HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit A Written Proposal.930 King St.2023
Re: 930 King St.
Dear HPC, There was an internal communication and the work requested for approval
below has already been installed. We apologize for the misunderstanding and we look
forward to presenting these items for project monitoring approval.
1) Entry path changed from Keystone concrete brick to standard brick.
Figure 1: HPC approved walkway and materials.
Figure 2: Requested
material and walkway
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk
to a semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry
on residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is
typical of the period of significance.
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and
install them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on
an Aspen Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light
grey concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for
most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
Response – The approved walkway with concrete brick and large gaps of grass did not
seem appropriate in comparison to the historic landmark. We felt the standard brick with
a traditional application was more in line with the historic property. In addition, the grass
between the approved pavers was not practical for snow removal or for walking in heels.
The proposed straight sandset pathway is more usable and meets the design guidelines
1.5 and 1.6. The 3’ wide walkway establishes the hierarchy of historic spaces and is
perpendicular from street to front entry.
2) Box wood plant hedge around the west side of the resource.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do
not overplant a site, or install a landscape
which is over textured or overly complex in
relationship to the historic resource,
particularly in Zone A. In Zone A, new
planting shall be species that were used
historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the
landmark, Zone A and Zone B, plants up
42” in height, sod, and low shrubs are
often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other
features are not appropriate in Zone A. A
more contemporary landscape may
surround new development or be located
in the rear of the property, in Zone C.
Figure 3: Approved landscaping (left) and proposed box wood
hedge (right). Full landscape plan is attached.
• Do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with hard surfaces, except
for a limited patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to commercial use, proposals to
alter the landscape will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The residential
nature of the building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful consideration should be given
so as not to overplant either property, or remove all evidence of the landscape
characteristics from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are
encouraged.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the landscape that could interfere with or block
views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and
ground covers are
preferred.
• Do not place trees,
shrubs, or hedgerows
in locations that will
obscure, damage, or
block significant
architectural features
or views to the
building. Hedgerows
are not allowed as
fences.
• Consider mature
canopy size when
planting new trees
adjacent to historic
resources. Planting
trees too close to a
landmark may result in
building deteriorating or blocked views and is inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and are not allowed.
Response - We are looking for a way to use landscaping to screen the window wells and
the west elevation of the new construction. Boxwoods are located in “zone B”, and appear
to be an appropriate option that meets the requirements of 1.12 and 1.13. The boxwoods
will not exceed 42” and do not obscure, damage or block view of the landmark.
Figure 4: Hedgerow proposed along west elevation. Note: large pebbles
have been removed around the resource.
3) Pea gravel around the resource. Pea gravel is proposed around the historic
resource consistent with the approved site plan (see atached). The request is to
transi�on from pea gravel to 3-5” pebble around the addi�on. This transi�on
differen�ates old from new construc�on and supports posi�ve drainage.
Many resources around Aspen currently have large pebbles around the historic
resource . Transition to large pebbles at the addition is consistent with examples.
Figure 5: large pebble border around resource
recently completed @ 834 Hallam St.
Figure 6: large pebble border around
resource @ 135 W. Hopkins Ave.
4) Rear Pa�o changes.
Proposed changes include addi�onal screening Arborvitae along the east side
fence and addi�onal boxwood plant screening along the north fence. The
screening plants are similar to the original design, with the addi�on of addi�onal
plan�ngs. The sand set paver is proposed to wrap around the historic sheds.
Pavers are 2’ x 2’, pervious, and sand set. Project Monitors reviewed the
Arborvitae screening and approved.
Figure 7: Approved rear yard (left) and proposed rear yard (right and photos below)