HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.hpc.20110713 ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
JUNE 13, 2011
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
130 S. GALENA
ASPEN, COLORADO
SITE VISIT- NONE
I. Roll call
II. Approval of minutes — June 8 minutes
III. Public Comments
IV. Commission member comments
V. Disclosure of conflict of interest (actual and apparent)
VI. Project Monitoring:
VII. Staff comments — (15 min.)
VIII. Certificate of No Negative Effect issued
(Next resolution will be #7)
I. OLD BUSINESS
A. NONE
II. NEW BUSINESS
A. NONE
III. WORK SESSIONS:
A. PV Panels for City Hall, discussion with The Canary
Initiative and walk around site (45 minutes)
6:00 Adjourn
Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
Staff presentation
Applicant presentation
Board questions and clarifications
Public comments (close public comment portion of hearing)
Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed
Applicant rebuttal (comments)
Motion
No meeting of the HPC shall be called to order without a quorum consisting
of at least four (4) members being present. No meeting at which less than a
quorum shall be present shall conduct any business other than to continue
the agenda items to a date certain. All actions shall require the concurring
vote of a simple majority, but in no event less than three (3) concurring votes
of the members of the commission then present and voting.
PROJECT MONITORING
Sarah Broughton 610 W. Hallam
110 E. Bleeker
604 West Main Street
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
Brian McNellis 132 W. Main landscape
Fox Crossing Victorian
332 West Main Street
Ann Mullins Deep Powder
Boomerang
604 West Main Street
300 South Spring Street
222 E. Bleeker (new single family home)
Lift One Project
135 W. Hopkins
Jay Maytin 28 Smuggler Grove Road
627 W. Main
Red Butte Cemetery
Lift One Project
920 W. Hallam
Nora Berko 28 Smuggler Grove Road
Jason Lasser Crandall Building
Boomerang
Lift One Project
135 W. Hopkins
Jamie Brewster McLeod Crandall Building
202 N. Monarch (Blue Vic)
Projects in italics are not currently under construction.
M: \city \planning\hpc project monitoring\PROJECT MONITORING.doc
7/5/2011
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Lauren McDonell, Environmental Initiatives Program Manager
(Canary Initiative Director)
DATE OF MEMO: July 6, 2011
MEETING DATE: July 13, 2011
RE: CORE Grant Request for Solar Panels on City Hall
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION: Staff would like to share with the
HPC a request for grant funding from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) for the
installation of photovoltaic panels on the flat portion of the roof of City Hall. CORE has not yet
announced its funding decisions, which must be approved by City Council and the BOCC. City staff
would like to begin working with the HPC to create a plan for a workable PV project that could provide a
good example of balancing historic preservation principles and renewable energy goals.
BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Aspen City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan as a roadmap for
reducing Aspen's greenhouse gas emissions and addressing climate disruption, which threatens Aspen's
environment, economy, and quality of life. By adopting this plan, Council committed to the reduction in
community -wide greenhouse gas emissions by 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. To
reach these goals, the City is doing many things including encouraging energy - efficiency in new and
existing buildings, advancing low- carbon transportation options, and promoting renewable energy for
City buildings and throughout the community.
Aspen serves as an environmental leader, implementing innovative projects that help pave the way for
communities with fewer resources and less public support. Aspen is also very proud of its rich history and
works diligently to protect the structures and features that help keep that history alive. The National Trust
for Historic Preservation issued a statement supporting the expansion of renewable energy in the U.S.,
especially systems with low physical and visual impacts. Historic preservation, by its very nature, also
serves as an important component in the fight against climate change by promoting reuse and retrofitting
of existing buildings.
Staff is proposing a small to medium -sized PV system on the flat portion of the roof of City Hall. A
Green Key Grant application was submitted to CORE requesting funds for a 1 to 5kW system, however, a
recent estimate from Sol Energy revealed that a 14 to17kW system is possible without impacting the
viewshed from the street. The system will be designed to provide City Hall with as much clean energy as
possible, while preserving the historic value of the building and area, a challenge that many local
buildings face. Project details have not yet been determined, however the system would be on the flat
portion of the roof of City Hall only, with enough set -back to prevent it being visible from the street.
Signage next to and/or inside of City Hall could provide important educational value for Aspen's
residents and visitors. A win -win project would provide a valuable demonstration of how these important
values can work together. If funded, staff would welcome a partnership with the 1-IPC in developing plans
for a successful project. If this project is not awarded grant funds from CORE, staff will continue to seek
other funding sources.
Page 1 of 2
FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The original grant application requested $20,000 for a 1 to 5kW
PV system, however there is potential for the project to be denied funding or provided with greater
funding than requested (for a larger system).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The installation of the PV system would help reduce the carbon
footprint of City Hall and also continue to demonstrate the City of Aspen's commitment to renewable
energy and greenhouse gas reduction. Carbon reductions resulting from the PV system will obviously
depend on the size of the installed array. Assuming eight hours of daily production for the 30 -year
estimated Iifespan of the system, a 1 -kW system would reduce CO emissions by 26 tons. If a 17 -kW
system is feasible, it will reduce CO emissions by 446 tons over the course of 30 years.
ATTACHMENTS:
• National Trust for Historic Preservation Position Statement on Renewable Energy Development
• Design Guidelines for Solar Installations from the National Trust for Historic Preservation
• Rough estimate for PV system from Sol Energy
Page 2 of 2
Position Statement: Fostering Renewable
Energy Development and Historic
Preservation at All Scales
The National Trust for Historic Preservation fully supports efforts to expand our nation's
renewable energy portfolio. We recognize that changes in our energy production and
consumption must be made at all scales — from historic buildings to Main Streets to vast public
lands — as an element of sustainable development. At the same time, we are working to protect
our nation's historic places by advocating for the appropriate siting of renewable energy
infrastructure.
Energy use — whether in our homes, offices, schools, commercial spaces, or other buildings —
directly affects the integrity of our private and public lands. When we use less energy, less
energy must be produced. Lower energy demand reduces the need for utility -scale energy
installations that can irreversibly alter vast tracts of land in pristine open spaces, as well as the
historic buildings, archaeological sites, Native American sacred places, and other cultural
resources within them. For this reason, the National Trust is committed to providing resources to
homeowners and other building owners — including a weatherization guide — to help them
improve the energy efficiency of their buildings.
In addition to reducing our energy usage, we must be smart about how we transition to cleaner
sources of energy. Producing renewable energy locally, using community -level distributed
generation, and/or installing appropriately -sited solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal
technologies offer numerous benefits.
Small -scale renewable energy production reduces the need to build new infrastructure on
previously undisturbed lands, thereby limiting the likelihood that additional historic places will
be damaged or destroyed. Modest -scale production provides local jobs in retrofitting historic
buildings and structures with technologies that require specialized skills and knowledge of local
architecture and climate.
Additionally, supporting the development and use of renewable energy technologies that have
low physical and visual impacts helps protect the historical landscapes and viewsheds that allow
us to see and experience our nation's vital historic places within their original contexts.
National Trust for Historic Preservation:
Design Guidelines for Solar Installations
In many cases, historic buildings, structures, and sites can be preserved while also
accommodating solar energy installations. Indeed, as the need for renewable energy systems
increases, technology evolves, political pressure to remove regulatory barriers mounts, and
logistical problems are resolved, precluding the installation of solar energy systems may become
indefensible. Moreover, with incentives in place, applications to install solar and other
alternative energy systems within historic districts are likely to increase dramatically. Just as
state agencies and local preservation boards developed policies and guidelines to address the
needs of persons with disabilities, they should also develop policies that encourage compatible
and appropriate installations of solar energy systems.
The following considerations can facilitate preservation boards and commissions in their review
of solar panel requests and provide a foundation for the adoption of local guidelines related to
solar energy installations. The primary objective of preservation ordinances is to preserve
historic properties, so a preservation board should encourage project outcomes that meet solar
access requirements while maintaining the integrity of historic resources. Consideration should
always be given to solutions that protect historic features, materials, and spatial relationships
with the visibility of all solar energy installations — including solar panels — minimized to the
greatest extent possible.
Locate solar panels on the site of a historic resource. If possible, use a ground mounted solar
panel array. Consider solutions that respect the building's historic setting by locating arrays in an
inconspicuous location, such as a rear or side yard, low to the ground, and sensitively screened to
further limit visibility. Care should be taken to respect the historic landscape, including both its
natural (i.e. topography) and designed (i.e. materials) features.
Locate solar panels on new construction. In cases where new buildings or new additions to
historic buildings are proposed and approvable, encourage the placement of solar panels on the
new construction. To achieve overall compatibility with the historic building and its setting,
consider solutions that integrate the solar panel system in less visible areas of the new design.
Locate solar panels on non - historic buildings and additions. If the site cannot accommodate
solar panels and the project does not include new construction, consider placing solar panels on
an existing, non - historic addition or accessory structure. This will minimize the impact of solar
installation on the significant features of the historic resource and protect the historic fabric
against alteration.
Place solar panels in areas that minimize their visibility from a public thoroughfare. The
primary facade of a historic building is often the most architecturally distinctive and publicly
visible, and thus the most significant and character defining. To the greatest extent possible,
avoid placing solar panels on street - facing walls or roofs, including those facing side
streets. Installations below and behind parapet walls and dormers or on rear- facing roofs are
often good choices.
Avoid installations that would result in the permanent loss of significant, character -
defining features of historic resources. Solar panels should not require alterations to significant
or character- defining features of a historic resource, such as altering existing roof lines or
dormers. Avoid installations that obstruct views of significant architectural features (such as
overlaying windows or decorative detailing) or intrude on views of neighboring historic
properties in an historic district.
Avoid solutions that would require or result in the removal or permanent alteration of
historic fabric. Solar panel installations should be reversible. The use of solar roof tiles,
laminates, glazing, and other technologies that require the removal of intact historic fabric or that
permanently alter or damage such fabric must be avoided. Consider the type and condition of the
existing building fabric for which solar panels installation is proposed, as well as the method of
attachment and future removal. Minimizing the number of points of attachment, including the
use of brackets, will avoid damaging historic fabric.
Require low profiles. Solar panels should be flush with — or mounted no higher than a few
inches above — the existing roof surface. They should not be visible above the roofline of a
primary facade.
On flat roofs, set solar panels back from the edge. Because they are generally hidden from
view, flat roofs can provide an ideal surface for solar panel arrays. To ensure that a solar
installation is minimally visible, set the solar panels back from the roofs edge and adjust the
angle and height of the panels as necessary.
Avoid disjointed and multi - roof solutions. Solar panels should be set at angles consistent with
the slope or pitch of the supporting roof. For example, avoid solutions that would set panels at a
70 degree angle when the roof pitch is 45 degrees. In addition, solar panels should be located on
one roof plane (as opposed to scattered among several roofs) and arranged in a pattern that
matches the general shape and configuration of the roof upon which they are mounted.
Ensure that solar panels, support structures, and conduits blend into the surrounding
features of the historic resource. The overall visibility and reflectivity of solar panels and their
support structures can be substantially reduced if elements of the solar installation match the
surrounding building fabric in color
A PV array running the full width of the building and 4 modules high at a 30 degree
angle could fit on the south side of the roof. This would be on the order of a 14 kW
system. At $6 per Watt this would amount to a total cost of about $84,000. Dealing with
an old building, some structural analysis, and some intervention from a roofing
contractor you might look at $85 -87K. This would only just come up to the south edge of
the large skylight, so I think there would not be much of a conflict. If you want to
squeeze more on perhaps 5 modules high, and extending about 4 feet over the south
edge, but well above it, you could have a 17+ kW system at a cost of about $106 -
108K.
The 14 kW system would produce about 20,000 kWh annually, A 17 kW system would
produce about 25,000 kWh annually.
Ken Olson
Sol Energy
E t— V Y° 6A-(-0 0v A, Qucs(ot--1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Aspen Ice Garden
DATE: April 27, 2011
SUMMARY: At a previous HPC meeting, Jay Maytin requested info about the history of the
Aspen Ice Garden and its worthiness for landmark designation.
Briefly, the Aspen Ice Garden (originally called the Brown Ice Palace) was built in 1963, with
land and funds contributed by Ruth Humphries Brown, best known as the namesake of Ruthie's
Run on Aspen Mountain, but also as a major donor to many local philanthropic interests.
Brown came from the well -known Humphreys and Boettcher families of Denver. She was part of
a Denver ski crowd that took regular trips to ski areas throughout the state. In 1946, she
purchased a miner's cabin at 216 W. Hyman (now Ann Mullins' house) for $200, painted it pink
and transformed it into a sort of social salon — known as "The Pink House"
In 1947, Ruth married D.R.C. Brown, whom she had known in Denver. Brown helped the
Aspen Skiing Corp. form by leasing the firm hundreds of acres of mining claims on Aspen
Mountain. (His father, D.R.C. Brown Sr., was an Aspen pioneer and amassed a fortune in the
mercantile business and invested in some of Aspen's most successful silver mines.)
D.R.C. Brown, Jr. served on the first board of directors of the Aspen Skiing Company. Brown
later guided the company through its most prosperous period of growth as president and general
manager for 22 years, from 1958 -1979.
Soon after they were married, the Browns bought a ranch in Carbondale, where they raised their
five children, They kept the pink house for weekends in Aspen.
Ruthie Brown spearheaded the construction of an ice rink across from the Pink House. It served
as the only base for Aspen's hockey and figure skating programs until the addition of the ARC in
2003.
The Aspen Ice Garden was purchased by The City of Aspen in 1979, at which time the City
voluntarily rezoned the property from residential to Public.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
1
quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below.
When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district
must meet at least two of the criteria a -d, and criterion e described below:
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to local,
state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event, pattern
or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state, regional or
national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified and
documented in an adopted context paper;
c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics of
a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed
important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an
adopted context paper;
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the
opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture,
landscape architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property's potential
demolition or major alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of
place in the city as perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location, setting,
design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall
adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used
by the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion.
While the property has cultural associations with Aspen's ski era history, it has no architectural
significance in staffs opinion and has been remodeled several times. Any proposal to remove
the ice rink use seems very unlikely and would involve significant community discussion.
When Council adopted the AspenModern ordinance, they directed staff to initiate designation
review of the following City owned properties in 2011: 215 North Garmisch (The Yellow Brick),
110 E. Hallam (The Red Brick), 630 W. Main (Mountain Rescue) and 1101 E. Cooper (the
Hildur Anderson property). Staff recommends that these properties remain the priority at this
time.
2