HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170221
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 21, 2017
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Review of Historical Significance and Redevelopment Options for 5 City-Owned Properties
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Presentation of a Study of the Historic Significance and Redevelopment Options
for Five City of Aspen Owned Properties
DATE: February 21, 2017
______________________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to present Council with reports
that staff was asked to prepare, and to receive Council direction as to if and when applications
for historic designation of five City of Aspen owned properties should be initiated.
According to Section 26.415.030 of the Municipal Code, Designation of Historic Properties, only
the property owner can submit an application for landmark designation. Designation is a two-
step process requiring a recommendation by the Historic Preservation Commission and a
determination by City Council.
BACKGROUND: In 2012, when the AspenModern program inviting voluntary historic
designation for mid-century era properties was created, Council, at the recommendation of a
citizen task force, agreed to lead by example and evaluate the merits of landmark status for
several municipally owned properties. Other work program priorities delayed further discussion,
but in December 2015, the Historic Preservation Commission made a unanimous motion asking
Council to take action in 2016.
On January 26, 2016, Community Development Staff held a worksession with Council to discuss
implementing the AACP and reconciling the content of that document with the Land Use Code;
one of Council’s 2015 “Top Ten Goals.” Amongst several topics discussed at that meeting, staff
asked for direction on the initiation of historic designation review for City-owned properties that
are eligible for the AspenModern program. The properties originally discussed in 2012 were 110
E. Hallam Street (The Red Brick), 215 N. Garmisch Street (The Yellow Brick), 630 W. Main
Street (Mountain Rescue) and 1101 E. Cooper Avenue (Anderson Park). Council directed that
the assessment of these properties should begin and indicated that the Pedestrian Malls should be
added to the list because recent conversations about the need to address deterioration issues with
the 1976 Pedestrian Malls call for a determination of their historic significance.
$25,000 in funding was allocated by Council for the hiring of consultants. Planning Staff, in
consultation with other departments who occupy or manage the affected sites, added two
products to the scope of work; (1) an analysis of existing and future uses of the sites to make sure
that to the extent that plans have been formulated, the impacts of designation could be assessed
P2
I.
at least conceptually, and (2) an updated energy assessment of each site. The Pedestrian malls
were excluded from these studies because of inapplicability.
An RFP was released for consultant services in early August 2016. Representatives from the
City Manager’s office, Asset Management, Planning, Parks and Open Space and Kids First
participated in the selection of the consultants and the review of first drafts of the work products.
It was the unanimous decision of the committee to select Tatanka Historical Associates/Stan
Clauson Associates based on their superior qualifications and approach to the deliverables.
A short summary of the consultant team’s qualifications follows.
Ron Sladek of Tatanka Historical Associates authored the Architectural Inventory
Forms that are being provided to Council for each property. The forms are the standard
used to analyze historic significance in the State of Colorado as directed by the Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Mr. Sladek has worked in the preservation field
for 30 years, has completed similar studies of several thousand properties in fifteen states,
is the Chair of the Ft. Collins Landmark Commission and is a Governor appointed
member of the Colorado State Historic Preservation Review Board, currently serving
alongside Councilwoman Ann Mullins. Mr. Sladek has consulted for the City of Aspen
previously, most notably producing significant research and documentation of Ute
Cemetery and Aspen Grove Cemetery.
Stan Clauson Associates authored the Zoning and Development Parameter Analysis.
This office, located in Aspen, includes four professionals holding credentials from the
American Institute of Certified Planners and American Society of Landscape Architects.
With many years of experience assisting with public and private sector planning efforts,
the firm brought a full understanding of the Aspen development environment and
regulations to their analysis. Firm president, Stan Clauson, served as the City’s
Community Development Director from 1994-1998.
Tatanka Historical Associates has determined that all five properties meet the City’s criteria for
designation, as well as the somewhat higher standards suggested by the criteria for listing on the
State or National Registers of Historic Places. It should be noted that City staff initially
identified these properties as important to the community’s history reaching as far back as 2000.
Since that time, even in light of additional research, intensified criteria, scoring and other tools
developed to determine local significance, the properties continued to rise above other local
examples, in staff’s opinion. That said, Tatanka Historical Associates performed their study and
reached their conclusions independently, with nothing other than fact checking by staff. The full
reports are attached as Exhibits A-E.
Stan Clauson Associates’ full report is attached as Exhibit F. The analysis reviews what future
modifications might be allowed under zoning and provides a brief overview of land use process.
All of the properties are already subject to some degree of Commission or Council review for
any noteworthy alterations. Designation would primarily have the effect of involving HPC in the
discussion and restricting alterations made directly to the historically significant structure.
P3
I.
Finally, in the attached packet, Council is being provided with updated energy assessments for
215 N. Garmisch, 630 W. Main and 1101 E. Cooper, provided by C.O.R.E. The assessment for
110 E. Hallam is being finalized. Planning staff sought out this analysis in recognition of the
fact that these older buildings may need energy improvements consistent with modern building
practices. The Red Brick and Yellow Brick buildings have been studied previously by C.O.R.E.
as part of the City’s stewardship of the properties. They have been re-visited in order to look at
physical improvements and user behavior that can be adjusted for energy efficiency.
630 W. Main and 1101 E. Cooper were the subjects of blower-door testing to look for areas
where air infiltration is an issue. A number of important upgrades are identified in the reports.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council need more information on any of the properties or effects of
designation?
NEXT STEPS:
If directed by Council, Planning will assemble designation applications and initiate the review
process.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
Exhibits:
A. 110 E. Hallam Street-Architectural Inventory Form
B. 215 N. Garmisch Street- Architectural Inventory Form
C. 630 W. Main Street- Architectural Inventory Form
D. 1101 E. Cooper Avenue- Architectural Inventory Form
E. Pedestrian Malls- Architectural Inventory Form
F. Zoning and Development Analysis: Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Designation
G. 215 N. Garmisch Street- Energy Assessment
H. 630 W. Main Street- Energy Assessment
I. 1101 E. Cooper Avenue- Energy Assessment
P4
I.
P5
I.
P6
I.
P7
I.
P8
I.
P9
I.
P10
I.
P11
I.
P12
I.
P13
I.
P14
I.
P15
I.
P16
I.
P17
I.
P18
I.
P19
I.
P20
I.
P21
I.
P22
I.
P23
I.
P24
I.
P25
I.
P26
I.
P27
I.
P28
I.
P29
I.
P30
I.
P31
I.
P32
I.
P33
I.
P34
I.
P35
I.
P36
I.
P37
I.
P38
I.
P39
I.
P40
I.
P41
I.
P42
I.
P43
I.
P44
I.
OAHP1403 Official Eligibility Determination
Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials
Determined Eligible - NR
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Determined Not Eligible - NR
Determined Eligible - SR
Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible - SR
(Page 1 of 31) Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
I. Identification
1. Resource Number: 5PT1382
2. Temporary Resource Number: Not Applicable
3. County: Pitkin
4. City: Aspen
5. Historic Building Name: Aspen Elementary School
6. Current Building Name: Yellow Brick School
7. Building Address: 215 N. Garmisch St.
Aspen, CO 81611
8. Owner Name & Address: City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P45
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 2 of 31)
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6th Township 10 South Range 85 West
SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 12
10. UTM Reference Zone: 13 Easting: 342571 Northing: 4339773
11. USGS Quad Name: Aspen, Colorado
Year: 1960 (photorevised 1987) Map scale: 7.5'
12. Lot(s): N/A Block: 57
Addition: Aspen Original Townsite Year of Addition: 1880
13. Boundary Description and Justification: This parcel (2735-124-36-850), defined by a
lot and block description, includes all of the land and built resources that are
historically associated with this property and remain in place there today.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building Plan: Rectangular Plan
15. Dimensions in Feet: 95' x 260' (appx.)
16. Number of Stories: 1
17. Primary External Wall Material(s): Brick
18. Roof Configuration: Flat Roof
19. Primary External Roof Material: Synthetic Roof
20. Special Features: Chimney, Fence
21. General Architectural Description: Facing toward the east onto Garmisch Street,
this expansive one-story school building is half a block wide and a block long.
It rests upon a raised concrete foundation and has a rectangular plan of
approximately 95’ x 260’. Oriented lengthwise on an east-west axis, the eastern
area is occupied by the main lobby, front office, restrooms, and the tall multi-
purpose room (this space was designed to be used as a gymnasium, lunchroom
and for larger gatherings and activities beyond the single classrooms). Below
much of this area is a basement with offices, along with storage and utility
rooms. The remainder of the building toward the west consists of multiple
classrooms that are arranged on either side of a double-loaded central hallway.
P46
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 3 of 31)
The exterior walls are constructed of the pressed yellow bricks that provide the
building with its current name, laid in running bond coursing. In a number of
select locations, the ends of these walls project outward and are angled and
faced with painted caps. These provide the building with minimalist but
character-defining ornamentation. The flat roof has deep boxed eaves that are
finished along the face with a stained wood trim band and metal flashing. A tall
rectangular brick chimney with a concrete cap rises from the east-central roof
next to the multi-purpose room’s northeast corner.
East (front): The front of the building holds the main entry, which is located at
the top of a wide concrete stoop that rises six steps above the sidewalk.
Flanking the stoop are low yellow brick walls with metal handrails and painted
caps matching the angled walls on the building. Three identical metal
commercial doors, each with a single light in the upper and lower half, are found
in the entrance. Transom lights are present above the doors, which are also
flanked by two-light fixed windows. The doors enter a vestibule, inside of which
is another set of doors that provide access to the lobby, offices, and the rest of
the interior.
The front wall of the building on either side of the entry contains long bands of
windows that provide ample light to the offices, restrooms and former
classroom that occupy this area. Each band consists of both large fixed vertical
windows and two-light windows with fixed upper lights and lower awnings.
Although they alternate between the two different types of windows, the pattern
is irregular. All of the windows are set in wide metal frames.
South (side): This side of the building consists of three sections, each with its
own distinctive features. The small front area toward the southeast corner
holds two entries, one of which has a metal slab door and the other containing a
pair of metal doors with two lights. This pair of doors provides access to a
short interior hallway. A single transom light is located above the doors, with a
two-light window to the west. West of this entrance is the much taller area
containing the multi-purpose room, which has two entries that each contain a
metal slab door. A stairway drops below grade outside the wall to provide
basement access. Projecting from the wall above and running the full length of
the multi-purpose room is a metal awning that supports a solar panel array.
There are no windows along this length of the building.
West of the multi-purpose room, the building returns to its shorter one-story
height. This area is about 178’ in length from east to west and holds six
classrooms. Recessed double entries into the classrooms are found at regular
intervals. These contain metal slab doors with transom lights above. Between
the entries are long bands of windows identical to those found on the eastern
façade. This length of the building is adjacent to a fenced playground.
P47
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 4 of 31)
West (rear): The rear of the building is dominated by a secondary entrance that
is regularly used. At this location, the building sits higher than the street, and
its centered entry is reached by a concrete stoop. Rising from the sidewalk are
two sets of concrete stairs with metal handrails. These meet at a landing before
another single set of stairs rises to the entrance. The entry is occupied by a
pair of metal doors with two lights as on the front. Above these are transom
lights and two fixed windows are to the side. The entrance provides access
directly into the central hallway. The boxed eaves extend along about two-
thirds of the roofline and wrap around its northwest corner.
North (side): This area of the building also sits high above the street. As on the
south, it contains several recessed double entries at regular intervals. Each
entrance holds a metal slab door with a transom above, and provides access
into a classroom. The entries are accessed by way of two-flight concrete
stoops with metal handrails. The area at the building’s northeast corner holds a
loading dock with two additional entries into the office area. Between the
entries along this entire side of the building are long bands of windows identical
to those found on the eastern façade.
22. Architectural Style / Building Type: Modern Movement / International Style
23. Landscaping or Special Setting Features: This property is located in a historic
residential neighborhood and is surrounded by single-family homes. The
exception to this is another historic school, now known as the Red Brick Center
for the Arts (5PT965), located across the intersection to the northeast.
The Yellow Brick School occupies the entire north half of Block 57 and is
surrounded by landscaping. To the north, east and west are bands of
landscaping that are important to the building’s setting. A small front yard to
the east contains two areas of grass that are separated from one another by a
wide central walkway that runs from the curb along Garmisch Street to the
building’s front entrance. Several shrubs and deciduous trees are planted in the
sloped lawn areas. A sidewalk runs along the length of Garmisch Street,
separated from the curb by tree lawn.
Extending the length of the school’s north side along Hallam Street are short
concrete retaining walls that run parallel to the raised building. These are
mostly planted with evergreen shrubs. Between the walls and the curb are tree
lawns that hold young deciduous trees. Short concrete sidewalks run from the
curb to the several concrete stoops that rise to the classroom entries.
The concrete retaining walls wrap around the northwest corner of the school
and extend along the west side of the building. There they are also planted with
evergreen bushes and are broken into two segments separated by the wide
central entry stoop. A small lawn extends to the curb along North First Street
near the intersection. South of this is a wide concrete sidewalk.
P48
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 5 of 31)
Much of the area south of the building is occupied by a fenced playground of
recent origin. This is situated outside of the south classrooms and extends a
short distance into the south half of Block 57. The playground is only open to
children and teachers involved in the childcare program based at the school.
24. Associated Buildings, Features or Objects: Except for the fenced childcare
playground, the south half of Block 57 is predominantly occupied by Yellow
Brick Park, which is owned and managed by the City of Aspen. The eastern half
of the park was historically the site of the 1882 Lincoln School. Long gone, its
location is now occupied by modern features. These include a sunken
basketball court, a picnic shelter with log tables, and a small playground area.
West of these, the central area of the park is grassed and open. The
southwestern area is occupied by a playground.
Bordering the park are concrete sidewalks, tree lawns, and rows of mature
deciduous trees. Additional internal sidewalks divide the space into its different
play areas. A low boulder at the southeast corner has a bronze plaque mounted
to its face. Placed there by the Aspen Historical Society, this provides
information about the historic Lincoln School that once stood there.
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1960
Source of Information: “School to Open Monday – Despite Problems,” 18
November 1960, p. 3.
26. Architect: Wheeler & Lewis Architects (Denver, CO)
Source of Information: Building Plans Prepared by Wheeler & Lewis Architects,
31 August 1959; “Denver Architects Selected in July by
School Board,” 15 August 1957, p. 13.
27. Builder/Contractor: R. W. Mier Construction Company (Denver, CO)
Source of Information: “Denver Firm Selected to Construct New School,” Aspen
Times, 17 September 1959, p. 13.
28. Original Owner: Aspen School District No. 1
Source of Information: “Denver Architects Selected in July by School Board,”
15 August 1957, p. 13.
P49
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 6 of 31)
29. Construction History: The school building was constructed in 1960. Although
occupied in November of that year, additional work addressing final punch list
items continued at a glacial pace through the first half of 1961. In 1970, an
exterior stairway was installed to provide basement access on the south side of
the multi-purpose room. The original metal-framed windows were replaced in
1999 with wood-framed windows with aluminum caps on the exteriors. These
replicated the pattern and functionality of the original windows, with slightly
wider framing. Tempered glass was also installed in the fixed windows to
prevent injuries. Also that same year, the metal awning on the south exterior
wall of the multi-purpose room was installed. Since then, this has supported a
band of photovoltaic panels that were upgraded in 2012 to employ newer
technology. The original exterior doors were replaced in 2000, although the new
ones seem to retain a historically appropriate appearance. Finally, the roof was
last replaced in 2010, along with the metal flashing that is visible along the
perimeter. Yellow Brick Park was developed in 2001 after the south half of the
block had served for four decades as a paved school playground.
30. Original Location: Yes
V. Historical Associations
31. Original Use(s): Education: School
32. Intermediate Use(s): Not Applicable
33. Current Use(s): Education: School
34. Site Type(s): Elementary School / Early Childhood Education Center
35. Historical background: Throughout the late 1800s and into the early 1900s, the
site under study was located in a residential neighborhood of single-family
homes. The north half of Block 57 contained several one- to two-story houses
along with associated yards and sheds. An east-west alleyway ran through the
middle of the block. The southeast quarter of Block 57 was occupied by the
Central School, with houses stretching from there westward to First Street.
Erected in 1882 for around $16,000 (including furnishings), the two-story wood
frame building with a prominent vestibule and bell tower on the front faced
south and originally sat on Lots Q and R. This was expanded in 1885 with a
large rear classroom addition. The building was then able to accommodate
around 250 students in eight classrooms. In 1889, the Aspen School District
took the owners of the adjacent residential lots to court and through
condemnation proceedings secured the entire south half of the block. The
houses were cleared and the grounds left vacant for the students to use as a
playground. The condemnation suit was settled a year later when the district
paid the owners $3,465 for the properties.
P50
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 7 of 31)
By the late 1880s, Aspen’s growing population had caused the Central School to
become overcrowded. In 1889, the building was renamed the Lincoln School to
match the town’s two other schools named Garfield (built in 1885) and
Washington (built in 1889). The building was expanded again in 1891 with a
two-story classroom wing that extended toward the west into Lot P. This
brought the school’s capacity up to 326 students. While the number of students
was expected to increase, this was not to be the case.
Aspen fell into decline following the 1893 Silver Crash, resulting in closure of
the mines and the town’s depopulation. The community entered what became
known as the “Quiet Years,” which lasted well into the following century. In
1900, the high school students moved out of the Lincoln School and into the
mansion across the intersection to the northeast. Donated to the school
district, the building was the former home of prominent Aspen pioneer, mine
investor and utilities developer David R. C. Brown. Over the next several
decades, as Aspen’s population continued to be depressed, the existing school
buildings adequately served the community’s needs.
By 1927, the Lincoln School was forty-five years old and in deteriorating
condition. In June of that year, Aspen was visited by a state factory inspector
who was also authorized to inspect school buildings. He found the Lincoln
School to be in such poor condition and so rife with safety issues that he
ordered it abandoned if extensive repairs were not completed before the start of
the new school year. Due to the unanticipated costs, the school district
shuttered the building and sent the students to the sturdier Washington School.
In 1930, the school (but not the land or furnishings) was placed on the market
and sold. It was dismantled that winter. Cleared of all its buildings, the south
half of Block 57 then sat vacant for the next sixteen years.
In 1941, the building known today as the Red Brick School was completed and
the Washington School demolished. All of Aspen’s students, from elementary
through senior high, transferred to the new building. Following World War II,
the town began to emerge from its long slumber as the ski mountain was
developed and recreationists, tourists and other visitors began to arrive in the
still small but once-again growing community. Outdoor sports and the healthy,
scenic environment drew many new residents to Aspen. Others came to
participate in events organized by the Aspen Music Festival and School,
founded in 1949, and the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, founded in
1950. As the number of residents increased, so did the number of children
enrolled in the town’s single school.
In August 1946, the school board approved a plan to utilize the empty lots once
occupied by the Lincoln School and its playground. The ground was leveled to
create two baseball diamonds along with a volleyball court. Three years later, in
1949, a group of Aspen residents took it upon themselves to install a skating
P51
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 8 of 31)
rink on the open ground where the school building previously stood. A
warming shack was also placed at the east end of the rink. The following year, it
was improved with lights and a sound system for night skating. The free facility
remained a popular attraction through the 1950s.
Concerned about increasing crowding in the Red Brick School and the fact that
it housed students of all ages, in 1952 the board of education of Aspen School
District No. 1 prepared a study of the town’s requirements, growing student
population, and the need for modernization. Spurring this concern was the fact
that the number of students had increased by one-third in the previous two
years alone and the existing building lacked adequate space to accommodate
the various activities that took place there. Meeting in January 1953 to discuss
the results of the study, the board determined that either the Red Brick School
would need to be enlarged or new facilities would have to be constructed in the
near future. Between 1941 and 1952, the Red Brick School had already
undergone two expansions. The choice now was between enlarging the
building again or constructing a new school at another location.
The community discussion that ensued led to the 1953 expansion of the Red
Brick School, which bought some time before the issue of crowding reemerged.
By the spring of 1956, the school board was again dealing with ongoing growth
in the student population and the continued inadequacy of the Red Brick
School. Appealing to the city council for land to construct a new facility, the
board initially requested that City Park be turned over for such use. Instead, the
council recommended that the school district acquire the north half of Block 57,
clear the lots, and lay plans for a new building at that location. With that
approach, the entire block could be put to educational use. However, the
suggestion failed to take root and for the time being the school board remained
unsure about what it would do.
Over a year later, in July 1957, the board heard presentations made by five
architectural firms that were interested in designing a new school for Aspen.
From these, the Denver firm of Wheeler & Lewis was selected to move forward
with the project. Founded in 1950 by architects Selby M. Wheeler and Carol
Byron Lewis, the firm lasted for three decades and became known for its
extensive work on churches and schools. The schools alone included designs
for 144 new buildings, 136 additions, and 40 remodeling projects.
Founded just as the baby boomers were causing schools across the nation to
burst at the seams, the firm is celebrated today for its functional, Modernist
designs. Their buildings accommodated each district’s budget constraints,
local interests and concerns, current educational philosophies, and included
ample space for classrooms, gymnasiums, libraries and science labs. Multi-
purpose rooms were commonly employed to allow for flexible uses that served
the needs of the school and community. Many of the buildings were designed
P52
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 9 of 31)
to allow for future expansion. With the Cold War impacting international
relations and Americans fearing the possibility of attack, below-grade nuclear
fallout shelters were also provided in many of the firm’s school buildings dating
from the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Although the architecture firm had been selected, by September 1957 a site had
still not been chosen and no determination had been made regarding which
grades would move into the new building. These questions had to be answered
before the architects could proceed with their plans. Several properties were
considered, most of them west of town outside the city limits. In December, the
school board voted to construct a new high school that would house grades
nine through twelve, leaving kindergarten through eight in the Red Brick School.
The next step would be for Wheeler & Lewis to present cost estimates. In
February 1958, the board reversed course and expressed its preference that the
new building be an elementary school. This change resulted from the
architects’ initial cost estimate of $375,000, which would be greater if the board
were to move forward with a high school building.
Months then passed as planning for the new building moved forward. In
November 1958, the school board approved a financing and construction plan,
deciding that the facility should be centrally located within the city limits. The
preferred site was the south half of Block 57, on land owned by the district
where the Lincoln School had once stood. Although the board expressed
interest in purchasing the north half of the block as well, the two owners of the
lots rejected offers that were made. Initial concepts for the building were
presented by Wheeler & Lewis. The one tentatively selected by the board was a
two-story building with fifteen classrooms, anchored on one end by a multi-
purpose room. This would run parallel to Bleeker Street between Center Street
(now Garmisch) and First Street, eliminating the skating rink there.
Responding to the board’s building preference, on 13 November 1958 (p. 4) the
editor of the Aspen Times published the following comments:
“The size of the structure and the limited amount of property precludes a
playground. The only excess space is located in front of the school and could
serve only as a lawn. A requisite of any school, especially an elementary
school, is a playground. It is a mistake to design a new school without one.
There is a solution, which we feel certain the School Board will find. On the 9
lots comprising the other half of block 57 there is one house and one two-unit
apartment complex. The board has negotiated to purchase this land in the past
without success. But it has the power of acquiring the land needed for school
use by court action.
To assure the voters that the new school will not be compressed onto a site too
small for optimum use, the school board should guarantee the electorate that it
will acquire the adjacent land by any means legally open to it, and that it will
P53
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 10 of 31)
construct the school so as to make use of all the land. In addition, the board
should ask the architects to redesign the building and show the plans to the
public before the election.”
This editorial struck a chord, pushing the board to focus upon an approach that
would best serve the community. In the end, it changed the location and design
of the new facility.
The financing question was to be posed to the voters in mid-December, when
they would be asked to approve a $381,000 bond issue. Throwing its weight
behind the effort, on November 27 and December 11, the Aspen Times devoted a
large amount of column space to the issue. Included among its pages were
articles, editorials, and sizable front-page cartoons. One of these depicted the
new school as a casket being carried to its grave by rumor mongers, stay-at-
home voters, indifferent parents and penny pinchers. Another showed a forlorn
little child, holding an ABC book and bundled up against the winter cold, with
the caption “Please…..I need a new school.”
The rumor mongers depicted in the graveyard cartoon were related to another
issue that raised its head in the fall of 1958 and complicated matters. This
revolved around the question of school district reorganization, an issue being
discussed at the time by the state legislature and Colorado Department of
Education. The threat of reorganization, in which students from throughout a
larger district and not just Aspen would utilize the new facility, led some voters
to fear the financial burden it might place upon the community.
In the meantime, the school board moved forward with the goal of acquiring the
north half of Block 57. Negotiations avoided a condemnation suit when it was
found that the owners were more amenable to selling than they had been
previously. Preliminary plans for the building appeared in the December 11
issue of the Aspen Times (page 4). Prepared by Wheeler & Lewis, these showed
a long, low, one-story International Style building with a taller multi-purpose
room. In essence, the basic elements of its architecture and layout were similar
to what was ultimately constructed on the site. The primary difference lay in the
building’s eastern end, where the main entrance would face south and the multi-
purpose room would be located on the north side of the building. The site and
floor plan also showed the building in the north half of Block 57, with the alley
closed and the south half of the block a dedicated “playfield.”
The election took place on December 17, with a single polling place in the
gymnasium at the Red Brick School. The following day, the Aspen Times
reported on its front page that “Stunning nearly everyone, the much-discussed
school bond issue election passed yesterday by a margin of 39 votes. 169
voters approved the issuance of bonds and 130 opposed it in a surprisingly
light turn-out.” With the question settled, the school district proceeded to
acquire the north half of Block 57 from its owners.
P54
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 11 of 31)
In early 1959, the debate over district reorganization heated up again.
Discussion revolved around the possible formation of an enlarged district that
would include Aspen, Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs, along with all
points between. In Aspen, sentiment ran against consolidation with the other
districts. The lingering issue delayed the commencement of construction of the
new Aspen Elementary School since the board had already determined to hold
off on issuing the approved bonds if the question of consolidation remained
unresolved by the beginning of March. In late February, the district announced
that it was delaying the start of construction for six months.
A special election took place on March 20, at which voters were asked to decide
whether the district reorganization plan could move forward. Aspen citizens
voted heavily against the plan. With the issue settled, the school board
announced that it would proceed with construction. Wheeler & Lewis were
instructed to complete the working drawings and arrangements began for the
bond sale. The board hoped to break ground around the first of June and have
the building ready for use by September 1960.
In May 1959, the school board appealed to the City of Aspen for a variance that
would allow the building to be constructed with its north exterior wall on the
property line, with roof overhangs of four feet. This, they claimed, would permit
it to be pushed as far north as possible so the playground to the south could be
enlarged. At the time, they were expecting that the playground would be located
north of the alleyway rather than in the south half of the block. Vacation of the
alley was not yet approved, so it was to remain open to traffic. During the
summer of 1959, two small apartment buildings and a single-family home in the
north half of Block 57 were removed to make way for construction.
Despite the expectation that ground would be broken mid-summer, it wasn’t
until the middle of August that the architectural plans were approved. Modified
from the conceptual plan of December 1958, the new design showed the
building occupying most of the north half of the block, with its main entrance on
the east and multi-purpose room on the south. Fourteen classrooms would
extend to the west, with a remedial reading room in the southeast corner. The
variance was approved and its exterior walls would run along the north, east
and west property lines. In September 1959, the new school year began with the
Red Brick School bursting at the seams with a record 396 students.
A request for bids was advertised at the beginning of September based upon
plans and specifications prepared by Wheeler & Lewis. When the board opened
the five sealed proposals on the 16th, the low bidder was the R. W. Mier
Construction Company of Denver. The firm’s bid was $411,222, with
alternatives that could reduce the price to $368,279. Mier declared that he would
have the project done within four hundred days. Because the bid was
somewhat higher than the available funds, the architects and contractor were
instructed to sit down and make the project fit within the existing budget.
P55
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 12 of 31)
On September 22, the school board gathered to discuss the cost of the project
and ended up reducing the budget by more than $56,000. In part, this was
achieved by changing the exterior materials from glazed bricks and stone to
standard pressed bricks. Cost-saving changes were also made to the
mechanical and electrical systems. Work commenced in October with the
stockpiling of materials on the site, along with leveling and excavation of the
ground. A large blue spruce was removed, causing the editor of the Aspen
Times to lash out at the architects for not saving it in their plans. Contractor
Mier promised to leave space for the skating rink to operate through the winter
as it had for many years.
All that existed of the school by late December was a hole in the ground that
would eventually become the basement. Although preparation of the foundation
had begun, the onset of winter caused the project to be delayed until spring. In
the meantime, the board met regularly to consider furnishings and other details
requiring decisions to be made. Salesmen representing school supply
manufacturers presented their products to the board in early 1960. Expected to
house between 300 and 325 students its first year, with a planned capacity of
450, the school would require an extensive amount of furniture and supplies. In
April, the board deliberated trim colors for the building, accepting the architects’
recommendation that the entry doors be painted white with orange trim.
Redwood trim would be installed along the roofline (essentially the face of the
boxed eaves) and the sills beneath the windows were to be olive green.
Construction commenced again in April 1960, with an expected completion date
at the end of December. As they started work on the site, the crew prepared the
concrete foundation and footings under the direction of subcontractor George
Smith of Glenwood Springs. This involved the use of a truck-mounted drill rig
that bored holes over two feet wide for the concrete piles. The sight and sound
of the tall rig drew the attention of neighborhood children, who enjoyed
watching it being operated. With the building designed to sit several feet above
grade, raised foundation walls also had to be prepared. The plans called for the
partial basement to contain the school cafeteria and kitchen.
As work progressed into June, controversy arose about the fact that the
building encroached onto city property. Wheeler & Lewis had not planned for
sidewalks along the north, east and west sides of the school and designed the
building to run all the way to the property lines in violation of zoning
regulations. One year earlier, the city council had approved the plans, evidently
not understanding the problem this would eventually create with dirt banks
extending outside the raised foundation into areas reserved for public
sidewalks. When the issue emerged again in June 1960, school board members
assured the council that a remedy for the situation would be found.
P56
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 13 of 31)
Initially the council considered narrowing Center Street, Hallam Street and First
Street to accommodate the installation of sidewalks. However, that idea was
soon shelved and the city demanded that retaining walls be installed to shorten
the embankments. Mier submitted an estimate of $14,000 to build the walls,
along with a stairway for the west end of the building. This impacted the roof
drainage, which had to be redesigned because the planned dry wells were
eliminated to install the retaining walls. In addition, the plans and specifications
neglected to include a water meter and its associated costs. The school district
had little choice but to find a way to cover the additional expense of these items.
Controversy surrounding these issues continued into November, with Wheeler
& Lewis taking the lion’s share of the blame. In the end, the city and school
district came to an agreement by which they would share the costs of the water
meter and installing new dry wells.
When school started in September, the number of students enrolled in the Red
Brick School swelled again. To relieve overcrowding, the kindergarten classes
were moved to the basement of the Aspen Community Church, where they
remained through the end of the semester. That same month, Mier assured the
school board that work was progressing rapidly and the new school would be
ready by the first of December.
By the beginning of November 1960, the school board was coordinating with the
teachers and PTA to plan for moving desks, books and other supplies into the
building. New furniture, including teacher’s desks, was being delivered by truck
from a manufacturing plant in Texas, and was expected there any day. The rest
of the materials had to be carried across the intersection from the Red Brick
School. The public was asked for its assistance with the move, including
bringing trucks to help with the heavier items.
Delay of the furniture delivery pushed the opening date to November 21, when
the elementary age students began their classes in the new building. District
superintendent Earl Kelly and architect Selby Wheeler inspected the school and
put together a final punch list of the last items to be taken care of before the
building could be declared complete and turned over to the district. The most
substantial items that needed to be finished were the retaining walls and
exterior stairways on the north and west. Contractor Mier assured the board
that this work would be completed shortly. Due to the temporary lack of safe
egress from the north classrooms, the students would move into the south
classrooms for the time being.
On November 29, the public was invited to an open house sponsored by the
PTA. Tours were provided, with all of the rooms open for inspection and
teachers present to speak with the visitors. Entertainment was provided by the
school chorus, which performed in the multi-purpose room. Surprisingly, after
all the attention it had given to the issue of constructing the new school over the
previous several years, the Aspen Times failed to report on the event.
P57
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 14 of 31)
In early January 1961, the school board questioned Selby Wheeler regarding
why the final punch list items still needed to be addressed. Wheeler informed
them that about one-fourth of the items were finished, but Mier had withdrawn
his workforce from the site because the board had failed to pay his most recent
invoice. At its January 4 meeting, the board approved payment of Mier’s
$14,140 bill and accepted his $800 bid for the installation of two dry wells that
would handle runoff from the roof. This left just $2,000 of work remaining to
complete the punch list items. Wheeler assured the board that he would contact
Mier and get the crew back to the school shortly to finish these tasks.
Although it appeared that all of the work would be completed within weeks,
another problem suddenly arose. By early February, cracks were forming in the
cement hallway and classroom floors. Because of this, the board decided to
withhold Mier’s final payment of ten percent of the contract until the defect was
addressed. Mier assured them that the specifications were closely followed, but
reduced his contract price by $1,000 to mollify the board. The cracks were
patched, but not to the satisfaction of the board. Rather than replace the floors
in a school that was already in use, they were simply covered.
Superintendent Earl Kelly reported to the board in March that the building fund
was in good shape with the school pretty much finished. Construction of the
building cost $351,401, not including the extra $11,000 to $14,000 expended to
erect the retaining walls. Although the final settlement with the R. W. Mier
Construction Company was scheduled to take place toward the end of April, it
wasn’t until January 1962 that the firm was paid.
With the plumbing complete and equipment installed, the basement cafeteria
began serving hot lunches in early February 1961. Grading and seeding of the
narrow areas of ground around the school, along with placement of a flagpole,
were put off until the semester ended. Completion of the north retaining wall
and the planting of grass and shrubs there were also delayed until the school
year was over.
In February 1962, a survey was made in Aspen of buildings that might be
acceptable for use as nuclear fallout shelters. Among the small number of
buildings determined to be adequate was the new Aspen Elementary School,
specifically due to its basement. That May, the school board authorized the
superintendent to secure bids for paving of the playground in the south half of
Block 57. The entire area was to be fenced and the board sought to have tennis
courts installed in its western area. These would also serve as basketball
courts. In July, the Merrill Construction Company of Carbondale was awarded
the contract for paving of the tennis/basketball courts. The fencing was
installed by Elcar Fence Company of Denver.
P58
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 15 of 31)
Within a few years after the Aspen Elementary School was finished, the student
population had increased to the point that the building was already reaching its
capacity. On 27 September 1963, the editor of the Aspen Times wrote:
“A phenomenon which never ceases to amaze old-time Aspenites is the
constant increase in the school population. A decade ago less than 200 pupils
attended one small school [the Red Brick School). Today 670 students are
beginning to crowd two large buildings. Almost before the new school was
completed…it was apparent that more room would be needed within six or
seven years. Unless the pattern of growth suddenly changes there will be too
may pupils within two years for efficient use of existing buildings. What then?”
Despite perennial crowding, the Aspen Elementary School remained in use as a
school district facility for the next three decades.
In 1966 and 1973, new high school and middle school buildings were
constructed on the Maroon Creek campus west of town, freeing up space in the
Red Brick School. When the middle school students moved out, the school
district split the elementary grades between the two adjacent buildings, with K-2
in the Aspen Elementary School and 3-4 in the Red Brick School. In 1991, the
district constructed a new elementary school on the Maroon Creek campus. As
the students, faculty and staff moved into the new facility, the two older schools
in town were vacated.
The district began to consider what to do with the Aspen Elementary School,
and the possibility arose that the property would be sold and redeveloped.
Eager to see it remain a vital part of the community, the citizens of Aspen voted
to approve a sales tax that allowed the City to purchase the building and
support the early childhood education program that had emerged there. In
1995, the City of Aspen acquired all of Block 57 from the district, complete with
the Aspen Elementary School and its former playground to the south.
Since that time, the building has been known as the Yellow Brick School. The
facility has housed city offices and an early childhood education center through
the present time. Finally, in 2001 the City converted the playground, essentially
just a fenced, paved lot, into Yellow Brick Park, complete with playground
equipment, a basketball court, a picnic pavilion, and an open grassed area for
recreational activities.
P59
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 16 of 31)
36. Sources of information:
Aspen, Colorado 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle Map, US Geological Survey
(1960, photorevised 1987).
Aspen, Colorado 1:62,500 Topographic Quadrangle Map, US Geological Survey
(1894, reprinted 1939).
The Aspen Evening Chronicle (Aspen, CO)
“Personal,” 12 October 1889, p. 4.
“The Matter Settled,” 9 July 1890, p. 2.
“Fine School System,” 22 August 1892, p. 3.
AspenModern, Yellow Brick School, 215 N. Garmisch St., City of Aspen Website
Located Online at www.aspenmod.com.
The Aspen Times (Aspen, CO)
“Aspen Public Schools,” 1 January 1887, p. 6.
“Aspen’s Public Schools,” 19 September 1891, p. 4.
“Lincoln School Building Practically Condemned by State Factory
Inspector,” 17 June 1927, p. 1.
“Lincoln School Building Sold,” 7 November 1930, p. 1.
“School Staff for Year Nearly Complete,” 29 August 1946, p. 1.
“New Ice Skating Rink Under Construction,” 8 December 1949, p. 4.
“Night Skiing and Skating in Aspen,” 19 January 1950, p. 1.
“Board Favors School Improvement Program,” 22 January 1953, p. 6.
“Aspen Needs Additional School Space,” 29 January 1953, p. 8.
“Aspen City Council Hears School Board Request,” 10 May 1956, p. 1.
“Denver Architects Selected in July by School Board,” 15 August 1957, p. 13.
“School Board Discusses New Building Plans,” 19 September 1957, p. 5.
“New School Issue,” 26 September 1957, p. 8.
“School Board Discusses More Land Possibilities,” 3 October 1957, p. 13.
“Our School and its Growth,” 28 November 1957, p. 4.
“Board Chooses Hi School,” 19 December 1957, p. 1.
“School Board Signs Contract with Denver Architects,” 6 February 1958, p. 1.
“School Bond Vote Slated,” 13 November 1958, p. 1.
“Assurance from the Board is Needed,” 13 November 1958, p. 4.
“Citizen’s Council Supports School Bond Issue,” 13 November 1958, p. 15.
“Important PTA Meeting is Scheduled Next Tues.,” 20 November 1958, p. 15.
“The Happy Funeral,” (cartoon) 27 November 1958, p. 1.
“School Board Negotiates for Additional Land,” 27 November 1958, p. 3.
“No Confusion Necessary,” 27 November 1958, p. 4.
“Council Answers School Bond Issue Questions,” 27 November 1958, p. 15.
“Please…..I Need a New School,” (cartoon) 11 December 1958, p. 1.
“Aspen Needs a New School,” 11 December 1958, p. 4.
P60
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 17 of 31)
“Rough Architect’s Sketches of the Proposed New School,” 11 December
1958, p. 4.
“School Bond Election Slated for Wednesday,” 11 December 1958, p. 13.
“School Bond Issue Passes,” 18 December 1958, p. 1.
“New School Plan Studied,” 29 January 1959, p. 1.
“Reorganization Action Delays School 6 Months,” 26 February 1959, p. 15.
“Reorganization Rejected at Special Election,” 26 March 1959, p. 3.
“Board to Build School,” 2 April 1959, p. 1.
“Four New School Rooms May be Ready by Fall,” 21 May 1959, p. 3.
“New School Plans Approved at Board Meeting August 19,” 20 August 1959,
p. 5.
“396 Students Enroll Here,” 3 September 1959, p. 1.
“School Bids Now Being Advertised,” 3 September 1959, p. 6.
“Next week on September 16 bids will be opened…,” (photo caption) 10
September 1959, p. 1.
“Legal Notice,” 10 September 1959, p. 6.
“Denver Firm Selected to Construct New School,” 17 September 1959, p. 13.
“What Happened?,” 24 September 1959, p. 2.
“Board Cuts $56,552 from New School Costs,” 24 September 1959, p. 5.
“School Contractor to Provide Space for Skating Rink,” 8 October 1959, p. 1.
“Architects and Trees,” 15 October 1959, p. 4.
“Work Starts on School Building,” 22 October 1959, p. 1.
“Furniture for New Elementary School to be Considered,” 25 December 1959,
p. 2.
“Construction in City Hits Record High in 1959,” 8 January 1960, p. 7.
“Board of Education to Act on Furniture at Mon. Meeting,” 19 February 1960,
p. 12.
“Problem of Overcrowding at School Discussed Wed.,” 8 April 1960, p. 8.
“Colors for School Selected by Board,” 15 April 1960, p. 2.
“A School is Built,” 29 April 1960, p. 6.
“School Ready at Christmas, Contractor Informs Board,” 29 April 1960, p. 8.
“One of the interesting machines at work…,” (photo caption) 6 May 1960, p.
3.
“School Ready in November, Board Hears,” 3 June 1960, p. 1.
“Council Discusses Buildings on City Property,” 10 June 1960, p. 5.
“City OK’s Use of Streets for Walks at School,” 22 July 1960, p. 13.
“School to be Ready About First of Year,” 5 August 1960 p. 15.
“Talk of the Times: A Local Issue,” 19 August 1960, p. 8.
“Contract Dates Should Be Met,” 26 August 1960, p. 4.
“Record Enrollment Seen,” 2 September 1960, p. 1.
“Aspen Welcomes Students and Teachers,” 2 September 1960, p. 8.
“New Look for Aspen,” 16 September 1960, p. 6.
“School Ready by Dec. 1: Contractor,” 23 September 1960, p. 1.
“Retaining Wall at School to Cost $14,000,” 23 September 1960, p. 5.
“Board of Education Explains School’s Steep Embankment,” 21 October
1960, p. 2.
P61
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 18 of 31)
“Let’s End School-City Bickering,” 28 October 1960, p. 4.
“School Board Stands Firm in Clash with City,” 28 October 1960, p. 17.
“Elementary School to Open Nov. 14,” 4 November 1960, p. 12.
“School Move Postponed Until Nov. 19,” 11 November 1960, p. 1.
“New School Opening Postponed Until Nov. 21,” 11 November 1960, p. 3.
“Workmen are putting the finishing touches…,” (photo caption) 18 November
1960, p. 1.
“School to Open Monday – Despite Problems,” 18 November 1960, p. 3.
“Architects’ Mistakes Are Costly,” 18 November 1960, p. 4.
“School Accepts Plan for Meter, Dry Wells,” 18 November 1960, Insert A.
“Moving Day at School is Saturday,” 18 November 1960, Insert A.
“Local Residents to Have Chance to See New School,” 25 November 1960, p.
7.
“School Working on Close Budget, Kelly Says,” 18 November 1960, p. 11.
“Men to be Thanked,” 16 December 1960, p. 4.
“School Construction Lagging, Architect Told,” 6 January 1961, p. 15.
“$1000 Donation, Hot Lunches Among School Board Items,” 20 January
1961, p. 12.
“Floor Cracks to Curriculum Considered by School Board,” 3 February 1961,
p. 6.
“Grade School Cost Under Original Bid Earl Kelly States,” 3 March 1961, p.
14.
“Final Settlement on New School Approved,” 7 April 1961, p. 5.
“Notice of Contractor’s Settlement,” 12 January 1962, p. 9.
“Eight Buildings ‘Favorable’ for CD Shelters,” 23 February 1962, p. 15.
“Rec Program Wanted, School Survey Reveals,” 4 May 1962, p. 1.
“Two New Teachers Offered Jobs by Ed Board,” 18 May 1962, p. 5.
“1962-63 School Dates Similar to This Year’s,” 27 July 1962, p. 5.
“Needed Soon: A New School,” 27 September 1963, p. 4.
“Open House Set for Aspen’s Yellow Brick Park,” 18 March 2009.
Bird’s Eye View of Aspen, Colorado, Aspen Times, 1893.
Building Plans for Aspen Elementary School, Hallam St. and Center St., 31
August 1959 (located in City of Aspen building permit file).
Christman, Abigail. Colorado’s Mid-Century Schools, 1945-1970. National
Register of Historic Places, Multiple Property Documentation Form, October
2016.
City of Aspen, Building Division, Community Development Department, Building
Permits File for 215 N. Garmisch St.
Colorado Midland Railway Map of Aspen and Vicinity. Colorado Springs, CO:
General Superintendent’s Office, Colorado Midland Railway, January 1901.
P62
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 19 of 31)
Daily, Kathleen Krieger and Gaylord T. Guenin. Aspen: The Quiet Years. Aspen,
CO: Red Ink, Inc. 1994.
Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. The Story of Aspen. Aspen, CO: Aspen Three
Publishing, 1996.
Map of Aspen, Colorado & Subdivisions, 1964.
Photographs of the Lincoln School, Aspen Historical Society Collection, circa
1890-1930 (#1965.007.0009 / #1967.022.0032 / #1985.070.0007 / #1996.049.0223
/ #2012.023.0004).
Photographs of the Skating Ring on the Former Lincoln School Property, Aspen
Historical Society Collection, circa 1953-1955 (#2006.047.0165 /
#2006.047.0166 / #2006.047.0167 / #2013.048.1231).
Photographs of the Yellow Brick School, Aspen Historical Society Collection,
circa 1973-1998 (#2013.048.1800 / #1998.034.2050 / #2012.026.0106).
Pitkin County Assessor, Real Estate Appraisal Records, 215 N. Garmisch St. (All
of Block 57), Aspen, Colorado (parcel #273512436850).
Rocky Mountain Sun (Aspen, CO)
“Our Schools,” 17 October 1885, p. 2.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Aspen, Colorado, 1890, 1893, 1898, 1904.
The Silver Queen Annual of the Aspen High School. Published by the Class of
Nineteen Hundred and Ten, Aspen, Colorado.
Smith, Margaret Supplee. Aspen’s Twentieth-Century Architecture: Modernism
1945-1975. Prepared for the City of Aspen, September 2010.
Wentworth, Frank L. Aspen on the Roaring Fork. Denver, CO: Sundance
Publications, 1976.
Wheeler & Lewis Architects Collection (Mss.02629), History Colorado, Stephen
H. Hart Library and Research Center.
P63
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 20 of 31)
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: None
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
X A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad pattern of our history
B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Education / Architecture
40. Period of significance: 1960-1967 (Education) / 1960 (Architecture)
41. Level of significance: National No State No Local Yes
42. Statement of significance: The Aspen Elementary School, now known as the
Yellow Brick School, has been in almost continuous use a public school and
then an early childhood education center since it was constructed fifty-six years
ago. In addition to serving this important role in the community, the building
was designed by one of Colorado’s leading architectural firms of the era. Today
it represents not only their work, but is an excellent example of the International
Style of architecture that characterized the post-war era.
Criteron A: As Aspen emerged from decades of slumber, lasting from the 1893
Silver Crash that effectively ended the mining boom to the end of World War II,
the town began to attract visitors and new residents. Its revitalization in the
post-war era was due to the development of skiing on Aspen Mountain,
combined with the emergence of the town as a center of recreation, culture and
the arts. During the late 1940s and 1950s, Aspen’s population increased for the
first time in many years. Overcrowding in the community’s single school
building, which housed all of the grades from kindergarten through high school,
worsened with each passing year.
P64
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 21 of 31)
Throughout the 1950s, the school board grappled with how they were going to
remedy the situation. During the course of numerous board meetings and
through much public debate, every bit of which was reported in the local
newspaper, it became apparent that the only solution was to build a new
elementary school. Plans were prepared by the prominent Denver architectural
firm of Wheeler & Lewis, which became known for its extensive work on school
projects throughout Colorado. An election was held to approve financing for
the project and bonds were issued to raise the necessary funds. The R. W. Mier
Construction Company of Denver won the contract to erect the building.
Construction commenced in October 1959 and was largely finished in
November 1960. The school was occupied at that time despite the fact that
punch list items remained to be completed during the first half of 1961. From
1960 through 1991, the building remained in use as an elementary school. The
entire block, including the school and playground, was then purchased by the
City of Aspen in 1995 and renamed the Yellow Brick School. Since then, the
facility has housed an early childhood education center along with city offices.
Due to its long history of use, the Aspen Elementary School / Yellow Brick
School is NRHP eligible under Criterion A on the local level for its association
with Education in Aspen during the second half of the twentieth century.
However, its period of significance is limited to 1960-1967, the fifty-year mark,
despite the fact that it continued to be used as an elementary school and then
an early childhood education center. Because of the changes made to the
playground in 2001 that resulted in the creation of Yellow Brick Park, it is
unlikely that the south half of the block would be considered NRHP eligible.
Criterion C: The building erected on this property in 1960 was designed in the
modernist International Style of architecture that emerged in Europe in the
1920s and 1930s, and then spread across the United States through the 1970s.
Although often associated with skyscrapers, the style was also employed on
numerous commercial and institutional buildings of lower height, including
offices, churches and schools. The International Style is sometimes referred to
as Miesian, after Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, the prominent German-American
architect who was among its greatest proponents and designers. Mies and
colleagues such as Walter Gropius, Le Corbusier, Richard Neutra and Philip
Johnson were responsible for the development of a new style of architecture
that reflected modern building materials and techniques, along with the
technological, utilitarian and rational spirit of the era.
Characteristics of the style that appear on the Aspen Elementary School include
its long, low, horizontal profile, bands of windows set flush with the exterior
walls, unornamented surfaces, flat roof, and asymmetrical composition. The
building also features recessed twinned entrances from the exterior directly into
the classrooms (on the south, these provided direct access to the playground).
On the interior, it was designed with administrative spaces adjacent to the main
P65
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 22 of 31)
entrance and lobby, multiple classrooms flanking a central hallway, a tall multi-
purpose room that served both school and community activities, a separate
remedial reading room, modern restrooms, and a basement kitchen and
cafeteria (this large space also served as a nuclear fallout shelter, a function
that resulted from Cold War concerns of the era).
Because of their design elements and overall appearance, International Style
educational buildings such as the Aspen Elementary School reflected the
single-story ranch house aesthetic that was also characteristic of the period,
providing students with a learning environment that felt something like home.
Despite working with a tight budget, the school board and its prominent
architects Wheeler & Lewis created a new educational facility that served the
community’s needs for many years and has endured to the present time.
Although some changes have taken place, the building has not experienced
substantial alterations such as demolitions or additions that might have
diminished its integrity and ability to convey its style.
For these reasons, this property is NRHP eligible under Criterion C on the local
level in the area of Architecture for embodying the distinctive characteristics of
the twentieth century International Style of architecture. Its period of
significance is limited to 1960, the year the building was completed and
occupied. The school also fulfills the registration requirements that are
presented in the NRHP Multiple Property Documentation Form (October 2016)
titled Colorado’s Mid-Century Schools, 1945-1970. The Aspen Elementary
School is listed in the document, which also discusses how it fits within the
prevailing historical and architectural themes of the era and is tied to
Colorado’s most prolific school design firm, Wheeler & Lewis.
City of Aspen Significance: The Aspen Elementary School clearly retains a
reasonably high degree of integrity and meets the City of Aspen’s guidelines for
the character-defining features of what it terms the Bauhaus/International Style
of architecture. These include all of the same design features that are described
above in relation to NRHP eligibility.
According to architectural historian Margaret Supplee Smith’s 2010 context
titled Aspen’s Twentieth-Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975, the
building may not have been designed by one of the city’s resident architects,
but exhibits a preponderance of the style’s characteristic features. It also meets
the criteria established by the City of Aspen in terms of time period, methods
and materials of construction, and architectural detailing. The context provides
excellent discussion of history and architecture in Aspen during the post-WWII
era, providing strong support for the Aspen Elementary School’s local landmark
eligibility.
P66
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 23 of 31)
Today the school building contributes to Aspen’s historic built environment and
remains an important feature that is characteristic of its mid-twentieth century
period of renewal and rapid growth. For all of these reasons, the property is
eligible for local landmark designation under criterion A and C.
Applicable City of Aspen Criteria (Section 26.415.030.C.1, Aspen Municipal Code):
X 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
X 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
X E. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its
age.
Does not meet any of the above City of Aspen criteria
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This property was
redeveloped in 1960 with the public school and city park that remain there
today. Except for a few changes, the long, low one-story building is largely
intact from its period of construction. Alterations have included the installation
of an exterior basement stairway in 1970 on the south side of the multi-purpose
room, with a metal awning and solar panels mounted in 1999 to the wall above.
Although one document suggested that the building was remodeled in the mid-
1960s, there is no supporting evidence of this in the Aspen newspaper or the
city’s building permits file. No additions have been made to the building.
P67
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 24 of 31)
The original metal-framed windows throughout the school were replaced in 1999
with wood-framed windows with aluminum caps on the exteriors. These
retained the historic window bands and replicated the pattern and functionality
of the original windows, with slightly wider framing being the only visual impact.
The original exterior doors, most likely wood, were replaced in 2000. However,
the new ones seem to retain a historically appropriate appearance and did not
result in any negative visual impact to the building.
Yellow Brick Park was developed in 2001 after the south half of the block had
served for five decades as a public skating rink and then an unremarkable and
mostly empty paved school playground. It is still used today by the early
childhood education center that is based in the school building. Although the
park is not historic, the land there serves the same essential purpose as it did in
the past, which was to provide recreation for students and residents of the
community. Today it offers modern playground equipment, verdant
landscaping, a basketball court, a picnic pavilion, and a much more enjoyable
and useful environment for the public than it ever had in previous years.
The school building exhibits an excellent level of architectural integrity in
relation to the aspects of location, design, workmanship, feeling and
association. While the setting has changed with the development of Yellow
Brick Park to the south, the building continues to be surrounded by early
residences and the historic Red Brick School. It retains a preponderance of its
original materials, with the primary change being the non-historic replacement
of its doors and windows. However, this is mitigated by the fact that the
windows replicated the originals in pattern and functionality, and the doors do
not detract in any way from the building’s architectural style.
Despite the changes that have taken place there, the Aspen Elementary School /
Yellow Brick School continues to convey its 1960 origin and long use by the
community as an important venue for primary education.
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible
45. Is there National Register district potential? Yes
Discuss: This property is located within a neighborhood of historically and
architecturally significant resources from the same era (this appears to be
the mining era of the late 1800s) that are contiguous or close to one another
and might allow for the creation of a National Register, State Register, or
local landmark district.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building contributing? No
P68
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 25 of 31)
46. If the building is in an existing National Register district, is it contributing? N/A
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: 215 North Garmisch Street, #1535-1576 and #1619-1654
and #1741-1742
Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
48. Report title: Intensive-Level Survey of Five City-Owned Historic
Properties in Aspen, Colorado
49. Date(s): 15 February 2017
50. Recorder(s): Ron Sladek, President
51. Organization: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
52. Address: P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
53. Phone number(s): 970/221-1095
P69
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 26 of 31)
Site Location Map
USGS Aspen 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle Map
1960 (revised 1987)
P70
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 27 of 31)
Aerial Map
P71
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 28 of 31)
Current Photographs
View of the School from Across Garmisch St. and Hallam St.
View to the Southwest
The Front of the School from the Southeast
View to the North
P72
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 29 of 31)
Current Photographs
Front Entrance to the Building
View to the West
The Building’s Southeast Corner, Including the Tall Multi-Purpose Room
View to the North
P73
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 30 of 31)
Current Photographs
The South Classrooms
View to the Northwest
West End of the Building Along First Street
View to the East
P74
I.
Resource Number: 5PT1382 Address: 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 31 of 31)
Current Photographs
The North Classrooms
View to the East
The North Classrooms Along Hallam Street
View to the Northwest
P75
I.
OAHP1403 Official Eligibility Determination
Rev. 9/98 (OAHP use only) Date Initials
Determined Eligible - NR
Colorado Cultural Resource Survey Determined Not Eligible - NR
Determined Eligible - SR
Architectural Inventory Form Determined Not Eligible - SR
(Page 1 of 25) Need Data
Contributes to eligible NR District
Noncontributing to eligible NR District
I. Identification
1. Resource Number: 5PT991
2. Temporary Resource Number: Not Applicable
3. County: Pitkin
4. City: Aspen
5. Historic Building Name: Mountain Rescue Aspen Building
6. Current Building Name: Not Applicable
7. Building Address: 630 W. Main St.
Aspen, CO 81611
8. Owner Name & Address: City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P76
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 2 of 25)
II. Geographic Information
9. P.M. 6th Township 10 South Range 85 West
NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 12
10. UTM Reference Zone: 13 Easting: 342050 Northing: 4339585
11. USGS Quad Name: Aspen, Colorado
Year: 1960 (photorevised 1987) Map scale: 7.5'
12. Lot(s): M Block: 24
Addition: Aspen Original Townsite Year of Addition: 1880
13. Boundary Description and Justification: This parcel (2735-124-44-855), defined by a
lot and block description, includes all of the land and built resources that are
historically associated with this property and remain in place there today.
III. Architectural Description
14. Building Plan: Rectangular Plan
15. Dimensions in Feet: 20' x 65'
16. Number of Stories: 2
17. Primary External Wall Material(s): Log
18. Roof Configuration: Front Gabled Roof
19. Primary External Roof Material: Metal Roof
20. Special Features: Porch
21. General Architectural Description: Facing toward the south across a small
landscaped front yard, this log kit building rests upon a masonry foundation
and has a rectangular plan of 20’ x 65’. This consists of the original 20’ x 30’
one-story building toward the front, behind which is a 20’ x 35’ two-story
addition. The building’s exterior walls are constructed of slender milled logs
that interlock at the corners. These were designed to fit snugly together so that
no chinking or daubing were required to make it weathertight. A 5’ x 5’ open
cutaway porch with the main entry is located on the southwest corner. In
addition to the areas of exposed logs, clapboard siding has been applied to the
upper rear wall and on the east and west sides of the building.
P77
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 3 of 25)
The roof over the one-story portion of the building is front-gabled. Behind that,
the two-story roof consists of hipped, pyramidal and gabled sections. All of
these are finished with standing seam metal panels. The southeast corner of
the rear addition projects above the main roof and forms a 10’ x 12’ cupola.
Wood beam purlins are visible at the open eave along the front of the building.
However, while those located directly above walls are clearly engaged, the
eastern midpoint purlin and ridge beam may be decorative rather than
functional. Boxed eaves with fascia boards are present on the rest of the
building. A short metal ventilator rises above the one-story roof.
South (front): The front of the building holds the main entry, which is located in
an open cutaway porch on the southwest corner. The entrance faces west and
contains a wood panel door with an X-pattern in the lower half and nine lights in
the upper. The 5’ x 5’ porch is open to the south and west, although the west
side has a half wall formed by a closed rail of milled logs. The floor is of wood
planks, and the openings are arched overhead. A large window dominates the
front wall. This consists of a central fixed six-light window flanked by what
appear to be three-light casements, all set in wood framing.
The south wall of the rear cupola and adjacent wall above the front gabled roof
is finished with wood siding with a curved face. These seem to have been
manufactured to look like milled logs. However, they do not have the same
profile as the true milled logs on the main floor. The cupola contains two pairs
of awning windows set in wood frames. Above these, the upper walls of the
cupola are finished with beadboard siding. Another pair of fixed single-light
windows set in wood frames is found near the upper floor’s southwest corner.
West (side): This side of the building consists of two sections, each with its
own features. The front one-story portion holds no entries and is mostly
characterized by clapboard siding over the original milled log walls. A small
fixed single-light window with a wood frame is present toward its northwest
corner. The rear area of the building has a side entrance that contains a slab
door with a small hood above. The hood is gabled and supported by metal
bracing. Flanking the entry are three fixed single-light windows with wood
frames. Near the two-story addition’s southwest corner is a horizontal band of
three small single-light fixed windows that are set high on the wall. These
provide light to an interior stairway. Toward the rear of the building, the wall
material changes from clapboard siding to wood panels secured with multiple
rows of large-diameter screws. These extend from the foundation to the eaves.
North (rear): The two-story rear of the building is dominated by a full-width
overhead metal garage door on the main floor. A chain-operated door control
projects from the building’s northwest corner. Centered in the upper wall is a
pair of glass doors set in wood framing. These provide access to a small
unadorned metal balconet that allowed personnel to participate in loading and
P78
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 4 of 25)
unloading activities on the ground below and to engage in rope climbing
practice associated with a metal frame system that projects from the ridge beam
above.
East (side): This side of the building holds no entries. The front one-story area
contains two pairs of sliding windows with wood frames. As on the west, the
original milled logs that form the walls have been clad in clapboard siding. The
rear two-story area has a pair of single-light fixed windows on the main floor.
The cupola holds a pair of what appear to be casement windows set in wood
frames.
22. Architectural Style / Building Type: Kit Building
23. Landscaping or Special Setting Features: This property is located on the west side
of Aspen’s developed core, in a predominantly residential area along the north
side of Main Street (Colorado State Highway 82) two properties east of 6th Street.
Pedestrian access is from the sidewalk along Main Street, with street parking
available in front of the building. A short concrete sidewalk runs toward the
north through the small front yard, reaching the porch at the building’s
southwest corner. The yard is simply landscaped with grass, along with a small
graveled area on the west with a bike rack. Reaching over the western property
line above the bike rack is a spruce tree whose trunk is actually located on the
adjacent lot to the west. A wooden picnic table sits in the grassed area on the
east side of the yard. The picket fence along the eastern property line appears
to be associated with the adjacent house rather than this site.
The side yards are extremely narrow because the building reaches almost to the
property lines with a very small setback. An east-west alley runs behind the
building, providing access to the rear garage entry. Outside the garage door,
the ground is covered by a concrete apron.
Property uses beyond the site boundaries are residential in all directions,
primarily consisting of small single-family homes. The building on the site fits
with the surrounding scale and appears to be another house.
24. Associated Buildings, Features or Objects: Located behind the building off its
northeast corner is a tall metal pole that rises above the two-story rooftop. Atop
the pole is an old emergency siren that probably dates from the 1960s but is
long out of use. This appears to be a Darley Model 5 siren manufactured by the
W. S. Darley Company of Chicago. The siren looks like a metal canister with a
series of vertical openings around the perimeter and a conical cap. This rests
upon and is bolted to a small metal plate. The plate and siren are secured with
guy wires to welded metal framework that is located several feet lower on the
pole.
P79
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 5 of 25)
IV. Architectural History
25. Date of Construction: Estimate: Actual: 1965-1966
Source of Information: General Construction Permit, City of Aspen, Building
Inspection Department, Approved 22 November 1965
(Permit #960C)
26. Architect: Pan Abode Southern Division, Inc.
Source of Information: Building Plans for Aspen Mountain Rescue Unit, 630 W.
Main St., 1 November 1965
27. Builder/Contractor: Mountain Rescue Aspen Volunteers
Source of Information: General Construction Permit, City of Aspen, Building
Inspection Department, Approved 22 November 1965
(Permit #960C)
28. Original Owner: Mountain Rescue Aspen
Source of Information: General Construction Permit, City of Aspen, Building
Inspection Department, Approved 22 November 1965
(Permit #960C)
29. Construction History: The one-story log kit building on this property was
constructed in 1965-1966 for meeting and training space, along with equipment
storage use, by Mountain Rescue Aspen. Its two-story rear addition was built in
1989-1990 to hold a garage, mechanical room, equipment storage area, shower
and sink room, office space and a meeting room. Clapboard siding was applied
to the east and west exterior walls of the original building, possibly during the
1989-1990 expansion. In 1990, a window on the second floor at the rear of the
addition was removed and replaced with a pair of doors.
A pair of sliding windows on the east side of the original building was replaced
in 2015 with a set that closely matched what was already there. The current
metal roof was installed in 2015 to replace a metal roof that had been present for
an unknown amount of time. Finally, the front windows were modified
sometime after 1975 to include casement windows on either end (they were
originally all fixed windows). Despite this change, the overall window pattern
remained visually intact and they continue to be framed with wood.
30. Original Location: Yes
P80
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 6 of 25)
V. Historical Associations
31. Original Use(s): Commerce & Trade: Organizational
32. Intermediate Use(s): Not Applicable
33. Current Use(s): Government: Government Office
34. Site Type(s): Offices, Meeting Rooms, Equipment Storage, Training
35. Historical background: Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, the site under
study was situated toward the west end of Aspen in a residential neighborhood
of small mining-era homes. Unique among its surroundings, Lot M in Block 24
contained a small firehouse, known at the time as a hose house, behind which
was a bell tower. Organized in 1881, the Aspen Fire Department maintained a
primary firehouse downtown, along with a small number of outlying hose
houses. Each location was staffed and managed by volunteers forming a single
company that took pride in its facility, equipment, firefighting ability, and
athletic prowess.
In June 1887, the City of Aspen purchased Lot M with the goal of building a hose
house for Red Star Hose Company No. 3 (it was one of four fire companies in
Aspen at the time). Founded exactly one year earlier, the Red Star men needed
a home where they could meet, train, and store their hoses and carts. A false
front building was erected on the front of the lot, together with a lattice bell
tower behind it, and the company remained there into the very early 1900s
before disbanding.
Aspen fell into decline following the 1893 Silver Crash, resulting in closure of
the mines and the town’s depopulation. The community entered what became
known as the “Quiet Years,” and by the early 1900s there was no longer any
need for several fire brigades. Lot M likely sat vacant throughout the first half of
the twentieth century after the Red Star Hose Company disappeared. Exactly
when the hose house was demolished is not currently known.
As the City of Aspen emerged from its long slumber following World War II,
tourists and other visitors began to arrive in the still small but once-again
growing community to engage in a variety of recreational and cultural activities.
These included skiing, hiking and mountain climbing. As the number of
residents and visitors increased year after year, so did the frequency of mishaps
that required rapid, skilled, organized rescue efforts. For skiers on Aspen
Mountain, the ski patrol handled their needs. But for those who encountered
trouble among the region’s extensive peaks and valleys, a different sort of
rescue operation was needed.
P81
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 7 of 25)
Throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s, a series of headline-grabbing
incidents occurred in the Aspen area that called on the determination and skill
of volunteers who were willing and able to engage in rescue efforts. Just a few
of the episodes that took place are mentioned here. What they underscored was
how critical it was for coordinated, trained rescuers to be available at any time
to help those in need. Eventually this led to the formation of a permanent
organization devoted to rescue operations. In the meantime, a determined
group of Aspen residents rose time and again to the meet the challenge.
In September 1952, Larry Hackstaff (age 20) and his good friend Gordon
Schindel (age 19) were climbing the Maroon Bells when they both fell and were
unable to descend further. After they failed to return to Aspen, two small
airplanes scoured the area but did not locate them. Two days after they were
reported missing, more than forty volunteers from Aspen set out to find the
young men and bring them to safety. Hackstaff was found alive in a crevasse
but was severely injured. Schindel was deceased, his body located in a snow
field about 175’ away. With great effort, the rescuers carried the two down the
mountain to Maroon Lake, from where one was transported to the Pitkin County
Hospital and the other to Sardy Mortuary.
The following summer, the Aspen Chamber of Commerce organized the Aspen
Mountain Rescue Squad. Sheriff Lorain Herwick oversaw its efforts and
coordinated with the US Forest Service. In addition to deploying volunteers on
foot, the squad was able to call for reconnaissance flights and recruited area
ranchers able to search on horseback. They planned to spend time training for
rescue operations. This was the first formal rescue organization to exist in the
Aspen area.
In July 1954, a music student visiting Aspen became stranded on Maroon Bells
while climbing with a friend. Arthur Grossman (age 19) from Oklahoma City
became ill with what appears to have been altitude sickness and his friend
Malcomb Norton (age 22) of Baker, Oregon descended to find help. Sheriff
Herwick gathered the rescue squad volunteers, who ascended the mountain and
brought both of the young men to safety.
Two years later, in August 1956, Aspen lodge owner Ralph Melville fell more
than 300’ while climbing North Maroon Peak and sustained serious injuries. He
was accompanied by two friends, Loren Jenkins and Mary Lou Hayden. After
the fall, the 17-year-old Jenkins descended to find help and Hayden had to
complete an extensive series of climbing maneuvers to reach her injured friend.
She moved Melville to a safe location where they could wait for assistance and
bundled him in extra clothing and her own jacket as the temperature fell. A
group of rescuers, including Dr. Charles Houston (leader of the 1953 K2
expedition), set out by horseback and then on foot to reach Melville and Hayden.
At daybreak, they brought Melville down to Maroon Lake for transport to the
hospital. For her efforts, Hayden received the Carnegie Medal for Heroism.
P82
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 8 of 25)
On August 9, the editor of the Aspen Daily Times printed commentary on the
rescue effort, lauding the character of those Aspenites who stood ready to help
anyone in need:
“Last Sunday an Aspen resident slipped and fell while descending a mountain.
Unable to succor himself, he was dependent on his fellow men for aid.
Without their help he would have died.
He did not perish on the mountain, however. Several people, both friends and
strangers, reacted to his plight and altered the normal pattern of their lives
to rescue him.
They did not have to do this. There were no tangible rewards. No law required
them to undergo the physical hardship and possible danger necessary to
save the injured man.
Some people take their actions for granted; attribute them to an intangible,
unwritten code, always present in the mountains, which requires man to
aid his fellow man when in danger.
Such a code does indeed exist. But unfortunately it does not seem to apply to
all men. The majority usually can, and do, find excuses for not
participating.
This makes the actions of the minority the more laudable.
Last Sunday’s rescue was carried out with speed and efficiency. Two hours
after word of the accident reached town a group of nine men were riding
horses, loaned by a local rancher, up a mountain path en route to the
snow-gulley accident site. By 11:15 the next day the injured man was safe
in the hospital.
We are proud of all the men who participated in this altruistic effort and we think
they merit our gratitude and the gratitude of all men.”
Later that same month, another incident took place that called the rescuers into
action. In this case, two climbers were reported to be in trouble on the face of
Hagerman Peak, where they could be heard calling for help. Four mountaineers
from Aspen, Bob Craig, Sepp Kessler, Tony Woerndle and Sandy Sabbatini,
rushed to provide assistance. Sheriff Herwick drove them to the end of the road
and from there they climbed to Snowmass Lake to assess the situation. Forced
to spend the night on the cliff face, the climbers in distress were known to be
lightly clothed and had taken no extra food with them. What happened to them
in the end is unknown, as the Aspen newspaper failed to follow up on the story.
In addition to the rescuers mentioned so far, many others responded to calls
during the 1950s and 1960s. Among them were Hugh Strong, Fritz Benedict, Elli
Iselin, Steve Knowlton, William “Shady” Lane, Dick Wright, Jim Snobble, Gale
Spence, Jack Dollinger, David Swersky, Bill Golesten, Jack dePagter, Ralph
Melville, Richard Arnold, Dr. Robert Lewis and Earl Eaton. Most of these men
were avid skiers and climbers themselves, and some taught skiing on Aspen
Mountain. Others provided necessary assistance from carrying litters to flying
search planes and helicopters. As time passed, many of the same names
appeared in the newspaper accounts of each rescue operation.
P83
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 9 of 25)
In August 1957, the body of a young man from Delaware had to be recovered
from Capitol Peak after he fell to his death. Unable to raise a rescue squad in
Aspen, Sheriff Herwick arranged for the Rocky Mountain Rescue Group from
Boulder to be flown to Aspen to handle the recovery effort. The body was in an
area of snowfields, unstable rock and steep cliffs, and proved difficult to reach.
The rescue group was assisted by ranchers from Carbondale, who had traveled
to the area on horseback.
A year and a half later, on New Year’s Day 1959, a rescue operation was
mounted to retrieve a student from the University of Colorado who had
developed a heart condition while skiing and climbing near Snowmass Lake.
His companion secured the young man in a tent, wrapped in sleeping bags to
fend off the bitter cold, while he skied down to get help. The rescue team from
Aspen traveled for hours by weasel and then skis to reach the ill man, and then
it took four more hours to bring him out by toboggan.
Incidents such as these kept happening into the early 1960s. For example, in
June 1960, several members of the Rocky Mountain Rescue Group from Boulder
were flown to Aspen at the request of Sheriff Herwick to retrieve the body of
Walter Taylor from a deep gulch in the Snowmass Wilderness. He had gone
hiking with a group of friends despite the fact that he was not feeling well, was
under the care of a doctor for heart problems, and was complaining of
numbness. Due to the strain of hiking at an altitude of more than 10,000’, Taylor
died of a heart attack. The rescue team traveled by horse to within three miles
of the body and then had to hike from there. As darkness was approaching,
they were forced to spend the night before bringing the body down.
One month later, Sheriff Herwick posed a question to the Pitkin County
Commissioners, asking them if the families of those rescued shouldn’t be
expected to cover the mounting costs of rescue operations. He stated that in all
his years as sheriff, no family had ever offered to cover the costs of rescuing
their loved ones. The commissioners determined that it was fair to ask, but not
demand, that at least some of the costs be covered, especially in cases where
extraordinary efforts were required. Pitkin County would continue to pay the
costs in cases where no more than a sheriff’s posse and volunteers were
needed. Beyond that, the sheriff was given the authority and discretion to ask
that families cover the costs inherent in engaging numerous personnel and
hiring search planes, rescue helicopters, and bloodhounds.
Rescues continued to take place and predominantly involved backcountry
skiing incidents, climbing falls, avalanches, car accidents, plane crashes, health
emergencies, and a variety of injuries. As in the 1950s, those who responded
through the 1960s were Aspen and Pitkin County residents with the necessary
skills, physical ability, equipment and determination to be of help at a moment’s
notice. While they skied, rode horses, hiked and climbed to reach those in
need, others rushed to the staging areas below to provide critical supplies. The
P84
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 10 of 25)
T-Lazy-7 Ranch on Maroon Creek Road below the Maroon Bells, owned by
Harold and Louise Deane, regularly provided horses and mules for rescues and
often participated in the operations themselves.
Mountain Rescue Aspen was incorporated in 1965 under the leadership of
Aspen resident Fred Braun and since then has worked in conjunction with the
Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office. Alfred A. Braun was born in Germany in 1904 and
immigrated to the United States as a young man. After living in the Chicago
area for a number of years, where he worked as a tool maker in a factory, he
moved west to Aspen in 1951 with his wife Renate. There the couple owned and
operated the Holiday House ski lodge. Fred also became an avid mountaineer
and loved spending time hiking and skiing in the backcountry.
Braun founded the Aspen chapter of the Colorado Mountain Club in the mid-
1950s, and its members regularly participated in area rescue operations.
Between 1967 and his death in the late 1980s, he managed Colorado’s first
cross-country ski hut system, located in the Elk Mountains between Aspen and
Crested Butte. Today the popular cabins are collectively known as the Alfred A.
Braun Memorial Hut System. Fred was inducted into the Aspen Hall of Fame for
his service to the community.
In July 1965, a fourteen-year-old from St. Charles, Illinois by the name of Robert
Rossetter disappeared while on a hike from Ashcroft to Marble with companions
from the Ashcrofters Camp. The newly-formed Mountain Rescue Aspen
launched an extensive search that turned into one of the largest mounted to that
time. Because of the sizable area that had to be scoured, they were assisted by
two Army helicopters, two search planes, and a twelve-man team with radio
equipment from Fort Carson near Colorado Springs. More than two hundred
people participated on foot, many of them from the Outward Bound school in
Marble. The boy’s parents arrived to help with the search and privately hired a
third helicopter.
After a week of searching with no sign of the boy, who was reportedly carrying a
sleeping bag, food, a parka and matches, speculation arose that perhaps he had
hiked out of the area and was attempting to hitchhike back home. The Army
team withdrew from the search, leaving the effort to the remaining volunteers,
many of them from Aspen and from the Outward Bound school. Two weeks
after he went missing, Rossetter’s body was found in a fork of the Crystal River
near Geneva Lake, just a few hundred yards from the base camp of one of the
groups searching for him.
Thankful for their efforts, Rossetter’s family and friends contributed $1,127 in
August to Mountain Rescue Aspen. His parents requested that any additional
donations be sent to the organization. The money was used to purchase
supplies, including radio equipment, ropes, flashlights, and a tent. Another
$800 were donated by the Pitkin County commissioners and City of Aspen,
P85
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 11 of 25)
which provided the group with quarters at city hall. The commissioners
authorized a $500-per-rescue fund for the group, which would be made available
to cover various expenses, including the hiring of helicopters and horses.
Primary among those who founded the organization that summer were Alfred
Braun, John Mueller, Jack dePagter, Glen Brand and Ralph Melville.
Mountain Rescue Aspen clearly needed an adequate facility that could serve as
a base of operations. Fred Braun arranged to lease Lot M in Block 24 from the
City of Aspen, and the organization set out to construct a building there that
would serve as its headquarters. Donations to the Rossetter memorial fund
were solicited and the project was soon underway. Seeking an affordable
design for the narrow residential lot, they settled upon erecting a small pre-
manufactured building purchased from the Pan-Abode Company.
Founded in 1948 in British Columbia, Canada by Danish cabinetmaker Aage
Jensen, the firm was formally known as Pan-Abode International, Ltd. In 1952, it
opened a second factory in Renton, Washington that supplied the U.S. market.
Pan-Abode engineered and manufactured kit buildings that employed a
patented system of interlocking milled logs for the exterior walls. The timbers
were fabricated of Western Red Cedar and then shipped to the buyer for
assembly. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, most Pan-Abode buildings were
one-story in height and ranged from 1,000 to 2,000 square feet in size, although
they could also be larger or smaller. In addition to its Pacific Northwest
operations, the company maintained an office in Walnut, California that
operated as Pan-Abode Southern Division, Inc. A network of local agents
handled sales across the United States and Canada.
In Aspen, Pan-Abode was represented starting in the late 1950s by Jack Holst, a
senior pilot with United Airlines who commuted to Denver for work. He also
owned Aspen Travel Service together with his wife, Janet. The couple launched
their travel agency around 1957, with offices located at 104 South Mill Street. In
addition to offering travel services, the Holsts provided car rentals, foreign
automobiles sales, and the marketing of Pan Abode buildings to the public.
Jack was an avid skier who took on additional work as an instructor. In 1963, he
posted an advertisement in the Aspen Times (31 May 1963, p. 9) that read:
PAN ABODE PRE-CUT log homes have proven themselves extremely well in the
past five years….in the Aspen area….both COST and WEATHER-wise! When
considering the type of construction for your new house, or cabin why not
consult JACK HOLST – ASPEN TRAVEL….sole agent for….PAN ABODE, INC.
REMEMBER NOTHING CAN BE BUILT FOR LESS.
Although he handled sales out of the travel agency office, Holst operated his
business representing Pan-Abode for many years as a separate legal entity
called Pan-Abode Sales of Aspen, Inc.
P86
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 12 of 25)
Fred Braun worked with Holst during the fall of 1965 to acquire a Pan Abode
building for Mountain Rescue Aspen. Plans for the small, one-story, 600-
square-foot log cabin (the front 20’ x 30’ area of the current building) were
provided by the Pan-Abode Southern Division office in California at the
beginning of November. These showed interior uses that were limited to a
meeting room, storage space, kitchenette, hallway and restroom. The exterior
would feature exposed milled log walls, a multi-light front window, two-light
sliding windows on the sides and back, a rear pedestrian entrance, a low-sloped
gabled roof, and a cutaway porch with arched openings at the southwest corner.
A handwritten note on the plans suggest that the building cost $2,435.00.
The City of Aspen approved the plans provided by Pan-Abode on 23 November
1965 and the construction permit was issued. Aspen contractor Magna
Nostdahl was engaged to supervise construction (many of the city’s Pan-
Abodes were built by the Marthinsson and Nostdahl Construction Company).
However, Fred Braun and Mountain Rescue Aspen chose to act as the general
contractor and have volunteers from the organization provide the necessary
labor. Because Pan-Abode supplied the bare structure and nothing else, the
additional work and materials required were expected to boost the cost to
$3,500.00. Aspen Valley Plumbing and Heating donated both labor and supplies
to install the restroom and kitchenette.
Construction of the building took place within a relatively short period of time
over the winter of 1965-1966. On 6 March 1966, the new home for Mountain
Rescue Aspen was dedicated as the Robert B. Rossetter Memorial Cabin. A
sign identifying it as such was mounted on the south wall of the front porch.
This included the cabin’s name as well as the short span of Rossetter’s life from
1951 to 1965. The dedication ceremony was attended by members of the
organization, along with city, county and Forest Service officials and
representatives from other Colorado rescue units. Rossetter’s parents and
other family members also attended the event.
In 1966, Mountain Rescue Aspen became a member of the national Mountain
Rescue Association and its dedicated volunteers began earning accreditation in
various areas of rescue training. From that point on, rescue operations became
more sophisticated and professional, making use of modern technology and
search and rescue practices. The headquarters on Main Street continued to be
occupied for the next forty-eight years, although the building eventually had to
be expanded to meet the organization’s needs. In 1970, Fred Braun arranged to
have a detached garage added to the back of the lot for storage.
No substantial changes appear to have taken place on the property throughout
the 1970s and into the 1980s. However, by the late 1980s the 600-square-foot
Pan Abode had become inadequate to handle the activity that took place there,
especially when rescue operations were about to be launched. There was
simply not enough room for the volunteers to store their equipment, meet for
P87
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 13 of 25)
training, and get geared up. In the summer of 1989, Aspen architect Graeme
Means prepared plans for an addition that more than doubled the building’s
size. Constructed over the following months and finished in early 1990, the two-
story rear addition included a garage, mechanical room, equipment storage
area, shower and sink room, and office and meeting space.
This expansion allowed Mountain Rescue Aspen to remain in the building for
another twenty-four years. As time passed, it outgrew the headquarters on Main
Street and had to find a new location, not only for meeting and training, but also
to store vehicles and equipment nearby so they could be accessed quickly. In
2014, the organization benefitted from another sizable donation and constructed
a much larger, 14,000-square-foot facility in the Aspen Business Center. Since
then, the property at 630 West Main Street has been remodeled on the interior
and turned into office space occupied by the City of Aspen.
36. Sources of information:
Architectural Inventory Form, 630 W. Main St., Aspen, Colorado (Site 5PT991).
Prepared by Suzannah Reid and Patrick Duffield, Reid Architects, June 2000.
Aspen, Colorado 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle Map, US Geological Survey
(1960, photorevised 1987).
Aspen, Colorado 1:62,500 Topographic Quadrangle Map, US Geological Survey
(1894, reprinted 1939).
AspenModern, Pan Abode, 630 W. Main St., City of Aspen Website Located
Online at www.aspenmod.com.
The Aspen Times (Aspen, CO)
“Local Laconics,” 17 June 1887, p. 4.
“Youth Killed; Another Injured in Peak Climb,” 11 September 1952, p. 1.
“C. of C. Organizes Mt. Rescue Squad,” 23 July 1953, p. 1.
“Mountain Rescue Group Called Out Again Thursday,” 22 July 1954, p. 1.
“Jack Holst…,” 26 July 1956, p. 15 (photo caption).
“Melville Recovers Quickly,” 9 August 1956, p. 1.
“Editorial,” 9 August 1956, p. 4.
“Aspen Alpinists Leave on Dramatic Rescue,” 30 August 1956, p. 13.
“Body of Climber Taken Off Capitol Monday,” 1 August 1957, p. 13.
“Ski Rescue,” 8 January 1959, p. 1 & 8.
“Medical Data Gained From Ski Rescue Here,” 8 January 1959, p. 3.
“Snowmass Hiker Dies of Heart Attack June 25,” 1 July 1960, p. 9.
“Mary Lou Hayden Killed in Auto Crash Sat., July 2,” 8 July 1960, p. 10.
“Aspen Travel Service,” (advertisement including mention of Pan Abode
homes), 14 July 1961, p. 6.
P88
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 14 of 25)
“An Open Letter from Aspen Travel,” (advertisement for Pan Abode homes),
13 July 1962, p. 9.
“Who Should Pay Rescue Costs, Sheriff Asks,” 6 July 1962, p. 15.
“Woman’s 3 Crashes Wed. End with 250-Foot Plunge,” 3 August 1962, p. 13.
“Unlucky Angler Breaks Leg at Lake,” 17 August 1962, p. 5.
“Pan Abode Pre-Cut Log Homes,” (advertisement) 31 May 1963, p. 9.
“Thirty Boys in Ashcrofters Camp Mountain School,” 16 July 1965, p. 4.
“No Sign of Missing Youngster,” 23 July 1965, p. 1.
“Search Called Off for Rossetter Boy,” 23 July 1965, p. 1.
“Members of the Ft. Carson Leadership Mountain Rescue Team…,” 23 July
1965, p. 5.
“The Possibility of Death,” 30 July 1965, p. 8.
“Camper’s Body Found in River,” 30 July 1965, p. 17.
“Ropes Used to Rescue Climber,” 13 August 1965, p. 17.
“Rescue Group Gets $1127 in Robert Rossetter’s Name,” 27 August 1965, p.
12.
“Double Fall Kills Maroon Climber,” 27 August 1965, p. 13.
“Mountain Safety,” 27 August 1965, p. 20.
“Some Restrictions Needed,” 3 September 1965, p. 8.
“Dedication Sat. for Rescue Facilities,” 3 March 1966, p. 1.
“New Rescue Cabin Dedicated Last Sat.,” 10 March 1966, p. 9A.
“Dedication of the Robert Rossetter Cabin…,” 10 March 1966, p. 14B.
“The Braun Huts: A History,” 16 March 2004.
“Mountain Rescue Aspen Honoring its Roots this Year,” 6 July 2015.
Bird’s Eye View of Aspen, Colorado, Aspen Times, 1893.
“The Braun and Friends Huts,” 10th Mountain Division Hut Association,
Organization Website Located Online at www.huts.org.
Building Plans for Aspen Mountain Rescue Unit, 630 W. Main St., 1 November
1965 (located in City of Aspen building permit file).
Chicago Tribune
“St. Charles Boy, 14, Lost in Mountains,” 20 July 1965, p. 1.
“2 Copters, Climbers Hunt St. Charles Boy,” 21 July 1965, p. 3.
“Hunt For Lost Boy Is Halted Temporarily,” 23 July 1965, p. 7.
City of Aspen, Building Division, Community Development Department, Building
Permits File for 630 W. Main St.
Colorado Midland Railway Map of Aspen and Vicinity. Colorado Springs, CO:
General Superintendent’s Office, Colorado Midland Railway, January 1901.
Find A Grave Memorial, Alfred Braun, Red Butte Cemetery, Aspen, Colorado.
P89
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 15 of 25)
Fred Braun, Aspen Hall of Fame, Organization Website Located Online at
www.aspenhalloffame.org.
General Construction Permit, City of Aspen, Building Inspection Department,
Approved 22 November 1965 (Permit #960C).
Hayes, Mary Eshbaugh. The Story of Aspen. Aspen, CO: Aspen Three
Publishing, 1996.
Map of Aspen, Colorado & Subdivisions, 1964.
“Mission Accomplished,” Aspen Sojourner, Midwinter/Spring 2015 Issue, 1
February 2015.
Mountain Rescue Aspen History and Information, Organization Website Located
Online at www.mountainrescueaspen.org.
Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context. Prepared for the City of
Aspen by TEC, Inc. of Golden, CO, 2010.
Pan Abode Cedar Homes History, Company Website Located Online at
www.panabodehomes.com/history.
Photograph from the Koch Home at 611 W. Main St., View Toward the North,
Aspen Historical Society Collection, circa 1900 (ID #2013.007.0053).
Photograph of the Mountain Rescue Aspen Building at 630 W. Main St., View
Toward the North, City of Aspen, Community Development Department Files,
circa 1975.
Pitkin County Assessor, Real Estate Appraisal Records, 630 W. Main St. (Lot M,
Block 24), Aspen, Colorado (parcel #273512444855).
Rocky Mountain Sun (Aspen, CO)
“Red Stars,” 12 June 1886, p. 2.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Aspen, Colorado, 1890, 1893, 1898, 1904.
United States Federal Census Records for Alfred and Renate Braun, 1940
(Norwood Park, Cook County, IL).
P90
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 16 of 25)
VI. Significance
37. Local landmark designation: None
38. Applicable National Register Criteria:
X A. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad pattern of our history
X B. Associated with the lives of persons significant in our past
X C. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic
values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory
Qualifies under Criteria Considerations A through G
Does not meet any of the above National Register criteria
39. Area(s) of significance: Architecture, Recreation
40. Period of significance: 1966 (Architecture)
1965-1967 (Recreation)
41. Level of significance: National No State No Local Yes
42. Statement of significance: Between approximately 1887 and 1905, during Aspen’s
mining era, this property was in its first stage of development and use. Located
there throughout those years was a City of Aspen firehouse operated by the
Red Star Hose Company No. 3. Behind the building stood a bell tower that was
used to call the men to action. As the city went into decline following the 1893
Silver Crash, the firehouse closed and was eventually dismantled. Throughout
Aspen’s “Quiet Years” and into the early post-World War II era (from about 1905
to 1965), the property appears to have sat vacant.
Criteron A: For twenty years after World War II, search and rescue operations
were conducted by an informal group of Aspen mountaineers with the
necessary skills, stamina and determination to be of help. They worked under
the direction of the Pitkin County Sheriff and were aided by others in the
community who stepped forward to provide necessary equipment and supplies.
In some cases, outside assistance was requested when helicopters and search
planes were necessary, and when more personnel were needed on the ground.
P91
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 17 of 25)
Mountain Rescue Aspen was founded in 1965 to become the area’s primary
organization that provided search and rescue services for backcountry skiers,
hikers, climbers, and other travelers and recreationists who found themselves
in dire straits. Although dependent upon volunteers, those who participated
were provided with extensive training and certification. The establishment of
this organization brought search and rescue activities into the modern era.
With the help of donations that were secured following a series of tragic hiking
and climbing incidents, in 1965 the organization leased Lot M in Block 24 (630
West Main Street) from the City of Aspen and arranged to have a building
erected on the property. Completed in early 1966, this served for the next forty-
eight years as the home of Mountain Rescue Aspen. The facility provided
storage space and served as a meeting place and training facility for the
organization’s many volunteers. Throughout its decades of operation, Mountain
Rescue Aspen earned and has maintained the respect of the community for its
professionalism and the necessary work it does.
Due to its history of use, the Mountain Rescue Aspen Building is NRHP eligible
under Criterion A on the local level for its association with Recreation in Aspen
during the second half of the twentieth century. Its period of significance is
limited to 1965-1967, the fifty-year mark in accordance with NRHP guidelines,
despite the fact that the organization remained there through 2014.
Criterion B: One of the driving forces in the establishment of Mountain Rescue
Aspen was local hotelier and mountaineer Alfred Braun. An immigrant from
Germany who arrived in the United States earlier in the century, Braun came to
Aspen with his wife Renate in the early 1950s. There they owned and operated
the Holiday House ski lodge. Fred was an avid mountaineer and loved spending
time hiking and skiing in the backcountry.
In the mid-1950s, Fred Braun founded the Aspen chapter of the Colorado
Mountain Club, whose members participated in area rescue operations.
Between 1967 and his death in the late 1980s, he managed Colorado’s first
cross-country ski hut system, located in the Elk Mountains between Aspen and
Crested Butte. Today the cabins are collectively known as the Alfred A. Braun
Memorial Hut System. Fred was eventually inducted into the Aspen Hall of
Fame for his service to the community.
In addition to founding and leading Mountain Rescue Aspen together with other
volunteers of that era, Braun arranged for the lease on the property and
construction of the building that would become its home. He then went on to
manage Mountain Rescue Aspen for a number of years and is viewed today as
one of its primary founders. Due to the property’s association with the life and
volunteer work of Alfred Braun, the building is eligible for the NRHP under
Criterion B in the area of Recreation on the local level. As above, the period of
this association is limited to 1965-1967.
P92
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 18 of 25)
Criterion C: The building originally erected on this property for Mountain
Rescue Aspen was a 600-square-foot Pan Abode log kit cabin. Purchased from
Pan-Abode International and manufactured in their factory in Washington State,
it was shipped to Aspen in pieces that required assembly. However, what the
company provided was essentially the structure and nothing else. Other
elements such as the foundation, flooring, utilities and interior finishes were to
be provided by the buyer. The construction work was undertaken by volunteers
from the organization, with supervision provided by a local contractor.
Completed between late November 1965 and early March 1966, the building
housed the organization for the next forty-eight years.
As the number of participants grew and the frequency of rescue operations
increased with a growing population and expanding tourist economy, the small
building eventually became inadequate to handle meetings, training sessions,
and the frenetic activity of preparing to deploy on search and rescue missions.
By the late 1980s, the situation had become problematic and in 1989-1990
Mountain Rescue Aspen arranged to have the Pan Abode more than doubled in
size with the construction of a two-story rear addition. The expanded building
is what remains on the property today.
The front section is clearly recognizable as a pre-manufactured rustic kit
building dating from the middle decades of the twentieth century. Elements of
the style and era include its tongue-in-groove cedar log construction with
notching at the corners, wood framed multi-light front window, low pitched
gabled roof, deep overhanging eaves, recessed entrance with rounded corners,
one story height, and simple rectangular form. According to Pan Abode
Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context (2010), the building exhibits many of the
style’s characteristic features and the established criteria in terms of time
period, methods of construction, and architectural detailing.
For these reasons, this property is NRHP eligible under Criterion C on the local
level in the area of Architecture for embodying the distinctive characteristics of
the twentieth century Kit Building style of architecture. The building type was
common in Aspen between 1956 and 1970. This site’s period of significance is
limited to 1966, the year the building was completed.
City of Aspen Significance: The Mountain Rescue Aspen Building at 630 West
Main Street clearly meets the City of Aspen’s guidelines for the character-
defining features of what it terms the Rustic Manufactured Style of architecture
(also known as a Kit Building). As stated above, it falls within the criteria
established in Pan Abode Buildings in Aspen: A Historic Context, with the
primary exception being the fact that its exterior walls are painted rather than
natural, stained wood.
P93
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 19 of 25)
Most of the more than fifty Pan Abode buildings constructed in Aspen during
the period between 1956 and 1970 served as single-family homes. A smaller
number were used as apartments, commercial buildings, a church hall, and for
ski resort purposes. The Mountain Rescue Aspen building was among the
smallest of these, with a footprint of just 600 square feet.
Today the building is representative of the post-World War II decades, during
which numerous rustic homes, tourist cottages, and other buildings were
erected in Aspen. As discussed in detail above, it is also associated with Fred
Braun and the history of Mountain Rescue Aspen. While some owners
employed more traditional log construction materials and techniques, others
such as Mountain Rescue Aspen purchased and erected manufactured log kit
buildings that could be assembled and finished with local labor. A number of
Pan Abodes remain standing in Aspen today, most of them single-family homes.
What makes this one unique among them are its small size and history of use,
both characteristics that add to the building’s importance.
Applicable City of Aspen Criteria (Section 26.415.030.C.1, Aspen Municipal Code):
X 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
X 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
X 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
X E. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of
location, setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its
age.
Does not meet any of the above City of Aspen criteria
P94
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 20 of 25)
43. Assessment of historic physical integrity related to significance: This property was
developed in 1966 with the front half of the building that remains there today.
This was the original Pan Abode building that provided the site with something
of architectural interest. The 20’ x 30’ one-story milled log kit building was more
than doubled in size in 1989-1990 with a rear two-story 20’ x 35’ addition that
extended the building back toward the alley.
The project also seems to have resulted in additional changes that impacted the
Pan Abode. These included replacing some of the front fixed windows with
casements, although the overall window pattern remained the same, and the
milled log side walls were clad with clapboard siding. In addition, the roof
material was changed to standing seam metal at an unknown time (although it
seems to have originally been corrugated metal).
From the front sidewalk, it is still clearly apparent that this is a Pan Abode
building based upon the appearance of the front wall and other characteristics.
While the non-historic changes may be viewed as substantial, they have only
impacted its architectural integrity to a modest degree. Today the building
exhibits a reasonably good level of integrity related to its original design,
materials and workmanship. What remain untouched are its location, setting,
feeling and association. Substantial elements of the building’s original
architecture are still apparent, and it continues to convey its mid-1960s origins
and use.
VII. National Register Eligibility Assessment
44. National Register eligibility field assessment: Eligible
45. Is there National Register district potential? No
Discuss: This properties surrounding the site appear to include a
concentration of historically and architecturally significant resources from
the same era that are contiguous or close to one another and might allow for
the creation of a National Register, State Register, or local landmark district.
If there is National Register district potential, is this building contributing? No
46. If the building is in an existing National Register district, is it contributing? N/A
VIII. Recording Information
47. Photograph numbers: 630 West Main Street, #1752-1777
Negatives filed at: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
P95
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 21 of 25)
48. Report title: Intensive-Level Survey of Five City-Owned Historic
Properties in Aspen, Colorado
49. Date(s): 15 February 2017
50. Recorder(s): Ron Sladek, President
51. Organization: Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc.
52. Address: P.O. Box 1909, Fort Collins, CO 80522
53. Phone number(s): 970/221-1095
P96
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 22 of 25)
Site Location Map
USGS Aspen 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle Map
1960 (revised 1987)
P97
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 23 of 25)
Aerial Map
P98
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 24 of 25)
Current Photographs
View of the Property from Main Street
View to the North
View of the Property from the Southeast
View to the Northwest
P99
I.
Resource Number: 5PT991 Address: 630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO
Architectural Inventory Form
(Page 25 of 25)
Current Photographs
North (rear) Wall of the Building
View to the Southeast
P100
I.
P101
I.
P102
I.
P103
I.
P104
I.
P105
I.
P106
I.
P107
I.
P108
I.
P109
I.
P110
I.
P111
I.
P112
I.
P113
I.
P114
I.
P115
I.
P116
I.
P117
I.
P118
I.
P119
I.
P120
I.
P121
I.
P122
I.
P123
I.
P124
I.
P125
I.
P126
I.
P127
I.
P128
I.
P129
I.
P130
I.
P131
I.
P132
I.
P133
I.
P134
I.
P135
I.
P136
I.
P137
I.
P138
I.
P139
I.
P140
I.
P141
I.
P142
I.
P143
I.
P144
I.
P145
I.
P146
I.
P147
I.
P148
I.
P149
I.
P150
I.
P151
I.
P152
I.
P153
I.
P154
I.
P155
I.
P156
I.
P157
I.
P158
I.
P159
I.
P160
I.
P161
I.
P162
I.
P163
I.
P164
I.
P165
I.
P166
I.
P167
I.
P168
I.
P169
I.
P170
I.
P171
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis
Five City Owned Properties
Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
Prepared by:
P172
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
1 |P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction: Executive Summary, Project Background p. 2
The Five Properties:
1.p. 4
2. 630 West Main Street (former Mountain Rescue Headquarters 9
3. 215 N Garmisch St (Yellow Brick)13
4. 110 E Hallam St (Red Brick)18
5. Pedestrian Malls 22
APPENDIX A: Land Use Code Background, Goals, and Requirements of
...p. 26
APPENDIX B: 31
P173
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
2 |P a g e
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide a review of the existing conditions of five city-owned
properties for historic designation by the City of Aspen. The five properties (collectively the
are:
1. 1101 E Cooper Avenue (Anderson Park );
2. 215 N Garmisch Street (Yellow Brick Building );
3. 110 E Hallam Street (Red Brick Building );
4. 630 W Main Street (former MRA Building ); and
5. The Pedestrian Mall.
The Properties
AspenModern designation for properties and sites associated with development in Aspen during
the 20th century. This analysis will provide a review of the applicable code provisions, design
guidelines relating to development of historically designated properties, and our assessment of
existing conditions, utilization of the property by the City, and issues that may arise with
redevelopment of the Property.
Executive Summary
The properties, with the exception of Anderson Park, are zoned Public (PUB). All properties,
including Anderson Park, have a Planned Development (PD) overlay that should include
a PD plan which determines, on a site specific basis, the dimensional limitations of the
property. PD plans allow for greater flexibility of development than standard application
of the land use code. Some of the Properties do not appear to have an existing PD plan
of record.
All properties within the Public Zone District require a Planned Development overlay to
determine the dimensional requirements for all permitted and conditional uses. Requests
for variations to any dimensional requirement shall be considered given the following
criteria are met:
o A benefit for the community or significant goal will be achieved through such
variations.
o The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the
primary uses of the project.
o The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity
of the neighborhood.
o The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the
probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed
development and the nature of the proposed uses.
Designating properties as historic resources provide some meaningful benefits that will be
of interest to the City. Not all benefits are applicable as they are intended to incentivize
private developers to designate their properties.
Historic designation places requirements on how redevelopment may occur. In some
cases, these limitations may hamper the established City use of the property.
Each property is unique. Careful consideration of current use and anticipated needs in
the future should be performed.
P174
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
3 |P a g e
While historic designation may provided for a more closely targeted review to preserve
the historic resource, any significant work on any of these properties would require a land
use review, whether these properties were designated or not.
Project Background
Tatanka Historical Associates, Inc. and Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. were selected by the City of
Aspen following submission of a consulting services proposal. This proposal responded to a
Request for Proposal (RFP) which asked for responses from qualified firms to study the historic
significance and redevelopment options for the five City of Aspen owned properties listed above.
The RFP specifically asked that the consultant research each of the five properties and to conduct
primary and secondary research to supplement or expand upon the existing historic survey
information currently on file with the Community Development Department. The RFP specifically
directed that the research would focus on the local, regional, and national historic context and
relevant historic themes. The RFP also requested a development analysis of the properties
proposed to be designated. This analysis responds to that portion of the RFP and should be
considered alongside of the historical research.
Goals of Historic Preservation in Aspen
The goal of historic preservation in Aspen is to preserve the properties, areas and sites, which
represent
and architectural history. The Home Rule charter of the City of Aspen and Colorado State Statutes
provide for the ability of the City to regulate land use and preserve those areas and features of
historical importance.
Specifically, the City of Aspen Land Use Code (Sec. 26.415.010) provides that the procedures are
put in place that:
Recognize, protect and promote the retention and continued utility of the historic
buildings and districts in the City;
and cultural center;
Retain the historic, architectural, and cultural resources attractions that support tourism
and the economic welfare of the community;
Encourage sustainable reuse of historic structures; and
Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public information, interaction, or access to
historic building interiors.
Further discussion of the requirements for designation, guidelines, and potential benefits of historic
designation may be found in Appendix A, at the end of this report.
Existing uses and zoning for all five properties appear to be successful and appropriate, and
provide the City of Aspen with a certain degree of latitude to meet various public requirements,
at least in the short-term. Other community based groups are also possible occupants of some of
these sites, such as WeCycle and CORE, and having City owned properties that can house such
groups is an advantage to the City.
P175
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
4 |P a g e
Review of Existing Conditions, Zoning, Redevelopment of the Five
Properties Proposed for Historic Preservation:
1. 1101 E Cooper Avenue (Anderson Park)
Potential Development
The members of the Parks Department that we interviewed for this analysis indicated that a master
planning effort may be pursued to determine the future use of Anderson Park. This master
planning effort is scheduled to be pursued in the Winter/Spring of 2
the stream margin review area may preclude any additional development.
Effect of Designation
Designation would ensure a review by the Historic Preservation Commission for any development
on the property, as well as ensuring the retention of the historic cabin.
Property Background
Anderson Park, which contains approximately 1.26 acres (54,973 SF), is located in the R-6, or
Medium Density Residential Zone District of the City of Aspen. Unlike the other properties
considered for designation, Anderson Park is not zoned PUB. The property has a Planned
Development Overlay though no Planned Development document has been located that would
outline additional development requirements. The purpose of the R-6 zone district is to provide
areas for long-term residential purposes, short term vacation rentals, and customary accessory
uses. Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in proximity to residential uses are
included as conditional uses. Lands in the R-6 zone district are generally limited to the original
Aspen Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and duplex
residences, and are within walking distance to the center of the City. Anderson Park is part of a
two-lot subdivision. The site contains an existing house which is occupied by an employee of the
City of Aspen Parks Department on Lot 1, while a residential unit is proposed to be constructed on
Lot 2, which is currently vacant.
In 1996, City Council approved the Anderson Subdivision Lot Split, which created the two lot
subdivision. One lot was sold to the Orr family shortly after, and subsequently the other lot was
sold to the City in 1999. The Orr family agreed to trade lots, and this transfer won voter approval
during the May 3, 2011 election. The Parks Department and the Orr family negotiated the re-
configuration of the Orr lot
The following pertinent approvals were granted the property:
Re-platting of Lots 1 and 2 with the following conditions:
1. Approval of the exchange of property by the voters pursuant to charter section
13.4, of the home rule charter; and,
2. The residence to be developed on Lot 2 will be built so that the ground floor is
approximately at the elevation of Riverside Drive. This will be memorialized with
a measured and referenced elevation on the plat; and,
3. Any basement level shall not be exposed by a walk-out design or similar manner
stern boundary that is shared with the park (Lot1). Similarly, any
P176
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
5 |P a g e
grading that is undertaken will respect the natural topography and minimize any
need for retaining walls.
Trade of lots between the City of Aspen and the Robert L. Orr Family Partnerships LLLP
Figure 1: Survey of Anderson Park
Existing Conditions
Anderson Park sits immediately adjacent to the Roaring Fork River on a lower bench. Significant
topography exists between Lot 2 and the park site, which effectively delineates the two sites.
Anderson Park enjoys unique views of Aspen Mountain and is easily accessible off of Cooper
Avenue.
According to the Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail sheet, Anderson Park contains one (1)
residential building which consists of approximately 1,800 SF of livable area. A small unfinished loft
is included in this rough net livable area calculation. This structure is currently being used to house
a Parks Department employee. This log residential building was originally built in 1949, and
contains two bedrooms and one bath. The rear porch was enclosed in 1955 and the interior was
remodeled at that time. According to an interview with Jeff Pendarvis of the City of Aspen Asset
Management Department, the structure has received recent work which provided upgraded
electrical, a new water heater, a new furnace, repairs to the chinking, and oil staining of the logs.
Jeff has also stated that there have been funds allocated for the repair or replacement of the
metal roof, but that no plans are currently contemplated for the work. He also stated that the
windows are in need of repair.
P177
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
6 |P a g e
Figure 2: Existing residential log structure (December 2016)
Additionally, three small wood frame structures occupy the site. According to an earlier interview
with a member of the Anderson family, these structures were moved onto the site in 1955. The
structures were recently reviewed by Andrew Calvetti, P.E. of Calvetti Engineering, Inc. Calvetti
was tasked with determining the structural stability of these buildings.
Of the three buildings, Calvetti had the most concern for the northern most building, identified as
Building 1. The report states that Building 1 is starting to lean out of plumb towards the West. The
st , which allows storm water and snow to enter the structure. The
report continues to detail that the roof is failing and leaks, causing the wood to be dry rotted and
deteriorated. Some of the wood roof and wall framing has become ineffective to support the
roof structure. Moreover, the roof overhangs are missing in several areas. Based on discussions
with Kevin Dunnett, Tom Rubel, and Austin Weiss of the City Parks Department, all three cabins
have received emergency repairs and shoring to prevent collapse. A fourth building had already
collapsed, due to heavy snow load, although the date of collapse is not known.
et the
Figure 3:Existing Conditions of Building 1 (December 2016)
Visual condition is representative of Buildings 2 and 3.
P178
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
7 |P a g e
Building 1 was placed on a continuous concrete foundation. Building 3 does not have a
continuous foundation and was placed on intermittent boulders or rocks. As a result, the walls are
sagging on Building 3 due to this lack of continuous support. Calvetti has stated that the
foundation of Building 2 needs additional inspection and requested a subsequent meeting with
Bob McDonough, the general contractor on the site, to review the existing conditions. The results
of this subsequent meeting are unknown at this time.
Other features of interest are the existence of a stove possibly used for outdoor cooking, and a
plaques affixed to a large boulder. The exact provenance of these features is unknown.
Figure 4: Exterior stove (December 2016)
Figure 5: Plaque affixed large boulder immediately adjacent to Cooper Avenue containing the names: Bill
Anderson, Hildur Anderson, Bert Anderson, Ed Anderson, Jim Anderson, Margie Thompson Anderson.
The majority of Anderson Park is located within the Stream Margin Review area, which may
significantly limit future development. Development in these areas is subject to heightened review
aimed at reducing and preventing property loss by flood while also ensuring natural and
unimpeded flow of the river. Please see Appendix B for a further discussion of Stream Margin
Review.
P179
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
8 |P a g e
Dimensional Requirements
The Dimensional Requirements of the R-6 zone district are as follows:
Dimensional Requirements - 1101 E Cooper Avenue (R-6 Zone District)
Minimum Gross Lot
Area (sq. ft.)
6,000 (3,000 for historic landmark lot
split)
Minimum Net Lot Area
per dwelling unit (sq.
ft.)
Detached residential
dwellings
Duplex dwellings
4,500 or 3,000 for landmark structures
4,500 or 3,000 for landmark structures
Minimum lot width
(feet)
60 or 30 for historic landmark lot split
Minimum front yard
setback (feet)
10 or 15 for accessory buildings
Minimum side yard
setback (feet)
15
Minimum rear yard
setback (feet)
10 or 5 for accessory buildings
Maximum height (feet)
Detached residential
and duplex dwellings
25
Minimum distance
between buildings on
the lot (feet)
5
Percent of open space
required for building
site
No requirement
Floor area ratio -
Single-family
Detached residential
and duplex
5,870 SF
6,339 SF
Minimum distance
between buildings on
the lot (feet)
10
Recommendation
The future of Anderson Park is less clear due to the stream margin restriction and its unique location
adjacent to the river. More study should be given to the value of the existing cabin and the smaller
structures that dot the site. Does the existing cabin remain an affordable housing unit or a publicly-
available facility, and what level of development should be accorded to the site? The cabin itself
P180
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
9 |P a g e
is identified as being worthy of designation, but a usage study should be put in place for this
property. In any case, the log cabin should remain unaltered on the exterior.
Subject Property Zoning Map
Subject Site (Anderson Park)
2. 630 West Main Street (Former Mountain Rescue Aspen Site)
Potential Development
According to Jeff Pendarvis, various City offices will be located in the building for the immediate
future. The site has also been contemplated to house WeCycle offices or the offices of the
Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) as future uses. These possible future uses could
retain the Public zoning. Affordable Housing could be developed through the Planned
Development process, which now allows variation to uses and dimensional limitations. To develop
the property for other uses, the property would need to be rezoned. Likely rezoning would be
Mixed Use (MU), the same as the adjacent zone district. The size of the parcel, 3,000 SF, is big
enough for a single family home for which the minimum lot size is 3,000 SF. The property could also
be developed with Affordable Housing as a standalone use. Uses such as office and retail are
also permitted uses. Based on the size of the parcel, and limiting use to commercial which carries
P181
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
10 |P a g e
of .75:1 floor area ratio (which may be increased to 1:1 with special review, the property could
contain 2,250 SF 3,000 SF of commercial office space.
Effect of Designation
Although the property is within the Main Street Historic District, designation would require a stricter
look at the methods and materials for any potential redevelopment, along with preservation and
possible restoration of the Pan-Abode construction.
Property Background
The Pan-Abode structure located at 630 West Main Street formerly functioned as the Mountain
Rescue Aspen headquarters. MRA is a non-profit search and rescue organization that
was founded in 1965, as a more formal organization to provide rescue services. MRA has recently
relocated their headquarters to a new facility adjacent to the Aspen Airport Business Center in
order to accommodate the space needs of this very active organization.
MRA constructed the Pan-Abode structure in 1965 using donated funds and volunteer labor. Plans
and materials were provided by the Pan-Abode Company. At this time, the property fell within
the Office zone district, which had a minimum lot size of 6,000 SF. At 3,000 SF, this property was
nonconforming, and was subsequently rezoned to Public in 1989. There is a recorded PD plan
from 1989 with some fairly limiting dimensional requirements in terms of setbacks and height. This
would not be applicable to a future conversion of the property to single family, should that occur.
The property is also located in the Main Street Historic District overlay.
The purpose of the Public Zone District is to provide for the development of governmental, quasi-
governmental and nonprofit facilities for cultural, educational, civic, and other nonprofit purposes.
Since the Property is located in the Main Street Historic District, review of development would be
required by the HPC to maintain the integrity of the historic district.
The purpose of the Main Street Historic District is to preserve the residential scale of the
neighborhood and the character of the landscaping including generous front yards, low fences,
mature trees, and irrigation ditches. More than half of the buildings in the Main Street Historic
District are designated landmarks.
The following pertinent approvals have been granted on the property:
1965 - Construction of the former Mountain Rescue by the Pan-Abode Southern Division
in Windsor, CA following approval by the City of Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission.
1989 - Ordinance 34 Aspen City Council approved rezoning Lot M of Block 21, City and
Townsite of Aspen from Office to Public.
1989 - Aspen City Council granted consolidated PUD approval and GMQS exemption to
the Mountain Rescue cabin expansion of approximately 1145 SF, of which 890 SF will be
an addition to the cabin and 255 SF will increase the size of the garage. These
improvements were completed in 1991, as noted below.
The following building records were reviewed:
1989 and 1990 - New addition for loading/unloading and rope climbing practice area;
1991 - Certificate of Completion for two-car garage, mechanical room, equipment
storage, shower/sink, and sitting room;
P182
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
11 |P a g e
2009 - Completion of interior office remodel;
Existing Conditions
The subject site consists of 3,000 SF of lot area. The first floor area, fronting on Main Street, is
currently used as office space and contains approximately 575 SF of net leasable. There is an
addition to the rear with approximately 480 SF of garage space, and a second floor for which the
net leasable office space has not been calculated.
The building features Pan-Abode architecture, which was a popular alternative to costly architect
or builder designed buildings in the 1950s and 1960s. The building currently houses city offices
though the unique space needs of MRA are still evident in the existing 480 SF garage, which
formerly housed search and rescue equipment, and a large second floor space that currently is
used to house office cubicles but was once a staging and gearing area for MRA.
Figure 6: 630 West Main Street (formerly MRA headquarters (December 2016).
According to Jeff Pendarvis, following the City taking possession of the structure from MRA, the
structure was painted and a new roof was installed. Tenant finishes were provided to modify the
former MRA space into a more conducive office configuration. Windows were replaced, and
one window re-established which was consistent with the original design of the structure.
Features that speak to the past use of the structure are the pulley system located off of the alley,
which at one time was utilized by MRA to lift large objects into the second floor staging area,
hooks that line the walls where MRA volunteers hung their equipment upon returning from search
and rescue missions, and the siren located off of the alley.
P183
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
12 |P a g e
Figure 7: Former MRA siren and pulley system (December 2016)
Dimensional Requirements
All properties within the Public Zone District require a planned development overlay to determine
the dimensional requirements for all permitted and conditional uses. Requests for variations to
any dimensional requirement shall be considered given the following criteria are met:
1. A benefit for the community or significant goal will be achieved through such variations.
2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses
of the project.
3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the
neighborhood.
4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number
of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the
proposed uses.
The 1989 PUD approval would need to be amended to provide for additional development on
the site. Because this property is in the Main Street Historic District, in terms of review process, there
would be no change with designation. The only change if the property were designated would
be the need to retain the existing structure.
Recommendation
The former MRA building represents a unique building that can be utilized by community groups
once the City builds the new City Hall. The site features, the visibility of the building, and the
interesting history of MRA make the former MRA building a good candidate for preservation. The
original Pan-Abode log walls should be exposed on the east and west sides of the building. They
have been covered with siding, which diminis
P184
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
13 |P a g e
Subject Property Zoning
Subject Site (former MRA site)
3. 215 N Garmisch Street (Yellow Brick)
Potential Development
Expansion plans have recently been explored by the current child care operators who occupy
the Yellow Brick. Given existing development, there is approximately 14,500 SF of additional floor
area that could be constructed on site. The previous expansion plan considered converting the
basketball court at Bleeker and Garmisch to accommodate eight (8) additional classrooms that
would accommodate approximately one hundred (100) children. Several issues to overcome
included relocating a sewer line, issues with traffic and parking, and the loss of a popular outdoor
basketball court. Ms. Shirley Ritter, director of Kids First Childcare Resource Center, stated that the
playground currently on the western end of the property works well with the child care activities
and she would like it to remain. Moreover, the central part of the southern yard is a pleasant park
space which may not be appropriate for development.
Effect of Designation
The review body changes, but the expansion would require a GMQS Essential Public Facility
Review, a Commercial Design Review, and a PD review. So the reviews and process are very
similar regardless of designation or not. Designation would impose some stricter requirements
P185
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
14 |P a g e
with respect to a separation of the existing building from any future addition. Moreover, the
Historic Preservation review permits the granting of setback variances which would otherwise be
required through Planned Development review.
Property Background
The Yellow Brick School was purchased in 1995 from the Aspen School District and rezoned from
R-6 (Medium Density Residential) to PUB (Public) by Ordinance No. 42 in 2000. A Planned
Development Overlay has been placed on the property. Currently, the facility serves as a day
care facility, housing the Kids First Department, as well as several independently operated
daycare facilities. City departments, including Special Events and Transportation, are currently
located in the basement.
The following approvals of record have been granted on the property:
1993 - Conditional use approved for educational related uses; and
2000 - Ordinance 42, Series of 2000, the property was rezoned from R-6 to PUB with the
following conditions:
o Any new sidewalk, curb, or gutter shall be designed using the City of Aspen design
standards
o All uses and construction comply with the City of Aspen Water System standards
o Prior to remodel, expansion, or demolition, the State of Colorado must be notified
in order to perform and complete asbestos inspections
o P building.
The following building records were reviewed:
1999 - Lighting remodel approved;
2000 - lower level remodel/boiler system/controls and repairs;
2008 Insubstantial PUD Amendment for construction of a shade shelter;
2009 - Child care play improvements;
2009 - Roof replacement;
2016 - Insubstantial Planned Development Amendment for reconstructed stairs and an
ADA ramp; and
2016 - Construction to widen a doorway and install a new barn slider door.
Existing Conditions
According to the Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail Sheet, the Yellow Brick site consists of 1.22
acres (53,242 SF). The Assessor provides that the Yellow Brick contains 21,411 SF of the first floor,
with 4,000 SF located in the basement. Total net leasable is therefore 25,413 SF. The Assessor also
provides that an unfinished basement of 1,880 SF exists. Actual year built was 1960.
P186
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
15 |P a g e
Figure 8: Front door of Yellow Brick.
We conducted an interview with Shirley Ritter, director of Kids First Childcare Resource Center. Ms.
Ritter provided that the existing child care programs occupy 14 classrooms. She believes that
these classrooms are at capacity and have been for at least 10 years. In the three child care
programs currently operating out of the Yellow Brick, there are 150 or more children of various
ages and approximately 30 staff members. Ms. Ritter is very interested to expand the facility and
operations. Licensing requirements dictate that all classrooms be accessed on the ground level.
This limits the amount of vertical development that can be accomplished. In addition to the child
care facilities, City of Aspen offices and other non-profit organizations are located in the
basement.
Maintenance needs for the building appear to be standard for a building originally constructed
in 1960. A new roof was recently installed, the brick façade re-pointed, door and window
replacement has been pursued, and a new boiler installed in the 1990s. Ms. Ritter reports that the
existing electrical system needs to be replaced. Plans to replace an existing ramp on the eastern
portion of the property, which does not meet ADA requirements, have been proposed. Site
constraints prevent a western ramp installation. According to Ms. Ritter, the existing ramp is
useable and is only moderately out of ADA compliance.
Dimensional Requirements
Minimum distance between buildings
Maximum height (including viewplanes) 25 feet
Minimum rear yard 10 feet
P187
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
16 |P a g e
Minimum percent open space 25%
These parameters were not specified in the approval but were contained in the staff memo and
were proposed by the
However, it should be noted that
the current development does not meet the setback requirements on the north, east, and west.
Figure 9: Existing basketball court and location for possible addition to existing building.
Possible Redevelopment
Given the restrictions imposed by licensing agencies that all classrooms be accessed from the
ground level, vertical development is not an option if the site continues to be utilized as a child
care facility. Some minimal expansion could occur on a second story, however, this space could
only be used for support space used by adults and this type of space is currently not needed,
according to Ms. Ritter. She states that childcare in the Roaring Fork Valley is desperately needed.
Therefore, converting the Yellow Brick into another use may engender a strong public response.
Moreover, the location of the Yellow Brick, within close proximity to the central core, is ideal for a
child care facility.
The Yellow Brick building sits on the rear property line. Any addition will not be able to be placed
in a secondary location, in accordance with standard application of historic guidelines.
P188
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
17 |P a g e
Figure 10: North side of existing Yellow Brick building which is located on the rear property line.
Recommendation
Historic designation is appropriate for the Yellow Brick building to provide the needed design
review for an eventual expansion. Owing to the success the existing programs enjoy, the need to
expand the facility to meet operational requirements, and the need for child care in the valley,
such an expansion is desirable but should be undertaken in a manner that complements the
existing historic qualities as an educational/child centered facility. The expanded operations and
physical plant expansion may be accommodated in conjunction with historic designation.
Expansion of the facility should be done in a way that avoids direct impact to the existing building.
The best option, one that would protect its architectural integrity, would be a free-standing
building in place of the basketball court. This would allow the school to retain its playground space
and provide it with additional classrooms. No second story should be added to the current
building, and any new building should be no taller than the existing one. If an addition needs to
be attached, this should be accomplished with as minimal a connection as possible, preferably
at an existing opening on the south side of the building. For example, it could be attached by
way of a short, narrow connection directly into the north-south hallway that exists near the
southeast corner of the building.
P189
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
18 |P a g e
Subject Property Zoning
Subject Site (Yellow Brick)
4. 110 E Hallam St (Red Brick)
Potential Development
Given the healthy occupancy and the fact that the current space needs are met, redevelopment
is not necessarily required though there is the potential to add almost 37,000 SF of additional floor
area. Building on the sensitive additions that have been made in the past, particularly the new
Western entrance, only additional repairs and updating of building components may be required.
Despite the narrow passage of the initial vote to purchase the property, the Red Brick appears to
be a success story of City utilization of a unique and historically significant building.
Effect of Designation
Designation would bring any future development under the purview of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Property Background
The Red Brick was converted to an arts and recreation center in 1994. The building ceased
functioning as a school in 1991, with the completion of a new high school on Maroon Creek Road.
Its current function is to provide for non-profit arts related organizations and offices and studio
spaces, for-profit studio spaces, and use by the City Recreation Department for office space and
a gymnasium and climbing wall. The property is zoned Public, having been rezoned from the R-6,
or Medium Density Residential zone district, in 1993.
P190
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
19 |P a g e
Figure 11: South elevation of Red Brick Building.
The following approvals of record have been granted on the property:
1993 - Ordinance No. 22 granted rezoning from R-6 to PUB, as well as GMQS exemption;
1994 - Conditional Use approval for a KJAX satellite dish;
2000 Planned Unit Development Amendment to construct conference room and snow
shed canopy;
2003 - Approval of three-year extension of the vested rights;
2005 - Insubstantial PUD amendment to allow a conference room, lounge/gallery, and
storage area, totaling approximately 1,018 SF
The following building records were reviewed:
1999 - Approval for locker room renovation;
2000 - Heating replacement;
2000 Construction of conference room and show shed canopy;
2006 - Remodel and addition;
2008 - Addition on the west end included a conference room, a gallery, and storage
space. Additionally, a new curb, gutter, and sidewalk were installed along Garmisch St,
and the bike path entry onto Garmisch was modified;
2009 - Propane tank + generator installation;
2010 Tuck pointing of brick work;
2012 - Remodel of Theatre Aspen office, removed drop ceiling, added track lighting,
ceiling fans, and partition walls;
2013 - Fans and vents upgrades
2013 - Climbing wall repaired and remodeled;
2014 - New cabinets and counters, appliances, sinks, and LED lights in kitchen;
2015 - cosmetic makeover, new storage walls, locker
room, and a new sink in t , and new tiles in both
showers; and
P191
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
20 |P a g e
Bathroom underwent a remodel in May of 2016
Existing Conditions
According to the Pitkin County Assessor Parcel Detail sheet, the Red Brick sits on approximately 2
acres (87,120 SF). The Assessor maintains that 28,535 SF exists within this one story structure. The
structure was originally constructed in 1941.
An interview that was conducted with Angie Callen, Executive Director of the Red Brick Center
for the Arts, provided that currently there are eight (8) non-profits operating out of the Red Brick
with another soon to join. The building is separately administered from the non-profits. A
percentage of fees collected from the non-profit activities goes to pay for the management of
the building. The City of Aspen Asset Management Department is also involved in the
administration of the building.
A master planning effort was pursued from 2010-2012, which contemplated an expansion of the
building to the rear, but no action has been taken on this activity. Ms. Callen stated that current
operations are generally satisfied by the existing structure, and that additional space would be
more of a luxury than a requirement. Some discussion has occurred concerning improvements to
the courtyard adjacent the entrance to the gym. Ms. Callen pointed out that a new activity for
the Red Brick is hosting weddings and that the outdoor space on the south of the property has
been used. Hosting weddings may become more frequent and represents a source of revenue
for upkeep and maintenance.
An interview with Jeff Pendarvis provided that various tenant finishes have been completed,
repairs to the brick façade made, improvements made to the gymnastics facility, and that a new
roof is contemplated for the Summer of 2017. A new roof is not contemplated for the gymnasium
portion for structural reasons. Jeff mentioned that some roof issues exist and remain unresolved
adjacent to the entrance to the gym in connection with snow damage that was sustained during
the winter of 2007-08. This damage knocked off a parapet wall from the roof of the Red Brick.
Snow retention systems were proposed but not pursued. Jeff provides that additional studies are
required to rectify this issue.
Dimensional requirements
As required by the Public zoning designation, the dimensional requirements for the Red Brick can
be found in the 1993 Statement of Planned Unit Development. The dimensional limitations are as
follows:
Min distance between buildings: 10 ft.
Max height (including view planes): 25 ft.
Minimum front yard: 10 ft. (except 4 ft. at entry)
Minimum rear yard: 15 ft.
Minimum side yard: 5 ft.
Minimum lot width: 60 ft.
Minimum lot area: 6,000 SF
Trash access area: see attached survey
Internal floor area ratio: 0.75:1 (65,340 SF)
Minimum percent open space: no requirement
P192
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
21 |P a g e
Figure 12: Recent western additional.
Recommendation
The Red Brick building is an excellent candidate for designation, as development should be
carefully review for design consistency. Both the Red Brick and Yellow Brick are tied inextricably
to the history of the community as well as certain design motifs that represent their respective
periods and the budgetary limitations that were applicable in each era.
Any further expansion or alteration of this already expanded facility, should be restricted to the
rear. The goal is to protect what remains of the original façade on the south, together with its
setting along the landscaped front yard.
Subject Property Zoning Map
P193
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
22 |P a g e
5. The Pedestrian Mall
Potential Development
Given that these sites are of utmost importance to the City of Aspen, only the enhancements
determined through the ongoing Pedestrian Mall RFP work are likely to be made to the Mall. To
our knowledge, no new construction is contemplated at this time.
Effect of Designation
Although the Mall is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, stricter regulation though
the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission would result with designation. This would
affect both the on-going work relating to utility reconstruction and subsequent uses for the Mall,
particularly with respect to the granting of Mall leases for commercial encroachments.
Property Background:
Construction of the Pedestrian Mall incorporated segments of Cooper, Hyman, Mill, and Galena
Street. Construction completed in 1976, using bricks that once paved the streets of St. Louis,
Missouri. The Mall was largely designed by Robin Molny, a Frank Lloyd Wright trained architect,
and fellow Taliesin-trained architect Curtis Besinger. Several amenities were added to the Mall in
including the DeWolf-Fulton Dancing Fountain, inaugurated on Memorial Day 1980, and the Ki
Davis Fountain, which was bu . The sculpture by
Ki Davis was added in circa 1979, after which the fountain became known by the name.
Various studies and plans to add vitality to the Mall followed, resulting in an information kiosk, fire
pit, restrooms, and the Sister Cities Clock and Plaza, as well as movable furniture, all intended to
make the Mall a more welcoming gathering space. The Mall is located within the Commercial
Core Historic District. In 2002, the City of Aspen Parks Department received approval to allow the
pedestrian Mall to be exempt from the Outdoor Lighting section of the Municipal Code, allowing
for up-lighting to be installed on several groupings of aspen trees.
Existing Conditions
In the 42 years since construction, the Pedestrian Mall has become an integral aspect of the City
of Aspen. The playground, outdoor dining, public seating, water features, and other pedestrian
amenities have become a touchstone of the community. The recent Request for Proposals,
required by essential subgrade utility reconstruction, may also provide changes to surface
features of the Malls that will need to be carefully evaluated. The Pedestrian Malls are comprised
of 3 distinct zones: the Cooper Avenue Mall, the Hyman Avenue Mall, and the Mill Street Mall.
Additionally, a portion of Galena Street also contributes to the Mall. The Cooper and Hyman Mall
segments feature two water ditches that support mature stands of aspen, cottonwood and
spruce trees. The Mill Street Mall contains an alley of trees where the mall engages Wagner Park,
communities. The restroom facilities were reconstructed in 2002 and include illustrative signage
on the history of Aspen. Few of the existing structures on the Mall have been historically
designated.
P194
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
23 |P a g e
Figure 13: Brickwork on the Cooper Mall
The Mall contains numerous businesses and restaurants that significantly co
economy. Restaurants have been allowed expand their facilities onto the Malls for outdoor dining
and the center section of the Hyman Avenue Mall has been designated for the use of adjacent
bars and restaurants. These encroachments on the Mall, while desirable for the animation of the
area, have perhaps not been adequately regulated from the standpoint of design. Regulation
.
The recent Pedestrian Mall Request for Proposals (RFP) was primarily focused on updating the
aging underground utility infrastructure, with many of the existing utilities predating the
construction of the malls. The approach to the scope of work specified by the RFP is in its initial
stages of development. A stated goal of the project is to develop documentation that guides
necessary future improvements to the underground utility, surface, vegetated and historical
character infrastructure within the Pedestrian Mall . This documentation must integrate the
following goals:
P195
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
24 |P a g e
Determine and retain historic character;
Understand existing urban design;
Update underground utility infrastructure;
Integrate storm water;
Integrate community forest;
Integrate universal accessibility;
Partner with private development;
Maintain service to utility customers;
Maintain and enhance business activities;
Manage construction;
Engage the public
The Mall is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district of the City of Aspen, and is governed
by various City master plans and Parks Department policies. It is also within the Commercial Core
Historic District.
Recommendation
will ensure that the on-going Mall work will be compatible with the historic intent and at the same
time allow for modifications that will serve contemporary needs. Recent encroachments,
particularly with respect to Mall leases, suggest that it is imperative that what occurs on the Mall
be reviewed by a body with historic preservation and architectural qualifications. The Ford Frick
and Henry Beer report offered a number of recommendations for greater animation and
excitement on this public space. However, the implementation of several of these
recommendations may have detracted from the initially careful design of these spaces. This is not
to say that contemporary refinements should not be brought forward, but rather that they should
be incorporated with careful design review from the Historic Preservation Commission. It is
important that the original design and so much of the materials as possible be retained to prevent
through a process of attrition.
P196
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
25 |P a g e
Subject Property Zoning Map
P197
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
26 |P a g e
APPENDIX A: Criteria for Designation of Historic Properties
The Consultants have been specifically tasked to provide a recommendation as to whether the
Properties meet the AspenModern designation criteria as contained in Sec. 26.415.030.C.1 of the
land use code which states:
Criteria. 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 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
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.
The above criteria are specifically for properties that fall into the category of AspenModern.
th century history.
Generally, AspenModern properties are eligible for certain preservation benefits without being
designated, and may also be awarded preservation incentives above and beyond standard
incentives. When appropriate, the City, as the developer, is urged to meet with the HPC to receive
preliminary feedback on appropriate development and benefits.
Development of Historic Preservation
Benefits-
Generally, when a private owner of a AspenModern property seeks to develop their property, a
90-day negotiation period is initiated following submission of a land use application. This
negotiation period allows the City and the property owner to review various historic designation
P198
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
27 |P a g e
benefits, with the possibility of landmark designation in exchange for benefits. In determining
benefits, the City will utilize scoring sheets, like the sheets provided in connection with this project,
th century historic resources. The negotiation process is intended to result in specific
land use entitlement benefits or fee waivers. When benefits are awarded, it is required that the
property becomes historically designated.
While the Properties are City-owned, and therefore historic preservation benefits will be
considered under a slightly different lens than if the Properties are held by a private developer,
this same classification process should be employed. Moreover, some of the benefits afforded
historically designated properties are still of interest and real benefit for the City.
Benefits available to historically designated properties include:
Historic landmark lot split An exemption from the standard subdivision and growth
management quota system may be granted to create an additional development right
and divide an historic property. (An historic lot split may, for instance, be utilized to
construct additional affordable housing in conjunction with designation of the historic
resource.)
Increased density Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be allowed
on a lot that is smaller than is required for two dwellings units.
Variances The standard dimensional limitations may be altered to allow development
that is more consistent with the character of the historic resource than what would be
required by the underlying zoning district or PD plan dimensional limitations. These
variations included:
o Development in the side, rear, and front setbacks;
o Development that does not meet minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
o Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage; and
o Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic
properties.
(This benefit may be useful in site planning the Red Brick and Yellow Brick facilities in order
to meet certain site specific development needs.)
Parking Parking reductions may be approved for properties not able to contain the
number of on-site parking spaces required
Conditional uses Conditional uses are allowed for designated properties. Each zone
district provides specific conditional uses. These uses will be reviewed later in this analysis.
Floor area bonuses HPC may grant up to a five hundred (500 SF) bonus to allowable floor
area.
Exemption from Growth Management Depending on the development proposed,
certain activities would be exempt from GMQS and have reduced impact mitigation
requirements.
Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) - Designated properties can sever and sell
undeveloped floor area to another development worth 250 SF. TDRs are sold on the open
market and generally are sold for $200,000- 250,000 per TDR.
P199
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
28 |P a g e
Community-initiated development Opportunities may be considered to be involved in a
public-privately funded rehabilitation effort, building expansion, or infill project that
demonstrate historic preservation.
Building Code flexibility Building Code flexibility to accommodate and provide for
development of historic structures.
Preservation honor awards HPC annually presents award for exemplary preservation
efforts.
Requirements in connection with development-
Any development involving properties designated on the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures
must obtain approval of a development order or either a certificate of no negative effect or a
certificate of appropriateness prior to issuance of a building permit for the proposed
development. All development will be reviewed using the HPC adopted design guidelines. The
guidelines set standards necessary to preserve and maintain historic and architectural character
of designated properties. The design guidelines only apply to the exterior of the structures and/or
notable streetscape improvements.
The City has recently adopted new design guidelines applicable to the majority of residential,
commercial and lodge development in Aspen. As the guidelines, in their final approved version,
will generally maintain and amplify earlier policies, below is a review of how and to what aspect
the new guidelines will be applied:
Context
Policy Statement: Historic landscapes, landscape elements, and landscape patterns
should be preserved. Additions and/or changes to the landscape should be compatible
with the associated historic resource and the historic context of the neighborhood or
district in which the project is located.
The guidelines maintain that the character of the historic resource is influenced by the
context of the site. When developing an historic resource, the overall development
pattern of the neighborhood should be considered and defining elements identified. In
this manner, context, along with right-of-way treatment, sidewalks, pedestrian and
vehicular access, fences, natural features, alley relationships, landscaping, and other site
features all influence the development of the site.
Rehabilitation
Policy Statement: Historic building materials should be preserved in place whenever
feasible. When the material is damaged, then limited replacement that matches the
original in appearance should be considered. Primary historic building materials should
never be covered or subjected to harsh cleaning treatments.
Wood siding and masonry have been the primary building materials for AspenModern
landmarks. Specifically, AspenModern properties used stucco, concrete block and brick,
though as we will see with the Properties, alternative materials, were used such as the Pan-
Abode construction of the form
Maintenance of the existing materials is recognized as the best way to preserve historic
P200
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
29 |P a g e
building materials. If the existing building material is damaged, rather than replacing the
material, the building material should be repaired. Maintaining as much of the original
resource was constructed.
Windows
Policy Statement: The character-defining features of historic windows and their distinctive
arrangement on a wall should be preserved. This is especially important on primary
facades. New windows should be in character with the historic building.
Windows are an important aspect of an historic structure with window design sometimes
helping to define historical style. Essential features of window character include size,
shape, location, and proportion.
Doors
Policy Statement: The character-defining features of a historic door and its distinct
materials and placement should be preserved. A new door should be in character with
the historic building.
Doors, like windows, are character-defining features of historic features, which, also like
windows, are heavily used and therefore often in need of replacement. Doors give scale
to buildings and provide visual interest to the façade. Important features to consider with
doors are the materials and details of the door, the frame, sill, head, jamb, and windows
or transoms adjacent to the door.
Porches and Balconies
Policy Statement: An original porch or balcony should be preserved. In cases where the
feature has been altered, it should be restored to its original appearance.
As an architectural feature, porches or balconies, provide a transition from the structure to
the context in which the structure sits. AspenModern properties utilized recessed entries
and roof overhangs as porches, such as is seen on the former Mountain Rescue building.
Architectural Details
Policy Statement:
character and should be preserved. If architectural details are damaged beyond repair,
replacement should match original detailing.
Architectural Details provide visual interest, distinguish building styles and types, and
showcase craftsmanship. Replacement of Architectural Details should be a last resort
option and then, only the most deteriorated portions of the detail removed and replaced.
Roofs
Policy Statement: The character of a historical roof, including its form and materials, should
be preserved.
P201
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
30 |P a g e
Aspects such as roof pitch, materials, size and orientation are features of the roof that must
be considered in connection with roofs. AspenModern buildings generally feature a range
of gable, parabolic, butterfly, or flat roof forms. Additionally, AspenModern properties
generally feature a flat roof with minimal eaves. This condition is illustrated by the roofs
protecting both the Red Brick and Yellow Brick properties.
Secondary Structures
Policy Statement: When a secondary structure is determined to be historically significant,
it must be preserved. This may include keeping the structure in its present conditions or,
rehabilitating it or adapting it to a new use so that the building continues to serve a useful
function. Outbuildings often encroach into the alleys or at least into setbacks. The owner
should be aware of variances or encroachments licenses that may be required to
renovate these buildings. Typically, an outbuilding that is over a property line must be
moved entirely onto one lot during major redevelopment.
Secondary structures, such as garages, carriage houses, sheds, and the cabins found on
the Anderson Park site, help interpret how a site was used. Generally reflecting their
utilitarian function, these structures are simple in nature. AS such, greater flexibility may be
applied when considered modifications of these features.
Building Additions
Policy Statement: A new addition to an historic building must be designed such that the
character of the original structure is maintained. It shall also be subordinate in
appearance to the main building. Previous additions that have taken on significance must
be preserved.
Historic buildings have often been expanded to provide for space needs. Generally, the
height of the addition was lower than the main structure and was located to the side or
rear so that the original structure maintained prominence. This is an important aspect of
the guidelines to consider in light of the child care facilities at the Yellow Brick desiring
additional space which can only be achieved through an addition.
New Buildings on Landmarked Properties
Policy Statement: New detached buildings may be constructed on a parcel that includes
a landmarked structure. It is important that the new building be compatible and not
dominate the historic structure.
As previously provided, incentives exist for an owner to divide the square footage that can
be built on a landmarked parcel into two or more separate structures. This has the benefit
of reducing the size of an addition to be made to the historic resource as well as reinforces
the character of the neighborhood. The criteria that will permit a lot split is determined by
the specific zone district. A new structure should relate to the historic resource but also be
P202
I.
Zoning and Development Analysis / Five City Owned Properties Considered for Historic
Preservation
15 February 2017
31 |P a g e
APPENDIX B: Stream Margin Review
The stream margin review area is defined as areas located within one hundred (100 feet),
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams
or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred feet (100 feet) from the
high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within a Flood Hazard area.
Exemptions from the requirements of Stream Margin Review may be granted by the Community
Development Director. These exemptions consist of the following:
1. Construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for irrigation,
drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and
specifications are submitted to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is
engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the
Community Development Director determines the proposed structure complies, to the
extent practical, with the stream margin review standards;
2. Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be
reasonably accommodated outside of the "no development area" including, but not
limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and fire suppression systems
provided the Community Development Director determines the development complies,
to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards;
3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided the
following standards are met:
a) The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of
the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor
area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin
exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream
margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and
b) The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code.
c) The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or
reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing
development;
d) The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one
has been designated through a prior review; and
e) The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount
of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plain.
P203
I.
Assessment for
Yellow Brick
Property: Yellow Brick Building, 215 N. Garmisch St., Aspen, CO 81611 | 970-920-5372
Building Owner: City of Aspen
Summary: Walk-thru assessment – primary goals: HVAC controls, lighting
Assessment performed: January 30, 2017
By: Brad Davis and Marty Treadway, CORE
Photos by Marty Treadway – January 30, 2017
P204
I.
2 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Contents
Contents ............................................................................................................................................................... 2
Building Information: ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Energy Usage Profile: .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................... 3
Rebate Opportunities ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Conclusion: ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Disclaimer: .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Building Information:
Date of Construction: 1960, 1970
Square Footage: 25,413
Operating hours: 7:00am-5:00pm M-F
Energy Usage Profile:
Electric:
Annual Usage 2016 (down 10% from 2015): 106,720 kWh
Monthly Average: 8,893 kWh
Annual Base Load (avg. 3 lowest months x 12): 102,000 kWh
Annual Heating or Cooling loads (annual total – annual base load): 16,080 kWh
o (Used 2015 data to calculate Base and Heating Loads – issues with 2016 bills)
Natural Gas and Liquid Propane Gas:
Annual Usage 2016: 10,297 Therms (down 11% from 2015)
Monthly Average: 858 Therms
Annual Base Load (DHW avg. 3 lowest months x 12): 804 Therms
Annual Heating or Cooling loads (annual total – annual base load): 9,493 Therms
Energy Usage Index (EUI): 55 kBTU/sf
P205
I.
3 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Annual Electrical Usage
Yellow Brick Building
2014: 107,840 kWh
2015: 118,080 kWh
2016: 106,720 kWh
P206
I.
4 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Annual Gas Usage
Yellow Brick Building
2014: 10,811 Therms
2015: 11,575 Therms
2016: 10,297 Therms
P207
I.
5 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Recommendations:
Lighting
Existing Energy Infrastructure Recommendations
T-8 fluorescent fixtures in some classrooms
Replace with LED units. Many have already been
replaced. If happy with Insta-Fit Phillips lamps,
recommend matching for remaining classrooms.
Issues with some old switches/dimmers Replace with units that can handle lower wattages
of the LED lamps. LEDs are sensitive electronic
devices, which may need modern LED switches to
operate properly.`
Install Energy Monitoring Recommend installation of live energy monitoring
to verify ongoing reduction efforts. Can also add
gas meter/pulse output sensor in the future.
Existing 2.2KW PV system System appears to be in good condition. Verify
system production – 3,375 annual kWh estimated.
Figure 1 – Newly installed LED tubes – Phillips Insta-Fit Figure 2 – Replace all remaining T-8s with LEDs
P208
I.
6 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
Existing Energy Infrastructure Recommendations
Alerton control system 2012 CORE grant helped to install current control
system
Thermostat program review Review all current setbacks for optimized
performance overnight and unoccupied mode. We
recommend nighttime temperatures to be set back
at least 7˚F lower than daytime temperatures to
maximize energy savings.
Classroom AHUs Currently running 24/7to provide proper ventilation
for building. Recommend reviewing this piece
during unoccupied mode – discuss with
McKinstry?
Insulate Pipes Add insulation to hot water distribution lines.
Figure 3 – Existing LAARS 85% boilers (estimated at 78% now) Figure 4 – Uninsulated distribution pipes in unconditioned
crawlspace. Recommend adding insulation in all accessible areas
Figure 5 – Current unoccupied setbacks are 64˚ - move to 60˚ Figure 6 – AHUs in the classrooms, fans run 24/7 to provide fresh air
P209
I.
7 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Domestic Hot Water
Existing Energy Infrastructure Recommendations
75 gallon water heater System appears to be in good condition.
Recommend replace with indirect when replacing
boilers with modulating units.
No Solar Thermal System Recommend adding solar thermal pre-heat for the
DHW system, if it will remain in place for many
more years. This system could be modified to
provide pre-heated water for any new boilers
when/if that upgrade occurs in the future.
Figure 8 – 75 gallon standard efficiency water heater
Figure 7 – Existing gas-fired hot water heater – replace with
indirect when modulating boilers are installed
P210
I.
8 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Narrative:
Trevor,
Thank you for showing Brad Davis and myself around the Yellow Brick Building on January 30,
2017. Your energy consumption is on a downward trend, so you should be commended on
that – let’s keep it heading down!
The main areas we identified to focus on for upgrades were thermostat controls and improving
the individual air handling units in the classrooms. Also completing the great LED lighting work
you have already started.
One other takeaway from the utility bill analysis was that of the $13,000 per year you spend on
electricity, $4,000 of that (31%) is demand charges. Your lighting upgrades appear to be
making a dent (11%) in your electric usage, but if we can identify additional electric reductions,
this will help to reduce your demand charges, and save you additional money.
Lighting:
Lighting has mostly been upgraded to LED throughout the building. Sounds like you are still
tracking down some isolated issues with the Insta-Fit Phillips bulbs not coming on consistently.
This is most likely due to older dimmer switches that can handle higher wattages, not working
well with the low wattages of the new LED lamps.
Classrooms 1-6 are still T-8 fluorescent lighting, and there are some T-8’s still in the
basement also. We recommend any high-use T-8s be replaced right away, and remind you to
be sure to take advantage of CORE rebates for this work.
Skylights in the gymnasium, although not a priority, were identified as a beneficial energy
upgrade once the units become a service item. They are currently providing daylighting, which
reduces the load on the lighting system. Smaller units with light reflective properties (Solatubes
or sim.) could be an energy efficient replacement, reducing heat loss, while still maintaining
daylighting benefits.
HVAC:
The heat for the building is made by 2 Teledyne Laars boilers (Might Max), model number:
HH0775MN20CCAKXX. Boiler system AFUE rating is 85%, with 775,000 BTU/HR input
capacity each. From the serial number - M99L08260, we have determined a December 1999
P211
I.
9 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
manufacture date for these units. The boilers appear to be well maintained, and are estimated
to be running at approximately 78% efficiency today. When boilers are identified for
replacement, we strongly encourage you to consider condensing units. Careful design by an
engineer will be critical here, as return water temperatures need to be low for these units to run
in condensing (high efficiency) mode.
You have stated that you verified the unoccupied heating for the Yellow Brick Building. The
entire upstairs is set for 64 degrees in an unoccupied state. Heat begins to come on at 6:30
am. The downstairs is set for 65 degrees because there are a couple of employees that come
in at 6:30 am and that is when the downstairs begins to heat up. The entire building goes into
an unoccupied state at 6:30 pm. The weekends are considered unoccupied and the building
stays at the lower temperatures. Any room or the gym can be turned on, by using the
thermostat control, for two hours at a time when the building is considered in an unoccupied
state.
The HVAC controls system (Alerton) although basic in it’s design, seems to be effectively
managing temperature control throughout the building. Our recommendation here is to review
nighttime setback temperature – currently set to 64˚ F upstairs. We feel this should be set to
60˚ F to reduce heating run times during the night and on weekends. If additional warming
time is required in the mornings, appropriate adjustment should be made to bring the building
up to temperature at an earlier time. We recommend firing up a half-hour earlier at first, and
see if that brings the temperatures up to satisfactory levels when people begin arriving at the
building.
Each classroom has 1/6th HP motor, running 4 squirrel cage fans... AHU (upgrades for
these?) 14 classrooms. Currently running 24/7 due to ventilation requirements. Payback to
replace these motors to high efficiency ECM units would be about 3 years (with rebates), with
annual energy savings estimated to be approximately $13 per motor (not a high priority –
about 17% of your electric load for heating).
DHW:
When/if you do replace the boilers, we also encourage the installation of an indirect water
heater. The new boilers are modulating, which means they can adjust their output according to
demand, so they can also efficiently heat DHW only in the warm months, when the building is
not calling for heat.
P212
I.
10 | Page
Energy Assessment for:
Yellow Brick
January 30, 2017
Rebate Opportunities
To get further information on our partner’s commercial incentives please visit the links below. Please
consider giving us a call at CORE - (970) 925-9775. We can help walk you through any of these
rebates and help with scoping your upgrade projects to maximize savings and ROI’s.
• City of Aspen’s list of commercial rebates: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Living-in-the-
Valley/Green-Initiatives/Utility-Efficiency/Commercial-Efficiency/Rebates-Incentives/
• CORE’s list of commercial rebates through the Energy Smart Business Program:
http://aspencore.org/commercial-efficiency/
• Black Hills rebates vary month by month, for most current rebate opportunities see:
https://www.blackhillsenergy.com/save-money-energy/rebate-information
• US Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has opportunities for tax
breaks and rebates for energy savings at:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/tax_commercial.html
Conclusions:
Key recommended actions:
• Install energy monitoring to help measure and verify upgrade savings. Also could be
used to help identify demand charge avoidance opportunities.
• Change all thermostat setbacks to 60˚F in unoccupied mode, move up start time in
the mornings, if needed to reach occupied setpoint when staff arrives.
• Complete remaining T-8 retrofit work so entire building is LED. Change out any old
switches or dimmers that are not working properly with the new lights.
Disclaimer:
Neither the City of Aspen staff nor CORE are responsible for missing any hazardous
conditions on your property. This walkthrough assessment is meant to help stakeholders
become aware of energy savings and financial opportunities available for this building.
P213
I.
You have taken the first step to improving the
comfort, safety, and efficiency of your home.
The following report details the findings from
the Home Energy Assessment on February 6,
2017. Call your local Energy Resource
Center with any questions or to discover
available rebates that can help make these
recommendations a reality.
Your top priorities:
Made possible with
generous support
from your utility
provider(s):
Home Energy Assessment Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
Building Type: Single Family
Year Built: 1965
Square Footage: 1423
Primary Heating Fuel: Natural Gas
Number of Bedrooms: 3
Number of Occupants: 10
Welcome to Energy Smart!
11/18/16
1. Air seal as noted
2. Add insulation to walls and roofs.
3. Extend walls of conference room to the ceiling.P214I.
Electric Usage (kWh)Dec. 2015Jan. 2016Feb. 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016Aug. 2016Sept. 2016Oct. 2016Nov. 20160
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Energy Usage
211/18/16
Gas Usage (Therms)Dec. 2015Jan. 2016Feb. 2016March 2016April 2016May 2016June 2016July 2016Aug. 2016Sept. 2016Oct. 2016Nov. 20160
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Electric Utility Provider:
City of Aspen Electric
Account #:
Electricity Cost per kWh: $0.1
Annual Electric Usage: 19,464
Annual Electric Cost: $1946
Gas Utility Provider:
Black Hills Energy
Account #:
Gas Cost per Therm: $0.9
Annual Gas Usage: 650
Annual Gas Cost: $585
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P215I.
Cubic Volume: 11384cf
Blower Door - CFM50: 2260cfm
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Your Home
Average Home
Tight Home
Leaky Home
Natural Air Changes per Hour (ACHn)
3
Air Sealing
Energy Smart Facts:
We conducted a blower door test on your home. This test uses a large fan to force air out of your house, lowering
the pressure inside. Higher pressure outside then causes air to flow in through all unsealed cracks and openings,
using the same pathways that warm air leaks out of in winter. You can see your home’s “natural” leakage rate on
the chart in the sidebar. NOTE: If you have a natural draft furnace, boiler or hot water heater, it is critical to "test
out" or retest your combustion appliances after air sealing to ensure proper operation that protects your family.
11/18/16
Air leakage at wall/ceiling joint Air leakage at wall/wall joint Air leakage at wall/floor joint.
Air leakage in this structure is quite high. The following issues should be addressed:
1) Most of the air leakage comes from the Panabode section of the building. The wall/ceiling, wall/wall
and wall floor junctions are very leaky and should be thoroughly caulked.
2) The door to the garage needs to be made airtight.
3) The back door in the upstairs office has a gap in the center that should be fixed.
4) The front door has a plastic pane that needs to be caulked into place.
5) The front door casings should also be caulked.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
cf = Cubic Feet. The volume of air contained in a
1’ x 1’ x 1’ cube.
CFM50 = Cubic Feet per Minute at 50 Pascals
negative pressure. This number estimates how
much air your home loses each hour.
ACHn = Natural Air Changes per Hour. Expressed
in the chart below as 0.71, this means that 71.00
% of the air in your home is lost to the outside
every hour.
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P216I.
Primary Foundation:
Unvented Crawlspace
Percentage of Total: 100%
R-Value: 0
Recommended R-Value: 19
Secondary Foundation:
Percentage of Total: 0%
R-Value:
Recommended R-Value:
4
Envelope - Foundation
Energy Smart Facts:
Your home’s foundation is a very important part of it’s thermal performance. Increasing the level of
insulation on your foundation may be an important step. Always combine air sealing with any insulation
project. In the foundation, sealing cracks and gaps can help to reduce “stack effect” – a thermodynamic
process that contributes dramatically to heat loss in your home.
Upgrading Foundations – Foundations can be
either very tricky to upgrade, or very easy. If your
home is built over a crawlspace that is vented to
the outside, it might be worth adding a vapor
barrier on the ground and sealing and insulating
your crawlspace. You can see dramatic energy
savings from this type of improvement.
11/18/16
There is probably some sort of crawlspace underneath the 575 square foot Panabode section but there is
no access. It is assumed to have no insulation on the foundation walls or in the living space floor. If
access could be gained, insulating the floor or "conditioning" the crawlspace would reduce heat loss
through the floor.
The other section of the building has a 93 square foot stairwell and a 776 square foot second floor office
area above an unheated garage. The floor of the office area is probably insulated to some degree.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P217I.
Primary Wall Construction:
Wood Frame
Exterior Finish: Wood Siding
R-Value: 7
Recommended R-Value: 19
Secondary Wall Construction:
Exterior Finish:
R-Value:
Recommended R-Value:
5
Envelope - Walls
Energy Smart Facts:
When its time for new siding on your home, consider upgrading your insulation! Adding insulation to the
outside of your walls can significantly reduce the amount of heat loss during the cold winter months, by
minimizing “thermal bridging” – which is heat loss through the framing elements of your home.
11/18/16
Thermal Bridging – This term refers to the
transfer of heat through the structural components
of your home, like wood or steel beams, or other
framing elements.
R-Value – The capacity of an insulating material
to resist heat flow. The higher the R-value, the
greater the insulating power.
The Panabode walls are 3" thick logs which have an R value of about 4. However, solid wood walls do
have thermal mass properties so they can radiate stored heat at night (which is of no occupants of this
office.) Furring out the interior walls with 2x3s and spray foaming the walls with 2.5" of closed cell foam
and then finishing with drywall would air seal the walls and create R21 walls.
The office area is more contemporary and probably has R11 insulation in the walls. Office workers
mentioned how hot the office becomes in summer which is due to poor insulation in the walls and, more
importantly, in the roof.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P218I.
6
Envelope - Roof
11/18/16
Energy Smart Facts:
Adding insulation to your attic can be one of the most impactful energy-saving upgrades to your home. We
recommend air sealing all penetrations between your attic and your living space before considering any
insulation project. Most rebate programs will also require air sealing to ensure proper moisture control is
achieved.
Upgrading Roofs – Roofs are typically
considered for energy improvements when there
is easy access to the existing insulation, such as
an attic floor, or when you are re-roofing your
home. Rigid foam insulation can be added to your
roof deck to increase its thermal performance,
savings you money on utility bills and making your
home more comfortable.
The Panabode roof is solid wood log with an R value of 4. Remove the metal roofing and build up the
roof with rigid foam insulation. Reinstall the metal.
The office roof is also under insulated and could have rigid foam insulation installed under the metal
roofing.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Primary Roof:
Cathedral Ceiling
Construction: Wood Frame
Exterior Finish: Metal Roof
Percentage of Total: 60%
R-Value: 11
Recommended R-Value: 30
Secondary Roof:
Cathedral Ceiling
Construction: Wood Frame
Exterior Finish: Metal Roof
Percentage of Total: 40%
R-Value: 4
Recommended R-Value: 30
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P219I.
Existing Window Type:
2-pane, aluminum frame
Recommended Window Type:
Square Footage of Windows:
Front: 53 s.f.
Right: 92 s.f.
Back: 20 s.f.
Left: 7 s.f.
7
Envelope - Windows
Energy Smart Facts:
Adding storm windows, insulating blinds, or replacing your current windows can save energy and make
your home feel more comfortable. When replacing windows, consider triple glazed, gas-filled units with a U
-Value of .28 or lower.
11/18/16
U-Factor – This number refers to the ability of
your windows to resist heat loss. It is the
numerical reciprocal of R-Value.
Low E – These coatings are applied to glass
when windows are manufactured, and help to
reduce the window’s emissivity, which can
improve insulating properties, when properly
applied.
Gas Filled – Noble gasses are used as an air
barrier between panes of glass to help increase a
window’s thermal performance. The seals that
keep these gasses trapped inside can fail over
time, and should be inspected periodically.
The front door has a plastic pane
that needs to be caulked. Also
caulk around the casings.
This window in the stairwell does
not close well.
The double doors at the back of
the office have a gap.
Windows in the Panabode section are of good quality and function.
The windows in the office are metal frame and, therefore, conduct much heat.
The windows in the stairwell do not close well.
The double doors at the back of the office have a large gap between them that should be sealed.
The door to the garage should be made airtight.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P220I.
8
Heating & Cooling
Energy Smart Facts:
Your home’s Heating and Cooling systems were inspected for safety and efficiency. Older heating
systems should be replaced with energy efficient, sealed combustion units. This is often a significant
upgrade, so considerations beyond energy savings should be made. We always recommend ENERGY
STAR certified equipment, when possible.
AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (A
measure of your heating system’s efficiency.
Higher numbers are better).
SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (A
measure of your cooling system’s efficiency.
Higher numbers are better).
11/18/16
Heating System Type:
Boiler-Baseboard
Fuel: Natural Gas
Efficiency Rating (AFUE): 70
Recommended AFUE:
Secondary Heating System:
Electric Baseboard
Cooling System Type:
Efficiency Rating (SEER):
Recommended SEER:
Fireplace Type:
The boiler.A ceiling mounted space heater in
the "conference room"
The tops of the conference room
walls are open to the unheated
garage.
There are several electric space heaters throughout the building that are used throughout the winter.
This is undoubtedly what makes the electricity usage so high for this building. There is a "conference
room" in the garage that has three space heaters that run constantly. The tops of the walls of this room
are open to the garage so most of the heat generated dissipates to the garage and to the outdoors.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P221I.
Hot Water System:
Storage
Fuel: Natural Gas
Set Temperature: 137
Solar Thermal Assist: N/A
Pipes Insulated?:
Efficiency Rating: 0.55
Recommended Efficiency:
9
Water Heating
Energy Smart Facts:
Many hot water systems are set to temperatures that are too high for safety and energy efficiency.
Keep your hot water temperature at or below 120˚F, and keep everyone in your family safe!
EF – Energy factor is a metric used to compare
the energy conversion efficiency of residential
appliances and equipment. EF ratings vary by
appliance size/type, but in general, bigger
numbers are better.
11/18/16
Water temperature is too high.
Reduce to 120 degrees.
Water released from the water
heater through the pressure relief
valve.
Water temperature should be reduced to 120 degrees for optimal efficiency.
The water heater is releasing water through the pressure relief valve. Either the valve or the water heater
should be replaced.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P222I.
10
Lighting & Appliances
Energy Smart Facts:
Replace your incandescent and CFL lamps with LEDs. LEDs use about 20% of the energy and last up to
25 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb, contain no toxic Mercury, and turn on instantly.
Your refrigerator is usually one of the biggest consumers of electricity in your home. If your fridge is more
than 10 year old, consider replacing it with an ENERGY STAR certified unit.
Tips to reduce your baseload:
1)Use smart strips for your big energy users like
home entertainment systems
2)Use laptop computers instead of big towers –
they use up to 90% less power!
3)Upgrade all of your appliances as they age, to
Energy Star
11/18/16
Total # of Lamps: 18
Incandescent Lamps: 0
LED or CFL: 0
Florescent Tubes: 18
Refrigerator ENERGY STAR: False
kWh per Year: 410
Second Fridge ENERGY STAR: False
kWh per Year:
Freezer ENERGY STAR: False
kWh per Year:
Dishwasher ENERGY STAR: False
Clothes Washer ENERGY STAR: False
Dryer ENERGY STAR: False
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P223I.
11
Financial Incentives
Energy Smart Colorado has teamed up with Funding Partners to create
Energy Smart Partners, LLC.
Click to Apply!
This program offers affordable energy efficiency loans to qualified residents located in
the counties of Eagle, Gunnison, Lake, Pitkin, Routt and Summit. Financing is
available to make eligible energy efficiency upgrades to reduce home energy costs.
Click for electric rebates!Hyperlink:RESIDENTIAL_ASSESSMENT_ELECTRIC_REBATE_URL:Click for
electric rebates!}}
Three ways to save big:
1.Energy Smart Financing
2.Utility Rebates
3.Energy Smart Rebates
(not available in all areas)
Energy Smart
is here to help!
11/18/16
Click for gas rebates!Hyperlink:RESIDENTIAL_ASSESSMENT_GAS_REBATE_URL:Click for gas
rebates!}}
Your gas utility provider is Black Hills Energy.
Your electric utility provider is City of Aspen Electric.
1.
2.
3.Energy Smart Colorado also has rebates available
in many areas throughout western Colorado.
Click for more info!
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P224I.
12
Energy Advising
Have Questions?
The Energy Advisors at your local Energy Smart Colorado Energy Resource Center (ERC)
will provide unbiased advice on the next steps toward making your home more comfortable
and less costly to operate. They can help you with applicable rebates, incentives, contractors
and best practices so you know you’re making educated decisions that are right for your
home.
Our Energy Advisors are expert consultants who can:
•Provide expert advice about energy upgrades
•Help you prioritize next steps for your home energy improvements
•Connect you with qualified contractors
•Assist you with applicable rebates and financing, and help you with the paperwork
•Connect you with your utility provider’s incentive programs
Heating accounts for the biggest portion of your
utility bills. Source: U.S. Energy Information
Administration, AEO2014 Early Release
Overview.
You may receive a call from an Energy Advisor offering
to review this assessment with you.
We look forward to working with you!
Call to speak with an
Energy Advisor:
(970) 925-9775
(This is a free service!)
How do our homes
use energy?
We’re here
to help!
11/18/16
Anderson Parcel Residence
630 W. Main St., Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9703097638
P225I.
13
What Does My Score Mean?
HOME ENERGY SCORE
Learn more at HomeEnergyScore.gov
Understanding Your
Home Energy Score
After receiving your Home Energy Score, you may
have some questions about what it means and how to
improve your score. While your Home Energy Score
Assessor will know the most about your score and
your home, the information provided here gives
additional background about the Home Energy Score.
Your Home Energy Score report is comprised of three
parts: the Score itself, facts about your home and its
estimated energy use, and recommendations to
improve your home’s score.
The Score Itself
The Home Energy Score uses a 1 through 10 scale
where a 10 represents the most energy efficient
homes. The scale is determined using U.S. Census
housing data, and is adjusted for local climate. This
way houses all over the country in different climates
can be compared.
Things to remember about your Score:
uuIt estimates a home’s total energy use, not energy
use per square foot.
For this reason, if two homes are identical other than
size, the larger home will generally score worse than
the smaller home. The more volume a home has to
heat or cool, the more energy is required.
uuScoring a “1” does not mean your home is poorly
built.
A beautiful home with up-to-date equipment can still
get a low score if the square footage is high or if there
is insufficient insulation. A low score just means there
is significant room for improvement to reduce a
home’s energy use.
uuScoring a “10” does not mean your home cannot
improve.
Even a home that uses less energy than most of its
peers may benefit from additional energy efficiency or
renewable energy investments. If recommendations
are provided with your Score, consider if those cost-
effective measures make sense for your home.
Home Facts
The Home Facts section gives you all of the data the
Assessor collected to calculate your Home Energy
Score. In addition to providing facts about the
Building “envelope” (roof, foundation, walls,
insulation, windows), energy systems (heating,
cooling, hot water), and floor area, this section also
provides energy use estimates for the home.
Recommendations
Recommendations that come with the Score are
expected to pay back in ten years or less based on state
average utility rates and national average installation
rates. Assessors may provide different or additional
recommendations that reflect local rebates or other
incentives the Scoring Tool does not consider.
The “Score with Improvements” shows what
your house would score if you incorporated all
of the tool- provided recommendations. Your
assessor will have the best sense of which
improvements make the most sense for your
home and your area.
Share the Score When Selling Your Home
Increasingly, Home Energy Scores are being included
in the real estate market. If you are selling your home,
ask your real estate agent to see if your home’s score
can be listed on local multiple listing services (MLSs).
And when buying a home, be sure to ask for each
home’s Home Energy Score to make a well informed
decision.
11/18/16 P226I.
14
Understanding the Score’s Method
The graphic above may help you understand how U.S.
Census home energy data has helped inform the Home
Energy Score scale. The bar graph shows home energy
use data for the nation based on U.S. Census surveys,
and the Home Energy Score’s scale below is stretched
to show how homes score based on their energy use.
If your home scores a 5, it is expected to perform
comparably to an average home in the U.S. in terms of
energy use. If your home scores a 10, it ranks among
the ten percent of U.S. homes expected to use the least
amount of energy after accounting for climate. A home
scoring a 1 is estimated to consume more energy each
year than 85 percent of U.S. homes, again after
accounting for local climate. To learn more about this
data, visit EIA.gov and search “2009 RECS Data”.
More Questions?
Talk to your Assessor about what the Score means for
your home, or visit our website at
www.HomeEnergyScore.gov.
Key Features of the Home Energy Score
uuAn energy efficiency score based on the home’s
envelope and heating, cooling, and hot water systems
uuA total energy use estimate, as well as estimates by
fuel type assuming standard operating conditions and
occupant behavior
uuRecommendations for cost-effective improvements
and associated annual cost savings estimates
uu“Score with Improvements” reflecting the home’s
expected score if cost-effective improvements are
implemented
What Does My Score Mean?
HOME ENERGY SCORE
Learn more at HomeEnergyScore.gov
11/18/16
Current Improved
Cooling System SEER
Primary Foundation Insulation 0 19
Secondary Foundation Insulation
Heating System AFUE 70
Hot Water System EF 0.55
Current Improved
Primary Roof Insulation 11 30
Secondary Roof Insulation 4 30
Primary Wall Insulation 7 19
Secondary Wall Insulation 7 19
Windows 2-pane, aluminum
frame
P227I.
630 W. Main St.Aspen, CO 816111,423 Sq Ft19421Official | 2/10/2017 | ID# 143605P228I.
You have taken the first step to improving the
comfort, safety, and efficiency of your home.
The following report details the findings from
the Home Energy Assessment on February 6,
2017. Call your local Energy Resource
Center with any questions or to discover
available rebates that can help make these
recommendations a reality.
Your top priorities:
Made possible with
generous support
from your utility
provider(s):
Home Energy Assessment Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
Building Type: Single Family
Year Built: 1949
Square Footage: 1819
Primary Heating Fuel: Natural Gas
Number of Bedrooms: 2
Number of Occupants: 2
Welcome to Energy Smart!
11/18/16
1. Air seal as noted.
2. Replace windows and front door.
3. Insulate attic spaces.P229I.
Energy Usage
211/18/16
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Electric Utility Provider:
Holy Cross Energy
Account #: 492500110
Electricity Cost per kWh: $
Annual Electric Usage:
Annual Electric Cost: $
Gas Utility Provider:
Black Hills Energy
Account #: 6589502823
Gas Cost per Therm: $
Annual Gas Usage:
Annual Gas Cost: $
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P230I.
Cubic Volume: 12733cf
Blower Door - CFM50: 4777cfm
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
Your Home
Average Home
Tight Home
Leaky Home
Natural Air Changes per Hour (ACHn)
3
Air Sealing
Energy Smart Facts:
We conducted a blower door test on your home. This test uses a large fan to force air out of your house, lowering
the pressure inside. Higher pressure outside then causes air to flow in through all unsealed cracks and openings,
using the same pathways that warm air leaks out of in winter. You can see your home’s “natural” leakage rate on
the chart in the sidebar. NOTE: If you have a natural draft furnace, boiler or hot water heater, it is critical to "test
out" or retest your combustion appliances after air sealing to ensure proper operation that protects your family.
11/18/16
The wall/wall junction behind the
water heater needs to be sealed.
The wall/floor junction to the left of
the water heater needs to be
sealed.
The wall/ceiling junction above the
water heater needs to be sealed.
Air leakage in this house is extremely high. A comprehensive air sealing program should be carried out
to reduce air leakage to .35 ACHn. The biggest problems are:
1) The windows are original and do not seal well. There are some interior storm panels but they also are
not airtight. Ideally, windows should be replaced. Otherwise, install airtight storm panels in the winter.
2) The exterior doors need to be made airtight. The west door needs to have a threshold installed and all
weather seals. Better yet, replace the entire door and jamb with a prehung exterior door.
3) The knee wall storage spaces upstairs leak a lot of air through the access doors. Those doors should
be made airtight.
4) The wall/ceiling, wall/wall and wall/floor junctions around the water heater should be sealed.
5) The wall corner to the left of the washing machine needs to be sealed.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
cf = Cubic Feet. The volume of air contained in a
1’ x 1’ x 1’ cube.
CFM50 = Cubic Feet per Minute at 50 Pascals
negative pressure. This number estimates how
much air your home loses each hour.
ACHn = Natural Air Changes per Hour. Expressed
in the chart below as 1.52, this means that
152.00 % of the air in your home is lost to the
outside every hour.
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P231I.
Primary Foundation:
Vented Crawlspace
Percentage of Total: 100%
R-Value: 0
Recommended R-Value:
Secondary Foundation:
Percentage of Total: 0%
R-Value:
Recommended R-Value:
4
Envelope - Foundation
Energy Smart Facts:
Your home’s foundation is a very important part of it’s thermal performance. Increasing the level of
insulation on your foundation may be an important step. Always combine air sealing with any insulation
project. In the foundation, sealing cracks and gaps can help to reduce “stack effect” – a thermodynamic
process that contributes dramatically to heat loss in your home.
Upgrading Foundations – Foundations can be
either very tricky to upgrade, or very easy. If your
home is built over a crawlspace that is vented to
the outside, it might be worth adding a vapor
barrier on the ground and sealing and insulating
your crawlspace. You can see dramatic energy
savings from this type of improvement.
11/18/16
The stovepipe appears to be a
crawlspace vent.
Under the water heater there is
another crawlspace vent.
This shows air leakage from that
vent during the blower door test.
There is apparently a ventilated crawlspace under the house but there is no access to it.
There is most certainly no insulation in the floor or on the foundation walls. Ideally, the crawlspace should
be made airtight, have R19 insulation installed on the foundation walls and rim joists and a vapor barrier
installed over the soil. The house should be tested for radon levels.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P232I.
Primary Wall Construction:
Wood Frame
Exterior Finish: Wood Siding
R-Value: 3
Recommended R-Value: 19
Secondary Wall Construction:
Exterior Finish:
R-Value:
Recommended R-Value:
5
Envelope - Walls
Energy Smart Facts:
When its time for new siding on your home, consider upgrading your insulation! Adding insulation to the
outside of your walls can significantly reduce the amount of heat loss during the cold winter months, by
minimizing “thermal bridging” – which is heat loss through the framing elements of your home.
11/18/16
Thermal Bridging – This term refers to the
transfer of heat through the structural components
of your home, like wood or steel beams, or other
framing elements.
R-Value – The capacity of an insulating material
to resist heat flow. The higher the R-value, the
greater the insulating power.
The backs of these knee walls
should be insulated.
This is a log cabin with interior walls covered with drywall. The existence of insulation in the walls is
unknown but there is not much, if any. Adding insulation to the walls would be difficult and expensive.
The backs of the knee walls upstairs should have R19 fiberglass installed from the attic spaces.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P233I.
6
Envelope - Roof
11/18/16
Energy Smart Facts:
Adding insulation to your attic can be one of the most impactful energy-saving upgrades to your home. We
recommend air sealing all penetrations between your attic and your living space before considering any
insulation project. Most rebate programs will also require air sealing to ensure proper moisture control is
achieved.
Upgrading Roofs – Roofs are typically
considered for energy improvements when there
is easy access to the existing insulation, such as
an attic floor, or when you are re-roofing your
home. Rigid foam insulation can be added to your
roof deck to increase its thermal performance,
savings you money on utility bills and making your
home more comfortable.
The sloped ceilings have very little
insulation in them.
This is looking up at the insulation
in the ceiling.
The attic spaces should be
insulated with blown in cellulose.
The sloped ceilings upstairs have minimal insulation in them since the ceiling framing members are only
about 3" thick. Adding additional insulation would require replacing the roof.
The attic spaces behind the knee walls should have cellulose insulation blown into them to establish R49
levels.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
Primary Roof:
Cathedral Ceiling
Construction: Wood Frame
Exterior Finish: Composition Shingles
Percentage of Total: 70%
R-Value: 3
Recommended R-Value: 30
Secondary Roof:
Unconditioned Attic
Construction: Wood Frame
Exterior Finish: Composition Shingles
Percentage of Total: 30%
R-Value: 0
Recommended R-Value: 49
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P234I.
Existing Window Type:
1-pane, wood/vinyl frame
Recommended Window Type:
2-pane, wood/vinyl fr., Low-e
Square Footage of Windows:
Front: 34 s.f.
Right: 40 s.f.
Back: 43 s.f.
Left: 31 s.f.
7
Envelope - Windows
Energy Smart Facts:
Adding storm windows, insulating blinds, or replacing your current windows can save energy and make
your home feel more comfortable. When replacing windows, consider triple glazed, gas-filled units with a U
-Value of .28 or lower.
11/18/16
U-Factor – This number refers to the ability of
your windows to resist heat loss. It is the
numerical reciprocal of R-Value.
Low E – These coatings are applied to glass
when windows are manufactured, and help to
reduce the window’s emissivity, which can
improve insulating properties, when properly
applied.
Gas Filled – Noble gasses are used as an air
barrier between panes of glass to help increase a
window’s thermal performance. The seals that
keep these gasses trapped inside can fail over
time, and should be inspected periodically.
Typical drafty and thermally
inefficient windows.
The front door either needs to be
replaced or have a threshold/door
bottom seal installed with jamb
seals.
The back door threshold needs
adjustment to make it airtight.
Windows are in very bad condition and do not seal. They should be replaced with new double pane, low
E windows. Other than that, air tight storm panels should be installed for the winter months.
The front door should also be replaced with a prehung exterior door. Or a threshold and door bottom seal
should be installed and jamb weather seals. The back door should be adjusted to make it air tight.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P235I.
8
Heating & Cooling
Energy Smart Facts:
Your home’s Heating and Cooling systems were inspected for safety and efficiency. Older heating
systems should be replaced with energy efficient, sealed combustion units. This is often a significant
upgrade, so considerations beyond energy savings should be made. We always recommend ENERGY
STAR certified equipment, when possible.
AFUE – Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (A
measure of your heating system’s efficiency.
Higher numbers are better).
SEER – Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (A
measure of your cooling system’s efficiency.
Higher numbers are better).
11/18/16
Heating System Type:
Furnace-Ducted
Fuel: Natural Gas
Efficiency Rating (AFUE): 70
Recommended AFUE:
Secondary Heating System:
Cooling System Type:
Efficiency Rating (SEER):
Recommended SEER:
Fireplace Type:
Ductwork is routed through the crawlspace and is undoubtedly very leaky.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P236I.
Hot Water System:
Tankless
Fuel: Natural Gas
Set Temperature: 128
Solar Thermal Assist: N/A
Pipes Insulated?:
Efficiency Rating: 0.87
Recommended Efficiency:
9
Water Heating
Energy Smart Facts:
Many hot water systems are set to temperatures that are too high for safety and energy efficiency.
Keep your hot water temperature at or below 120˚F, and keep everyone in your family safe!
EF – Energy factor is a metric used to compare
the energy conversion efficiency of residential
appliances and equipment. EF ratings vary by
appliance size/type, but in general, bigger
numbers are better.
11/18/16
Tankless water heater is efficient
but wastes water.
The fresh air supply should come
from outside the house.
Water temperature is too high.
The water heater is a high efficiency tankless model that takes a very long time to deliver hot water to the
taps - therefore it wastes water.
The fresh air intake is within the house which is wrong. It should be routed to the exterior of the house.
Reduce water temperature to 120 degrees for optimal efficiency.
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P237I.
10
Lighting & Appliances
Energy Smart Facts:
Replace your incandescent and CFL lamps with LEDs. LEDs use about 20% of the energy and last up to
25 times longer than a traditional incandescent bulb, contain no toxic Mercury, and turn on instantly.
Your refrigerator is usually one of the biggest consumers of electricity in your home. If your fridge is more
than 10 year old, consider replacing it with an ENERGY STAR certified unit.
Tips to reduce your baseload:
1)Use smart strips for your big energy users like
home entertainment systems
2)Use laptop computers instead of big towers –
they use up to 90% less power!
3)Upgrade all of your appliances as they age, to
Energy Star
11/18/16
Total # of Lamps: 20
Incandescent Lamps: 2
LED or CFL: 18
Florescent Tubes: 0
Refrigerator ENERGY STAR: False
kWh per Year: 500
Second Fridge ENERGY STAR: False
kWh per Year:
Freezer ENERGY STAR: False
kWh per Year:
Dishwasher ENERGY STAR: False
Clothes Washer ENERGY STAR: False
Dryer ENERGY STAR: False
Your Energy Smart Analyst:
Steve Barbee
(970) 309-4452
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P238I.
11
Financial Incentives
Energy Smart Colorado has teamed up with Funding Partners to create
Energy Smart Partners, LLC.
Click to Apply!
This program offers affordable energy efficiency loans to qualified residents located in
the counties of Eagle, Gunnison, Lake, Pitkin, Routt and Summit. Financing is
available to make eligible energy efficiency upgrades to reduce home energy costs.
Click for electric rebates!Hyperlink:RESIDENTIAL_ASSESSMENT_ELECTRIC_REBATE_URL:Click for
electric rebates!}}
Three ways to save big:
1.Energy Smart Financing
2.Utility Rebates
3.Energy Smart Rebates
(not available in all areas)
Energy Smart
is here to help!
11/18/16
Click for gas rebates!Hyperlink:RESIDENTIAL_ASSESSMENT_GAS_REBATE_URL:Click for gas
rebates!}}
Your gas utility provider is Black Hills Energy.
Your electric utility provider is Holy Cross Energy.
1.
2.
3.Energy Smart Colorado also has rebates available
in many areas throughout western Colorado.
Click for more info!
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P239I.
12
Energy Advising
Have Questions?
The Energy Advisors at your local Energy Smart Colorado Energy Resource Center (ERC)
will provide unbiased advice on the next steps toward making your home more comfortable
and less costly to operate. They can help you with applicable rebates, incentives, contractors
and best practices so you know you’re making educated decisions that are right for your
home.
Our Energy Advisors are expert consultants who can:
•Provide expert advice about energy upgrades
•Help you prioritize next steps for your home energy improvements
•Connect you with qualified contractors
•Assist you with applicable rebates and financing, and help you with the paperwork
•Connect you with your utility provider’s incentive programs
Heating accounts for the biggest portion of your
utility bills. Source: U.S. Energy Information
Administration, AEO2014 Early Release
Overview.
You may receive a call from an Energy Advisor offering
to review this assessment with you.
We look forward to working with you!
Call to speak with an
Energy Advisor:
(970) 925-9775
(This is a free service!)
How do our homes
use energy?
We’re here
to help!
11/18/16
CoA Offices Residence
1101 E. Cooper, Aspen, CO 81611
fc.dobbs@cityofaspen.com
9704292031
P240I.
13
What Does My Score Mean?
HOME ENERGY SCORE
Learn more at HomeEnergyScore.gov
Understanding Your
Home Energy Score
After receiving your Home Energy Score, you may
have some questions about what it means and how to
improve your score. While your Home Energy Score
Assessor will know the most about your score and
your home, the information provided here gives
additional background about the Home Energy Score.
Your Home Energy Score report is comprised of three
parts: the Score itself, facts about your home and its
estimated energy use, and recommendations to
improve your home’s score.
The Score Itself
The Home Energy Score uses a 1 through 10 scale
where a 10 represents the most energy efficient
homes. The scale is determined using U.S. Census
housing data, and is adjusted for local climate. This
way houses all over the country in different climates
can be compared.
Things to remember about your Score:
uuIt estimates a home’s total energy use, not energy
use per square foot.
For this reason, if two homes are identical other than
size, the larger home will generally score worse than
the smaller home. The more volume a home has to
heat or cool, the more energy is required.
uuScoring a “1” does not mean your home is poorly
built.
A beautiful home with up-to-date equipment can still
get a low score if the square footage is high or if there
is insufficient insulation. A low score just means there
is significant room for improvement to reduce a
home’s energy use.
uuScoring a “10” does not mean your home cannot
improve.
Even a home that uses less energy than most of its
peers may benefit from additional energy efficiency or
renewable energy investments. If recommendations
are provided with your Score, consider if those cost-
effective measures make sense for your home.
Home Facts
The Home Facts section gives you all of the data the
Assessor collected to calculate your Home Energy
Score. In addition to providing facts about the
Building “envelope” (roof, foundation, walls,
insulation, windows), energy systems (heating,
cooling, hot water), and floor area, this section also
provides energy use estimates for the home.
Recommendations
Recommendations that come with the Score are
expected to pay back in ten years or less based on state
average utility rates and national average installation
rates. Assessors may provide different or additional
recommendations that reflect local rebates or other
incentives the Scoring Tool does not consider.
The “Score with Improvements” shows what
your house would score if you incorporated all
of the tool- provided recommendations. Your
assessor will have the best sense of which
improvements make the most sense for your
home and your area.
Share the Score When Selling Your Home
Increasingly, Home Energy Scores are being included
in the real estate market. If you are selling your home,
ask your real estate agent to see if your home’s score
can be listed on local multiple listing services (MLSs).
And when buying a home, be sure to ask for each
home’s Home Energy Score to make a well informed
decision.
11/18/16 P241I.
14
Understanding the Score’s Method
The graphic above may help you understand how U.S.
Census home energy data has helped inform the Home
Energy Score scale. The bar graph shows home energy
use data for the nation based on U.S. Census surveys,
and the Home Energy Score’s scale below is stretched
to show how homes score based on their energy use.
If your home scores a 5, it is expected to perform
comparably to an average home in the U.S. in terms of
energy use. If your home scores a 10, it ranks among
the ten percent of U.S. homes expected to use the least
amount of energy after accounting for climate. A home
scoring a 1 is estimated to consume more energy each
year than 85 percent of U.S. homes, again after
accounting for local climate. To learn more about this
data, visit EIA.gov and search “2009 RECS Data”.
More Questions?
Talk to your Assessor about what the Score means for
your home, or visit our website at
www.HomeEnergyScore.gov.
Key Features of the Home Energy Score
uuAn energy efficiency score based on the home’s
envelope and heating, cooling, and hot water systems
uuA total energy use estimate, as well as estimates by
fuel type assuming standard operating conditions and
occupant behavior
uuRecommendations for cost-effective improvements
and associated annual cost savings estimates
uu“Score with Improvements” reflecting the home’s
expected score if cost-effective improvements are
implemented
What Does My Score Mean?
HOME ENERGY SCORE
Learn more at HomeEnergyScore.gov
11/18/16
Current Improved
Cooling System SEER
Primary Foundation Insulation 0
Secondary Foundation Insulation
Heating System AFUE 70
Hot Water System EF 0.87
Current Improved
Primary Roof Insulation 3 30
Secondary Roof Insulation 0 49
Primary Wall Insulation 3 19
Secondary Wall Insulation 3 19
Windows 1-pane, wood/vinyl
frame
2-pane, wood/vinyl fr.,
Low-e
P242I.
1101 E. CooperAspen, CO 816111,819 Sq Ft1900$788 1Official | 2/10/2017 | ID# 143599P243I.