Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roofing Materials 117 N 6 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses applicants for non‑metal alternatives as insurance pressures push owners toward metal roofs
Summary
At the Aspen HPC the commission rejected proposed black metal shingles for 117 N. 6th Street, cited guideline incompatibility, and urged applicants to seek synthetic wood‑look alternatives that preserve historic scale while meeting insurers' durability concerns; item continued to October for applicants to return with alternatives.
The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed proposed roofing materials for a historic resource at 117 North 6th Street, heard an applicant presentation of alternative samples and received a staff recommendation to deny the proposed black metal shingle.
Staff explained that guidelines (7.7 and 7.8) favor in‑kind or close visual matches to original wood shingle roofs and found the proposed black metal shingle differed in size, exposure and finish (staff noted the proposed product had about 8.5‑inch width and 11.5‑inch exposure versus typical wood shingle exposures of 3.5–7.5 inches). "This proposed material is neither an in‑kind replacement nor is [it] similar to the original in both style as well as physical qualities," staff said and recommended denial.
Applicants, citing structural and insurance constraints, presented a metal shingle product that they argued sheds snow and is lighter weight; they said the owner prefers a black finish and that some synthetic products had been considered. Commissioners pressed the applicants to pursue synthetic wood‑look shakes (staff referenced an EcoStar synthetic shake previously approved on another project) or other products that better convey the historic scale, color and texture. Several commissioners emphasized the need to balance property‑owner insurance realities with the commission's role preserving character: "We want these properties to be insured so they don't burn down," one commissioner said.
The board instructed the applicants to survey manufacturers, present a list of products evaluated and return with an option closer to the historic material (staff suggested synthetic shakes sized and textured to match). The commission voted to continue the item to October (applicants indicated October 9 was a likely return date). No final approval was granted; staff remain prepared to review resubmitted materials.
Why it matters: The exchange highlights a recurring tension for mountain communities between strict design‑guideline fidelity for historic resources and practical pressures (insurance, structural limits, product availability) that push property owners toward non‑traditional materials. This outcome preserves the commission's design standards while allowing the owner opportunity to propose alternatives.
