Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Window Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant proposes aluminum-clad window replacements for 616–618 Harrison; HPC signals likely support
Summary
At a July 23 work session, the Leadville Historic Preservation Commission reviewed a proposal to replace second-floor windows at 616–618 Harrison Avenue with painted aluminum-clad double-hung units. Applicant Bill argued replacements would match historic sightlines, improve energy efficiency and habitability; advisory members indicated they would likely recommend approval when a COA is submitted.
Leadville — At a July 23 work session, an applicant seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) told the Leadville Historic Preservation Commission he plans to replace nine second‑floor windows at 616–618 Harrison Avenue with painted aluminum‑clad double‑hung windows meant to match historic sightlines.
The applicant, Bill, walked the commission through historical photos and building phases and said many original windows are missing or deteriorated. “These apartments are all but unhabitable,” he said, arguing modern insulated windows would make the units livable and reduce long‑term maintenance. He cited a per‑window replacement estimate of about $6,500 and said custom archtop units — where they exist — can cost substantially more, “$10,000 a piece,” making full restoration financially challenging.
Staff framed the session as an informal review of standards that would govern a formal COA application. Staff cited three reference sources: the local COA criteria, the Harrison design guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for rehabilitation. Commissioners discussed whether to require restoration of existing historic fabric when possible or allow sympathetic replacements where original material is missing or severely deteriorated.
Several advisory members said second‑story windows are less publicly prominent and offer more flexibility for replacement provided the new units match the historic appearance. One commissioner said the project “fits perfectly into character rehabilitation,” while another cautioned the commission should be notified if construction uncovers previously covered original openings to ensure opportunities for restoration are not missed.
Commissioners and staff discussed storm windows and egress concerns; staff noted interior or exterior storm units can impede egress and that modern double‑hung insulated windows can replicate the original silhouette without the disadvantages of storm systems. Staff advised that for a window‑only COA, the applicant’s photographs and manufacturer specifications would likely suffice; more extensive facade work would require full building elevations.
No formal vote was taken at the work session. Advisory members indicated they would likely recommend approval if the COA application matches the scope discussed and the city council will have final authority when the item appears on its consent agenda. The applicant said he intends to submit a COA and proceed with the phased rehabilitation, pursuing grants for later work.
The commission closed the work session with guidance for the applicant on documentation and public‑hearing steps; the applicant will file a formal COA for HPC consideration and subsequent city council authorization.
