIDGE4' - 2"ONE FULL COURSE ONE FULL COURSE FIRST FLOOR - FIN FLOOR - EXISTING100' - 0" FIN.GRADE99' - 4" RESTORE SIDING AND CORNER TRIM TO MATCH HISTORICAL DIMENSION AND PROFILE RESTORE HISTORICAL WOOD DOUBLE HUNG WINDOW FISHSCALE SHINGLES RESTORE FASCIA AND CORNER TRIM TO MATCH HISTORICAL DIMENSION AND PROFILE PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A5.01 CHIMNEY AND BAY RESTORATION 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD SCALE 3/8" = 1'-0"1EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH - PROPOSED CHIMNEY DETAIL SCALE 3/4" = 1'-0"2EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTH - BAY WINDOW DETAIL EXISTING CHIMNEY HISTORICAL PHOTO REFERENCE EXISTING BAY WINDOW CONDITION NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 HISTORICAL PHOTO REFERENCE 181 PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A9.00 RENDERINGS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD EXTERIOR RENDERING - STREET VIEW NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 182 PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A9.01 RENDERINGS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD EXTERIOR RENDERING - ALLEY VIEW - NORTH WEST PERSPECTIVE NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 1 12/17/2025 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 183 PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A9.02 RENDERINGS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 EXTERIOR RENDERING - SOUTH EAST PERSPECTIVE 184 PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A9.03 RENDERINGS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 EXTERIOR RENDERING - REAR PERSPECTIVE - NORTH EAST VIEW 185 PROFESSIONAL SEAL © 2024 Northworks Architects & Planners - All rights reserved. Any discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the Architect before proceeding. Only figured dimensions should be used. Contractors and fabricators to verify all dimensions on site prior to beginning Work. Project No. Drawn By Checked By Discipline & Drawing Number Drawing Name Project ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL - REVISION 1A9.04 RENDERINGS 2541 126 W FRANCIS 126 W FRANCIS ST. ASPEN, CO 81611 CH/GS EAD NO.ISSUED DATE ISSUED FOR 2 05/20/2026 ISSUE FOR HPC REVIEW - CONCEPTUAL REVISION 1 EXTERIOR RENDERING - ALLEY VIEW 186 LEGEND TREE PROTECTION FENCE SETBACK PROPERTY BOUNDARY TREE PROTECTION ZONE EX. CONIFER TO BE REMOVED SYMBOL TYPE SIZE QTY. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 4"-13" CAL. 6"-13" CAL. TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: NOTES: 1.TREES REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENCE AND/OR IN RESPONSE TO POOR HEALTH. 2.EXISTING TREE(S) TYPE, LOCATION, SIZE AND CALIPER BY OTHERS; REFER TO SURVEY. 3.ALL EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED ARE REPRESENTED HERE, INCLUDING THOSE NOT MEETING THE 4"/6" CALIPER STANDARD (I.E. NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION). 4.AIR SPADING OF TREES ALONG THE EAST/WEST PROPERTY LINE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE, BUT IS REQUIRED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. TREE MITIGATION SUMMARY TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE OF PROPOSED NATIVE TREES (REFER TO PLANTING PLAN): TOTAL MITIGATION VALUE FOR REMOVED TREES: 4 0 LEGEND TOTAL REMAINING: EX. DECIDUOUS TO REMAIN EX. CONIFER TO REMAIN VARIOUS VARIOUS NA NA EX. CONIFER TREE TO BE REMOVED 0< 4" CAL. EX. DECIDUOUS TREE TO BE REMOVED 1< 6" CAL. $0 0 $0 property line 5' side setback property lineproperty linewest francis streetalleysetbackproperty line 5' side setback building below 788610' rear setback0 2.5 5 scale north L100 tree mitigation planbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499www.bluegreenaspen.com126 west francis l aspen, colorado126 west francisdate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen 04/29/2026 hpc submittal #9 #19 #21 #20 #22 1 L100 TREE PROTECTION FENCE SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NOTE: 1.ADDITIONAL PROTECTION OUTSIDE AT TREE DRIP LINE MAY BE REQUIRED (EX. 12 IN. OF MULCH). 2.FENCE MAY BE CONTINUOUS TO PROTECT MULTIPLE TREES 3.MAINTAIN FENCE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 4.REFER TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL JURISDICTIONS AND GOVERNING BODIES/AGENCIES FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. EXISTING TREE(S) TO REMAIN CHAINLINK FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT TREE DRIP LINE EXISTING GRADE TO REMAIN NO DISTURBANCE WITHIN TREE DRIPLINE TREE DRIP LINETREE DRIP LINE126 W FRANCIS 187 XSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSXSSSSSSSSSSXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXCXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUEXUE XUE XUEXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXG XG XG XG XG XG XGXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSXWSOCGXG XG XG XG XGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGXGEGCEGGGGCCCCCCCCCCCCUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUEUE WSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWSWS? property line 5' side setback property lineproperty linewest francis streetalleysetbackproperty line 5' side setback building below 788610' rear setbackLEGEND PROPERTY EASEMENTS PROPERTY BOUNDARY PRIMARY STONE PAVERS GRAVEL STONE PAVERS EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN MAINTENANCE EDGE STEEL EDGER PEDESTAL PAVERS PROPERTY SETBACKS MATERIALS PLANTINGLEGEND 1576 sf 810 sf S SOD 34ShSHRUB, 36" MAX. HEIGHT SHRUBS GROUNDCOVER/PERENNIAL PLANTING MIX, 36" MAX HEIGHT GC MASS PLANTING AREAS TREES ABBR. EXISTING TREES QUANTITYCOMMON NAMESYMBOL 33 sfVPVINE PLANTING OC0 2.5 5 scale north L300 landscape site planbluegreen300 south spring street l suite 202 l aspen, colorado 81611 l t 970 429 7499www.bluegreenaspen.com126 west francis l aspen, colorado126 west francisdate l issue PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION © copyright bluegreen 04/29/2026 hpc submittal EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN PEDESTAL PAVERS EXISTING NON-HISTORIC FENCE TO BE REMOVED GRAVEL STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS MAINTENANCE EDGE STONE PAVERS MAINTENANCE EDGE PRIMARY STONE PAVERS MAINTENANCE EDGE PEDESTAL PAVERS RE. SECOND FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN SECOND FLOOR LANDSCAPE PLAN GROUNDCOVER/PERENNIAL PLANTING MIX - GREENROOF STEEL EDGER GRAVEL WINDOW WELL ENTRY DECK WINDOW WELL GROUNDCOVER/PERENNIAL PLANTING MIX (TYP) SOD (TYP) PRIMARY STONE PAVERS *MATERIAL SAMPLES TO BE PROVIDED AT FINAL REVIEW SETBACK126 W FRANCIS VINE PLANTING GUARDRAIL, RE ARCH 188 300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611 970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM May 22, 2026 Gillian White and HPC via email Re: 126 West Francis Street – Response to Referral Comments Dear Gillian and HPC, Below and attached are responses to the referral comments for 126 West Francis Street. Please review and let us know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Sara Zoning Comments The following comments need to be addressed prior to board approval: • Demolition calculations; please remove non-historic additions from demolition calculations. Interior demolition should be removed from plan view and fenestration area should be reduced even when demolishing the entire wall. Label all walls on demo elevations and ensure the proposed demolition matches the proposed elevations. For example, E.03 has multiple areas where new fenestration is being added. The new fenestration is not reflected in the calculations. Skylights should be part of roof demolition calculations as area reduced for fenestration. If you feel like there are demolition exemptions we are not considering, please work with Gillian to discuss. Demolition calculations are revised. All additions are non-historic. Per section 26.58.050.f Exemptions: (f) Exception for the removal of Non-Historic Additions to Designated Historic Structures. If the Historic Preservation Commission has determined that in the development of a structure that is designated on Aspen's list of Historic Landmarks, that non-historic elements of the project shall be removed in returning the historic resource to its original configuration or character, the portion of the project attributed to the non-historic elements shall not be calculated toward the forty (40) percent threshold. As discussed with Gillian on May 13, 2026, a single demolition percentage is proposed as all additions to be removed are non-historic. 126 West Francis comprises a hodgepodge of additions and alterations that evolved into the current home. The proposed project intends to maintain the existing footprint with slight changes to align upper walls with the proposed basement and to accommodate onsite parking. All removed walls and roof are non-historic. Exhibit P 189 126 West Francis Referral response – 5. 22.2026 The original building footprint on the Sanborn Maps is atypical and rectangular when compared to similar L-shaped miner’s cabins. Unfortunately we have not found historic photographs of the back of the house. There is one photograph of the east elevation (included as page 1 of the application) that shows a series of additions extending toward the alley. Demolition and replacement of the non-historic walls and roof to align with upper or lower walls are best construction practices and are consistent with existing conditions. • Remove the upper-level deck on the north side of the house from the setback or request a variation. Upper level deck conforms to 10’ rear setback requirement. • Please confirm the height of the permanent planter boxes on the upper-level deck. Per 26.575.020.d.5.e, permanent planter boxes are exempt from deck area if they are greater than 30” above or below the deck surface. Please ensure floor area calculations reflect the referenced code. Zoning will verify at permit. Planters have been removed. • Please show mechanical equipment and label decks, patios, and porches on site plan. Reviewed with Patrick and he is satisfied with the labels. • Setbacks must be shown on the survey, floor plans, and elevations. Reviewed with Patrick and he is satisfied with the setbacks. • It appears that natural and finished grade are the same, yet there is a note on the proposed elevations that one is more restrictive, please explain. Grade is clarified on proposed elevation sheets A2.00 – A2.03 • Mechanical equipment in the setback must be no greater than 30” above grade and screened if visible from the street. Please demonstrate compliance with 26.575.020.e.5.n. Mechanical equipment compliance is noted on Sheet A2.03 for the two units within the east side yard setback. • Window wells within the setback are to be the minimum required by building code pursuant to 26.575.020.e.5.h. Please demonstrate compliance. Window wells are revised to meet the minimum size requirement. • Ensure FAR table is accurate. There are discrepancies between sheets G0.06 and G0.07. For example, exposed wall area is listed as 115.58 on G0.06 and 107.24 on G0.07. Please rectify. 190 126 West Francis Referral response – 5. 22.2026 All calculations are revised and accurate. Please reference Sheet G0.07. • Please add area numbers and hatch legend to second floor FAR plan. Add labels to areas on all floors. For example, what is the area to the south side of the roof deck? Second level is revised to address these comments. Please reference Sheet G0.07. • Attic area should be counted towards floor area unless it meets the criteria described in 26.575.020.d.4. Please demonstrate compliance. Attic level has been revised with labels to explain access and compliance with the Code regarding floor area. Please reference Sheet G0.07. Please address the following details prior to building permit submittal: • A height over topography sheet will be required at permit. An example can be found within the model zoning submission at www.aspen.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4757. • All outdoor lighting must comply with Section 26.512. Please provide a site plan, fixture cutsheets, and the Outdoor Lighting Compliance Calculator at permit submittal. • Refer to the Residential Zoning Checklist for required information on site plans. Engineering 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. 1. The water main and water service line must be at least 10ft from the stormwater manhole. 2. The gravel parking lane must be maintained. The gravel parking must be 8ft wide per Engineering Standard 4.2.1. Kyla Smits directed us to address these issues in the Final HP Design application per an email on April 10, 2026. Parks Comments No comments received. Note: Applicant met with Parks onsite prior to submission. 191 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 1 of 5 26.415.070(d) Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development For approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development, the HPC must determine the project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. **Criteria found as “Not Applicable” have been removed Chapter 1: Site Planning and Landscape 1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys, and ditches. 1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact. 1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on residential projects. 1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site. 1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 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. 1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape lighting. 1.15 Preserve original fences. 1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the most appropriate solution. 1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use materials that are appropriate to the building type and style. 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. 1.25 New development on these sites should respect the historic design of the landscape and its built features. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to maintain the hierarchy of spaces, retain the orientation of the resource, and construct a new perpendicular walkway. The alley is proposed to be reopened to allow for access to the new garage and parking spaces at the rear of the property. By removing portions of the existing non-historic addition, the positive open space is increased. The applicant has provided stormwater plans that have been evaluated by City Engineering and found to be compliant. The proposed landscaping is minimal, simple, and does not impact views of the resource. The existing fence is not original and is proposed to be removed. New fencing details will be provided at final review. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 2: Building Materials 2.1 Preserve original building materials. 2.2 The finish of materials should be as it would have existed historically. 2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on primary surfaces. 192 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 2 of 5 2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as replacements for original building materials. 2.5 Covering original building materials with new materials is inappropriate. 2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material. Staff Finding: The applicant has provided material samples for HPC feedback, with final material selection being included in the final application. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 3: Windows 3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window. 3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall. 3.3 Match a replacement window to the original in its design. 3.4 When replacing an original window, use materials that are the same as the original. 3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening. 3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile of the sash and its components to that of the original window. 3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed. 3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy conservation rather than replace a historic window. Staff Finding: The proposal includes the replacement of all non-historic windows. The replacement windows are based on historic photos and are appropriate. New openings are not proposed. If historic framing is uncovered to show prior window framing, the applicant will work with staff and monitor to determine an appropriate path forward. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 4: Doors 4.1 Preserve historically significant doors. 4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening. 4.3 When a historic door or screen door is damaged, repair it and maintain its general historic appearance. 4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use a design that has an appearance similar to the original door or a door associated with the style of the building. 4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed. 4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing a historic entry door. 4.7 Preserve historic hardware. Staff Finding: There is little evidence showing where the original front door was located. The applicant intends to look for evidence of historic framing once demolition begins. Any discovery of historic framing will inform the placement of the new front door, with review by staff and monitor. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. 193 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 3 of 5 Chapter 5: Porches and Balconies 5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony. 5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic materials and details. 5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not appropriate. 5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the original in form, character and detail. 5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct them out of the same primary materials used on the original, and design them to be in scale with the porch or balcony. 5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where they did not exist historically, particularly where visible from the street. Staff Finding: The applicant is proposing to restore the front porch to match historic photos. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 6: Architectural Details 6.1 Preserve significant architectural features. 6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is necessary for its restoration, use methods that minimize damage to the original material. 6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that is deteriorated and must be replaced. 6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required to be based on original designs. 6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for replacement parts. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to restore architectural details based on historic photos, including the front bay window, the east elevation, the chimney, and the front porch. Non-historic elements such as the roof cresting and star in the gable end are to be removed as part of this application. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 7: Roofs 7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof. 7.2 Preserve the original eave depth. 7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices. 7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully, placed and painted a dark color. 7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they are made non-functional. 7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate to the historic roof in scale and character. 7.7 Preserve original roof materials. 7.8 New or replacement roof materials should maintain or restore the character of the historic roof. 7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof. 7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility on the structure is minimized to the extent possible. 194 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 4 of 5 Staff Finding: The proposed alterations to the roof include the removal of non- historic dormers and construction of new dormers. The new dormers proposed on the rear addition use a gable and shed roof style combination to meet the interior spatial desires. The proposed dormers may not be the best design choice, however, as these dormers are not visible from the front façade the HPC may be more flexible on the design. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 9: Excavation, Building Relocation, and Foundations 9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains in place may help to preserve the historic fabric. 9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis. 9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation. 9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade. 9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation. 9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells. 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. 9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to lift the resource to excavate a single level basement and crawl space. Once lifted, the resource will be temporarily shifted towards the rear property line and will remain elevated during the construction of the subgrade space and new foundation. The existing foundation veneer is currently a painted skirt board, which is proposed to be replicated for the new foundation. Although the proposal is not to underpin the resource per Guideline 9.1, the applicant has provided reasoning as to why the lifting of the resource and temporary relocation is the preferred approach. This reasoning includes avoiding the extended timeline needed for curing related to underpinning, having the ability to better waterproof the new foundation. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 10: Building Additions 10.1 Preserve an older addition that has achieved historic significance in its own right. 10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed. 10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary building is maintained. 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. 10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time. 10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building. 10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and character to remain prominent. 195 Attachment B HP Design Guidelines Staff Finding Page 5 of 5 10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building. 10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically important architectural features. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to remove some of the existing non-historic additions. The proposal also includes a reconfiguration of other non-historic additions to better meet applicable guidelines. The proposed changes allow the additions to be better differentiated from the resource and the historic portion of the resource will be maintained as the focus of the property. The existing addition is more than 100% of the original resource, however, the proposal removes some floor area to better meet this criteria. The applicant has not requested any variances. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural lighting, Mechanical Equipment, Service Areas, and Signage 12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a replication is appropriate. 12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in character. 12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash storage. Staff Finding: Details on exterior lighting will be provided at final review. The mechanical equipment will be located in the crawlspace and a screened in area at the rear of the property. Staff find the above review criteria to be met. 196 Attachment C Demolition Criteria Staff Findings Sec. 26.415.080 – Demolition of designated historic properties or properties within a historic district. (4)The HPC shall review the application, the staff report and hear evidence presented by the property owners, parties of interest and members of the general public to determine if the standards for demolition approval have been met. Demolition shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following criteria: a) The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs in a timely manner; b) The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; c) The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in Aspen; or d) No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance; and Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met: a) The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or Historic District in which it is located; b) The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the integrity of the Historic District or its historic, architectural or aesthetic relationship to adjacent designated properties; and c) Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic preservation needs of the area. Staff Finding: Because the non-historic elements proposed to be demolished exceed 40% of the resource, a review under the Demolition code is required. As the portions being demolished have no historic significance and the resource is remaining, much of the criteria do not apply to this situation. Staff have no concerns about the proposed demolition of non-historic portions of the resource. Per Section 26.580.050(f) Exception for the removal of Non -Historic Additions to Designated Historic Structures, if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that in the development of a structure that is designated on Aspen's list of Historic Landmarks, that non-historic elements of the project shall be removed in returning the historic resource to its original configuration or character, the portion of the project attributed to the non-historic elements shall not be calculated toward the forty (40) percent threshold. 197 Attachment D Relocation Criteria Staff Findings Sec. 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. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to lift the resource to excavate a single level basement and crawl space. Once lifted, the resource will be temporarily shifted towards the rear property line and will remain elevated during the construction of the subgrade space and new foundation. The existing foundation veneer is currently a painted skirt board, which is proposed to be replicated for the new foundation. As required per Section 26.415.090, staff find that “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.”. The applicant has provided reasoning as to why the lifting of the resource and temporary relocation is the preferred approach. This reasoning includes avoiding the extended timeline needed for curing related to underpinning, having the ability to better waterproof the new foundation. The applicant has provided plans that are acceptable. 198 MEMORANDUM TO: Gillian White, Historic Preservation Officer Community Development Department FROM: Patrick Dressler, Planner Technician Community Development Department DATE: April 10, 2026 SUBJECT: Zoning Department Referral Comments PROJECT: 126 West Francis // LPA-26-002 COMMENTS: These comments are not intended to be exhaustive. They are an initial response to the Land Use Application submitted for review. Other requirements may be requested at time of permit. The following comments need to be addressed prior to board approval: • Demolition calculations; please remove non-historic additions from demolition calculations. Interior demolition should be removed from plan view and fenestration area should be reduced even when demolishing the entire wall. Label all walls on demo elevations and ensure the proposed demolition matches the proposed elevations. For example, E.03 has multiple areas where new fenestration is being added. The new fenestration is not reflected in the calculations. Skylights should be part of roof demolition calculations as area reduced for fenestration. • If you feel like there are demolition exemptions we are not considering, please work with Gillian to discuss. • Remove the upper-level deck on the north side of the house from the setback or request a variation. • Please confirm the height of the permanent planter boxes on the upper-level deck. Per 26.575.020.d.5.e, permanent planter boxes are exempt from deck area if they are greater than 30” above or below the deck surface. Please ensure floor area calculations reflect the referenced code. Zoning will verify at permit. • Please show mechanical equipment and label decks, patios, and porches on site plan. • Setbacks must be shown on the survey, floor plans, and elevations. • It appears that natural and finished grade are the same, yet there is a note on the proposed elevations that one is more restrictive, please explain. • Mechanical equipment in the setback must be no greater than 30” above grade and screened if visible from the street. Please demonstrate compliance with 26.575.020.e.5.n. • Window wells within the setback are to be the minimum required by building code pursuant to 26.575.020.e.5.h. Please demonstrate compliance. • Ensure FAR table is accurate. There are discrepancies between sheets G0.06 and G0.07. For example, exposed wall area is listed as 115.58 on G0.06 and 107.24 on G0.07. Please rectify. 199 • Please add area numbers and hatch legend to second floor FAR plan. Add labels to areas on all floors. For example, what is the area to the south side of the roof deck? • Attic area should be counted towards floor area unless it meets the criteria described in 26.575.020.d.4. Please demonstrate compliance. Please address the following details prior to building permit submittal: • A height over topography sheet will be required at permit. An example can be found within the model zoning submission at www.aspen.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4757. • All outdoor lighting must comply with Section 26.512. Please provide a site plan, fixture cutsheets, and the Outdoor Lighting Compliance Calculator at permit submittal. • Refer to the Residential Zoning Checklist for required information on site plans. 200 MEMORANDUM RE: Building Referral Comments – LPA-26-002, 126 W Francis Please respond to the following before board approval: 1. No Comments The following details will be needed for permit review: 1. See attached comments. A variety of other requirements may be necessary for building permit submittal and zoning review. 201 LPA-26-002 Building Comments Page Label: 55 File Name: 126 W Francis Conceptual Major Dev 12 31 25.pdf Temporary shoring plan showing design considerations for relocation during excavation shall be required at permit. 126 W Francis Conceptual Major Dev 12 31 25.pdf (4) Page Label: 96 File Name: 126 W Francis Conceptual Major Dev 12 31 25.pdf Window wells in setbacks are typically only allowed to be the minimum size required by code (3'x3' interior dimensions). Page Label: 96 File Name: 126 W Francis Conceptual Major Dev 12 31 25.pdf All aspects of new construction shall comply with all relevant code requirements for thermal envelope, wildfire resliency, etc. Page Label: 97 File Name: 126 W Francis Conceptual Major Dev 12 31 25.pdf Local code amendments prohibit grates over window wells, so a window well adjacent to a walking surface (hardscape) or paths are required to have a guard for fall protection.KING BEDKING BEDWASHER /DRYERWASHER /DRYERTWIN BEDS ABOVE GYM012 HALL001 SHARED BATH014 SHOWER & W.C.013 BUNK ROOM015 REC ROOM016 KIDS BED 01010LAUNDRY011 KING BED3'-6"0"4'-0"GUEST BED002 BATH I003 KIDS BED 02005 KIDS BATH 02007 KIDS CLO 02006 KIDS BATH 01008KIDS CLO 01009 ELEV.112 STAIR113 CLOSET I004 LINEN 45'-3 1/2"1'-1 3/4"30'-0 1/2"32'-2 3/4"2'-8" 15'-8"4'-8 1/2"KING BED4'-0"1'-11"SAUNA012A4'-2"6'-0"3'-9"11'-10 3/4"8'-6 1/2"13'-0 1/2"14'-0"5'-4"2'-0"1'-6"2'-8"5'-10"16'-2 3/4"13'-1 1/2"8'-1 1/4"5'-6"3'-4 1/2"2'-0" 14'-4"11'-9 1/4"4'-0"18UP5'-5" TWIN BEDS ABOVETV 18UPCLOSET 017 5'-0 3/4" 1/4 " = 1'-0"8.19.2025 FRANCIS STREET RESIDENCE PROJECTNORTH BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - OPTION A Approximate storagelocation of structure in RED Existing location ofstructure in BLACKExisting structure at 126 W. Francis St. to be moved and stored by BaileyHouse Movers to the North border ofproperty, as approximated here. Property Boundary Temporary shoring plan showing design considerations for relocation during excavation shall be required at permit. 8 3' - 4"GUEST BEDROOM 1 006 3' - 6" GUEST GUEST CLOSET 1 005 4' - 2 7/8"5' - 4"5' - 0"5' - 0" 3' - 10 3/8"REAR YARD SETBACKWindow wells in setbacks are typically only allowed to be the minimum size required by code (3'x3' interior dimensions). All aspects of new construction shall comply with all relevant code requirements for thermal envelope, wildfire resliency, etc. ____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A2.021 _____________________________________________________________________________________A2.031ACD 2 4 5 6 7 10' - 0"23' - 8 1/2"16' - 1" ERIN'S OFFICE 106 PANTRY 102 HALL 104 GUEST BATH 108 POWDER 105GUEST CLOSET 109GARAGE 111 MEETING NOOK 110 EQ EQ BOOKSHELVES1' - 2"1 33' - 6"16' - 1" B 84' - 8 1/4" 9' - 6 1/2" WINDOW WELL WINDOW WELL HP1 HP2 - 8 1/4"3' - 9 3/4"1' - 2"2' - 9"23' - 0"2' - 1 1/8"23' - 0"2' - 9"4' - 6"EQ EQ MUD 103 GUEST BED 107 ? OPEN TO ABOVE/BELOW5' - 0"REAR YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE5' - 0"1' - 8 3/4" TO GARAGE5' - 0"5' - 0" Local code amendments prohibit grates over window wells, so a window well adjacent to a walking surface (hardscape) or paths are required to have a guard for fall protection. 202 Memorandum TO: Gillian White, gillian.white@aspen.gov Community Development Department FROM: Kyla Smits, kyla.smits@aspen.gov Engineering Department DATE: March 30, 2026 SUBJECT: Engineering Department Referral Comments PROJECT: LPA-26-002, 126 W Francis HP Conceptual Major Development 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. 1. The water main and water service line must be at least 10ft from the stormwater manhole. 2. The gravel parking lane must be maintained. The gravel parking must be 8ft wide per Engineering Standard 4.2.1. 203 STAFF REPORT TO: Aspen’s Historic Preservation Commission FROM: Mike Tunte, Landscape Architect and Construction Manager THROUGH: Dan Folke, Planning Director Matt Kuhn, Parks and Opens Space Director MEETING DATE: July 22, 2026 SUBJECT: Ki Davis Fountain Temporary Modification __________________________________________________________________ INTENDED OUTCOME: The Historic Preservation Commission’s (HPC) review of a temporary modification to the Ki Davis Fountain that will improve the appearance of the feature while it remains out of service and preserve the historic character of the pedestrian mall until a long-term solution can be implemented. City Staff is seeking advisory comments from the HPC in support of an Administrative Public Project Review (Section 26.500.040). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Ki Davis Fountain, located within Aspen's historic pedestrian mall at Hyman Avenue and Galena Street, is currently not operational due to ongoing drought conditions and deficiencies within the existing fountain infrastructure. As a result, the fountain basin remains empty, creating the appearance of an incomplete or inactive feature within a prominent public space. To improve the visual character of the site feature during this period, staff propose a temporary modification consisting of installing a brick surface at the top of the fountain basin. This treatment would transform the basin into a plinth-like base for the existing sculpture, creating a more intentional and finished appearance while retaining the historic fountain structure and sculpture in place. The proposed treatment is designed to be temporary, reversible, and compatible with the historic character of the pedestrian mall. Staff have prepared a mockup, which will be available for review during a site visit, and requests HPC approval to proceed with implementation. 204 DISCUSSION: The Ki Davis Fountain is a contributing feature within Aspen's historic pedestrian mall and serves as an important visual element within the public realm. It features a bronze sculpture titled Interplay, created by local, award-winning Aspen artist Ki Davis (1925- 1983). In recent years, the fountain has functioned intermittently due to a combination of water conservation concerns due to the ongoing drought and aging mechanical and plumbing systems that are no longer functioning reliably. While staff continue to evaluate long-term options for the fountain, the timing and scope of any permanent improvements remain uncertain due to significant site complexities. In the interim, the existing condition, an empty fountain basin, creates an appearance that suggests the feature is abandoned. Staff evaluated several alternatives for improving the fountain's appearance while maintaining the sculpture and historic setting. One option considered was filling the basin with cobble. While simple to install, staff determined this approach would collect debris, continue to read as a decommissioned fountain and would not substantially improve the visual quality of the space. Aspen local Ki Davis next to her sculpture Interplay, 1980 Interplay 205 The preferred approach is to install a layer of sand set brick at the top of the basin, creating a plinth-like surface beneath the sculpture. This treatment visually simplifies the feature, reinforces the sculpture as the focal element, and creates a more intentional appearance consistent with the surrounding brick character of the pedestrian mall. The modification is designed to be reversible and does not require removal of the fountain structure or the sculpture. Given the ongoing operational challenges associated with the fountain and the desire to improve the appearance of this prominent public space, staff believe this temporary treatment represents an appropriate interim solution until a more comprehensive long- term approach can be identified. RECOMMENDATIONS: The request will be processed through the Administrative Public Project Review which allows the Community Development Director to receive advisory comments from the HPC. Historic Preservation staff support the proposed temporary modification to the Ki Davis Fountain consisting of the installation of a brick surface within the fountain basin to create a plinth-like base for the existing sculpture. Approval of this request will allow staff to move forward with implementation in a timely manner while a long-term strategy for the fountain continues to be evaluated. 206