HomeMy WebLinkAboutMonitor Memo.930 King St.2023
Page 1 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Kirsten Armstrong, Principal Planner Historic Preservation
MEETING DATE: June 28, 2023
RE: 930 King Street- Project Monitoring
BACKGROUND: Over the last year and a half, HPC Staff and Project Monitors Kara Thompson and Peter
Fornell have been engaged in reviewing a number of updates to a project approved by HPC in 2021
involving the remodel of an existing addition to a Victorian era resource, and landscape changes at 930
King Street. After unapproved work was observed on the site in May 2023, the applicant was asked to
comply with previous representations or provide an updated request for amendments. The applicant has
chosen the latter path, requesting approval for the work described below, which was already completed in
contradiction to the permit and/or is new information. The monitors have requested board input on the
following:
1. To change the front walkway from the approved separated red keystone brick pavers to a continuous
grey brick walkway. The initial application presented to HPC represented the brick as a red tinted brick
and the permit provided the spec sheet with the same image, see below figures. This work has been
completed.
2. The addition of multiple rows of boxwood along the east and west elevations of the historic resource
and its addition. Based on the written proposal provided, it appears this work has been completed.
3. Transition from pea gravel around the historic resource to 3-5” pebble around the addition. This work
has been completed.
Page 2 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
4. Planting of additional arborvitae, boxwood, and expansion of the sand set paver patio at the rear of the
parcel. Sand set pavers are now proposed to wrap around the historic sheds. This is a new proposal
that has not been presented to the monitors. Based on the written proposal, it appears this work has
been completed.
The design guidelines applicable to this request are:
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for
historic structures. See diagram
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not
overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
overtextured or overly complex in relationship to
the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In
Zone A, new planting shall be species that were
used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark,
Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features
are not appropriate in Zone A. A more
contemporary landscape may surround new
development or be located in the rear of the
property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically
unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited
patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to
commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape
will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The
residential nature of the building must be
honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful
consideration should be given so as not to over plant either property, or remove all evidence of the
landscape characteristics from before the property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
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.
Page 3 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
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.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Staff does support the request to change the front walkway from a red brick, separated
paver walkway to a gray brick, continuous walkway. Guideline 1.6 suggests that “light grey
concrete, brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.”
The proposed gray brick, although a more modern aesthetic, recedes from view much like the
recommended grey concrete walkway referenced in the guideline, and the continuous walkway is
in keeping with the simplicity and restraint recommended for landscaping in Guideline 1.12.
2. Staff does not support the proposed boxwood screening. There are three rows proposed on
the west elevation, and the row nearest to the historic resource does not provide for the required
1’ maintenance border conditioned in HPC Resolution #12, Series of 2021. Further, the three rows
of boxwood do not showcase the simplicity and restraint recommended for landscaping in Guideline
1.12. Staff recommends this area of the proposed landscaping updates be denied and the 1’
maintenance border be installed.
3. As discussed previously with the project monitors, staff supports the use of pea gravel in the
maintenance border around the historic resource, and the use of 3-5” pebble around the
addition. Guideline 1.12 indicates that a more contemporary landscaping might be appropriate in
Zone C, which is where the addition is located, and where the pebble border is proposed.
4. Guideline 1.12 requests that applications “do not cover areas which were historically unpaved with
hard surfaces, except for a limited patio where appropriate.” Staff supports the planting updates
at the rear yard. Staff supports the originally approved limited patio in Zone C, where a more
modern landscaping is appropriate. Staff does not support the expansion of the patio, which
encroaches on the historic sheds.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Written Proposal
Exhibit B: Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit C: Original Site Plan