HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20190408
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
April 08, 2019
5:00 PM
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Proclamation - Architecture Month
IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #40, Series of 2019 - Community Broadband – NWCCOG Project
THOR MeetMe Center Host Agreement
b) Resolution #42, Series of 2019 - Federal Requirement for Water Meter
Replacement Grant Application
c) Resolution #43, Series of 2019 - Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian
Improvement Project
d) Resolution #47, Series of 2019 - Support for Thompson Divide Coalition
e) Board Appointments
f) Minutes - March 25, 2019
VII. Notice of Call-Up
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
IX. Public Hearings
a) Ordinance #6, Series of 2019 - Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments
X. Action Items
a) Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - EOTC Follow-Up
XI. Executive Session
a) C.R.S.24-6-402 (4)(f)(I) Personal matters - review of City Attorney
XII. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting April 22, 2019
P1
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
· Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
· Tone and Tenor Matter
· Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
PROCLAMATION
1881
PROCLAMATION
City of Aspen, Colorado
Incorporated 1881
WHEREAS, we are shaped to a great extent by our built environment –
buildings, public spaces, streetscapes, and the interaction with
our natural and unique environment through thoughtful planning,
design, and careful stewardship of our state’s land and water
resources; and
WHEREAS, an essential element of the City of Aspen’s character is the
quality of its architecture, historic preservation and Aspen area
community plan created in collaboration with architects of the
past and present; and
WHEREAS, the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Colorado West Section
dedicated to fostering design excellence by local architects and
inspiring the next generation of design professionals through
events such as Architecture Month; and
WHEREAS, Architecture Month is intended to celebrate the importance of
architectural design in people’s everyday lives, and impacts how
we live, work, play and preserve our natural resources for future
generations.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED, April 2019 as
Colorado Architecture Month
In the City of Aspen and urge all citizens to recognize and
support the valuable and important contributions of architectural
design in our community
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P3
III.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Paul Schultz, IT Director
THROUGH: Alissa Farrell, Acting Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
RE: Resolution #40, Series of 2019 - Community Broadband –
NWCCOG Project THOR MeetMe Center Host Agreement
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request Council approve Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments (NWCCOG) Project THOR MeetMe Center Host Agreement in support of
the Aspen Community Broadband initiative.
SUMMARY: This Agreement provides for the provision of NWCCOG Project THOR
middle mile network services to the Aspen MeetMe Center. It makes our current Aspen
MeetMe Center formally part of NWCCOG Project THOR and able to take advantage of
the THOR network including redundant circuits for broadband service resiliency.
BACKGROUND: On May 8th, 2018, staff presented and Council approved a
Community Broadband initiative that creates an Aspen MeetMe Center that delivers
broadband to local Community Anchor Institutions. In June 2018, the Aspen City
Manager signed the 6/21/18 Letter of Intent supporting Project THOR.
DISCUSSION: The Aspen Community Broadband initiative is part of Northwest
Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) Project THOR, a collaboration of
communities focused on working together to improve broadband for all participating
entities.
The Aspen MeetMe Center currently uses a 10Gbps (Gigabit per second) wholesale
broadband circuit to deliver broadband services to Pitkin County and the City of Aspen
with additional Community Anchor Institutions (i.e., Aspen School District, Pitkin County
Broadband Initiative) in progress. Project THOR will provide the Aspen MeetMe Center
with an additional, diverse wholesale broadband circuit to achieve broadband resiliency
P4
VI.a
in the event of communication service failure in addition to consistent pricing models,
economies of scale and a network of collaborating communities.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: This agreement will commit City of Aspen to the
6/21/18 Project THOR Letter of Intent which specifies: Non-Recurring Charges (NRC) =
$51,151.49, and Monthly Recurring Charges (MRC) estimated = $5,061.54. IT has
budgeted for these expenses.
This agreement includes an Annual Appropriation provision so that each party’s fiscal
obligations are expressly conditional upon annual appropriation by its respective
governing body, in its sole discretion.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None.
P5
VI.a
RESOLUTION #040
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FINAL
CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a draft contract
for the MeetMe Center between the City of Aspen and Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments a true and accurate copy of which draft is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for the MeetMe Center between the City of Aspen and Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments a draft of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a final agreement
on behalf of the City of Aspen in substantially the form attached hereto, subject to
the approval of the City Manager, the City Attorney and the IT Director.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of April, 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 8, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P6
VI.a
1
Project THOR Meet Me Center Host Agreement
This Agreement, dated [insert date], 2019 (the “Effective Date”), is between the
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (the "NWCCOG”) located at 249 Warren
Avenue, Silverthorne Colorado, and [insert name of Host], Colorado (the "Host”) located
at [insert Host address], referred to collectively herein as the “Parties.”
Background
This Agreement provides for the provision of Middle Mile Services to Host by the
NWCCOG.
WHEREAS, the NWCCOG desires to:
· continue to extend technical support to NWCCOG communities seeking
local solutions to meet local broadband needs and help those
communities continue to innovate and collaborate on solutions tailored to
meet those needs through a robust, affordable, resilient middle mile
network;
· provide leadership and promotion of the Project THOR Middle Mile
Broadband Network (“Network”), as generally described in Exhibit B –
Network (Diagram) and owned by NWCCOG on behalf of participating
Project THOR communities, to NWCCOG members and other
governmental and non-governmental organizations who may benefit in the
future from Project THOR;
· contract with a “Network Operator” to design, operate, and manage the
Network, including without limitation, the provision of Services through the
Network to the Host;
· provide guidance to the Network Operator on requirements and needs for
the network as created and derived from the NWCCOG Broadband
Steering Committee;
P7
VI.a
2
· review network development, pricing, and network performance data;
· serve as a channel to state, local government, and other partners on the
status, subscription, experiences, and outcomes of the Network;
· deliver outreach to additional Colorado partners to ensure expansion of
the Network to support adjacent economic development regions, the State
of Colorado, and public safety; and continue to seek such connections to
increase the resiliency of Project THOR with additional redundant
connections;
· support and obtain funding for the Network, if necessary, to design and
build network elements to achieve the objectives of the Network and
Network users;
· report on Network performance, utilization, enhancement, and
maintenance.
and
WHEREAS, the Host desires to:
· own and maintain a local Project THOR Meet Me Center (“MMC”);
· fund and construct that Meet Me Center per Project THOR network
specifications, or dedicate equivalent space in an already constructed
MMC;
· enter into and maintain contracts with NWCCOG to be billed through the
Network Operator for the Monthly Recurring Costs for the Project THOR
Network and Network Transport, and optionally with the Network Operator
for specially negotiated rates for bandwidth;
· connect to and utilize the Services of the Network in compliance with the
requirements from NWCCOG detailed below;
P8
VI.a
3
· participate in the NWCCOG Broadband Steering and Project THOR
Committees as appropriate;
· support NWCCOG by promoting broadband connections through the
Network to local government, schools and other public entities and ISPs
throughout Northwest Colorado to connect and obtain benefits from the
Network;
· advise the Network Operator and NWCCOG on evaluation and expansion
of connections, and network performance and scheduling for moves,
adds, and changes to the Network as they affect the participants in the
Network to the greater good of participating communities; and
· enter into this contractual agreement for the initial three year period with
the option of additional periods to provide local match for Colorado
Department of Local Affairs (“DOLA”) grant funds secured by NWCCOG
for the purpose of purchasing equipment for Project THOR construction to
bring the network to local Meet Me Center Host communities, as well as to
commit to make monthly recurring payments so that NWCCOG may enter
into a 10-year Fiber Lease with the Colorado Department of
Transportation (“CDOT”) with local matching funds from MRC for a second
DOLA grant to cover initial CDOT fiber lease period.
Accordingly, in consideration of the mutual promises stated in this Agreement, the
parties agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS
1.1. The terms defined in the preamble and recital have their assigned
meanings, and each of the following terms has the meaning assigned to it:
“Broadband Service” means the bandwidth that Host may purchase
P9
VI.a
4
from Network Operator or another carrier that connects to the greater
internet.
“Broadband Steering Committee” means the standing committee of the
NWCCOG that has given direction to the establishment of Project THOR.
“Community Anchor Institutions” or “CAI” means governmental,
nonprofit, educational and similar entities including by way of illustration
and not limitation: schools, libraries, hospitals and other medical providers,
public safety entities, institutions of higher education, governmental
entities, rural electric cooperatives, and community support organizations
that facilitate greater use of broadband by vulnerable populations,
including low-income, the unemployed, and the aged.
“Customer Premises Equipment” or “CPE” means any equipment
required to attach to the Network, including receiving radio and associated
power hardware, but does not include customer routers and customer
networking equipment.
“Internet Service Provider” or “ISP” means an entity providing retail last
mile service to end user subscribers.
“Maintenance” means work that must be performed upon or to the
network to ensure the continuity of an acceptable signal transmitted
through wireless technology and/or fibers (in conformance with the
manufacturer’s specifications), or to ensure the safety and reliability of the
assets.
“Middle Mile” means the network connection between the last mile and
greater Internet.
“MRC” means the monthly recurring cost of a Service which will be as set
P10
VI.a
5
forth in Section 4or as agreed upon by the Parties and documented on a
Service Order, as applicable.
“Network Operator” means the entity retained by NWCCOG to provide
Service on the Network to MMC hosts.
“NRC” means a one-time, non-recurring cost with respect to a Service
which will be as set forth in Section 4 or as agreed upon by the Parties
and documented on a Service Order, as applicable.
“Project THOR Meet Me Center” or “MMC” means the Meet Me Centers
owned by the Meet Me Center Host and future Meet Me Center hosts that
may contract with the NWCCOG as part of expansion of Network.
“Project THOR Steering Committee” means a future committee
comprised of the Project THOR Meet Me Center Hosts, with a governance
framework to be established, which will provide guidance to the NWCCOG
regarding the direction of the project in the future. Each MMC Host will
have at least one member on the Steering Committee.
“Service” means Transport, andBroadband Service and other Network-
enabled services that the parties agree, per the terms of this Agreement,
will be made available to MMC Hosts.
“Service Order” means the order form representing a specific Service or
Duty to be provided for a defined period to MMC Hosts by the Network
Operator.
“Transport”, “Transport Service” or “Port to Port Service” means the
intra-network traffic between MMC Host locations independent of network
traffic connecting to the internet.
“Transport Packets” means a formatted unit of data carried by a packet-
P11
VI.a
6
switched network.
2. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT
2.1. Project THOR Network: The NWCCOG shall provide access to the
Network to the Network Operator, who shall plan for and execute future
Network expansions with input and direction from the NWCCOG. The
NWCCOG is financially responsible for the Network and Network
Maintenance. The Network Operator will manage the day-to-day
operations and maintenance of the Network. Other Network Providers
may subsequently provide Broadband Service through the Network, at the
discretion of the NWCCOG.
2.2. Meet Me Center Host: The Meet Me Center Host shall function as a
community-facing organization for the Network. The Host is responsible
for providing the Meet Me Center per NWCCOG standards; reselling of
the bandwidth that it has purchased through the Network to Community
Anchor Institutions, Internet Service Providers, local governments, and
other regional authorities in the area(s) it serves; and bringing more of
such customers to the Network to help lower aggregate bandwidth prices
for all involved. The MMC Host may resell Services offered through the
Network, and may, in its discretion, provide Broadband Service through
the Network to end user subscribers. The MMC Host shall determine the
pricing for Services it resells, subject to the limitations in Section 6.1.
2.3. Customer Premises Equipment: Host may choose to offer, for sale or
lease, customer premises equipment (CPE) and services, such as
customer premises wiring and customer premises equipment which lie
outside the scope of this Agreement.
2.4. Host Costs: Host will execute and maintain all contracts with their
P12
VI.a
7
regional Community Anchor Institutions, ISPs, and other entities that want
to utilize the MMC Host’s bandwidth. MMC Host will maintain an accurate
database of customers and Services sold from the MMC. Host is
responsible for anchor customer acquisition costs and contracting with
these customers. The Host may recover costs through reselling
bandwidth from the MMC. Host is responsible for building or assisting the
anchor customers with direction in building any network infrastructure
required to the MMC, providing the NWCCOG authorizes any required
interface with the Network.
2.5. Accuracy of Statements: MMC Host will make accurate representations
and statements regarding the Network that are consistent with the
representations and statements made in this Agreement and will portray
the Network positively to Customers or the public. MMC Host will first
address any concerns to Network Operator. If MMC Host is unsatisfied
with Network Operator’s response, MMC will address such concerns to
NWCCOG at a recorded public session.
2.6. Meetings: NWCCOG will establish and maintain a Project THOR Steering
Committee or board comprised of Project THOR MMC Host
representatives to provide feedback and input on Project THOR budget
and decisions, including without limitation, establishment of the Project
THOR budget. NWCCOG will establish meeting schedule and location for
regular meetings and will convene meetings as needed to provide timely
direction or approvals on policies impacting Network operation. MMC Host
will participate in NWCCOG meetings as necessary. NWCCOG will work
with Network Operator on items requiring approval in a timely manner.
2.7. Project THOR Budget: NWCCOG will establish a Project THOR budget,
P13
VI.a
8
with monies to be used on defined project expenses.
2.8. Customer Support: MMC Host will be responsible for customer support
in connection with any of the entities to which it sells Services. MMC Host
is responsible for providing, either directly or through a qualified third party
an adequate number of qualified, courteous, knowledgeable and helpful
staff to provide effective and satisfactory service in all contacts with the
Customer and Network Operator.
2.9. Acceptable Use Policies: Upon recommendation of the Project THOR
Steering Committee, the NWCCOG may adopt Acceptable Use Policies
with respect to the Network, and MMC Host shall abide by any such
policies of which it has notice.
2.10. NWCCOG Customer Support: The NWCCOG is responsible for
managing its contract obligations with Network Operator related to
customer care issues impacting the NWCCOG elements of the Network,
including but not limited to Middle Mile Network Services and SLA
administration as shown on Exhibit C-SLA.
2.11. Meet Me Center Host Locations and Equipment: The MMC Host will
fund, construct, and own space, or dedicate equivalent space for a Project
THOR Meet-Me Center that meets Project THOR network specifications.
MMC Host will purchase, install and maintain MMC Equipment. This
equipment is defined in the MMC Equipment Specification in EXHIBIT D-
MEET ME CENTER EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. NWCCOG will
issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for required MMC Equipment. The
NWCCOG will issue and maintain up-to-date network specifications for
Project THOR MMC Locations. These specifications will be determined by
the NWCCOG and all Meet Me Center Hosts.
P14
VI.a
9
2.12. Middle Mile Network Equipment: The NWCCOG will select the brand
and model of equipment used to provide the Project THOR Middle Mile
Network, purchase the equipment used to provide the Middle Mile
Network, and will be responsible for expenses incurred by operation of the
Project THOR Middle Mile Network. NWCCOG will work closely with
Network Operator to anticipate Network equipment and software
replacement and upgrades and seek funding from all MMC Hosts as
necessary.
2.13. Access: Host will permit the NWCCOG reasonable access to the MMC to
access and maintain their equipment in the MMC. MMC Host shall
provide a list of contact individuals to the Network Operator and
NWCCOG with whom access issues will be coordinated. MMC Host shall
maintain its Meet Me Center to the original specifications set forth in
Exhibit D-MEET ME CENTER EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS.
3. PERFORMANCE
3.1. The Host represents and warrants that it owns the Meet Me Center
Location and that it has the power and authority to enter into and perform
this Agreement, and that its performance of this Agreement will not
infringe upon or violate the rights of any third party, nor violate any federal,
state, or municipal laws (“Applicable Law”).
3.2. Host will perform its duties under this Agreement, such performance to be
excused only due to a force majeure condition as described in Section 10.
4. PAYMENT
4.1. The Host shall purchase Project THOR Middle Mile Service from the
Network in accordance with the payment provisions below.
4.2. MMC Host location in [insert site of host location] is a Class [insert as
P15
VI.a
10
applicable] location.
4.3. At the time of executing this Agreement, Host shall pay the Total Non-
Recurring Cost (NRC) for network establishment for Project THOR of
$[insert amount] for [insert site] [insert additional sites as necessary] to
NWCCOG. The parties understand and agree that the NRC pricing is
based upon the nine (9) initial MMC Host entities executing a MMC Host
Contract with NWCCOG. If fewer entities enter into a MMC Host Contract,
costs will necessarily increase. Should that occur, the MMC Host may
continue to operate under this Agreement, subject to modification of this
Section 4.3 to reflect the increased NRC. Alternatively, the MMC Host
may terminate this Agreement without penalty, by providing written notice
of such termination to the NWCCOG within 30 days of receiving revised
NRC pricing. Even if MMC Host prefers to remain obligated by this
Agreement, subject to increased costs as described herein, the parties
understand that if enough entities fail to sign a MMC Host Contract, the
operation of the Network may no longer be viable, and in such case, the
NWCCOG may terminate this Agreement without penalty by providing
written notice of such termination to the MMC Host within 30 days of the
revised NRC pricing.
4.4. Host site [insert site of host location] is a Class __ site with Project THOR
Monthly-Recurring Costs (MRC) of [insert cost]. MRC will be paid as
billed beginning June 1, 2019.
4.5 Network Port to Port pricing on the Network between MMCs for Project
THOR Hosts is set at an initial rate of $250 per managed port not at
purchasing host’s MMC per month.
4.6 MRCs will be charged in advance, biannually for six (6) months of Network
P16
VI.a
11
MRC in June and December of each year for the upcoming 6-month
period.
4.7 At NWCCOG’s sole discretion in consultation with the Project THOR
Steering Committee, there may be an annual adjustment to the MRC fee
based on the overall financial stability and revenues received on the
network. Future adjustments to rates or Services purchased shall be
documented in mutually executed Service Orders, subject to the terms
and conditions of this agreement.
4.8 Meet Me Center Host will have access to specially negotiated rates for
bandwidth. MMC Host acknowledge that the NWCCOG may annually
adjust these rates depending on the amount of Meet Me Center Hosts
participating in Project THOR in consultation with the Project THOR
Steering Committee. Optional Bandwidth can be purchased from Network
Operator at the bulk rates detailed in Exhibit A-OPTIONAL BANDWIDTH
RATES as it may be amended from time to time.
5. TERM OF AGREEMENT
5.1. Initial Term: The initial term of this Agreement shall commence on
_____________, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) and the initial term shall
terminate on ___________, 2022. This initial three (3) year term is
required by DOLA as part of the Project THOR program grants received
and managed by NWCCOG. The parties understand and agree that
notwithstanding the commencement date of this Agreement and the
beginning of payment of the MRC, the startup of the Project THOR
Network depends upon completion of various MMCs and fiber builds, and
will occur over a 3 – 6-month period, after which time the parties expect
that all entities will have completed construction work to facilitate the
P17
VI.a
12
Services anticipated herein from Project THOR.
5.2. Renewal: Unless otherwise terminated as provided in Section 11, this
Agreement will automatically renew for up to five (5) additional three (3)
year terms unless notice is received 180 days prior to the end of each
three (3) year term.
6. OPEN ACCESS
6.1. Open Network: The NWCCOG has negotiated bulk pricing for bandwidth
and service level agreements with Network Operator for MMC hosts.
However, Host acknowledges that Network is governed by open access
principles, and therefore Hosts are free to contract with another provider
for Broadband Service. Because Network is an Open Access Network,
while Host is free to contract with another provider for Broadband Service,
all such contracts are subject to the requirement that if the Host enters into
any agreement with a provider for Services on the Network, it must make
comparable offerings to any other provider on comparable terms and
conditions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in order to resell Broadband
Service, the Host is required to purchase its Transport Services from the
Network.
6.2. Network Neutrality: Host acknowledges that the Network shall be
governed by the principles of network neutrality. Therefore, Host will not
block, throttle, or prioritize internet content or applications or require that
customers pay different or higher rates to access specific types of content
or applications, and if Host enters into any agreements for the provision of
Service using the Network, any such agreement will mandate the same
requirement.
7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
P18
VI.a
13
NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER, OR ANY OF THEIR
RESPECTIVE AGENTS, REPRESENTATIVES, EMPLOYEES FOR ANY LOST
REVENUE, LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF TECHNOLOGY, RIGHTS OR SERVICES,
INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
LOSS OF DATA, OR INTERRUPTION OR LOSS OF USE OF SERVICE, EVEN IF
ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, WHETHER UNDER THEORY
OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY OR
OTHERWISE.
8. ASSIGNMENT AND MODIFICATION
8.1. Assignment: Host’s obligations under this Agreement may not be
assigned or transferred to any other person, firm, or corporation without
prior written consent of NWCCOG.
8.2. Transfer: Should Host choose to terminate ownership or operation of the
MMC, Host will advise NWCCOG and make all best efforts to transition
ownership and control of the MMC to an agreeable party who will either
assume the obligations of this Agreement, or otherwise contract with
NWCCOG and the Network Operator to ensure continuity of operations
and Services to NWCCOG and MMC subscribers. Pursuant to Sections
5.1 and 11.1, the Parties understand and agree that this Agreement may
not be transferred by the Host during the first three (3) years of its term,
unless the transferee agrees to comply with all terms, conditions and
obligations of this Agreement for the three (3) year term.
8.3. Modification: The Agreement may be modified only if the amendment is
made in writing and is signed by both Parties.
9. Confidentiality
P19
VI.a
14
9.1. Open Records: The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is public
record within the meaning of the Colorado Open Records Act§ 24-72-
202(6), C.R.S., and accordingly may be disclosed to the public. The
Parties agree to treat as confidential any records that constitute
proprietary or confidential information under State law, to the extent a
party makes the other party aware of such confidentiality. Each party shall
be responsible for clearly and conspicuously stamping the word
"Confidential" on each page that contains confidential or proprietary
information and shall provide a brief written explanation as to why such
information is confidential under state law. If a party believes it must
release any such confidential records in the course of enforcing this
Agreement, or for any other reason, it shall advise the other party in
advance so that party may take appropriate steps to protect its interests.
If a party receives a demand from any person for disclosure of any
information designated by the other party as confidential, the party shall,
so far as consistent with Applicable Law, advise the other party and
provide the other party with a copy of any written request by the person
demanding access to such information within a reasonable time. Until
otherwise ordered by a court or agency of competent jurisdiction, the
Parties agree that, to the extent permitted by State law, it shall deny
access to any of the party's records marked confidential as set forth above
to any person. The party whose records are being withheld shall
reimburse the other party for all reasonable costs and attorney’s fees
incurred in any legal proceedings pursued under this Section.
10. FORCE MAJEURE
In the event either party is prevented or delayed in the performance of any of its
P20
VI.a
15
obligations under this Agreement by reason beyond the control of that party, it
shall have a reasonable time, under the circumstances, to perform the affected
obligation under this Agreement or to procure a substitute for such obligation
which is satisfactory to the other party. Those conditions which are not within the
control of a party include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil
disturbances, defaults by other parties impacting the Network, work stoppages or
labor disputes, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or
unusual weather conditions which have a direct and substantial impact on the
party’s ability to comply with this Agreement and which was not caused and
could not have been avoided by the party which used its best efforts in its
operations to avoid such results.
11. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION
11.1. Voluntary Termination: This Agreement can be terminated by either
party at any time with one hundred eighty (180) days written notice after
the initial three (3) year period.
11.2. Default by Host: The following shall constitute defaults by Host: Any failure
by Host to perform any covenant or obligation required by this Agreement
(other than the payment of fees due hereunder), and the failure to cure said
default within a period of thirty (30) days following written notice to Host of
said default. The failure to pay any fees due by Host shall be considered a
default if Host does not make payment in full within fourteen (14) days
following written notice to Host of such non-payment.
11.3. Default by NWCCOG: The following shall constitute default by
NWCCOG: The breach of any promise or covenant of NWCCOG made
herein which shall continue and not be cured within thirty (30) days after
Host has given written notice to NWCCOG of such breach.
P21
VI.a
16
11.4. Remedy for Default of Host: Upon the occurrence of an event of default
with respect to Host, NWCCOG may at its election terminate this
Agreement by written notice to Host of such election. NWCCOG may also
pursue such legal and equitable remedies for any breach by Host without
waiving the right to subsequently terminate this Agreement based on the
related event of default.
11.5. Remedy for Default of NWCCOG: Upon the occurrence of an event of
default with respect to NWCCOG, Host may at its election terminate this
Agreement by written notice to NWCCOG of such election. Host may also
pursue such legal and equitable remedies for any breach by NWCCOG
without waiving the right to subsequently terminate this Agreement based
on the related event of default.
11.6. Additional Remedies: These remedies are in addition to any special
remedies provided elsewhere in this Agreement and in addition to any
other rights or remedies now or subsequently existing at law, in equity, by
statue or otherwise.
12. NOTICE
All notices required or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be
in writing and shall be deemed given when personally served or three (3) days
after deposit in the United States Mail, certified mail, return receipt requested,
and addressed to the following Parties or to such other addressee(s) as may be
designated by a notice complying with the foregoing requirements:
For Northwest Colorado Council of Governments:
Jon Stavney, Executive Director
249 Warren Avenue
Silverthorne, CO 80498
P22
VI.a
17
or via US Mail to
P.O. Box 2308
Silverthorne, CO 80498
For Host, Colorado:
[Insert mailing address of Host here]
13. CONTRACT WITH INTERGOVERNMENTAL ENTITY
13.1. Annual Appropriation: Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed or
construed as creating a multiple fiscal year obligation on the part of the
either party within the meaning of Colorado Constitution Article X, Section
20, or any other constitutional or statutory provisions. Each party’s fiscal
obligations hereunder are expressly conditional upon annual appropriation
by its respective governing body, in its sole discretion. The Parties
understand and agree that any decision by a governing body to not
appropriate funds for payment shall result in termination of this
Agreement. If a MMC Host is not going to appropriate funds for its next
fiscal year to continue under this Agreement, it shall utilize best efforts to
advise the NWCCOG of the intent not to appropriate by October 1st of
each year.
13.2. Governmental Immunity: No term or condition of this Agreement shall be
construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the
immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions, of the Colorado
Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101 et seq., or any other
Applicable Law, as now or hereafter amended.
14. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
P23
VI.a
18
14.1. Entire Agreement: This Agreement and all Exhibits represent the entire
agreement between the Parties and there are no other promises or
conditions in any other agreement whether written or oral. This Agreement
supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between the Parties.
14.2. Severability: If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable
for any reason, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and
enforceable. If a court finds that any provision of this Agreement is invalid
or unenforceable, but that by limiting such provision it would become valid
and enforceable, then such provision shall be deemed to be written,
construed, and enforced as so limited.
14.3. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the Laws of the State of Colorado, and Applicable Law.
14.4. Jurisdiction: Venue for any judicial dispute between the Parties arising
under or out of this Agreement shall be in District Court in the county
where at least one of the parties resides.
14.5. Authority to Execute: The individual executing this Agreement
represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to execute and
deliver this Agreement on behalf of such party, and this Agreement is
binding upon such party in accordance with its terms.
14.6. Waiver: The failure of either party to enforce any provision of this
Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver or limitation of that party’s
right to subsequently enforce and compel strict compliance with every
provision of this Agreement. Both the NWCCOG and Host expressly
reserve all rights they may have under law to the maximum extent
possible, and neither the NWCCOG nor Host shall be deemed to have
waived any rights they may now have or may acquire in the future by
P24
VI.a
19
entering into this Agreement.
14.7. No Joint Venture: The relationship between NWCCOG and Host shall
not be that of partners, agents, or joint ventures for one another, and
nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a
partnership or agency agreement between them for any purposes.
NWCCOG and Host, in performing any of their obligations hereunder,
shall be independent contractors or independent parties and shall
discharge their contractual obligations at their own risk subject, however,
to the terms and conditions hereof.
14.8. Network Transport pricing on the Network may be billed to each MMC for
incoming and outgoing Transport Packets. Billing for Transport may be
determined by the Project THOR Steering Committee prior to each three-
year renewal period of this agreement.
14.9. Survival: Any provision of this Agreement, which by its nature extends
beyond the term hereof or which is required to ensure that the parties to
fully exercise their rights and perform their obligations hereunder shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any cause
whatsoever.
14.10. Headings: Headings used in this Agreement are provided for
convenience only and will not be used to construe meaning or intent.
14.11. No Ability to Bind Other Party: Neither Party will have the authority to
bind the other by contract or otherwise or make any representations or
guarantees on behalf of the other. The relationship arising from this
Agreement will be and will at all times remain that of an independent
P25
VI.a
20
contractor, and does not constitute an agency, joint venture, partnership,
employee relationship or franchise.
NORTHWEST COLORADO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
By:
Jon Stavney, Executive Director Date
[Insert Host Name], Colorado
By:
Date
P26
VI.a
21
EXHIBIT A- OPTIONAL BANDWIDTH RATES
Optional bandwidth can be purchased directly from the Network Operator from which
NWCCOG has negotiated the following combined bulk rate (bulk rate is calculated by
the total aggregation of all contracted parties) of:
IP Transit Tier MRC Price / Mbps
1Gbps To 2Gbps $0.75
2Gbps To 5Gbps $0.70
5Gbps To 10Gbps $0.60
10Gbps To 15Gbps $0.50
15Gbps To 20Gbps $0.48
20Gbps To 30Gbps $0.45
30Gbps To 40Gbps $0.40
40Gbps To 50Gbps $0.35
50Gbps To 60Gbps $0.33
60Gbps To 70Gbps $0.30
70Gbps To 80Gbps $0.28
80Gbps To 90Gbps $0.26
90Gbps To 100Gbps $0.25
P27
VI.a
EXHIBIT B-NETWORK (Diagram) 22 P28VI.a
23
Exhibit C-Service Level Agreement
This Service Level Agreement (SLA) establishes Network Operator network
performance and service level metrics for the Network. The NWCCOG has contracted
with the Network Operator for its performance under the SLA described below, and
each MMC Host is a third-party beneficiary to, and may independently enforce the terms
of the SLA with the Network Operator with respect to the Services it purchases from the
Network Operator.
This Service Level Agreement (SLA) establishes the Network Operator’s network
performance and service level metrics for the Network. When the Network fails to
deliver a standard of performance (as established in the Table below), the Network
Owner shall be eligible for a corresponding credit. All Service Outages, service
impacting and non-impacting situations, and potential Service Level credits, will be
handled according to the guidelines and priorities as defined and set forth in this SLA,
and which may be subject to change from time to time with written notice.
Network Performance:
Upon Effective Date, in the event Network Operatorsuffers a network outage outside of
events defined as Force Majeure, planned outage or scheduled network maintenance,
then Network Operator and Network Owner will adhere to the guidelines set forth in this
Exhibit.
P29
VI.a
24
Monthly Service Availability Percentage and Outage Credits are as follows:
Monthly Service Availability
Percentage
Outage credit %
Upper Level Lower Level % of MRC credit per affected
and Network Operator
authorized Customer
100% >=99.9% 0%
<99.9% >=99.5% 5%
<99.5% >=99.0% 10%
<99.0% >=95.0% 25%
<95.0% >=90.0% 50%
<90.0% >=00.0% 100%
Network Operator will be responsible for ensuring the Network functions at or above the
Service Levels outlined in the preceding table, by performing the duties and
responsibilities outlined in the SOW. Any outage not directly related to Network
Operator’s duties and responsibilities will not constitute an outage credit between
Network Owner and Network Operator.
The length of each outage will be calculated in full minutes for the purposes of
determining outage credits. The existence and end of each outage will be determined
by Network Operator in good faith based on network tests performed by Network
Operator. Under no circumstances will network tests performed by MMC Host or
P30
VI.a
25
Network Owner without collaboration with Network Operator be considered valid
measurable criteria for outage determination for the purposes of establishing outage
credit. In the event that the parties disagree as to the accuracy of Network Operator’s
test results, the parties shall work together to identify an independent entity to verify test
results.
Transparency: In the case of any outage or disruption of Service on the Network,
Network Operator shall promptly notify the Network Owner, MMC Hosts, and customers
with details of the outage and when Service is expected to be restored. Network
Operator may also make such outage information available electronically.
P31
VI.a
26
EXHIBIT D-MEET ME CENTER EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
Project THOR MMC Host Requirements
Physical Space for Equipment
MMC Host must provide adequate space for THOR Equipment
THOR equipment will require up to 10 Rack Units of Space
MMC Host to provide space for Anchor Institution and ISP equipment as
needed
2 x 19” racks would be preferred
Entrance conduits
MMC Host must provide entrance conduits and related infrastructure for
THOR middle mile connection
For sites where fiber build is required, the entrance conduits must be
installed from equipment room to property line
For sites where lit services will be used, underlying carrier requirements
will be applicable and likely to include conduit to property line, as well as
space and power for underlying carrier equipment
HVAC
MMC Host is responsible for maintaining proper environmental controls to
ensure the longevity of the THOR equipment
Proper temperature controls should maintain an ambient temperature of
no more than 80 degrees Fahrenheit
Access Control
MMC Host to provide secure access to equipment room
Only authorized personnel should be granted access
P32
VI.a
27
MMC Host to provide 24/7 procedure for access by Network Operator
MMC Host to provide 24/7 procedure for access by Colocators
Power
MMC Host must provide adequate commercial power for THOR
Equipment
20Amp, 120VAC dedicated power circuit minimum
Backup provisions in case of commercial power outage
Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS)
Used to bridge power from time of outage to generator
power
Generator with automatic transfer switch capable of providing
power to equipment room during loss of commercial power
Land use/easements/lease
MMC Host must ensure that the equipment space provided has the proper
use, zoning, and easements in place for allowing the use by NWCCOG
and Project THOR
No additional compensation will be provided by NWCCOG for use of
space
Colocation
MMC Host shall make available space for ISPs to locate equipment and
connect to THOR within the MMC
MMC Host to make available entry/exit conduits for delivery of services
out of the MMC
MMC Host to make available roof space (if possible) for locating ISP
wireless equipment and/or wireless equipment to connect Community
Anchor Institutions
P33
VI.a
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and Administrative Services Manager
THRU: David Hornbacher, Utilities Director
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 1, 2019
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
RE: Resolution #42, Series of 2019 - Federal Grant Official Resolution
Requirement – U.S. Bureau of Reclamation–Aspen Water Meter
Replacement Grant
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen Water Utility applied for a federal grant with
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on Tuesday, March 19, 2019. Staff is requesting approval of
Resolution #42, Series of 2019, which is a requirement of this federal grant submittal.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On March 11, 2019 Council approved a contract with
Landis + Gyr Technology, Inc. in the amount of $1,651,356 for the provision of Advanced
Metering Infrastructure, (AMI), for the City’s Water and Electric utilities. During this meeting,
staff informed Council that additional funds would be required during this project to replace a
portion of the customer-owned water meters that are not currently compatible with the proposed
AMI technology.
If the City receives this grant in fall of 2019, the Water Utility could either submit a fall
supplemental for this meter replacement project or include the water meter replacement project
in the Water Fund Asset Management Plan for 2020.
BACKGROUND: In 1987, Aspen published a set of Water Distribution Standards requiring all
newly installed meters to meet certain defined specifications. All customer meters within
Aspen’s distribution system have been sorted based on installation date to estimate meter age.
Those meters installed prior to 1987 are out of compliance with current design standards and are
predominantly incompatible with the selected AMI technology and will be tagged for
replacement under this project. The City will purchase approximately 379 compliant and AMI
compatible meters for installation for the meter sizes estimated below.
Estimated Number of Meters Identified for Replacement
Meter Size
Estimated
Number of
Units
0.75" 220
1.0" 80
P34
VI.b
Page 2 of 2
1.5" 35
2.0" 35
4.0" 9
TOTAL 379
Per City of Aspen 2019 Water Distribution Standards, all meters shall be Badger, Kamstrup, or
Elster AMCO brand meters. For smaller meters, only the specified Badger or Kamstrup brand
meters comply with these standards, as detailed below. All large meter applications (greater than
3 inches) shall use the EvoQ4 electromagnetic stainless-steel water meter1.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City Water Fund will fund the non-Federal share of the total
project costs as shown below if the City receives the requested $271,000 Federal grant from the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The Water Fund has sufficient reserves to finance their identified
portion of this project. A new water capital account will be created to manage this project and
grant.
Total Project Cost: Summary of Federal and Non-Federal Funding Sources
Funding Source Amount
Costs to be reimbursed with the requested
Federal Funding $ 271,000.00
Costs to be paid by City of Aspen $ 271,159.68
Value of third-party contributions $ 0.00
Total Project Cost $ 542,159.68
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution #42, Series of 2019,
which acts as an official authorization to commit the City of Aspen to the obligations associated
with receipt of a financial assistance award from the Federal government if one is so given.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to approve Resolution #42, which is
required to be submitted to the Federal government within 30 days of the grant application
deadline of March 19, 2019 to comply to the mandatory grant submittal requirements of the
Federal government. The City Water Utility could also fund this water meter replacement
project at a 100 percent or choose some other method to successfully complete the water meter
portion of the AMI project.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #42, Series of 2019.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Resolution 42, Series 2019
Exhibit B – Federal Grant Application for Water Meter Replacements
1 City of Aspen Water Distribution Standards Section 5.8
P35
VI.b
RESOLUTION # 42
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE CITY OF ASPEN TO COMMIT TO
THE FINANCIAL AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
RECEIPT OF A FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AWARD FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT FOR THE WATER METER REPLACEMENT GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMITTED ON MARCH 19, 2019.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a federal grant
application for water meter replacements that proposes a 50/50 project match
between federal funding sources and the Aspen Water Utility, a true and accurate
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves and commits
the City of Aspen to the financial and legal obligations associated with the receipt
of a financial assistance award from the Federal government, if one is so given, a
copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby
authorize the City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of April, 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 8, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P36
VI.b
OMB Number: 4040-0004
Expiration Date: 12/31/2019
* 1. Type of Submission: * 2. Type of Application:
* 3. Date Received: 4. Applicant Identifier:
5a. Federal Entity Identifier: 5b. Federal Award Identifier:
6. Date Received by State: 7. State Application Identifier:
* a. Legal Name:
* b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN): * c. Organizational DUNS:
* Street1:
Street2:
* City:
County/Parish:
* State:
Province:
* Country:
* Zip / Postal Code:
Department Name: Division Name:
Prefix: * First Name:
Middle Name:
* Last Name:
Suffix:
Title:
Organizational Affiliation:
* Telephone Number: Fax Number:
* Email:
* If Revision, select appropriate letter(s):
* Other (Specify):
State Use Only:
8. APPLICANT INFORMATION:
d. Address:
e. Organizational Unit:
f. Name and contact information of person to be contacted on matters involving this application:
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
Preapplication
Application
Changed/Corrected Application
New
Continuation
Revision
03/18/2019
84-6000563
City of Aspen
84-6000563 0764601040000
130 South Galena Street
Aspen
CO: Colorado
USA: UNITED STATES
81611-1000
Water Department
Ms.Lee
Ledesma
Utilities Finance and Administrative Manager
Full Time Employee
970-429-1975 970-920-5117
lee.ledesma@cityofaspen.com
P37
VI.b
* 9. Type of Applicant 1: Select Applicant Type:
Type of Applicant 2: Select Applicant Type:
Type of Applicant 3: Select Applicant Type:
* Other (specify):
* 10. Name of Federal Agency:
11. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number:
CFDA Title:
* 12. Funding Opportunity Number:
* Title:
13. Competition Identification Number:
Title:
14. Areas Affected by Project (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):
* 15. Descriptive Title of Applicant's Project:
Attach supporting documents as specified in agency instructions.
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
C: City or Township Government
Department of Interior/U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
BOR-DO-19-F004
WaterSMART Grants: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for Fiscal Year 2019
City of Aspen - Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control
View AttachmentsDelete AttachmentsAdd Attachments
View AttachmentDelete AttachmentAdd Attachment
P38
VI.b
* a. Federal
* b. Applicant
* c. State
* d. Local
* e. Other
* f. Program Income
* g. TOTAL
.
Prefix: * First Name:
Middle Name:
* Last Name:
Suffix:
* Title:
* Telephone Number:
* Email:
Fax Number:
* Signature of Authorized Representative: * Date Signed:
18. Estimated Funding ($):
21. *By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications** and (2) that the statements
herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances** and agree to
comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may
subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 218, Section 1001)
** The list of certifications and assurances, or an internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency
specific instructions.
Authorized Representative:
Application for Federal Assistance SF-424
* a. Applicant
Attach an additional list of Program/Project Congressional Districts if needed.
* b. Program/Project
* a. Start Date: * b. End Date:
16. Congressional Districts Of:
17. Proposed Project:
CO-3 CO-3
Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
12/31/202008/26/2019
271,000.00
271,159.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
542,159.68
a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on
b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review.
c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.
Yes No
Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment
** I AGREE
Ms.Lee
Ledesma
Utilities Finance and Administrative Manager
970-429-1975 970-920-5117
lee.ledesma@cityofaspen.com
Lee Ledesma
* 20. Is the Applicant Delinquent On Any Federal Debt? (If "Yes," provide explanation in attachment.)
* 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?
03/15/2019
If "Yes", provide explanation and attach
P39
VI.b
OMB Number: 4040-0008 Expiration Date: 01/31/2019BUDGET INFORMATION - Construction ProgramsNOTE: Certain Federal assistance programs require additional computations to arrive at the Federal share of project costs eligible for participation. If such is the case, you will be notified.COST CLASSIFICATIONa. Total CostFEDERAL FUNDINGb. Costs Not Allowablefor Participationc. Total Allowable Costs(Columns a-b)1. Administrative and legal expenses2. Land, structures, rights-of-way, appraisals, etc.3. Relocation expenses and payments4. Architectural and engineering fees5. Other architectural and engineering fees6. Project inspection fees7. Site work8. Demolition and removal9. Construction10. Equipment11. Miscellaneous12. SUBTOTAL (sum of lines 1-11)14. SUBTOTAL15. Project (program) income17. Federal assistance requested, calculate as follows:(Consult Federal agency for Federal percentage share.)Enter the resulting Federal share.16. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS (subtract #15 from #14)13. ContingenciesEnter eligible costs from line 16c Multiply X$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$3,034.683,034.680.000.000.000.00416,900.00416,900.00104,225.00104,225.0018,000.0018,000.00542,159.68542,159.68542,159.68542,159.68542,159.68542,159.680.0049.99271,00P40VI.b
OMB Number: 4040-0009
Expiration Date: 01/31/2019
ASSURANCES - CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0042), Washington, DC 20503.
Certain of these assurances may not be applicable to your project or program. If you have questions, please contact the
Awarding Agency. Further, certain Federal assistance awarding agencies may require applicants to certify to additional
assurances. If such is the case, you will be notified.
As the duly authorized representative of the applicant:, I certify that the applicant:
NOTE:
1.Has the legal authority to apply for Federal assistance,
and the institutional, managerial and financial capability
(including funds sufficient to pay the non-Federal share
of project costs) to ensure proper planning,
management and completion of project described in
this application.
2.Will give the awarding agency, the Comptroller General
of the United States and, if appropriate, the State,
the right to examine all records, books, papers, or
documents related to the assistance; and will establish
a proper accounting system in accordance with
generally accepted accounting standards or agency
directives.
3.Will not dispose of, modify the use of, or change the
terms of the real property title or other interest in the
site and facilities without permission and instructions
from the awarding agency. Will record the Federal
awarding agency directives and will include a covenant
in the title of real property acquired in whole or in part
with Federal assistance funds to assure non-
discrimination during the useful life of the project.
4.Will comply with the requirements of the assistance
awarding agency with regard to the drafting, review and
approval of construction plans and specifications.
5.Will provide and maintain competent and adequate
engineering supervision at the construction site to
ensure that the complete work conforms with the
approved plans and specifications and will furnish
progressive reports and such other information as may be
required by the assistance awarding agency or State.
6.Will initiate and complete the work within the applicable
time frame after receipt of approval of the awarding agency.
7.Will establish safeguards to prohibit employees from
using their positions for a purpose that constitutes or
presents the appearance of personal or organizational
conflict of interest, or personal gain.
8.Will comply with the Intergovernmental Personnel Act
of 1970 (42 U.S.C. §§4728-4763) relating to prescribed
standards of merit systems for programs funded
under one of the 19 statutes or regulations specified in
Appendix A of OPM's Standards for a Merit System of
Personnel Administration (5 C.F.R. 900, Subpart F).
9.Will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning
Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. §§4801 et seq.) which
prohibits the use of lead-based paint in construction or
rehabilitation of residence structures.
10.Will comply with all Federal statutes relating to non-
discrimination. These include but are not limited to: (a)
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-352)
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
color or national origin; (b) Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972, as amended (20 U.S.C. §§1681
1683, and 1685-1686), which prohibits discrimination
on the basis of sex; (c) Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29) U.S.C.
§794), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of
handicaps; (d) the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as
amended (42 U.S.C. §§6101-6107), which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of age; (e) the Drug Abuse
Office and Treatment Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-255), as
amended relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of
drug abuse; (f) the Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism Prevention, Treatment and Rehabilitation
Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-616), as amended, relating to
nondiscrimination on the basis of alcohol abuse or
alcoholism; (g) §§523 and 527 of the Public Health
Service Act of 1912 (42 U.S.C. §§290 dd-3 and 290 ee
3), as amended, relating to confidentiality of alcohol
and drug abuse patient records; (h) Title VIII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§3601 et seq.), as
amended, relating to nondiscrimination in the sale,
rental or financing of housing; (i) any other
nondiscrimination provisions in the specific statue(s)
under which application for Federal assistance is being
made; and (j) the requirements of any other
nondiscrimination statue(s) which may apply to the
application.
Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction
Standard Form 424D (Rev. 7-97)
Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102
P41
VI.b
11.Will comply, or has already complied, with the
requirements of Titles II and III of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (P.L. 91-646) which provide for fair and equitable
treatment of persons displaced or whose property is
acquired as a result of Federal and federally-assisted
programs. These requirements apply to all interests in real
property acquired for project purposes regardless of
Federal participation in purchases.
12.Will comply with the provisions of the Hatch Act (5 U.S.C.
§§1501-1508 and 7324-7328) which limit the political
activities of employees whose principal employment
activities are funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
13.Will comply, as applicable, with the provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. §§276a to 276a-7), the Copeland Act
(40 U.S.C. §276c and 18 U.S.C. §874), and the Contract
Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. §§327-
333) regarding labor standards for federally-assisted
construction subagreements.
14.Will comply with flood insurance purchase requirements of
Section 102(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
(P.L. 93-234) which requires recipients in a special flood
hazard area to participate in the program and to purchase
flood insurance if the total cost of insurable construction
and acquisition is $10,000 or more.
15.Will comply with environmental standards which may be
prescribed pursuant to the following: (a) institution of
environmental quality control measures under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-
190) and Executive Order (EO) 11514; (b) notification
of violating facilities pursuant to EO 11738; (c)
protection of wetlands pursuant to EO 11990; (d)
evaluation of flood hazards in floodplains in accordance
with EO 11988; (e) assurance of project consistency
with the approved State management program
developed under the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. §§1451 et seq.); (f) conformity of
Federal actions to State (Clean Air) implementation
Plans under Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act of
1955, as amended (42 U.S.C. §§7401 et seq.); (g)
protection of underground sources of drinking water
under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as
amended (P.L. 93-523); and, (h) protection of
endangered species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (P.L. 93-205).
16.Will comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968 (16 U.S.C. §§1271 et seq.) related to protecting
components or potential components of the national
wild and scenic rivers system.
17.Will assist the awarding agency in assuring compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §470), EO 11593
(identification and protection of historic properties), and
the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of
1974 (16 U.S.C. §§469a-1 et seq).
18.Will cause to be performed the required financial and
compliance audits in accordance with the Single Audit
Act Amendments of 1996 and OMB Circular No. A-133,
"Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations."
19.Will comply with all applicable requirements of all other
Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and policies
governing this program.
SIGNATURE OF AUTHORIZED CERTIFYING OFFICIAL TITLE
SF-424D (Rev. 7-97) Back
APPLICANT ORGANIZATION DATE SUBMITTED
Utilities Finance and Administrative Manager
City of Aspen
Lee Ledesma
03/14/2019
20.Will comply with the requirements of Section 106(g) of
the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000, as
amended (22 U.S.C. 7104) which prohibits grant award
recipients or a sub-recipient from (1) Engaging in severe
forms of trafficking in persons during the period of time
that the award is in effect (2) Procuring a commercial
sex act during the period of time that the award is in
effect or (3) Using forced labor in the performance of the
award or subawards under the award.
P42
VI.b
WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficiency Grants for FY 2019
Funding Opportunity BOR-DO-19-F004
Prepared By:
City of Aspen
Project Manager: Lee Ledesma
Water Department
130 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
lee.ledesma@cityofaspen.com
970.429.1975
March 15, 2019
City of Aspen
Meter Replacement in Support
of Enhanced Water Loss Control
P43
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE ii
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 1
1.1 APPLICATION INFORMATION ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 1
2. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2
2.1 WATER SUPPLIES ..................................................................................................... 2
2.2 WATER DEMANDS ................................................................................................... 4
2.3 WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY ........................................................................ 6
2.4 PRIOR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION ............................................... 7
3. PROJECT LOCATION ...................................................................................................... 8
4. TECHNICAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................. 11
4.1 METER REPLACEMENT ............................................................................................. 11
4.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH ................................................................................................. 13
4.3 EVALUATION OF SAVINGS AND BENEFITS AND REPORTING ................................................ 13
4.4 SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................ 13
5. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................... 15
5.1 QUANTIFIABLE WATER SAVING (30 POINTS) ................................................................. 15
5.2 WATER RELIABILITY (18 POINTS) ............................................................................... 19
5.3 IMPLEMENTING HYDROPOWER (18 POINTS) ................................................................. 19
5.4 COMPLEMENTING ON-FARM IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS (10 POINTS) ............................... 20
5.5 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRIORITIES (10 POINTS) .................................................. 20
5.6 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS (6 POINTS) ................................................................. 20
5.7 NEXUS TO RECLAMATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES (4 POINTS) ................................................ 22
5.8 ADDITIONAL NON-FEDERAL FUNDING (4 POINTS) .......................................................... 22
6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE ..................................... 23
7. REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS ........................................................................... 25
8. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION ................................................................................................ 26
9. PROJECT BUDGET ....................................................................................................... 27
9.1 FUNDING PLAN AND LETTERS OF COMMITMENT ............................................................. 27
9.2 BUDGET PROPOSAL ................................................................................................ 28
9.3 BUDGET NARRATIVE ............................................................................................... 28
9.3.1 SALARIES AND WAGES ...................................................................................................... 28
P44
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE iii
9.3.2 FRINGE BENEFITS ............................................................................................................. 29
9.3.3 TRAVEL .......................................................................................................................... 29
9.3.4 EQUIPMENT.................................................................................................................... 29
9.3.5 MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES ................................................................................................ 29
9.3.6 CONTRACTUAL ................................................................................................................ 29
9.3.7 THIRD-PARTY IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS .............................................................................. 30
9.3.8 ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COSTS ...................................................... 30
9.3.9 OTHER EXPENSES ............................................................................................................ 30
9.3.10 INDIRECT COSTS .............................................................................................................. 30
10. LETTERS OF SUPPORT .......................................................................................... 31
Figures
Figure 1: Aspen Municipal Water Supply Forecast ....................................................................................... 3
Figure 2: City of Aspen, Average Monthly Metered Treated Demands by Sector from 2009 through 2013
...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Distribution of Annual Water Use by Sector in 2013 ..................................................................... 6
Figure 4: City of Aspen General Location Map ............................................................................................. 9
Figure 5: City of Aspen Water Service Area Location Map ......................................................................... 10
Tables
Table 1: Annual Treated Water Deliveries from 2009 through 2013 and Baseline for Forecasting (AF/yr
unless noted otherwise) ............................................................................................................................... 4
Table 2: Estimated Number of Meters Identified for Replacement ........................................................... 11
Table 3: Estimated Savings for Replacement of Identified Out of Compliance Residential and Commercial
Meters ......................................................................................................................................................... 16
Table 4: Estimated Number of Meters Identified for Replacement ........................................................... 18
Table 5: Total Project Cost: Summary of Federal and Non-Federal Funding Sources ................................ 27
Table 6: Proposed Project Budget .............................................................................................................. 28
Table 7: Summary of Meter Sizes for Meters to be Replaced .................................................................... 29
P45
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE iv
P46
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 APPLICATION INFORMATION
Submittal Date Mar ch 19, 2019
Applicant City of Aspen, Colorado
Lee Ledesma, Utilities Finance and
Administrative Services Manager
Water Department
130 Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970-429-1975
F unding Group I
Grant Funding Requested $271,000
Total Project Budget $542,159 .68
Project Duration A ugust 2019 through December 2020 (17
months)
Estimated Project Completion Date December 31, 2020
Project Location Existing residential and commercial locations
throughout the City of Aspen’s service area
located in Aspen, Colorado. Project location
is not located on a Federal facility.
1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY
The City of Aspen, Colorado (“Aspen” or “the City”) is a home-rule municipality that owns and operates
its water utilities, providing treated (potable) water to all customers in the service area and raw water for
hydroelectric production as well as for irrigation and snowmaking purposes to a small subset of
customers. The City is an active leader in water conservation and efficiency in the State of Colorado and
is committed to sustainable water use practices and programs both locally and regionally. Aspen Water
Utility provides service to approximately 4,000 accounts located inside and outside the Aspen Municipal
boundary. Out of those accounts, there are 3,400 residential accounts and 600 commercial accounts.
Within the infrastructure of the Aspen Water Utility, the property owner owns, and is responsible for,
their water service line, curb box valve and water meter. Approximately 10% of the existing water meters
are out of compliance with current City Distribution Standards and are incompatible with system upgrades
associated with the City’s transition to an AMI system, requiring the replacement of approximately 379
existing water meters. The proposed Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control
project will include meter equipment purchase and installation costs for the identified non-compliant
meters. An outreach and communications plan will be developed and implemented to support this meter
replacement. Water savings realized through this project will be quantified and reported.
P47
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 2
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 WATER SUPPLIES
Aspen owns and operates its own water utilities. It provides treated (i.e. potable) water to all customers
in the service area and raw water for irrigation and snowmaking purposes to a small subset of customers.
Aspen obtains its water supply primarily from the surface water sources of Maroon Creek and Castle
Creek, which are tributary to the Roaring Fork River, which is tributary to the Colorado River. The City also
has some ability to use three groundwater wells as a supplemental supply.
Aspen has adopted a policy to
maintain streamflows in the creeks
downstream of its diversion structures
at flow rates at or above the Colorado
Water Conservation Board’s (“CWCB”)
decreed instream flow rights for the
protection of the fishery and the
associated aquatic habitats in those
streams. Aspen has a long history of
commitment to protecting instream
flows. In 1980, Aspen entered into an
agreement with the CWCB to allow the
City’s very senior 15 cfs Hunter Creek
Flume and Pipeline water right to be
used for instream flows on Hunter
Creek, and the water court approved
that use. In 1993, the City Council adopted water management policies intended to provide for current
and future municipal water needs while at the same time maintaining decreed minimum streamflows and
aquatic habitat. Aspen has an intergovernmental agreement with the CWCB to protect the natural
environment of Castle Creek by operating the City’s water rights on Castle Creek in a manner that will
allow the decreed minimum streamflow of 12 cubic feet per second to be maintained under all but the
most severe low flow conditions, or emergencies. Although Aspen does not have a similar agreement
regarding Maroon Creek, Aspen also operates its Maroon Creek water rights in a way that protects the
decreed instream flows. More recently, Aspen negotiated temporary “Forbearance Agreements” with the
Colorado Water Trust in 2013 and 2014, under which Aspen agrees to not divert a portion of its senior
Wheeler Ditch water right during the irrigation season when the CWCB’s decreed instream flow in the
Aspen reach of the Roaring Fork River is not being satisfied.
The City updated is municipal Water Efficiency Plan (“WEP”) in 2015, which included an analysis of then-
current demands and supplies and a projection of future demands. For water supply planning purposes,
the City of Aspen uses the critically dry year of 1977 which is on par with the more recent critically dry
years of 2002 and 2012 and is a good representation of the firm yield of the City’s water rights from both
Maroon and Castle Creeks under current climate conditions. The annual firm (1977) water supply available
for treated and raw water irrigation diversions from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek is estimated to be
around 26,850 AF/yr at current infrastructure capacities. However, the City does not have a storage
component that would allow it to retime water supplies to match water deliveries with demands. Rather,
the City is dependent upon streamflow availability, which is susceptible to annual variability and changing
P48
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 3
conditions, as well as daily variability. For Aspen, the water supply is most vulnerable in the late summer,
after the snowmelt runoff period has ended, and when landscape irrigation demands are still high. Under
historical hydrology patterns, and considering Aspen’s goal of protecting decreed instream flows as
described above in addition to continued raw water diversion for irrigation, the daily firm yield of the
treated water system is estimated to be around 7.8 MGD.
A change in the volume or timing of streamflow and/or demand growth beyond the levels currently
projected (the WEP considers growth in demand through 2035 while the City’s water planning extends to
2065) would result in the City having a water supply issue in dry years. For example, Figure 1 below shows
a potential municipal demand scenario in the year 2065 1, based on the City’s water planning and
forecasting that is conducted independent of the WEP. As depicted, this scenario would result in a
significant water supply shortage during the late summer if the water supply was similar to a historical
critically dry year such as 1977 2. This emphasizes the importance of demand management, particularly
for landscaping purposes.
Figure 1: Aspen Municipal Water Supply Forecast
The City of Aspen's water distribution system consists of 16 separate pressure zones. The pressure zones
are supplied by 14 water storage tanks that are fed by 14 pumping stations and the three wells. The water
distribution system is comprised of approximately 73.2 miles of water mainlines that range in size from
1 The 2065 projected municipal water demand shown in Figure 1 does not include use of reclaimed water.
This figure was developed for the WEP.
2 This projection does not include storage in the Castle Creek Reservoir of Maroon Creek Reservoir, for
which Aspen holds conditional storage rights. Aspen is developing strategies for incorporating water
storage into its integrated water supply, and the conditional decrees remain an important component of
Aspen’s portfolio of water rights.
P49
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 4
24 inches (") to 4" in diameter. For Aspen, more efficient use of water and water loss management also
results in a direct energy usage reduction.
2.2 WATER DEMANDS
The City of Aspen provides both treated and raw water service to a total of approximately 4,000 customer
connections within the City and in adjoining areas through service contracts. The City’s year-round,
full-time service area population was approximately 10,506 residents as of 2014. Aspen typically
experiences seasonal population changes, associated with non-permanent residents and visitors. The
weeks before/of Fourth of July and Christmas typically result in the highest water demands. With events
like X Games, the City’s population can increase up to a total of 100,000 consumers. Most demands
described in this section were developed in support of the WEP, representing data available for 2009
through 2013.
Total treated water demand for Aspen’s system (including snowmaking, West Buttermilk bulk deliveries,
etc.) was 3,220 AF in 2012 and 2,955 AF in 2013 as shown in Table 1 below. Annual metered treated water
use in the City of Aspen, the focus of the demand analysis for the WEP, ranged from 2,568 AF to 2,752 AF
over the 5 years (Table 1). Metered treated use was within 4% of the average in each of the 5 years, which
suggests that the system demands fluctuate very little on an annual basis. Increases in population over
the five years did not cause a resultant increase in water demands (Table 1). These changes are typical of
municipal demand trends across the United States, which have generally declined or held steady in recent
years even as population has increased. The City’s current water rate structure, water efficiency program,
national plumbing codes and standards, and programs like EPA WaterSense contribute to this decrease in
per capita water use.
Baseline treated water demands of 3,186 AF/yr, (2,661 AF/yr for City customers and 525 AF/yr for
snowmaking, West Buttermilk, etc.) were selected for use in forecasting future demand in Aspen as shown
in Table 1.
Table 1: Annual Treated Water Deliveries from 2009 through 2013 and Baseline for Forecasting (AF/yr
unless noted otherwise)
As with most municipalities in Colorado, the City of Aspen’s demands are higher during summer months
due to outdoor water use. Figure 2 shows the average monthly metered treated water demands
represented in the WEP from 2009 to 2013 by water use sector versus the mean monthly temperature.
As a result of outdoor water use, all water use sector demands increase during summer months from June
through October. The residential pattern correlates particularly well with temperature during summer
months, and the peak usage in July is 6.4 times the average winter consumption (“AWC”). Multi-family
P50
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 5
residential and commercial water usage increases during summer months to a lesser degree, as evidenced
by the peak monthly usage being 2.1 and 1.8 times the AWC, respectively. The peak city facilities usage
exceeds the AWC by a factor of 4.0 in July, which suggests there is a fair amount of outdoor irrigation or
other seasonal water uses. The distribution of distribution of annual demands by sector is shown in Figure
3.
Figure 2: City of Aspen, Average Monthly Metered Treated Demands by Sector from 2009 through
2013
P51
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 6
Figure 3: Distribution of Annual Water Use by Sector in 2013
2.3 WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
The Roaring Fork Watershed Plan (“Watershed Plan”), published in May of 2012 and sponsored by the
Ruedi Water & Power Authority, brought together groups throughout the Roaring Fork Watershed in an
effort to “plan for and work toward an environmentally and economically healthy watershed that benefits
all who have a stake it in”. Through this collaborative effort, the Watershed Plan identified the benefits
from municipal water conservation and a need for a Regional Water Efficiency Plan. The Roaring Fork
watershed significantly contributes flows to the Colorado River.
Shortly after the publication of the Watershed Plan, Aspen began efforts to develop its WEP and actively
participated in developing the Regional Water Efficiency Plan for the Roaring Fork Watershed (“RF
Regional WEP”). These efforts progressed in parallel and both were published in 2015. One program
specifically identified in both WEPs, focused on outdoor water use efficiency, is generally referred to as
‘efficient landscape regulations’. Prior to applying for the Project Grant, Aspen’s implementation of this
program included the development of Aspen’s existing Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
(“Landscaping Ordinance”) to initiate a Pilot Program and development of Water Efficient Landscaping
Standards (“Landscaping Standards”) that provide details of the requirements under the Pilot Program.
The Landscaping Standards focus on landscaping water budgets, efficient irrigation system design and
installation, and field audits. The Landscaping Standards promote water conservation, prevent water
waste, and protect water quality. Through this focused, multi-year program, the Watershed Plan, RF
Regional WEP, and Aspen WEP have built upon each other to target outdoor water use reductions.
P52
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 7
Aspen’s water supply system is unique in that Aspen does not currently have a large storage reservoir like
most local water systems. Aspen’s supplies are direct-flow water rights and seasonal fluctuations and
environmental conditions directly impact the availability of those supplies. This coupled with Aspen’s
social and environmental commitment to sustainability, and their location near the headwaters of the
Roaring Fork Watershed, drive Aspen to actively promote projects and programs that support the efficient
and sustainable use of water.
Aspen’s WEP identified an Enhanced Water Loss Control Program as a key foundational water efficiency
program. This includes recommendations for ongoing water loss audits and subsequent projects and
programs to reduce the identified losses. The meter replacement project described in this grant
application directly supports this foundational program. It is also an integral tool in Aspen’s
comprehensive water efficiency program, providing improved and more real time water use data which
enables more advanced rate structures and direct customer communication in terms of managing leaks
and providing water usage and incentives.
2.4 PRIOR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
In March of 2015, the City of Aspen successfully secured a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant for standby
generators at three City facilities in the amount of $54,736. The total project cost was initially estimated
at $90,214, with the City’s share totaling $24,201 and an additional $11,277 awarded through the State
of Colorado Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management from PDMP (Pre-Disaster
Mitigation Plan) / HMGP (Hazard Mitigation Grant Program). Ultimately, the City’s contribution exceeded
the initial estimate, but all associated grant funding remained unchanged. The backup electric generators
were installed at three critical city facilities and all three were classified in a critical need class.
P53
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 8
3. PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Aspen, Colorado is located at 39.1911 degrees N, 106.8175 degrees W in Pitkin County. Aspen
is situated in the upper reaches of the Roaring Fork Valley near the confluences of the main-stem of the
Roaring Fork River with Hunter Creek, Castle Creek, and Maroon Creek at an elevation of approximately
7,900 feet. The Roaring Fork River is a tributary to the Upper Colorado River, as shown in Figure 4 3 below.
Aspen is located along Colorado State Highway 82 approximately 20 miles west of Independence Pass.
The incorporated area (within the municipal boundary) consists of approximately 3.83 square miles.
However, at this time, the total service territory is approximately 8.5 square miles, and includes
unincorporated areas served by Aspen. The proposed project is located entirely within the City’s service
area, as shown in Figure 5 below.
3 U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Reclamation
P54
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 9
Figure 4: City of Aspen General Location Map
*Map from U.S. Department of Interior – Bureau of Reclamation
Aspen
P55
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 10
Figure 5: City of Aspen Water Service Area Location Map
P56
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 11
4. TECHNICAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4.1 METER REPLACEMENT
Aspen Water Utility provides service to approximately 4,000 accounts located inside and outside the
Aspen Municipal boundary. Out of those accounts, there are 3,400 residential accounts and 600
commercial accounts. Within the infrastructure of the Aspen Water Utility, the property owner owns, and
is responsible for, their water service line, curb box valve and water meter4. Aspen has begun efforts
supporting an AMI project implementation wherein water accounts will be receiving intelligent
technology that will be hooked up to their existing water meter and allow for 2-way communication
between the utility and the customer. Approximately 10% of the existing water meters have been
identified as incompatible with these system upgrades and are non-compliant with current City Standards,
requiring a full replacement of approximately 379 identified water meters. The proposed Meter
Replacement Project will include meter equipment and installation costs for all incompatible and non-
compliant meters.
In 1987, Aspen published a set of Water Distribution Standards requiring all newly installed meters to
meet certain defined specifications. Records for all customer meters within Aspen’s distribution system
have been sorted based on installation date to estimate meter age. Those meters installed prior to 1987
are out of compliance with current design standards and are predominantly incompatible with the
selected AMI technology and will replaced under this project. The City will purchase approximately 379
compliant and AMI compatible meters for installation for the meter sizes estimated below in Table 2.
Table 2: Estimated Number of Meters Identified for Replacement
Meter Size
Estimated
Number of
Units
0.75" 220
1.0" 80
1.5" 35
2.0" 35
4.0" 9
TOTAL 379
Per City of Aspen 2019 Water Distribution Standards, all meters shall be Badger, Kamstrup, or Elster AMCO
brand meters. For smaller meters, only the specified Badger or Kamstrup brand meters comply with these
standards, as detailed below. All large meter applications (greater than 3 inches) shall use the Elster AMCO
EvoQ4 electromagnetic stainless-steel water meter5.
4 City of Aspen Municipal Code Section 25.12.130 and Section 25.12.150
5 City of Aspen Water Distribution Standards Section 5.8
P57
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 12
Based on Aspen’s Municipal Code and 2019 Water Distribution Standards, the account holder owns the
water meter and it is the responsibility of the account owner to repair or replace meters. Because
replacement of these meters is being required by the City of Aspen for compliance and integration in the
AMI program, Aspen would like to fund the purchase and installation costs associated with the meter
replacement project described herein. If awarded this grant, Aspen will cover these costs in their entirety.
A Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) for meter installation will be drafted and a competitive proposal
process will be managed by Aspen and will follow requirements as set forth in the City of Aspen
Procurement Code. The winning bid will be selected in fall of 2019.
Benefits for the meter replacement project to support the Enhanced Water Loss Control program in Aspen
include:
• Capital asset program optimization
• Water system integrity – leak detection
• Replacement of aging meter infrastructure
• Compatibility with technology to support rate design flexibility
o Dynamic pricing
o Time of day
o Water budget
o EV rates
• Electric outage management
o Outage detection and restoration
o Preventable outage maintenance
Specifications are as follows:
All meters shall be Badger, Kamstrup or Elster AMCO brand meters.
(1) Badger Water Meter Specifications for the City of Aspen (Approved for Horizontal Installation ONLY)
¾” Badger Recordall disc meter in cast bronze and cast iron bottom with an absolute digital encoder
(HR‐E) register with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara Meter Transmitting Unit
(MTU).
1.0” Badger Recordall disc meter in cast bronze and cast iron bottom with an HRE register with 3
bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
1.5” Badger Recordall disc meter in cast bronze with an ADE register with 3 bare wires from register
for connection to the Aclara MTU.
For Technical Briefs please visit www.badgermeter.com
(2) Kamstrup Water Meter Specifications for the City of Aspen (Approved for Horizontal or Vertical Installation
in upward flow)
¾” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 2100 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO) with
3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
1.0” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 3101 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO)
with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
1.5” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 3101 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO)
with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
2.0” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 3101 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO)
with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
For Technical Briefs please visit www.kamstrup.com
P58
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 13
• Improved accounting of water usage
• Data to further support water efficiency programs
4.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH
A targeted public outreach plan and program will be developed to specifically address and communicate
with those customers with meters installed prior to 1987. Information in this communication will include
benefits of replacing aging infrastructure, City policy on customer ownership of meters and how,
notwithstanding requirements specified in the City’s Municipal Code, the City will be fully funding the
meter purchase and installation through the support of this grant. The outreach will also inform customers
regarding what to expect from upcoming communication related to the new AMI program. The City will
contract directly with the public relations firm that is currently contracting with Aspen as part of the
broader AMI outreach program. This firm will develop a plan for outreach and engagement associated
directly with the meter replacement program as part of the grant project and budget. Coordinating
communications and outreach between the meter replacement program and the AMI program will aid
the City in providing a consistent and effective messaging plan and will help realize levels of time efficiency
in developing the materials. A consistent look and feel to the materials will help the public familiarize
themselves with the outreach approach and repeat key messages for engagement and education.
4.3 EVALUATION OF SAVINGS AND BENEFITS AND REPORTING
Implementing and operating a robust metering program in the City of Aspen is fundamental to the success
of the City’s water conservation and efficiency efforts. This technology will empower the City’s Enhanced
Water Loss Control program with data to identify customer-side leaks, providing the information to
systematically target and reduce water distribution system losses. Replacement of aging infrastructure
can influence large water savings, and water losses within the City’s distribution system are potentially
large. Replacement of older water meters is expected to reduce water losses by approximately 3,128
gallons per month for each residential meter and approximately 7,360 gallons per month for each
commercial meter. Estimated savings for replacement of each meter is based on an aging infrastructure
evaluation prepared by the City of Aspen, described in more detail in Section 5 of this application. By more
efficiently managing uses of water, the City will also increase its efficiency in energy management.
Actual savings associated with the meters that are replaced will be quantified by comparing customer
account pre-replacement water use to post-replacement use, for those months with available data at the
time of the final submitted report. A final inventory of the meter types and sizes replaced under this
project will be documented and used to refine anticipated annual savings for replacement of this aging
infrastructure.
Additional water loss audit evaluation will continue during and beyond this project and will include
advanced water demand investigation efforts. This will support future meter replacement savings
estimates on aging meters and will support potential policy changes. Quantified savings utilizing available
data will be documented and provided in the interim and final reports as required by this grant.
4.4 SCHEDULE
The City of Aspen will develop an RFQ for meter installation services to support this project in early fall of
2019. City staff will have a full inventory of aged meters to be replaced and will directly order those
replacement meters upon grant award. The bid will be awarded to the selected meter installation
contractor and a plan for installation for the inventoried meters will be developed and commence, with
P59
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 14
all work to be completed by fall of 2020, unless otherwise directed by Council. Agreements with the
communications contractor engaged for the outreach and communications tasks as well as the consulting
group engaged for the savings quantification and report development support will be completed in fall of
2019 with work to begin following the finalization of the meter replacement plan. Work for these two
groups will extend through the end of 2020 to complete and satisfy all reporting requirements associated
with this grant award.
P60
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 15
5. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL: EVALUATION CRITERIA
5.1 QUANTIFIABLE WATER SAVING (30 POINTS)
Describe the amount of estimated water savings. For projects that conserve water, please state the
estimated amount of water expected to be conserved (in acre-feet per year) as a direct result of this
project.
The average annual water demand in the City of Aspen is approximately 3,000 acre-feet. Replacement of
aging meters, especially those meters with plastic bodies, will increase efficiency and reduce leaks. This
project is estimated to reduce water loss by about 50.5 acre-feet per year through the replacement of
meters installed prior to 1987. As an integral tool in Aspen’s comprehensive water efficiency program, it
will also support implementation of programs identified in the WEP related to advanced rate structures,
water budgeting and outdoor water demand management, that collectively are estimated to result in over
300 acre-feet per year of savings by the year 2035.
Describe current losses: Please explain where the water that will be conserved is currently going
(e.g., back to the stream, spilled at the end of the ditch, seeping into the ground)?
An Enhanced Water Loss Control program was identified as a targeted water efficiency program in Aspen’s
WEP, with a projected annual water savings of 38 acre-feet. This projected savings was developed using
demands that quantified water loss at only 4%. Since the development of this plan, two stages of water
loss audit evaluations have been completed, identifying higher estimated water loss than previously
stated in the WEP.
The recent water loss audits used the IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method and M36 Manual for Water Audits
and Loss Control Programs. Based on the most recent water loss audit findings, approximately 180 acre-
feet in losses directly associated with inaccurate or leaky meters are estimated within the City of Aspen
distribution system.
Conserved water will impact streamflow by reducing the amount of water diverted for municipal use at
the City’s headgate. The application of improved meter data to implement a comprehensive suite of
programs in the City’s WEP will also lead to reductions in consumptive uses that will benefit the local
streamflow, the Roaring Fork River, and the Colorado River. Conserved water also increases resiliency by
reducing the City’s vulnerability to low streamflow periods associated with hydrological variability and
natural disasters. To this end, it has the potential to increase resiliency for other downstream municipal
water providers who rely on the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers.
Describe the support/documentation of estimated water savings:
In 2017, the City of Aspen conducted an evaluation to quantify losses and costs to support the age at
which meters should be replaced within the City due to reading inaccuracies. This included a calculation
of the Real Meter Accuracy for meters within four different meter age groups. For purposes of estimating
savings for this project, the Real Meter Accuracy for meters 30 years and older was used, calculated at a
value of 0.816. This represents a meter underreporting by about 18.4%, which is consistent with the
Colorado WaterWise Best Practices estimate that typical water savings achieved through metering are in
P61
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 16
the range of 10-40%6. Residential meters in Aspen observe average demands of 17,000 gallons per month
and commercial meters in Aspen observe average demands of 40,000 gallons per month.
This approach estimates that residential meters greater than 30 years old (which will all be replaced under
this project) underestimate demand by around 3,128 gallons each month and commercial meters greater
than 30 years old underestimate demand by around 7,360 gallons each month. Estimated savings for
identified residential and commercial meters is shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Estimated Savings for Replacement of Identified Out of Compliance Residential and
Commercial Meters
Meter
Customer Type
Meter
Size
Range
Number
of
Meters
Average
Annual
Demand
(AF/yr/meter)
Total
Annual
Demand
(AFY)
Total
Estimated
Savings
(AFY)
Residential
0.75" to
1.5" 335 0.63 211 38.8
Commercial 2" to 4" 44 1.47 64.7 11.9
Total 379 275.7 50.7
Municipal Metering:
a. How has the estimated average annual water savings that will result from the project been
determined? Please provide all relevant calculations, assumptions, and supporting data.
Based on calculations developed by the City of Aspen to determine water savings and optimum life of
aging water meters, meters greater than 30-years old are under-reading water demands by approximately
18.4%. All meters to be replaced under this project exceed this 30-year age, with a total of 379 of these
meters identified through a customer accounts query through the City’s billing accounts software.
Calculations showing this methodology are included below.
Estimated Residential Water Savings = (0.63 AF/meter/year) x (335 meters) x (1-0.816) = 38.8 AF/year
Estimated Commercial Water Savings = (1.47 AF/meter/year) x (44 meters) x (1-0.816) = 11.9 AF/year
Total Estimated Water Savings = 38.8 AF/year + 11.9 AF/year = 50.7 AF/year
b. How have current distribution system losses and/or the potential for reductions in water use
by individual users been determined?
The City of Aspen has evaluated distribution system losses using the IWA/AWWA Water Audit Method
and M36 Manual for Water Audits and Loss Control Programs. Ongoing system and water loss evaluations
have been recommended based on these two phases to better quantify volume and nature of system
losses. Projected savings under this project have been calculated by applying the average anticipated
6 Colorado WaterWise Guidebook of Best Practices for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado (2010).
P62
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 17
losses for meters older than 30-years and applying those losses to the identified meters for replacement.
Leaks and mis-reads due to aging meters will be resolved and result in water savings in the identified
meters.
c. For installing individual water user meters, refer to studies in the region or in the applicant’s
service area that are relevant to water use patterns and the potential for reducing such use.
In the absence of such studies, please explain in detail how expected water use reductions
have been estimated and the basis for the estimations.
The City of Aspen evaluated savings for replacement of aging water meters using the Real Meter Accuracy
case study described above to calculate meter accuracy for multiple meter age ranges. The calculated real
meter accuracy for meters greater than 30 years was about 0.816, which was then applied to the average
monthly residential use of 17,000 gallons 7. This would save about 3,128 gallons per month per replaced
residential water meter at 30-years old. For commercial meters, the average monthly demand is about
40,000 gallons, resulting in an estimated savings of 7,360 gallons per month per replaced commercial
meter at 30-years old.
Another recent analysis completed by St. Charles Mesa Water District (a water utility district in Pueblo,
Colorado) estimated about 1,900 gallons per month per meter saved for replacing water meters in their
district. This was reported in their revised Municipal WEP currently under review. Note that this does not
just represent meters older than 30-year, so estimated savings are lower than the savings estimated for
Aspen per meter. Losses in meters are estimated to increase over time, resulting in higher losses for older
meters.
d. If installing distribution main meters will result in conserved water, please provide support
for this determination (including, but not limited to leakage studies, previous leakage
reduction projects, etc.). Please provide details underlying any assumptions being made in
support of water savings estimates (e.g., how leakage will be reduced once identified with
improved meter data).
Main distribution meters will not be replaced under this grant program.
e. What types (manufacturer and model) of devices will be installed and what quantity of each?
Per City of Aspen 2019 Water Distribution Standards, all meters shall be Badger, Kamstrup, or Elster AMCO
brand meters. For smaller meters, only the specified Badger or Kamstrup brand meters comply with these
standards. All large meter applications (greater than 3 inches) shall use the Elster AMCO EvoQ4
electromagnetic stainless-steel water meter8. Meter sizes identified for replacement and the quantity of
each is shown below in Table 4.
7 Average monthly use based on 2017 demands.
8 City of Aspen Water Distribution Standards Section 5.8
P63
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 18
Table 4: Estimated Number of Meters Identified for Replacement
Meter Size
Estimated
Number of
Units
0.75" 220
1.0" 80
1.5" 35
2.0" 35
4.0" 9
TOTAL 379
f. How will actual water savings be verified upon completion of the project?
Demands prior to and following replacement of meters under this program will be compared for each
selected account and will be tracked to quantify long-term savings. This will support future meter
replacement savings estimates on aging meters and will support potential policy changes. Additional
water loss audit evaluations will continue during and beyond this project and will include advanced
demand investigation efforts.
Specifications are as follows:
All meters shall be Badger, Kamstrup or Elster AMCO brand meters.
(1) Badger Water Meter Specifications for the City of Aspen (Approved for Horizontal Installation ONLY)
¾” Badger Recordall disc meter in cast bronze and cast iron bottom with an absolute digital encoder
(HR‐E) register with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara Meter Transmitting Unit
(MTU).
1.0” Badger Recordall disc meter in cast bronze and cast iron bottom with an HRE register with 3
bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU. 1.5” Badger Recordall disc meter in
cast bronze with an ADE register with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
For Technical Briefs please visit www.badgermeter.com
(2) Kamstrup Water Meter Specifications for the City of Aspen (Approved for Horizontal or Vertical Installation
in upward flow)
¾” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 2100 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO) with
3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
1.0” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 3101 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO)
with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
1.5” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 3101 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO)
with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
2.0” Kamstrup Water Meter flowIQ 3101 Smart Ultrasonic Water Meter with Encoded Output (EO)
with 3 bare wires from register for connection to the Aclara MTU.
For Technical Briefs please visit www.kamstrup.com
P64
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 19
5.2 WATER RELIABILITY (18 POINTS)
3.Does the project promote and encourage collaboration among parties in a way that helps increase
the reliability of the water supply?
• Is there widespread support for the project?
This project is directly supported by the City of Aspen and its water users, the Colorado Water
Conservation Board, the Roaring Fork Conservancy, Aspen CORE, and WaterNow Alliance. Additionally,
general support for implementation of smart-metering is identified in the Colorado Water Plan as a
conservation strategy and demand reduction measure. The CWCB and the Colorado Water Plan support
water management activities including smart-metering, comprehensive water loss management
programs, savings tracking and estimating tools, and improved data collection on customer water uses.
The Roaring Fork Regional WEP, developed through collaboration with 5 water utilities and other local
agencies in the Roaring Fork Watershed including City of Aspen, identifies water losses control, including
management of real water losses and apparent losses due to meter inaccuracy, as a targeted program to
address regionally.
• What is the significance of the collaboration/support?
The CWCB is currently implementing the Colorado Water Loss Initiative to provide free training and
technical support to urban water providers throughout Colorado, along with recommended next steps for
water loss reduction and revenue recovery. Aspen has already conducted the AWWA M36 water loss audit
that is being used for the CWCB trainings, and this metering replacement program provides an example
of the next steps that come from the information learned under such audits. The City of Aspen’s initiative
to take steps to reduce water loss is exemplary of the water smart management being promoted by the
CWCB. Ongoing support from the CWCB has provided funding opportunities to the City to advance other
water efficiency programs and projects that bolster the City’s WEP.
• Is the possibility of future water conservation improvements by other water users enhanced
by completion of this project?
Yes. Aspen is a leader in the Roaring Fork Watershed in conservation and efficiency practices. The City
provides lessons-learned information to its municipal partners under the Roaring Fork Regional WEP
working group and is often relied upon by this group to pave the way by initiating the Regional WEP water
efficiency programs. Programs and projects implemented by Aspen allow it to lead by example with the
surrounding communities. Local programs, like this meter replacement program, can provide locally
quantified water savings from a meter replacement program for other communities to establish their
targeted goals through similar programs.
5.3 IMPLEMENTING HYDROPOWER (18 POINTS)
Up to 18 points may be awarded for this criterion. This criterion prioritizes projects that will install
new hydropower capacity in order to utilize our natural resources to ensure energy is available to
meet our security and economic needs.
The proposed project does not include new hydropower capacity.
P65
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 20
5.4 COMPLEMENTING ON-FARM IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS (10 POINTS)
Up to 10 points may be awarded for projects that describe in detail how they will complement on-
farm irrigation improvements eligible for NRCS financial or technical assistance
The proposed project does not include on-farm irrigation improvements.
5.5 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR PRIORITIES (10 POINTS)
Creating a conservation stewardship legacy second only to Teddy Roosevelt
The City of Aspen is committed to the efficient and effective use of water as a precious resource. The City
takes seriously its responsibility of being located at the headwaters of the Roaring Fork Watershed in the
Upper Colorado River Basin, protecting the quality and availability of water through the river system
downstream. Aspen has adopted a policy to maintain streamflows in the creeks downstream of its
diversion structures at flow rates at or above the Colorado Water Conservation Board’s decreed instream
flow rights for the protection of the fishery and the associated aquatic habitats in those streams. It has
become the first utility in the State of Colorado to adopt the Qualified Water Efficient Landscape
Certification Program and have recently adopted some of the most rigorous Water Efficient Landscaping
and Irrigation Standards in the state. The City takes very seriously its stewardship and leadership position
as a water utility.
Utilizing our natural resources
In addition to the ongoing efforts through projects and programs to most efficiently utilize its water
resources, the City of Aspen was the first city west of the Mississippi to have hydroelectric powered street
lights. It was built to service the mines in the area and municipal power was an afterthought. Today, the
City of Aspen electric system uses 100% renewable energy (46% hydroelectric, 53% wind power, 1%
landfill gas).
Modernizing our infrastructure
This project focuses on replacing the oldest water meters operating within Aspen’s distribution system.
This project will also help to build an aging infrastructure policy to require the replacement of water
meters once a certain age is hit. Water savings realized from this project will be used to reevaluate the
City’s policy regarding the mandated age for replacement. The entire distribution system is undergoing a
transition to an AMI system for every meter within the City’s service area. This will include all water and
electrical meters, modernizing infrastructure for both water and energy utilities.
5.6 IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS (6 POINTS)
Does the applicant have a Water Conservation Plan and/or System Optimization Review (SOR) in
place?
P66
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 21
Yes, the City of Aspen has a State Approved Municipal Water Efficiency Plan (“WEP”)9. Enhanced Water
Loss Control was identified as a program for implementation under this WEP, which this proposed project
directly supports. The City is also one of the primary participants in the Roaring Fork Regional WEP.
Provide the following information regarding project planning:
(1) Identify any district-wide, or system-wide, planning that provides support for the proposed
project. This could include a Water Conservation Plan, SOR, Drought Contingency Plan or
other planning efforts done to determine the priority of this project in relation to other
potential projects.
The Aspen WEP provides support for the proposed project through the identification and prioritization of
and Enhanced Water Loss Control program. This project is also supported by the Roaring Fork Regional
WEP through identification of identify water distribution audits and reduction in losses due to meter
inaccuracy as a targeted program to address regionally.
(2) Describe how the project conforms to and meets the goals of any applicable planning efforts
and identify any aspect of the project that implements a feature of an existing water plan(s).
The CWCB and the Colorado Water Plan identify and support water management activities including
smart-metering, comprehensive water loss management programs, water savings tracking and estimating
tools, and improved data collection on customer water uses. Implementation of smart-metering is
identified in the Colorado Water Plan as a key conservation strategy and demand reduction measure.
E.1.6.2. Subcriterion F.2— Performance Measures
Provide a brief summary describing the performance measure that will be used to quantify actual
benefits upon completion of the project (e.g., water saved or better managed, energy generated or
saved). For more information calculating performance measure, see Appendix A: Benefit
Quantification and Performance Measure Guidance.
All replaced meter locations have historic metered demand data and, following replacement, will continue
recording demands through the next phase of AMI system integration. Demands are tracked monthly
through the City’s billing software. The difference between the current water use and the water use after
the meter replacement will be calculated for each account. The total calculated difference will be
compared to the estimated savings of 50.7 AF/year included in this project application.
E.1.6.3. Subcriterion F.3— Readiness to Proceed
Describe the implementation plan of the proposed project. Please include an estimated project
schedule that shows the stages and duration of the proposed work, including major tasks, milestones,
and dates.
9 https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/466/City-of-Aspen-Municipal-Water-Efficiency-
Plan-2015-PDF
P67
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 22
The City of Aspen will develop an RFQ for meter installation services to support this project in early fall of
2019. City staff will have a full inventory of aged meters to be replaced and will directly order those
replacement meters upon grant award. The bid will be awarded to the selected meter installation
contractor and a plan for installation for the inventoried meters will be developed and commence, with
all work to be completed by fall of 2020. Agreements with the communications contractor engaged for
the outreach and communications tasks as well as the consulting group engaged for the savings
quantification and report development support will be completed in fall of 2019 with work to begin
following the finalization of the meter replacement plan. Work for these two groups may extend through
the end of 2020 to complete and satisfy all reporting requirements associated with this grant award.
5.7 NEXUS TO RECLAMATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES (4 POINTS)
Up to 4 points may be awarded if the proposed project is in a basin with connections to Reclamation
project activities. No points will be awarded for proposals without connection to a Reclamation
project or Reclamation activity.
Is the proposed project connected to Reclamation project activities? If so, how? Please consider the
following:
The proposed project is not connected to Reclamation project activities.
5.8 ADDITIONAL NON-FEDERAL FUNDING (4 POINTS)
State the percentage of non-Federal funding $271,159.68 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁−𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹$542,159.68 𝑇𝑇𝑁𝑁𝑇𝑇𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐵𝐵𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑇𝑇=50.01% 𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁−𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑁𝑁𝐹𝐹
Source Amount
Costs to be reimbursed with the requested Federal Funding $ 271,000.00
Costs to be paid by applicant $ 271,159.68
Value of third-party contributions $ -
Total Project Cost $ 542,159.68
P68
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 23
6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES COMPLIANCE
To allow Reclamation to assess the probable environmental and cultural resources impacts and costs
associated with each application, we have included responses to the following list of provided questions
focusing on the NEPA, ESA, and NHPA requirements.
Will the proposed project impact the surrounding environment (e.g., soil[dust], air, water [quality
and quantity], animal habitat)? Please briefly describe all earth-disturbing work and any work that
will affect the air, water, or animal habitat in the project area. Please also explain the impacts of
such work on the surrounding environment and any steps that could be taken to minimize the
impacts.
Meters that will be replaced under this project are located within residences or commercial buildings. No
earth-disturbing work will occur, resulting in no impacts on the surrounding environment.
Are you aware of any species listed or proposed to be listed as a Federal threatened or endangered
species, or designated critical habitat in the project area? If so, would they be affected by any
activities associated with the proposed project?
It is not anticipated that any threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat will be
affected by any activities associated with the proposed project.
Are there wetlands or other surface waters inside the project boundaries that potentially fall under
CWA jurisdiction as “Waters of the United States?” If so, please describe and estimate any impacts
the proposed project may have.
There are no wetlands or other surface waters inside the project boundaries that will be impacted by the
proposed project.
When was the water delivery system constructed?
The earliest parts of the water delivery system were constructed in the late-1800s. In 1956, the City of
Aspen began operating the Municipal Water Utility. In 1957, Aspen voters approved a bond proposal
adopting a plan for acquisition and improvement of the water works system and for repayment of the
costs incurred in the acquisition and improvement program.
Will the proposed project result in any modification of or effects to, individual features of an
irrigation system (e.g., headgates, canals, or flumes)? If so, state when those features were
constructed and describe the nature and timing of any extensive alterations or modifications to those
features completed previously.
There will be no modification of or effects to any portion of an irrigation system because of this project.
Are any buildings, structures, or features in the irrigation district listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places? A cultural resources specialist at your local Reclamation office
or the State Historic Preservation Office can assist in answering this question.
P69
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 24
There is no anticipated impact to any buildings, structures, or features listed or eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. A cultural resource inventory review will be completed as part of the
project.
Are there any known archeological sites in the proposed project area?
There are no known archeological sites in the proposed project area.
Will the proposed project have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on low income or
minority populations?
There will be no disproportionately high or adverse effects on low income or minority populations because
of this project.
Will the proposed project limit access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites or result in other
impacts on tribal lands?
The proposed project will not impact tribal lands or access to/ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites.
Will the proposed project contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious
weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area?
The proposed project will not contribute to the introduction, continued existence, or spread of noxious
weeds or non-native invasive species known to occur in the area.
P70
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 25
7. REQUIRED PERMITS OR APPROVALS
There are no required permits identified or anticipated for the proposed project. All project work will be
conducted at existing meter locations. Any project-related approvals will be managed by the City of Aspen.
The project will require review and approval by the City Council prior to project initiation. We do not
anticipate needing any permitting with any outside authorities or permitting entities.
P71
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 26
8. OFFICIAL RESOLUTION
The next Council meeting will be held on April 8th, during which an Official Resolution will be presented
and signed. This will be provided in support of this grant application upon completion.
P72
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 27
9. PROJECT BUDGET
The project budget includes:
(1) Funding plan and letters of commitment (N/A)
(2) Budget proposal
(3) Budget narrative
9.1 FUNDING PLAN AND LETTERS OF COMMITMENT
Describe how the non-Federal share of project costs will be obtained. Please identify the sources of
the non-Federal cost share contribution for the project, including:
• Any monetary contributions by the applicant towards the cost-share requirement and source
of funds (e.g., reserve account, tax revenue, and/or assessments)
• Any costs that will be contributed by the applicant
The City of Aspen will fund the non-Federal share of project costs from their Enterprise Fund for Water
Utility which is fully funded through revenue from monthly billing, tap fees, permit review fees, and other
miscellaneous revenue sources.
In addition, please identify whether the budget proposal includes any project costs that have been or
may be incurred prior to award. For each cost, describe:
No project costs will be incurred prior to award.
Table 5: Total Project Cost: Summary of Federal and Non-Federal Funding Sources
Funding Source Amount
Costs to be reimbursed with the requested
Federal Funding $ 271,000.00
Costs to be paid by applicant $ 271,159.68
Value of third-party contributions $ 0.00
Total Project Cost $ 542,159.68
P73
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 28
9.2 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Table 6: Proposed Project Budget
Budget Item Description $/Unit Quantity Quantity Type Total Cost
Salaries and Wages
Project Manager $ 45.98 60 HR $ 2,758.80
Fringe Benefits
Full-Time Employees* $ 4.60 60 $ 275.88
Part-Time Employees $ -
Travel
$ -
Equipment
Supplies and Materials
Replacement Meter (Average Unit Cost) $ 275.00 379 EA $ 104,225.00
Contractual/Construction
Meter Installation (Average per Unit) $ 1,100.00 379 EA $ 416,900.00
Customer Outreach and Engagement EA $ 8,000.00
Savings Tracking and Reporting EA $ 10,000.00
Third-Party Contributions
$ -
Other
$ -
Total Direct Costs $ 542,159.68
Indirect Costs
Type of Rate Percentage $base $ -
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $ 542,159.68
*Calculated as 10% of the hourly wages for staff under “Salaries and Wages”
9.3 BUDGET NARRATIVE
The budget narrative provides a discussion of, or explanation for, items included in the budget proposal.
The types of information to describe in the narrative include, but are not limited to, those listed in the
following subsections.
9.3.1 SALARIES AND WAGES
The salaries and wages include staff time to administer and manage the program and to coordinate
contracting entities. The Project Manager for this project is Lee Ledesma, Finance and Administrative
Manager for the Utilities Department at the City of Aspen. Ms. Ledesma will be responsible for working
with consultants on the development and submittal of a fully completed form SF-425 Federal Financial
Report, an interim program performance report, and the final performance report to Reclamation upon
completion of the project. Labor rates and estimated hours included in this proposal are included in Table
6. Hourly rate represents staff direct hourly wages. Hours spent directly contributing to this project will
be tracked and reported as a portion of the matching fund contributions.
P74
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 29
9.3.2 FRINGE B ENEFITS
A fringe benefit cost rate applied to staff hourly labor is 10% of direct hourly wages. The City does not
have a federally approved indirect cost rate agreement and is therefore using the de minimis 10% rate.
Indirect costs associated with this 10% rate include, but are not limited to, administrative salaries, payroll
and procurement services, staff healthcare contributions, and organizational administration.
9.3.3 T RAVEL
Travel is not anticipated for this project.
9.3.4 E QUIPMENT
No equipment valued at greater than $5,000 per unit is included in this project. All purchase costs
associated with new meters is included under Section 9.3.5 Materials and Supplies.
9.3.5 MATERIALS AND S UPPLIES
Equipment will be purchased by the City of Aspen for this project. New, water meters that are compliant
with current City Standards and compatible with the new AMI system will be purchased for the estimated
average unit cost of $275 per meter, noting that the cost will be directly associated with the meter size.
Average unit cost was provided by the National Meter & Automation and Mountain States Pipe & Supply
in support of the associated AMI Project recently awarded and was estimated based on anticipated unit
types and other recently purchased meters. An estimated of number of meters to be purchased by size is
included in Table 7 below. Number of meters was determined based on an inventory query of Aspen’s
customer accounts for all meters installed prior to 1987 as these are all out of compliance with current
City Standards. Number of units for each meter size category was estimated based on available meter size
data for the same query. Note that meter size is not included for each customer account dating back pre-
1987.
Table 7: Summary of Meter Sizes for Meters to be Replaced
Meter Size
Estimated
Number of
Units
0.75" 220
1.0" 80
1.5" 35
2.0" 35
4.0" 9
TOTAL 379
9.3.6 C ONTRACTUAL
The City of Aspen will bid the meter installation portion of the project, requesting proposals through a
competitive bid process from local plumbing contractors. The contractual costs included in this budget
proposal are estimates for each meter install as provided by the selected contractors completing the work
for the associated AMI project. The contractor will be selected based on qualifications and proposed
P75
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 30
budget. All procurements in excess of $50,000 shall be approved by City Council by motion or resolution
as required by City of Aspen’s Title 4 Procurement Code.
The City is budgeting $8,000 for customer outreach and engagement and will contract directly with a
public relations firm that is currently contracting with Aspen as part of the greater AMI outreach program.
This firm will provide an estimate and plan for outreach and engagement associated with the meter
replacement program as part of this project and budget. Because the budgeted amount does not exceed
the $10,000 threshold, the City is able to contract directly without a competitive bid under the
requirements within this Reclamation grant program. Per City Procurement Code, this amount falls under
the Small Purchases threshold and is exempt from a competitive bid requirement.
The City is budgeting $10,000 for services to quantify associated water savings and efficiencies and to
support the development of the required project performance reports for submittal to Reclamation.
Because the budgeted amount does not exceed the $10,000 threshold, the City is able to contract directly
without a competitive bid under the requirements within this Reclamation grant program. Per City
Procurement Code, this amount falls under the Small Purchases threshold and is exempt from a
competitive bid requirement.
9.3.7 T H IRD-P ARTY IN -K IND CONTRIBUTIONS
No work included with this project will be accomplished by third-party contributors.
9.3.8 E NVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY COMPLIANCE COSTS
The City of Aspen does not anticipate any environmental and regulatory compliance costs. All work will
be completed within existing active customer residences and commercial buildings.
9.3.9 O THER E XPENSES
None.
9.3.10 INDIRECT COSTS
No indirect costs are included in this project budget.
P76
VI.b
City of Aspen PAGE 31
10. LETTERS OF SUPPORT
Kevin Reidy, Colorado Water Conservation Board
Christina Medved, Roaring Fork Conservancy District
Marty Treadway, Aspen CORE
Cynthia Koehler, WaterNow Alliance
P77
VI.b
P 303.866.3441 F 303.866.4474 www.cwcb.state.co.us
Jared Polis, Governor | Dan Gibbs, DNR Executive Director | Rebecca Mitchell, CWCB Director
March 12, 2019
Subject: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant
Dear Ms. Ledesma,
As the State Water Efficiency Technical Specialist with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board (“CWCB”), I am pleased to express our support for the City of
Aspen’s U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSmart Water and Energy Efficiency Grant
application for Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control.
Over the past several years, the CWCB has worked closely with the City of Aspen to
advance its Municipal Water Efficiency Plan (“WEP”) and support the implementation
of water efficiency programs in Aspen and throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. Aspen
has shown an ongoing commitment to efficient water use and stewardship of this
limited resource through its own municipal water efficiency program as well as
through participation in the Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Municipal Water
Efficiency Plan.
We understand that the City has identified certain water meters within its service
area that are incompatible with the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”) system
that it is transitioning to. Replacing these meters to make the entire service area
operable under the AMI system will support multiple projects identified in the 2015
WEP update. As stated in the WEP, a robust metering program is fundamental to the
success of water conservation efforts. This technology will help the City with its
enhanced water loss control program by identifying customer-side leaks and reducing
water distribution system losses. The AMI program will also allow the City to expand
the use of real-time water demand data to support water budgets that are being
implemented through its water efficient landscaping ordinance and conservation-
oriented rates. Further, it will provide information to the City and its customers that
is critical for implementing the City’s municipal water shortage and drought
1313 Sherman Street, Room 718
Denver, CO 80203
Lee Ledesma
Finance and Administrative Manager
Utilities Department
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P78
VI.b
2
management and response plan. By more efficiently managing uses of water, the City
will also increase its efficiency in energy management.
The CWCB is committed to the practices, techniques, and technologies that extend
water supplies and energy resources through water efficiency programs. We support
the City of Aspen’s grant application for Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced
Water Loss Control.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at
kevin.reidy@state.co.us or 303-866-3441 x3252.
Sincerely,
State Water Efficiency Technical Specialist
Colorado Water Conservation Board
P79
VI.b
March 13, 2019
Ms. Lee Ledesma
Finance and Administrative Manager
Utilities Department
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Subject: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant
Dear Ms. Ledesma,
Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) is submitting our support for the City of Aspen’s U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation WaterSmart Water and Energy Efficiency Grant application for Meter Replacement in
Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control. As the watershed organization for the Roaring Fork Valley for
the last 23 years, whose mission is to inspire people to explore, value, and protect the Roaring Fork
Watershed, teaching about water conservation has always been a focus in our education and outreach
programs. As the City of Aspen is in the headwaters of our namesake watershed, RFC has had the
privilege of collaborated on many projects with City of Aspen. One such example was partnering with
the City of Aspen along with all the municipal water providers in the Roaring Fork Valley to write the
Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Efficiency Plan in 2015. The City of Aspen is a consistent leader
in implementing water saving measures and practices identified in the Plan, which RFC shares with other
communities on a regular basis.
Through the City’s commitment to efficiency, the City has identified certain water meters within its
service area that are incompatible with the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”) system that it is
transitioning to. Replacing these meters to make the entire service area operable under the AMI system
will support multiple projects identified in the 2015 WEP update and the City’s ongoing water efficiency
efforts. This technology will help the City with its enhanced water loss control program by identifying
customer-side leaks and reducing water distribution system losses. The AMI program will also allow the
City to expand the use of real-time water demand data to support water budgets that are being
implemented through its water efficient landscaping ordinance and conservation-oriented rates.
Further, it will provide information to the City and its customers that is critical for implementing the
City’s municipal water shortage and drought management and response plan. By more efficiently
managing uses of water, the City will also increase its efficiency in energy management.
For these reasons, we strongly support the City of Aspen’s U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART
Water and Energy Efficiency Grant application for Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water
Loss Control.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at christina@roaringfork.org or (970)
927-1290 x. 103.
Sincerely,
Christina Medved, M.A.
Director of Community Outreach
P80
VI.b
www.aspencore.org || 970.925.9775 || energy@aspencore.org
Lee Ledesma
Finance and Administrative Manager
Utilities Department
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
Subject: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency Grant
Dear Ms. Ledesma,
The Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) would like to submit our support for the City
of Aspen’s U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSmart Water and Energy Efficiency Grant application
for Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control . Throughout CORE’s 25-year
history, we have supported water and resource efficiency here in the Roaring Fork Valley. In 2013,
CORE was instrumental in creating a regional water conservation plan, which included the City of
Aspen. In 2016, CORE implemented a water conservation and rain barrel procurement program
targeted at homeowners in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Through the City’s commitment to efficiency, the City has identified certain water meters within its
service area that are incompatible with the A dvanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”) system that
it is transitioning to. Replacing these meters to make the entire service area operable under the AMI
system will support multiple projects identified in the 2015 WEP update and the City’s ongoing
water efficiency efforts. This technology will help the City with its enhanced water loss control
program by identifying customer-side leaks and reducing water distribution system losses. The AMI
program will also allow the City to expand the use of real-time water demand data to support water
budgets that are being implemented through its water efficient landscaping ordinance and
conservation-oriented rates. Further, it will provide information to the City and its customers that
is critical for implementing the City’s municipal water shortage and drought management and
response plan. By more efficiently managing uses of water, the City will also increase its efficiency
in energy management.
For these reasons, we strongly support the City of Aspen’s U.S. Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART
Water and Energy Efficiency Grant application for Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced
Water Loss Control.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at marty@aspencore.org, or (970)
925-9775 x504.
Sincerely,
Marty Treadway
Program Director, CORE
P81
VI.b
WaterNow Alliance | 1016 Lincoln Blvd | San Francisco, CA 94129 | 415.360.2999
www.waternow.org
March 14, 2019
The Honorable Brenda Burman, Commissioner
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240-0001
Re: WaterSMART: Water and Energy Efficient Program
City of Aspen Water Department Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control
Dear Commissioner Burman,
On behalf of WaterNow Alliance, I am pleased to write in support of the City of Aspen’s WaterSmart Water and
Energy Efficiency Grant application for Meter Replacement in Support of Enhanced Water Loss Control. WaterNow
Alliance, a national network of local water leaders supporting sustainable water management measures, has been
working with the City of Aspen’s water department over the past year to support their water efficiency objectives.
The City of Aspen Water Department is a leader among Colorado utilities in implementing sustainable, resilient water
solutions to address water supply reliability and water storage constraints. The City has adopted a variety of
innovative water efficiency measures outlined in their 2015 Water Efficiency Plan (WEP), including an ambitious set
of Water Efficient Landscaping Standards in 2018, designed to reduce outdoor water use by instituting water
efficiency requirements and by requiring third party irrigation audits for new and retrofitted landscapes. Aspen is a
community committed to implementing water use efficiency technology and in our view has both the internal
expertise and capacity to implement and administer a WaterSmart Grant. This proposal would enable the City to
continue to implement its laudable water conservation goals.
As part of its conservation effort, Aspen has decided to transition to an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (“AMI”)
system. The City has identified certain water meters within its service area that are incompatible with the AMI
system. Replacing these meters to make the entire service area operable under the AMI system will support multiple
projects identified in the 2015 WEP update and the City’s ongoing water efficiency efforts. This technology will help
the City with its enhanced water loss control program by identifying customer-side leaks and reducing water
distribution system losses. The AMI program will also allow the City to expand the use of real-time water demand
data to support water budgets that are being implemented through its water efficient landscaping ordinance and
conservation-oriented rates. Further, it will provide information to the City and its customers that is critical for
implementing the City’s municipal water shortage and drought management and response plan. By more efficiently
managing uses of water, the City will also increase its efficiency in energy management.
We believe that Aspen’s proposal would advance the purposes of the WaterSMART Water and Energy Efficiency
program and urge your favorable consideration of Aspen’s grant application for the Meter Replacement project.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Koehler, Executive Director
WaterNow Alliance
P82
VI.b
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Raquel Flinker, Project Manager
Jordan Gray-DeKraai, Project Manager
Pete Rice, PE, Senior Project Manager
THROUGH: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer
DATE of MEMO: April 1, 2019
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
RE: 2019 Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian Improvement Project - Contract
Approval (Resolution #43, Series of 2019)
______
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends Council approve the Concrete Replacement and
Pedestrian Improvement Project Contract with Excavation Services, Inc. in the amount of
$434,579.20 (including $39,507.20 in contingency).
BACKGROUND: The 2019 Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian Improvement Project is an annual
city wide project that aims to update valuable City infrastructure as well as complete necessary ADA
improvements by combining both into one project. These capital improvements are part of an
ongoing safety enhancement plan with the goal to develop and maintain safer pedestrian corridors
in Aspen. Curb and gutter functions throughout the City to convey storm water, prevent pavement
deterioration and provide a safe and attractive pedestrian experience. The scope of the curb and
gutter replacement corresponds with the scope of the Streets Department’s pavement
replacement. This year’s scope of curb and gutter replacement can be found in Attachment B.
The 2019 Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian Improvement Project was advertised for bid on
February 26, 2019. Two (2) bids were received and opened on March 19, 2019.
Bids were received from two (2) Contractors as summarized below:
Excavation Services, Inc. $395,072.00
Gould Construction, Inc. $480,305.75
Excavation Services, Inc. was identified by staff as the lowest qualified bidder.
P83
VI.c
DISCUSSION: Excavation Services, Inc. has experience in various City infrastructure improvement
projects and has performed well in previous contracts. Staff recommends that it is in the City’s best
interests to award the final construction contract to this vendor.
In addition to the base bid, this project will replace three ADA ramps that do not comply with ADA
standards and install electric conduit for future electric vehicle stations. The scope of the ADA
ramps can be found in Attachment C and the scope of the conduit installation can be found in
Attachment B.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
Funding
2019 Curb and Gutter Replacement (000.327.81200.57210.50900) $453,000.00
ADA Pedestrian Improvements (000.327.81200.57210.50902) $ 87,000.00
TOTAL $499,000.00
Expenditures
Base Bid -Excavation Services, Inc. Construction Bid $138,270.00
Alternative Add 1 – Aspen and Hopkins ADA ramp $116,169.00
Alternative Add 2 – Galena and Hopkins (Dior Corner) ADA ramp $ 64,995.00
Alternative Add 3 – Monarch and Hopkins (Meat and Cheese) ADA ramp $ 66,865.00
Alternative Add 4 – Electric Conduit Installation $ 8,773.00
Contingency (10%) $ 39,507.20
TOTAL $434,579.20
PUBLIC OUTREACH: Staff has sent a fact sheet letter containing information about this project and
its construction impacts to neighbors within 300 feet of all concrete replacement locations.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council approve the Concrete Replacement and
Pedestrian Improvement Project contract with Excavation Services, Inc. in the amount of
$434,579.20.
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution No. 43, Series of 2019.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A – Contract with Excavation Services, Inc.
ATTACHMENT B – Concrete Replacement and Pedestrian Improvements Project Area Map
ATTACHMENT C – Concrete Replacement ADA Ramp Improvement Locations
ATTACHMENT D – Aspen and Hopkins ADA ramp design
P84
VI.c
RESOLUTION #43
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND EXCAVATION SERVICES INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
concrete replacement and pedestrian improvement project between the City of
Aspen and Excavation Services Inc. a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for concrete replacement and pedestrian improvement project between the City of
Aspen and Excavation Services Inc. a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of April, 2019.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held April 8, 2019.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P85
VI.c
P86
VI.c
P87
VI.c
P88
VI.c
P89
VI.c
P90
VI.c
P91
VI.c
P92
VI.c
P93
VI.c
P94
VI.c
P95
VI.c
P96
VI.c
P97
VI.c
P98
VI.c
P99
VI.c
P100
VI.c
P101
VI.c
UTES MILL STE COOPER AVEE HYMAN AVEE MAIN STE HOPKINS AVEE DURANT AVEN 4TH STN 5TH STGIB S O N A V E
N 6TH STW BLEEKER STS ASPEN STW FRANCIS STSPRUCE STN 7TH STW SMUGGLER STTN MILL STN 2ND STW HOPKINS AVES GALENA STPARK CIRN 1ST STS MONARCH STN 8TH STS ORIGINAL STS 1ST STSILVS GARMISCH STLONE PINE R D OAK LNS HUNTER STS WEST END STS 2ND STNEALE AVEKING STW HYMAN AVERIO GRANDE PLS 3RD STWATERS AVEMAPLE LNN GARMISCH STW HALLAM STE HALLAM STN ASPEN STBROWN LNAJAX AVEN IC H O LA S L N
JUAN STL A C E T LNS R I V E R SQUEEN STPUP PY S M I T H STCLEVELAND STS 5TH STS 4TH STS 6TH STCOTTONWOOD LNMIDLWILLIA M S R A
LIT T L E CLOUD TRLGILBERT STBAY STALA C ET C TN 8TH STDEAN STE COOPER AVEE HOPKINS AVEW MAIN STS SPRING STE FRANCIS STPARK A VE
N 3RD STMIDLAND AVE1 inch = 400 feet±P102VI.c
ADA Area #1: Southwest corner of E Hopkins Ave. and S Galena St.
Replace the bidirectional ramps at the southwest corner of the intersection with ADA compliant ramps,
including a landing. Lamp post will need to be moved further South.
ADA Area #2: Southeast corner of E Hopkins Ave. and S Monarch St.
Replace the existing bi-directional ramp. This area experiences severe ponding from lack of proper
drainage which tends to ice over in the winter. Depending on grades, much of the surrounding asphalt
may need to be replaced in conjunction with the sidewalk and curb and gutter.
P103
VI.c
ADA Area #3: Northeast corner of E Hopkins Ave. and S Aspen St.
Replace the existing bi-directional ramp with an ADA bi-directional ramp. Steps need to be removed
and lamp post moved.
P104
VI.c
Engineers Surveyors1800 38TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 80301CONTACT: GARRETT LINGREEN, P.E.(303) 442-4338
TROUBLE SITE #3
INTERSECTION OF S. ASPEN & HOPKINS43296CO
L
OR
ADOLICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENG
I
NEERC1.0P105VI.c
Engineers Surveyors1800 38TH STREETBOULDER, COLORADO 80301CONTACT: GARRETT LINGREEN, P.E.(303) 442-4338TROUBLE SITE #3
INTERSECTION OF S. ASPEN & HOPKINS43296CO
L
OR
ADO LICENSEDPROFESSIONAL ENG
I
NEERC2.0P106VI.c
P107VI.c
P108VI.c
1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"1"P109VI.c
P110VI.c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk
DATE OF MEMO: April 3, 2019
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
RE: Resolution #47, 2019 – Support for Thompson Divide Coalition
SUMMARY: At the Council meeting on March 25th members of the Thompson Divide
Coalition spoke during public comment asking City Council to support legislation seeking
protection to permanently withdraw the area from availability for future oil and gas
leasing.
DISCUSSION: City Council has supported similar action in 2009 and 2010. Senator
Michael Bennet and Representative Joe Neguse recently introduced bills in both houses
of Congress commonly referred to as the Colorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy Act
that would withdraw the Thompson Divide Area from availability for future oil and gas
leasing. This resolution would support that action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending approval of Resolution #47, Series of
2019. Approval of the consent calendar will adopt this resolution.
P111
VI.d
RESOLUTION #47
(Series of 2019)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, PROVIDING FORMAL SUPPORT FOR THE THOMPSON
DIVIDE COALITION.
WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition is a broad based coalition of
local landowners, ranchers, farmers, hunters, anglers, recreationalists, water users,
conservationists and local governments, formed to address mutual concerns
regarding the existing oil and gas leases on federal lands in the Thompson,
Fourmile, Muddy and Clear Creek watersheds, and the headwaters of East Divide
Creek, an the potential negative impacts on this rural area associated with their
development; and
WHEREAS, outdoor recreation and environmental conservation are at the
core of what makes the Roaring Fork Valley an exceptional place to live and
vacation for both local residents and tourists and this area offers exceptional
recreational opportunities and is regularly used by bikers, climbers, hikers,
snowmobilers and cross country and back country skiers; and
WHEREAS, energy development in this area is inconsistent with ecological
preservation and would have a deleterious impact on the rural character, natural
beauty and serenity of the valley and would forever ruin the wild character and
exceptional habitat of this area; and
WHEREAS, the Thompson Divide Coalition recognizes the need for energy
development; however it believes it is imperative that energy development occur
only in appropriate places and that it proceeds in a responsible manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City of Aspen hereby supports the efforts of the Thompson Divide
Coalition to explore legislative initiative including the bills commonly referred to
as the Colorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy Act and other opportunities to
protect these special areas from energy development.
P112
VI.d
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of April 2018.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held April 8th 2018.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P113
VI.d
P114
VI.d
P115
VI.d
P116
VI.d
T 7SR 90W
T 51NR 7W
T 11SR 90W
T 15SR 93W T 15SR 88W
T 12SR 91W
T 15SR 86W
T 8SR 85W
T 50NR 3W
T 13SR 84W
T 14SR 85W
T 14SR 94W
T 9SR 94W
T 14SR 84W
T 8S R89W
T 51NR 1W
T 7SR 86W
T 12SR 85W
T 8S R86W
T 8SR 91W T 8SR 90W
T 7SR 92W
T 6SR 87W
T 9S R91W
T 15SR 84W
T 10SR 93W
T 11SR 88W
T 51NR 2W
T 8SR 88W
T 51NR 1E
T 10SR 88W
T 6SR 88W
T 7SR 94W
T 9SR 90W
T 6S R83W
T 13S R94W
T 50NR 8W
T 11SR 92W
T 50NR 5W
T 12SR 87W
T 15SR 87W
T 15S R92W
T 11SR 85W
T 14SR 89W
T 50NR 9W T 50NR 1E
T 14SR 93W
T 6SR 89W
T 9SR 85W
T 7S R93W
T 50NR 4W
T 11SR 94W
T 10SR 91W
T 6S R84W
T 9S R88W
T 12SR 84W
T 11SR 87W
T 50NR 6W
T 12SR 86W
T 15SR 94W
T 6SR 85W
T 13SR 86W
T 7SR 87W
T 15S R83W
T 51NR 3W
T 13SR 89W
T 14SR 90W
T 50NR 2W
T 6SR 92W
T 51NR 5W
T 15SR 85W
T 6SR 90W
T 7SR 91W
T 10SR 94W
T 14SR 88W
T 8SR 84W
T 51NR 6W
T 7SR 85W
T 15SR 89W
T 12SR 92W
T 9SR 87W
T 6SR 94W
T 51NR 8W
T 13SR 85W
T 50NR 2E
T 51NR 4W
T 6SR 86W
T 8SR 92W
T 51NR 2E
T 12SR 94W
T 11SR 91W
T 12SR 89W
T 10SR 90W
T 8SR 93W
T 51NR 9W
T 9SR 86W
T 7SR 84W
T 7SR 88W
T 13SR 93W
T 6SR 91W
T 14SR 86W
T 14SR 87W
T 11SR 89W
T 11SR 93W
T 10SR 92W
T 7SR 89W
T 10SR 85W
T 9SR 84W
T 10SR 86W
T 13SR 87W
T 9SR 89W
T 6SR 93W
T 8SR 94W
T 12SR 93W
T 15SR 90W
T 12SR 88W
T 10SR 87W
T 10SR 89W
T 11SR 86W
T 14SR 83W
T 51NR 5W
T 50NR 7W
T 14SR 91W
T 13SR 88W
T 10SR 84W
T 9SR 92W
T 9SR 93W
T 8SR 87W
T 50NR 1W
T 50NR 5W
T 12SR 90W
T 13S R90W
T 13SR 91W
T 13SR 92W
T 14SR 92W
T 15SR 91W
T 11SR 84W
T 7SR 83W
06
06
36
01
06
36
31
06
36
01
36 36
06
01
36
01
01
06
06
36
36
31
31
06
06
06
01
01
36
36
31
36
36
36
31
01
31
36
01
06
01
31
31
36
36
31
06
06
06
06
06
3101
36
36 31
31
06
36
31
36
06
36
06
31
06
36
06
06
36
06
31
01
01
36
31
06
01
06
31
01
06
06
31
06
31
36
36
01
31
31
31
01
01
36
36
36
36
31
31
36
36
3606
31
06 31
36 36
0101
31
31
31
31
31
01
06
06 36
01
01
06
36
01
06
06
31
31
31
01
01
36
3636 36
36
36
01
36
31
06
31
31
06
36
31
36
01
06
31
31
3636
36
06
01
36
01
36
06
01
31
36
06
31
06
36
01
06
31
31
01
36
01
36
36
06
31
31
31
36
31
36
06
36
36
06
06
01
06
0106
01
0606
31
36
36
36
01
01
06
01
31
31
06
01
31
36
36
06
01
06
36
31
01
36
01
31
01
06
36
36
01
01
06
31
36
01
36
36
06
01
36
36
31
06
06
31
06
31
01
31
31
36
06
36
01
36
01
31
06
31
01
36
01
01
01
31
31
01
31
06
36
36
36
01
06
06 06
36
01
36
31
01
36
01
01
06
31
31
06
36
31
31
36
06
31
01
01
06
06
36
31
01
06
06
31
06
31
01
36
31
01
3136
06
36
06
01
01
01
36
36
36
01
01
31
01
3131
31
36
31
31
31 31
31
31
06
01
01
06
01
31
01 01
01
01
31
01
36
06
36
31
01
36
06
01
36
01
36
36
01
31
01
31
06
36
31
36
06
3631
31
06
06
01
31
06
36
01
06
36
01
36
01
31
06 3131
01
06
06
36
36
06
01
31 363136
31 36
31 36
31 36
31 363631
31 36
31 36
31
Delta CountyGunnison CountyDeltaCountyMesaCountyDelta CountyMontrose County Eagle CountyGarfield CountyEagle CountyPitkin County
Garfield CountyMesa County Garfield CountyPitkin County
Gunnison CountyMontrose CountyGu
nnisonCounty
PitkinCounty
§¨¦70
Aspen
Basalt
Carbondale
Crawford
CrestedButte
GlenwoodSprings
Hotchkiss
Marble
Mt.CrestedButte
Paonia
SnowmassVillage
EastRiver
T a y lo r River
NorthSmithFork G u n n iso n R iverCo loradoRiverEas t F orkSouthForkCrystalRiver
F r y i n g panRiver
CrystalRive rN o rthForkGunnisonRiver
N orth ForkCrystalRiver
SouthFork CrystalRiver
RoaringForkRiver
GunnisonRiv e r
Sla te River
FossilRidgeWilderness
West ElkWilderness
RaggedsWilderness
CollegiatePeaksWilderness
MaroonBells-SnowmassWilderness
Hunter-FryingpanWilderness
UV82
UV133
UV135
UV92
UV82
UV347
£¤6
Greater Thompson Divide Area MapSeptember 22, 2016
This map prepared at the request of Senator Michael Bennet
Wyoming
UtahDenver
§¨¦25
§¨¦76
§¨¦70
Map Extent
ALAMOSA
ARAPAHOE
ARCHULETA BACA
BENT
BOULDER
CHAFFEE CHEYENNE
CLEARCREEK
CONEJOS COSTILLA
CROWLEY
CUSTER
DELTA
DOLORES
DOUGLAS
EAGLE
EL PASO
ELBERT
FREMONT
GARFIELD
GRAND
GUNNISON
HINSDALE
HUERFANO
JACKSON
KIOWA
KITCARSON
LA PLATA
LAKE
LARIMER
LASANIMAS
LINCOLN
LOGAN
MESA
MINERAL
MOFFAT
MONTEZUMA
MONTROSE
MORGAN
OTERO
OURAY
PARK
PHILLIPS
PITKIN
PROWERS
PUEBLO
RIOBLANCO
RIOGRANDE
ROUTT
SAGUACHE
SANJUAN
SANMIGUEL
SEDGWICK
TELLER
WASHINGTON
WELD
YUMA
This map was produced by the BLM Colorado State Office, Sep. 22, 2016.Document Path: T:\CO\GIS\giswork\coso\projects\legislative_maps\2016\Thompson_Divide\mxds\Greater_Thompson_Divide_Area_Map.mxd
NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BUREAU OF LANDMANAGEMENT FOR USE OF THE DATA FOR PURPOSESNOT INTENDED BY BLM.
²
Thompson Divide Withdrawal andProtection Area
Wolf Creek Storage Agreement
County Boundaries
Streams & Rivers
Interstates
U.S. Highway
State Highway
County & Main Roads
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
National Park Service
Other Federal
State
State, County, City; Areas
US Forest Service
USFS Wilderness Area
0 10 205Miles1:130,000This map is intended to be plotted at 34 x 44 in.
P117
VI.d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk
DATE OF MEMO: April 4, 2019
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
RE: Board Appointment
By adopting the Consent Calendar, Council is making the following Board Appointment:
Planning & Zoning Commission – Regular member Brittanie Rockhill
Alternate member Don Love
Next Generation Advisory Commission Regular member Alexandra George
Alternate member Morris Hogan
Local Licensing Authority Regular member Phil Golden
Alternate member Peter Helburn
Board of Adjustment Alternate member Tim Sack
P118
VI.e
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 25, 2019
1
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES .......................................................................................................... 2
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS ................................................................................................................... 3
BOARD REPORTS ...................................................................................................................................... 4
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 4
Resolution #34, Series of 2019 – IGA for Mental Health Service Contract ......................................... 5
Resolution #36, Series of 2019 – Spring and Main Intersection Improvements Project ...................... 5
Resolution #41, Series of 2019 – release and Settlement Agreement in the case of 119 Neale Avenue
LLC v. City of Aspen, Pitkin County Case 2017CV30131 .......................................................................... 5
Board Appointments ............................................................................................................................. 5
Minutes – February 25 and March 11, 2019 ......................................................................................... 5
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2019 – 465 and 557 N. Mill Street Rezoning ............................................. 5
RESOLUTION #36A, SERIES OF 2019- 660 S. Galena Street – 8040 Green line Review – Dimensional
Variances....................................................................................................................................................... 5
P119
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 25, 2019
2
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin,
Hauenstein, and Mullins present.
SPECIAL PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Mayor Skadron said I’m holding the torch that came down Main Street for the 2002 olympics. It was
donated by the Durbins family. Linda Gerdenich said one of Rachael Richards last job as the mayor
when I was communications director for the city was to put Aspen in the torch relay. At that point we
were not in the relay. Some of the people that got to run included Dennis Murray, John Mcbride, Brice
Maple, Barb and Steve Wicks, Migs and Dick Durbins. The theme was light the fire within. Migs and
Dick each got a torch. One got donated to the city. Thanks to Jim and Tara we found the torch. It is now
going to the historical society.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Lee Mulcahy said mom and I just got back from Kenya where we did 2 water wells. We also set
up 2 computer labs. Thank you Ward for your time involved in the laptops. The way forward is
compromise and to have a public hearing. The judge won’t give us a public hearing, this council
should. Mayor Skadron said the belief of this council is consistent with that of the courts.
2. Emzey Veazy III spoke about a variety of topics including price fixing.
3. Toni Kronberg said the lights at the Spring and Main intersection are well needed. All
intersections at Main should have those crossings. On the survey on the website on the recycle
center, she wants to have the downside of driving to the recycle center added. Alternative
location for the recycle center may be the intercept lot.
4. Bob Morris congratulated all the candidates on the election. He said he was here a year and a half
ago asking for a crossing light at Spring and Main. He was told it was in the budget but it is still
not there. Mayor Skadron said it is on the consent for tonight. Mr. Morris said the dip in front of
Wells Fargo is too severe and could be corrected in the future.
5. Bill Stirling and Harry Teague talking about city hall. We heard last week construction will be
stopped from June through early fall. We want to offer creative diversity to the process. Harry
said we are coming from a positive point of view. The last thing we want to do is create any
polarizing position in the town. We are not criticizing the current architecture. The opportunity
this building presents is more than creating new space but a face for the town that represents the
values for the town. We don’t want to go backwards. We do feel there is an opportunity to look
at the possibilities to improve the current design. We are asking for 15 to 20 minutes to present
some of the possibilities to be considered. If you chose from that meeting to take any of the
suggestions further we could take them from that point on. Mayor Skadron said what is being
constructed is not city hall but city offices. City hall stays here. The work that Charles’s team
did was at council’s direction to construct a humble building. I was struggling with the notion of
one architects criticism of another’s work. Thank you for being sensitive. Councilwoman
Mullins said I’ve spoken with you and Peter. I’m happy to enter into any public discussion and
see your idea’s. Ordinance 4 gives us quite a bit of latitude on some things. This is the way it
works with design. Harry said we realize there are cost and schedule implications and it may not
be worth opening any of this up but it may. We hope Charles will be completely involved in this
process. Councilman Hauenstein said I appreciate your comments. My understanding is
ordinance 4 is what we are going on. It established the shell and core and location. Items open
for discussion are enhanced connection and programming. As far as a public process, it has come
to my attention that people are intimidated by city hall. I would like to see what you envision for
public engagement. I would welcome whatever receives the highest amount of public
engagement. I’m open to the discussions on internal programming. Councilman Myrin said I
think if someone looks like a pain in the neck we should not send them away but invite them in. I
wanted housing here not offices. If there is a way to make improvements I would invite anyone
P120
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 25, 2019
3
to talk to us. Mayor Skadron said I have a little different opinion than my fellow council
members. I’m concerned about precedent. The principal of representative democracy. Maybe
we don’t believe in the representative process. It is a broader question about if we can govern
ourselves or does every decision need voted on and rehashed again and again. It is an extremely
bad precedent or if there is an end point to what is being asked. The suggestion is a good one but
there are broader discussion. Harry said we are not saying something is wrong but we are adding
to the conversation. This doesn’t have to change anything that has been done so far. We are not
questioning what has happened up to now. We are saying what if. Mayor Skadron said a citizen
group caused a lawsuit that caused 5 million dollars in construction delays. Now there is another
group. What if there is another group in a year. Harry said even when the building is built it will
be reexamined and questioned. Mayor Skadron said we have council approval and voter
approval. We now want a better plan. It reminds me what happened in 1995 with rail. At some
point the process will kill the project. I’m a bit hesitant. Councilman Hauenstein said I want
nothing that will reopen the land use decisions that have been made. The design process was in
2016 and 2017. Councilwoman Mullins said I wouldn’t support anything resulting in an
amendment to the ordinance. Most of the concerns can be addressed through the things that have
not been pinned down in the ordinance. I would welcome more discussion. Mayor Skadron said
I would hope the comments and criticisms would not interfere in the process.
6. Neil Seigal said there is no need to dwell on the public process that has gone on for four years.
The design of any building in this town will be subject to debate. There is no assurance that any
change will be considered as positive or negative. It is simply subjective. I would suggest not
falling into the trap of looking at design. You can’t put the toothpaste back in to the tube. Where
do you stop. It is a dangerous precedent. It is simply allowing second guessing and that becomes
expensive. As a voter and a taxpayer I’m concerned. This project was subject to a frivolous
lawsuit and it simply shouldn’t happen again. The outcome didn’t change anything.
7. Toni Kronberg said the county has paused the airport project and is reaching out for a better
project. We need to make it the best it can be.
Councilwoman Mullins said I would offer the time. We want it to be the best project. Nothing
that would change the ordinance or budget or timing. Councilman Hauenstein said we have a
timeline. There is time for outreach and discussion that don’t change the ordinance, connection,
landscaping and programming. I’m not sure 20 minutes on the work session or agenda is the
proper venue. I put the ball in their court. Mayor Skadron said I’m going to object to this.
Everything you said we said 3 years ago and we were sued for it. This is a done deal and is
moving forward. It is a great building and will be a community asset. I will not agree to it.
Councilman Myrin said I’m on board to listening to it. The 5 million is on council’s shoulders.
We had the opportunity to listen to 500 voters and didn’t. I think it is poor governance to not
look at something to make it better. Mayor Skadron said we will get you on an agenda April 9th.
8. Judy Fox Parry, representing the Thompson Divide Coalition, said the Thompson Divide is
200,000 acres with Pitkin County containing 80,000. We are coming to you to ask for support to
urge Colorado senators to support the bill. It is important to have grass roots support. Gunnison
and Pitkin County have supported us. Past letters from 2009 and 2010.
CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS
Councilman Myrin said for Lee’s case, it is inexcusable that council is hiding behind a deadline that has
been missed and has refused to hear the substance of the issue which is working as an artist. I would hope
at some point the substance of the issue would be heard.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is grateful to sit through the election and not be involved in it. I’ve
thought a lot about it. Lift One shows a split within the community. People voted what they felt was best
for the city. I suggest to all that shared values are a love for Aspen and a concern for its future. Someone
will always be on the losing side in democracy. What is important to the community is that you must
accept the outcome. What is destructive to a community is when citizens villainize each other for
P121
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 25, 2019
4
believing differently. Thomas Jefferson said I never considered a difference of opinion a cause from
withdrawing from a friend. I implore all to gracefully accept the outcome of the democratic process. For
those that called for a community building then turned around and drive a wedge by asserting that all
decisions made by this body were wrong and without merit, I admonish you. It offends me. It’s
duplicitous. Nobody is perfect. Honest self reflection and integrity will cause one to question their own
actions. Sometimes there are choices between several good options. To insist that a person never made
an error at this table is I suggest, disingenuous. I invite all to be engaged in the process and share in the
outcome.
Councilwoman Mullins said to vote and tell everyone else to vote. 4 people from the western slope have
been appointed to boards and commissions. Eden Vardy was named to parks and rec boards. Auden
Shindler to air quality control, Gail Schwarts to water conservation and April Long to the water quality
control commission.
Mayor Skadron said the city is seeking public input on the future of the Rio Grand recycle center. It is
free to the public but funded by the county. In August the county funding will end. To participate in the
survey go to aspencommunityvoice.com.
I was with the governor a week or 2 ago and reminded him Colorado was much more than the front range.
I want to thank our very own April Long. She was appointed to the water quality control board.
BOARD REPORTS
Councilman Hauenstein said CCLC had presentation by CJ Oliver on the recycle center. He talked about
the importance of composting and I want to pursue that.
Mayor Skadron said RFTA reviewed IGAs. 7 towns and 2 counties on one bus system.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Reso #34 – IGA on mental health
Councilwoman Mullins said she supports this. It is good for public to understand. Richard Pryor, police
chief, asked the team to stand, Nan, Lindsy, Karen, Lori. The IGA references the collaboration between a
number of entities in the community for a different approach for providing mental health services in the
community. Last year we implemented the initial IGA. We are very happy with the way things have
been going. Karen, Pitkin county health director, said it has been an amazing collaboration. We have
been tracking the metrics around the collaboration and have seen a rapid change in the continuum of care.
Due to success we though let’s do it again. It has been really successful. We are looking at metrics such
as response to crisis time, communication between providers and partners. We added Charlotte as a
therapist in the school district. This year we are looking at is the care effective and can individuals access
better care and are more people being served. Lori said from the hospital perspective we reduced the time
of response for Mind Spring to respond by 50%. We reduced the time spent at the hospital by 36%. We
helped to decriminalize behavioral health in the community and had 0 patients transferred to the jail from
the hospital. Councilman Hauenstein said thank you for this. The community is more than things, it’s
people.
On Board appointments, Mayor Skadron thanked Claudia, Scott, Gretchen, Bob, Kara, Amy, Christine
and Hillary.
P122
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 25, 2019
5
· Resolution #34, Series of 2019 – IGA for Mental Health Service Contract
· Resolution #36, Series of 2019 – Spring and Main Intersection Improvements Project
· Resolution #41, Series of 2019 – release and Settlement Agreement in the case of 119
Neale Avenue LLC v. City of Aspen, Pitkin County Case 2017CV30131
· Board Appointments
· Minutes – February 25 and March 11, 2019
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All
in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #4, SERIES OF 2019 – 465 and 557 N. Mill Street Rezoning
Mike Kraemer, community development, said this is a request to rezone from SCI to the MU zone. There
is no development plan. No change in use is proposed. The applicant is only looking at the rezone. It is
a two step review. The first step is P&Z. The second step is council. This requires two readings with
council. P&Z heard this on February 19th. There is a recommendation for denial from P&Z. Staff
recommends denial. We would like 2nd reading on April 22nd. The draft ordinance is for approval on first
reading.
Councilman Myrin said I live relatively close but did not receive a notice. I want to confirm for 2nd
reading. Jim True, city attorney, said we did confirm you are outside of the limitation.
Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said we do not have a presentation.
Councilman Myrin said he would like to hear for second reading, in my understanding there should be a
disconnect between the rezone and an application that follows. He would like to know why they are
connected. There is no application but discussion about wanting to see one. He is curious why that is a
conversation.
Councilman Hauenstein moved to read Ordinance #4, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman
Mullins. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 4
(SERIES OF 2019)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE REZONING OF PROPERTY
COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 465 AND 557 N. MILL STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN
EXHIBIT A; CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #4, Series of 2019 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Hauenstein. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Myrin, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes;
Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
RESOLUTION #36A, SERIES OF 2019- 660 S. Galena Street – 8040 Green line Review –
Dimensional Variances
Ben Anderson, community development, said there is no access to the right of way. You have to go
through the Little Nell and pedestrian cause way. The property is located in the 8040 greenline review
area. This is a technical review. The applicant is seeking to provide an accessibility ramp from the
causeway of the Little Nell to front porch of the house. They are doing an exterior remodel of the house.
Because of the location a review is required. It has been reviewed by comdev, engineering and parks.
We have no major concerns. There is a variances to the setback and floor area. The code has a limitation
to height of a structure in the setbacks of 30 inches. This will be 12 feet from grade. In order to get the
ramp and provide accessibility there will be a variance to the setback. Any floor area variance council is
the deciding body. Because of the location in the Lodge zone, single family is no longer an allowed use.
We allow a 15% deck exemption to that floor area. This would count as deck. Because it goes over the
15% it is an addition of floor area of 360 square feet. That is the big thing you are asking to review.
P123
VI.f
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council March 25, 2019
6
Three things must exist to grant the variance. It must be consistent with the purpose of the code, the
minimum variance to make possible the use of the property, and literal interpretation will deprive the
applicant unnecessary hardship. Staff feels these are met. Also special conditional circumstance which
are unique to the parcel and which do not result from the action of the applicant. There are special
circumstances with the access. Also granting the variance will not confer the applicant any special
privileges. We have included a condition that will not grant any additional heights. Staff is
recommending approval of the variances.
Chris Bendon, representing the applicant, said it is a unique parcel accessed through the residence of the
Little Nell through an elevator and the causeway. He showed images of the bridge. At the end of the
bridge is a ski corridor. Underneath that it steps down, flagstone patio and access to the house. There is
no vehicular access. We would like to provide wheel chair access via a ramp. One of the family
members is wheel chair bound. The grades are pretty severe. This makes us way beyond the 30 inches.
We don’t have any floor area because the house is a non conforming use. The ramp counts as deck. It is
a unique site with minimal area needed for an accessible path. We are fine with the 5 conditions. We
have no intent to take this variance and parlay it into something other than what we are talking about
tonight.
Councilman Hauenstein asked is the proposed ramp covered or heated. Les replied it is heated but not
covered. Councilman Hauenstein said I support this.
Councilman Myrin said thank you for condition 1.
Councilwoman Mullins said the conditions limit anything else other than a ramp.
Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public
comment.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Resolution #36A, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilman
Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried.
At 6:45 p.m.; Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in
favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning
City Clerk
P124
VI.f
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
THRU: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
RE: Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments
Ordinance #6, Series of 2019, Public Hearing
DATE: April 8, 2019
SUMMARY:
The attached Ordinance amends sections of the City of Aspen Land Use Code addressing Historic
Preservation, Growth Management Quota System, Transferable Development Rights, and Zone Districts.
The objective of the proposed code amendments is to improve the historic preservation benefits, in place
since 1987, to align with current policies reflected in the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, and with
philosophies of the Historic Preservation Commission, City Council and the community developed after
three decades of experience in the implementation of the benefits.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Ordinance.
LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES:
This meeting is to review potential changes to the City’s Land Use Code. Pursuant to Land Use Code
Section 26.310, City Council is the final review authority for all code amendments.
All code amendments are subject to a three-step process. This is the third step in the process. A policy
resolution was approved by Council on September 17, 2018:
1. Public Outreach
2. Policy Resolution by City Council indicating if an amendment should be pursued
3. Public Hearings on Ordinance outlining specific code amendments.
UPDATES SINCE FIRST READING:
In response to Council direction provided on March 11th, staff has removed the affordable housing
mitigation waiver for single-family and duplex landmarks, and has not included expedited permitting or
permit fee reductions in the ordinance to offset this change. Staff has also amended the parking
reduction benefit to eliminate the parking fee-in-lieu waiver for commercial properties. Where spaces
P125
IX.a
Page 2 of 6
cannot be physically provided on site, commercial properties will be required to pay the fee or mitigate
through other transportation options described in the Municipal Code.
BACKGROUND:
Aspen has a rich history of historic preservation, with the first preservation ordinance adopted in 1972.
Shortly thereafter, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) was created and two historic districts –
the Commercial Core and Main Street - were established. With the guidance of HPC and Staff, Council
developed the “City of Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures” listing significant
historic resources that meet the criteria for historic designation and protection. Today, the Inventory
contains 300 properties from both Victorian and Modern eras. All of these properties are required to
go through a more rigorous and time intensive review than similar non-historic properties. Based on the
adopted Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, HPC and City preservation staff are given the powers
and duties to review and approve, approve with conditions, or to disapprove work on properties listed
in the Inventory. HPC and Council can grant certain benefits for listed resources as an incentive for
maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the historic property. The intent for these benefits is to
encourage best historic preservation practices.
Most of the historic preservation benefits have been in place since a major expansion of the preservation
program occurred in 1987. Few amendments have been made since that time. The Historic Landmark
Lot Split and Transferrable Development Rights are more recent additions that were creative
approaches to reducing the pressure to add on to a historic structure.
Staff believes that benefits for historic preservation have been critical to transforming the view of
historic designation from a burden, as it was seen in the 80s. The fact that private property owners have
remained interested in revitalizing historic sites over the last three decades since benefits were adopted
is a credit to the community. More than 100 outstanding historic preservation projects have received
awards from HPC in this time, and the City has received recognition from the State Historical Society
and was recognized as Historic Preservation Commission of the Year by the National Alliance of
Preservation Commissions for the pro-active and successful policies that have been implemented in
Aspen. City staff has been invited to speak about Aspen’s historic preservation benefits at State and
National conferences, where the program is viewed as a model for others to follow.
This said, staff and HPC acknowledge that not all historic preservation projects have successfully
balanced development and other community interests. In 2017, Council provided direction to examine
the preservation benefits. There are a number of amendments that could potentially improve outcomes
without unnecessarily threatening the positive aspects of the program. There are many remaining
opportunities to restore buildings which may have been destructively altered prior to historic
preservation policies being adopted. Of the approximately 2,000 parcels of land in Aspen, only 15%
contain historic resources. The preservation program creates an opportunity for partnership between
the City and this relatively small group of property owners to help maintain Aspen’s valued historic
character.
ORDINANCE D ETAILS:
Below is a complete list of preservation benefits as outlined in the Municipal Code. Those sections
proposed for code amendments in the attached Ordinance are indicated in the table below with an “x.”
P126
IX.a
Page 3 of 6
Description
Amendments
Proposed
A
Historic Landmark Lot
Split may allow subdivision of property
B Increased Density
may allow two detached single-family
dwelling units or duplex on smaller lot X
C Variations
may allow development in side, rear and
front setbacks, development that does not
meet min. distance between buildings, up
to 5% additional site coverage, less public
amenity for commercial historic
properties. X
D
Parking reduction/fee
waiver
reductions on sites unable to
accommodate X
E Conditional Uses depending on zone districts
F Floor Area Bonus
may grant up to 500 sq. ft. for projects
that demonstrate exemplary HP practices X
G
Growth Management
Quota System Exemption may be exempt or reduced X
H Waiver of impact fees may be eligible for impact fee waiver
I Rehabilitation Loan Fund zero interest loan for urgent repairs
J
Conservation easement
program easement which may create tax benefits
K
City-Owned Building
Rehabilitation fund
maintenance of historic assets owned by
the City accommodated in Asset
Management Plan
L
Transferable Development
Rights (TDR)
undeveloped floor area to be relocated to
a different property within the city X
M Tax credit applications 20% state income tax credit X
N
Community-initiated
development opportunity for public/private partnership
O Building Code flexibility
flexibility in options for Building Code
compliance X
P Contractor Training
required training for all preservation
projects
Q Cultural Heritage Tourism
websites, tours and other outreach efforts
undertaken when possible
R
Preservation Honor
Awards held annually in May
S Historic Markers occasionally provided by City
T Work Sessions can be held by HPC for qualifying projects
P127
IX.a
Page 4 of 6
Following is a summary of the proposed amendments, by Chapter.
Historic Preservation, Chapter 26.415
Amendments to this chapter address density and floor area increases. The policy goal is to “raise the
bar” and focus specifically on direct preservation of the historic resource and actions which are beyond
standard expectations.
Proposed code amendments include:
• Disallowing significant demolition of the interior of a historic resource for the purpose of building
a larger addition.
• Disallowing a duplex addition to a historic landmark to be linked to the resource above grade.
• Amending the floor area bonus so it is a sliding scale related to lot size and disallowing a double
dip where a landmark on a small lot can receive extra floor area for developing a duplex, plus a
full bonus.
• Updating the criteria for the floor area bonus, requiring more criteria to be met and creating
criteria that clearly reward preferred outcomes and discourage inappropriate results.
Staff also proposes to amend this chapter so as to discontinue local review of state income tax credits
for historic preservation. Cities can choose to review these applications on behalf of the State, or the
applications can be forwarded directly to the State Historical Society. For a number of reasons, this tax
credit is not heavily utilized in Aspen. In addition, review of these applications is problematic to the
extent that they increase in-house workload and responsibility for implementing complex regulations
created by this outside agency. The tax credit now requires a level of interior historic preservation not
included in Aspen’s program. For all of these reasons, staff recommends returning the review for State
Income Tax Credits to the State.
Growth Management Quota System, Chapter 26.470
Certain projects have fewer or different requirements in Growth Management because the property is
historic. Historic homes generally provide no affordable housing mitigation and there is reduced
affordable housing mitigation for commercial development in a historic building than what is required
in a non-historic building.
These GMQS exemptions can be positive for preservation because they may reduce or eliminate
additional programming and square footage on the property and reduced project costs may help to
offset the unique expenses involved in historic preservation work. Recent feedback provided to staff
by two separate experts in construction in Aspen indicated that historic preservation projects involve:
• Significant design fees and carrying costs resulting from one to two years of HPC review
process for large projects.
• Up to triple the construction cost of a non-historic project ($100-$300 more per square foot
for the entire project, not just the historic portion).
P128
IX.a
Page 5 of 6
• Lengthy processes to source appropriate preservation techniques and materials, complex
custom fabrications, and higher risk construction challenges, such as lead paint abatement.
• Risk involved with extra supervision of the project by HPC staff, and delays in resolving
unexpected conditions.
• 3-6 months of extra construction time.
When asked whether the financial value of the current historic preservation benefits made up for these
challenges, it was reported that even with the value of the existing benefits there is typically uncovered
“loss” that the owner must assume when undertaking preservation in Aspen. The basis of the adoption
of benefits so many years ago was to offer a partnership between the City and the stewards of the
community’s history.
In past discussions, Council has highlighted affordable housing waivers as an important area for code
changes. Staff finds it particularly important to maintain the benefit for commercial properties, where
few other benefits are typically relevant and the size and complexity of the project may be significant.
No changes are proposed to these benefits.
At First Reading, staff suggested two alternatives for single family homes and duplexes; a 50% reduction
in mitigation, or a requirement for full mitigation to be provided, offset by a building permit review fee
waiver of equal value. Staff recommended the affordable housing benefit remain available by-right to
AspenModern voluntary historic designations. Council provided direction to eliminate the housing
waiver for residential projects, which has been incorporated into the Ordinance. Council did not express
support for a new benefit to replace the existing waiver, so no new benefits have been added. For
reference, the approximate value of a typical affordable housing waiver that might be granted if a
historic home on an R-6 lot is expanded by 2,000 square feet is $109,632.
The policy goal for amendments to this chapter is to balance the importance of the historic preservation
and affordable housing programs by ensuring that any affordable housing mitigation waivers or
reductions for residential projects are directly related to the preservation of a historic resource.
Transferable Development Rights, Chapter 26.535
City Council may approve the creation of TDRs, which allows undeveloped floor area to be severed
from a historic property and sold and developed on a different non-historic property within the city.
This has been a very effective preservation benefit, essentially sterilizing some historic properties from
further development.
The policy goal for the amendments to this Chapter of the Municipal Code is to ensure the effectiveness
and health of the market for TDRs by limiting them to actions which have direct benefit to historic
resources, and taking a property’s specific characteristics into account when establishing TDRs. The
proposed amendments provide Council with discretion to approve TDRs on a case by case basis, with a
recommendation from HPC.
Zone Districts, Chapter 26.710
Some of the benefits discussed above are referenced in the Zone Districts, therefore amendments to
this chapter are necessary for consistency.
P129
IX.a
Page 6 of 6
NEW BENEFITS
In previous meetings, HPC and stakeholders have proposed that this discussion of improvements to
historic preservation benefits include options for new benefits. In particular, benefits that do not
necessarily add more mass to a site are of interest, including speeding up the process for HPC projects
through expedited permit review, or reducing the costs of the process with City fee waivers.
Based on Council feedback at First Reading, the proposed Ordinance does not include the option for
expedited permit review or fee waivers.
The Ordinance includes two new benefits proposed by historic property owners. First, a potential floor
area exemption is introduced related to light wells daylighting basement space under specific
conditions. Also, regarding TDRs, an amendment is proposed to allow the recapture of floor area that
was eliminated in a 2005 code amendment that discouraged development of new homes on Main Street.
PUBLIC OUTREACH
Since Council’s request in December 2017 to examine the Historic Preservation Benefits, HPC has held
three (3) policy discussions, Council held a worksession and attended site visits to several current
preservation projects, an online community survey was conducted and staff hosted a stakeholder
meeting with a number of homeowners, architects, planners and developers with first-hand experience
with the historic preservation benefits. Council and HPC also discussed benefits in a joint meeting held
in December 2018. The complete feedback received through the public outreach resulting from the
community survey and stakeholder’s meetings are provided in Exhibit D to this memo.
In general, feedback has been supportive of the preservation benefits with none recommended to be
eliminated. On-going careful management of the program is encouraged. A strong message that came
out of the stakeholder’s meeting was don’t break what isn’t broken now.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE):
“I move to adopt Ordinance #6, Series of 2019, amending code provisions related to the City’s Historic
Preservation Benefits.”
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #6, Series of 2019
Exhibit A - Staff Findings
Exhibit B - Redlines of Proposed Amendments
Exhibit C - Resolution #108, Series of 2018, Historic Preservation Benefits Policy Resolution
Exhibit D- Public Outreach
P130
IX.a
1
ORDINANCE #6
SERIES OF 2019
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE RELATED TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS
WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.208 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, the City Council of the City of Aspen directed the Community Development
Department to draft code amendments to amend the language regarding benefits available
to historic properties; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of
the Municipal Code shall begin with Public Outreach, a Policy Resolution reviewed and
acted on by City Council, and then final action by City Council after reviewing and
considering the recommendation from the Community Development; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach and received comments from the Historic
Preservation Commission regarding the code amendment; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on September 17, 2018, the City Council approved Resolution #108, Series of 2018, by
a five to zero vote (5-0) requesting a code amendment to amend historic preservation benefits
provided in the City’s Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendments and
finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310;
and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Code Amendment Objectives
The objectives of these code amendments are to:
A. Ensure continued preservation of all historic resources.
B. Ensure historic preservation projects appropriately balance development
opportunities and community benefit.
P131
IX.a
2
Section 2: Amendments to Section 26.415.070.A
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.070.A shall be rescinded and re-adopted as follows:
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a
historic district.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered,
repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property
located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to
the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted
without a development order.
A. Exempt development.
1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including
paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar to the existing finish
or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of fasteners, repair of window
glazing or other such minimally intrusive work.
2. Interior remodeling is exempt except that demolition which results in the removal of
more than 50% of the floor area within the interior of a historic resource is prohibited.
The intent of this provision is to disincentivize the underutilization of the historic
resource in order to make a larger addition to it.
3. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community
Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility.
[All other subsections shall remain unchanged.]
Section 3: Amendments to Section 26.415.110.
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.415.110 shall be rescinded and re-adopted as follows:
26.415.110. Benefits.
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to
maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties
are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special
procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts.
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic
properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic
resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic
premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are
unlike any other in the country.
Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that
have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and
P132
IX.a
3
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in
renovating and maintaining their property.
Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both
economically vital and cherished by many.
Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits.
A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth
management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of
designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on
their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information
in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark
lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
B. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be
allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non-designated property. Refer to
specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. Where a duplex
is proposed, the common unpierced wall must occur below grade. Locating the common
wall below grade shall only be permitted for designated properties.
C. Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated
properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of the historic
property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's dimensional
standards.
1. The HPC may grant variations of the Land Use Code for designated properties to
allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial
historic properties.
2. In granting a variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variation:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district.
P133
IX.a
4
D. Parking. On-site parking reductions are permitted for designated historic properties
unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the underlying zoning due to
the existence of a historic resource. In these circumstances, alternative mitigation in the
form of cash-in-lieu, pursuant to Chapter 26.515, may be accepted by HPC for commercial
development. HPC may waive cash-in-lieu for residential development.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver
of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or
mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a
designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
E. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic
properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710.
F. Floor area bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic
properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999
square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor
area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred
seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot
is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses
are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount
allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on
the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created
parcels to the extent permitted.
On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic
property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will
be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of
the following criteria:
a) The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry
into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the
visual integrity of the historic building; and
b) If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period
of significance of the historic building are preserved; and
c) The applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but
not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in
original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non-original
finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features;
and
P134
IX.a
5
d) The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing
structure above grade; and
e) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC,
including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site,
limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic
resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic
resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of
the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible
non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current
guidelines.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits
of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic
preservation practices.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur
as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection
26.415.070.D.
4. Floor area bonuses are only available for single-family, duplex or 100% affordable
housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square feet total.
The award of a bonus is project specific. At such time that more than 40% of an
addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which
previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only
if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section.
5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic
resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the
minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the
light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane
established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any street(s), the light
well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any
addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction
of the light well is entirely one story.
G. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types
of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management
quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470
for further information.
H. Waiver of impact fees. Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of
Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information.
I. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an
amount up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation
P135
IX.a
6
of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other
rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a
designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence
of financial need. These one-time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer-of-title or by
the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first.
J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement"
from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their
property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the
site to show that future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor
area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a
conservation easement.
K. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset
management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or
restore City-owned designated properties.
L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code,
owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area
to be developed on a different property within the City. Refer to Section 26.710, Zone
Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs.
M. Community-initiated development. The City shall consider opportunities to be
involved in public-privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects
that demonstrate good historic preservation practices.
N. Building codes. The City’s adopted Building Code provides for flexibility in its
application to historic structures.
O. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide
periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other
sources of funding.
P. Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City
may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors, historic property
owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing
products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen.
Q. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall
present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City.
R. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may provide
a historic marker of a standard design for any owner of a designated historic property who
desires a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage
program to recognize designated historic districts.
P136
IX.a
7
S. Work Sessions.
1. Projects requesting a Floor Area Bonus pursuant to Section 26.415.110(F), Floor Area
Bonus, or projects of significant public interest may request a Work Session with HPC.
2. The purpose of the Work Session is to provide an applicant with initial feedback on
the project. An application is required, and shall address the overall design intent, site
plan, basic massing, and programming.
3. HPC may not take any formal action at the Work Session, and any feedback provided
to the applicant is non-binding. All work sessions shall be noticed pursuant to the
requirements for a public hearing in Section 26.304.060(E), Public Noticing, and public
comment shall be taken.
Section 4: Amendments to Section 26.470.090
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.470.090.A shall be rescinded and all subsequent sections
shall be renumbered.
Section 5 : Amendments to Section 26.535.070.
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.535.070 shall be rescinded and re-adopted as follows:
26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development
right
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to
adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met.
A. The sending site is a historic landmark on which the development of a single-family or
duplex residence is a permitted use, pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts.
Properties on which such development is a conditional use shall not be eligible.
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested.
C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not
increase the specific nonconformity.
P137
IX.a
8
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning
for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending
site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives.
Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home
or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be
permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on 100% of the allowable floor area on an
equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for the purpose of creating TDRs
and does not permit the on-site development of 100% of the allowable floor area on an
equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional 20% of allowable floor area
exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at
any time in the future.
E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected
to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and
void.
F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a
single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor
area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses,
the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property
use, shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted)
minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of
historic TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence,
as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain
floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use
Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be
acceptable to the City Attorney.
G. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR
certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute
and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject
property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the
County Clerk and Recorder's office.
H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans
and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community
P138
IX.a
9
Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built
floor area.
I. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of
transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the
City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer.
The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee
and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or
accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development right
certificate void.
J. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner.
K. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for
the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall
provide Council with a recommendation.
Section 6: Amendments to Section 26.710.040.D
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.710.040.D shall be rescinded and re-adopted as follows:
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to
all permitted and conditional uses in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District:
11. Floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
P139
IX.a
10
P140
IX.a
11
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (1) lot shall not
exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) duplex.
a Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate extinguished,
pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall allow an additional
two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area. Each residence on the parcel,
excluding accessory dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible for one (1) floor
area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties
listed on the inventory of historic sites and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor
Area increase. Non-conforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor
Area increase. No more than one (1) floor area increase shall be allowed per residence,
with the following exceptions:
b Non-historic properties with a net lot area of 9,000 sf or larger that contain only a single
family residence are eligible to extinguish up to two (2) historic TDRs.
c Properties within the same subdivision or planned development as a sending site may
be specified as eligible for up to two (2) floor area increases per residence pursuant to
the subdivision or planned development approval. The properties to be specified as
eligible for up to two (2) floor area increases per residence shall be located within the
same subdivision or planned development so as to enhance preservation of the historic
resource, considering a recommendation from the Historic Preservation Commission,
shall not be located adjacent to the sending site and shall be described and depicted in
the subdivision or planned development approvals granted by City Council. The total
number of floor area increases permitted within the subdivision or planned
development shall not exceed an aggregate total of one (1) per non-historic residence
within the entire subdivision or planned development.
[All other subsections shall remain unchanged.]
Section 7 : Amendments to Section 26.710.050.D
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.710.050.D shall be rescinded and re-adopted as follows:
26.710.050 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) Zone District.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of
record):
P141
IX.a
12
Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (1) lot shall
not exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) duplex.
Each City historic transferable development right certificate extinguished, pursuant to
Chapter 26.535, Transferable development rights, shall allow an additional two hundred and
fifty (250) square feet of floor area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding accessory
dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible for one (1) floor area increase in
exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed on the inventory
of historic sites and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase.
Nonconforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. No
more than one (1) floor area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the following
exceptions:
a. Non-historic properties with a net lot area of 15,000 sf or larger that contain only a
single family residence are eligible to extinguish up to two (2) historic TDRs.
[All other subsections shall remain unchanged.]
P142
IX.a
13
Section 8: Amendments to Section 26.710.060.D
Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.710.060.D shall be rescinded and re-adopted as follows:
26.710.060 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) Zone District:
10. Floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (1) lot shall not
exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) duplex.
Each City historic transferable development right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Chapter
26.535, Transferable development rights, shall allow an additional two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding accessory dwelling units and
carriage houses, shall be eligible for one (1) floor area increase in exchange for the
extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed on the inventory of historic sites and
P143
IX.a
14
structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. Nonconforming uses and structures
shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. No more than one (1) floor area increase shall
be allowed per residence, with the following exceptions:
a. Non-historic properties with a net lot area of 15,000 sf or larger that contain only a
single family residence are eligible to extinguish up to two (2) historic TDRs.
[All other subsections shall remain unchanged.]
Section 9: Scrivener’s Errors.
Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not limited to
mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption of the
Ordinance.
Section 10: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 11: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 12: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall
become effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 13: Public Hearing.
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 8th day of April, 2019, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of
the City of Aspen on the 11th day of March, 2019.
Attest:
_______________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P144
IX.a
15
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved _______________, 2019.
Attest:
_______________________________________________________ _____________________________________
Nicole Henning, Deputy City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
Approved as to form:
______________________________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P145
IX.a
1
Exhibit A
Amendments to the Land Use Code, Staff Findings
26.310.050. Amendments to the Land Use Code standards of review – Adoption
In reviewing a request to pursue an amendment to the text of this Title, per Section
26.310.020(B)(3), Step Three – Public Hearing before the City Council, the City Council shall
consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
title.
Staff Findings:
Staff believes that the proposed code amendments are aligned with community interests.
Multiple community plans, citizen task forces, public surveys, etc. have upheld historic
preservation as a priority over the more than forty years that Aspen has maintained historic
preservation regulations. As the program has matured, adjustments to review processes and
decision-making guidelines have occurred several times. An update to the historic
preservation benefits in order to ensure the continued preservation of all historic resources
and to ensure historic preservation projects appropriately balance development opportunities
and community goals is appropriate. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P146
IX.a
2
B. Whether the objectives of the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community
goal, or objective cited as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public
policy objectives.
Staff Findings:
These amendments achieve the following Aspen Area Community Plan Policies:
The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan states as a Policy “Ensure that the historic preservation
benefits package encourages owners of landmark properties to preserve structures to the
highest possible degree of historic integrity while minimizing adverse impacts to the
neighborhood.” It also states “Encourage the use of the City’s Historic Transferable
Development Right program as a method of preserving the historic integrity of designated
structures.”
Stakeholder and general input has been sought in the crafting of the proposed amendments.
The intent is to encourage best historic preservation practices. Staff finds this criterion to be
met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of
the City and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this
Title.
Staff Findings:
Historic Preservation is directly tied to ensuring compatibility with the community character
through retaining structures that illustrate the City’s past and guiding new construction to be
sympathetic with the surrounding context. Historic Preservation directly serves the public
interest by protecting neighborhood scale, retaining meaningful examples of local architecture
and history, and underscoring Aspen as a unique place to live and visit.
The proposed amendments are intended to improve preservation outcomes related to
residential, commercial and civic properties throughout the community. Further, the proposed
policies and code amendments ensure the ongoing effectiveness and viability of the City’s Land
Use Code by ensuring its accuracy and the effectiveness of the regulations contained therein.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
P147
IX.a
1
Exhibit B
Redlines of Proposed Amendments
CHAPTER 26.415, HISTORIC PRESERVATION
26.415.070. Development involving designated historic property or property within a
historic district.
No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered,
repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property
located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to
the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures
established for their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted
without a development order.
A. Exempt development.
1. Selected activities are exempted from the development review procedures including
interior remodeling, paint color selection, exterior repainting or replastering similar
to the existing finish or routine maintenance such as caulking, replacement of
fasteners, repair of window glazing or other such minimally intrusive work.
2. Interior remodeling is exempt except that demolition which results in the removal of
more than 50% of the floor area within the interior of a historic resource is prohibited.
The intent of this provision is to disincentivize the underutilization of the historic
resource in order to make a larger addition to it.
2.3. If there is any question if a work activity qualifies as exempt, the Community
Development Director shall make the determination as to its eligibility.
26.415.110. Benefits.
The City is committed to providing support to property owners to assist their efforts to
maintain, preserve and enhance their historic properties. Recognizing that these properties
are valuable community assets is the basic premise underlying the provision of special
procedures and programs for designated historic properties and districts.
Benefits to encourage good historic preservation practices by the owners of historic
properties are an important aspect of Aspen's historic preservation program. Historic
resources are a valuable community asset and their continued protection is the basic
premise supporting the creation of an innovative package of preservation tools that are
unlike any other in the country.
Aspen's preservation benefits are in response to tight historic preservation controls that
have been legislated by the City since 1972. The Community Development Department and
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) are dedicated to assisting property owners in
renovating and maintaining their property.
P148
IX.a
2
Aspen is unique. Its historic resources and spirit of community have not been duplicated
anywhere else in the world. It is this basic character that has helped make the City both
economically vital and cherished by many.
Only designated properties may be eligible for the following benefits.
A. Historic landmark lot split. Properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic
Landmark Sites and Structures may receive an exemption from the subdivision and growth
management quota system, pursuant to Sections 26.480 and 26.470, allowing owners of
designated historic properties to create a second unit in addition to the historic building on
their lot through the subdivision of the property. Refer to specific zone district information
in Chapter 26.710 for further information. All parcels created through a Historic Landmark
lot split shall retain designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures.
B. Increased density. Two detached single-family dwelling units or a duplex may be
allowed on a smaller sized lot than is required for a non-designated property. Refer to
specific zone district information in Chapter 26.710 for further information. Where a duplex
is proposed, the common unpierced wall must occur below grade. Locating the common
wall below grade shall only be permitted for designated properties.
C. Variances. Variations. Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving
designated properties to create development that is more consistent with the character of
the historic property or district than what would be required by the underlying zoning's
dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances variations of the Land Use Code for designated
properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between
buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial
historic properties.
2. In granting a variance variation, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance
variation:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district;
and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or
architectural character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic
property or historic district.
P149
IX.a
3
D. Parking. On-site Pparking reductions are permitted for designated historic
properties on sites unable to contain the number of parking spaces required by the
underlying zoning due to the existence of a historic resource. In these circumstances,
alternative mitigation in the form of cash-in-lieu, pursuant to Chapter 26.515, may be
accepted by HPC for commercial development. HPC may waive cash-in-lieu for residential
development. Commercial designated historic properties may receive waivers of payment-
in-lieu fees for parking reductions.
In addition to the review criteria listed in Chapter 26.515, the parking reduction and waiver
of payment-in-lieu fees may be approved upon a finding by the HPC that it will enhance or
mitigate an adverse impact on the historic significance or architectural character of a
designated historic property, an adjoining designated property or a historic district.
E. Conditional uses. A variety of conditional uses are allowed for designated historic
properties. These uses are identified in Chapter 26.710.
F. Floor area bonus.
1. In selected circumstances, the HPC may grant up to five hundred (500) additional
square feet of allowable floor area for projects involving designated historic
properties. The potential bonus is determined by net lot area such that a 3,000-5,999
square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a two hundred fifty (250) square foot floor
area bonus, a 6,000-8,999 square foot lot is eligible for a maximum of a three hundred
seventy five (375) square foot floor area bonus and a 9,000 square foot or larger lot
is eligible for a maximum of a 500 square foot floor area bonus. Floor area bonuses
are cumulative. More than one bonus may be approved up to the maximum amount
allowed for the lot. If a property is subdivided, the maximum bonus will be based on
the original lot size, though the bonus may be allocated amongst the newly created
parcels to the extent permitted.
On any lot where a historic property is permitted a duplex density while a non-historic
property is not, the increased allowable floor area that results from the density will
be deducted from the maximum bonus that the property may receive.
To be considered for the bonus, it must be demonstrated that the project meets all of
the following criteria:
a) The design of the project meets all applicable design guidelines;
b) a)The historic building is the key element of the property, and the primary entry
into the structure, and the addition is incorporated in a manner that maintains the
visual integrity of the historic building; and
b. If applicable, historically significant site and landscape features from the period
of significance of the historic building are preserved; and
P150
IX.a
4
c) c)The work restores the existing portion of the building to its historic appearance;
The applicant is undertaking multiple significant restoration actions, including but
not limited to, re-opening an enclosed porch, re-installing doors and windows in
original openings that have been enclosed, removing paint or other non-original
finishes, or removing elements which are covering original materials or features;
and
d) The new construction is reflective of the proportional patterns found in the
historic building's form, materials or openings;
e) The construction materials are of the highest quality;
f) An appropriate transition defines the old and new portions of the building;
g) d).The project retains a historic outbuilding, if one is present, as a free standing
structure above grade; and/or
h) Notable historic site and landscape features are retained.
e) The applicant is electing a preservation outcome that is a high priority for HPC,
including but not limited to, creating at least two detached structures on the site,
limiting the amount of above grade square footage added directly to a historic
resource to no more than twice the above grade square footage of the historic
resource, limiting the height of an addition to a historic resource to the height of
the resource or lower, or demolishing and replacing a significantly incompatible
non-historic addition to a historic resource with an addition that meets current
guidelines.
2. Granting of additional allowable floor area is not a matter of right but is contingent
upon the sole discretion of the HPC and the Commission's assessments of the merits
of the proposed project and its ability to demonstrate exemplary historic
preservation practices. Projects that demonstrate multiple elements described
above will have a greater likelihood of being awarded additional floor area.
3. The decision to grant a floor area bonus for major development projects will occur
as part of the approval of a Conceptual Development Plan, pursuant to Subsection
26.415.070.D. The floor area bonus may also be approved as part of a Historic
Landmark Lot Split Review.
4. Floor area bonuses are cumulative only available for single-family, duplex or 100%
affordable housing development. A property shall receive no more than 500 square
feet total. The award of a bonus is project specific. At such time that more than 40%
of an addition to a historic resource that was constructed as part of a project which
previously received a floor area bonus is demolished, the bonus may be retained only
if the proposed redevelopment is found to meet the requirements of this Section.
5. Separate from the floor area bonus described above, on a lot that contains a historic
resource, HPC may exempt wall exposed by a light well that is larger than the
minimum required for egress from the calculation of subgrade floor area only if the
P151
IX.a
5
light well is internalized such that it is entirely recessed behind the vertical plane
established by the portion of the building façade(s) closest to any street(s), the light
well is screened from view from the street by building walls or fences, and any
addition that is made to the affected resource simultaneous or after the construction
of the light well is entirely one story.
G. Exemption from growth management quota system requirements. Certain types
of development on designated historic properties are exempt from the growth management
quota system and have reduced impact mitigation requirements. Refer to Chapter 26.470
for further information.
H. Waiver of impact fees. Designated historic properties may be eligible for waiver of
Impact Fees. Refer to Chapter 26.610 for further information.
I. Rehabilitation loan fund. City Council may approve a zero interest loan in an
amount up to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for any property that is in violation
of Section 26.415.100 of the Land Use Code, Demolition by Neglect, or to fund other
rehabilitation work which is considered necessary for the preservation or restoration of a
designated structure. To be eligible for this benefit, a property owner shall show evidence
of financial need. These one-time loans shall be repaid at the time of transfer-of-title or by
the end of ten (10) years, whichever comes first.
J. Conservation easement program. The City may accept a "Conservation Easement"
from a property owner who wishes to forgo any of the allowed square footage on their
property in exchange for a federal tax deduction. A deed restriction shall be filed on the
site to show that future development is limited. The five hundred (500) square foot floor
area bonus provided in Subsection 26.415.110 of the Land Use Code cannot be donated as a
conservation easement.
K. City-owned building rehabilitation fund. The City shall give priority in the asset
management plan to budgeting the funds necessary to adequately maintain, rehabilitate or
restore City-owned designated properties.
L. Transferable Development Right (TDR). Pursuant to Chapter 26.535 of this Code,
owners of properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures may sever and convey, as a separate development right, undeveloped floor area
to be developed on a different property within the City. Refer to Section 26.710, Zone
Districts for further information on landing sites for TDRs.
M. Tax credit applications. Community Development staff shall assist property owners
in participating in State and Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit programs by helping with the
preparation of application materials, undertaking the necessary reviews to assist in obtaining
certification. A twenty percent (20%) state rehabilitation income tax credit may be available
for locally designated properties and may be combined with a twenty percent (20%) Federal
Income Tax Credit which may be available for income producing properties listed on the
National Register of Historic Places.
P152
IX.a
6
N.M. Community-initiated development. The City shall consider opportunities to be
involved in public-privately funded rehabilitation efforts, building expansion, or infill projects
that demonstrate good historic preservation practices.
O.N. Building codes. The City’s adopted Building Code provides for flexibility in its
application to historic structures. In addition, building permits for single-family and duplex
projects on a landmarked property which are granted Major Development approval by HPC
are eligible to receive expedited permit processing for the master permit through the first
and second rounds of review. (Note: This is only proposed if the affordable housing waiver
for single-family and duplex development is eliminated and not replaced with a fee waiver,
or if Council wishes to add a new benefit.)
P.O. Contractor training. The Community Development Department shall provide
periodic workshops for contractors on proper preservation techniques, using grants or other
sources of funding.
Q.P. Cultural heritage tourism. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City
may facilitate collaborative partnerships among tourist industry sectors, historic property
owners and cultural heritage attractions to create a marketing strategy and marketing
products to attract visitors interested in the distinctive historic character of Aspen.
R.Q. Preservation honor awards. The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission shall
present annual awards to recognize exemplary historic preservation efforts in the City.
S.R. Historic markers. Through grants or other sources of funding, the City may provide
a historic marker of a standard design for any owner of a designated historic property who
desires a marker to install on their building. The City may also develop a marker or signage
program to recognize designated historic districts.
T.S. Work Sessions.
1. Projects requesting a Floor Area Bonus pursuant to Section 26.415.110(F), Floor Area
Bonus, or projects of significant public interest may request a Work Session with HPC.
2. The purpose of the Work Session is to provide an applicant with initial feedback on
the project. An application is required, and shall address the overall design intent, site
plan, basic massing, and programming.
3. HPC may not take any formal action at the Work Session, and any feedback provided
to the applicant is non-binding. All work sessions shall be noticed pursuant to the
requirements for a public hearing in Section 26.304.060(E), Public Noticing, and public
comment shall be taken.
CHAPTER 26.470, GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM
P153
IX.a
7
26.470.090 Administrative applications.
The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied
by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for
Review, and the criteria described below. Except as noted, all administrative growth
management approvals shall not be deducted from the annual development allotments. All
approvals apply cumulatively.
A. Single-family and duplex development on historic landmark properties. The
development of one or multiple single-family residences or a duplex on a parcel of land
designated as an historic landmark and which contains an historic resource shall be approved
by the Community Development Director. This review applies to the rehabilitation of
existing structures, reconstruction after demolition of existing structures, an expansion of
Floor Area, and to the development of new structures on historic landmark properties. No
affordable housing mitigation shall be required, provided that all necessary approvals are
obtained, pursuant to Chapter 26.415, Historic Preservation, and provided that the parcel
contains an historic resource.
Development of single-family or duplex structures on an historic landmark property that
does not contain an historic resource (for example, a house on a lot which was subdivided
from an historic landmark property) shall be subject to the provisions of Section
26.470.090.B, Single-Family and Duplex Residential Development or Expansion.
B. A. Single-Family and Duplex Residential Development or Expansion. The
following types of free-market residential development shall require the provision of
affordable housing in one of the methods described below:
1) The development of a single-family, two detached residential units, or a duplex
dwelling on a lot in one of the following conditions:
a. A lot created by a lot split, pursuant to Subsection 26.480.060.A.
b. A lot created by a historic lot split, pursuant to Subsection 26.480.060.B, when
the subject lot does not itself contain a historic resource.
c. A lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November
14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Subsection 26.480.020,
Subdivision: applicability, prohibitions, and lot merger.
2) The net increase of Floor Area of an existing single-family, two detached
residential units on a single lot, or a duplex dwelling, regardless of when the lot
P154
IX.a
8
was subdivided or legally described and regardless of whether demolition occurs.
This type of development shall not require a growth management allocation and
shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
3) Affordable housing mitigation requirements for the types of free-market
residential development described above shall be as follows. The applicant shall
have four options:
a. Recording a resident-occupancy (RO), or lower, deed restriction on the single-
family dwelling unit or one of the residences if a duplex or two detached
residences are developed on the property. An existing deed restricted unit does
not need to re-record a deed restriction.
b. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable housing unit
within the Aspen Infill Area acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority (which may require certain improvements) in a size equal to or larger
than 30% of the Floor Area increase to the Free-Market unit. The mitigation unit
must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 2 (or lower) housing unit and
transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the provisions of the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
c. Providing a fee-in-lieu payment or extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit in a full-time-equivalent (FTE) amount based on the following
schedule:
Floor Area per dwelling unit Employment Generation Rate
First 4,500 square feet (Floor
Area)
.16 employees per 1,000 square feet
of Floor Area.
Above 4,500 square feet (Floor
Area)
.36 employees per 1,000 square feet
of Floor Area.
Notes:
- The calculation of the Employment Generation shall be assessed
per dwelling unit. Duplex dwelling units do not combine their
floor area for one calculation.
- An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House, as defined by and
meeting the requirements of this Title, shall be calculated as floor
area of the primary dwelling.
- When redevelopment of a property adds floor area, the
difference between the generation rates of the existing floor area
and the proposed floor area shall be the basis for determining the
number of employees generated. No refunds shall be provided if
Floor Area is reduced.
P155
IX.a
9
- When demolition is proposed, the redevelopment shall be
credited the floor area from the demolished residential dwelling
unit. Credit from a demolished dwelling unit cannot be allocated
to development on a different lot.
- The above generation rates are based on a study of employment
generation of Aspen residences, from both initial construction
and ongoing operation, performed by RRC Associates of Boulder,
Colorado, dated March 4, 2015.
Affordable housing mitigation must be provided at a Category 2 (or lower)
rate. Certificates must be extinguished pursuant to the procedures of
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Fee-in-lieu rates
shall be those stated in Section 26.470.100 – Calculations; Employee
Generation and Mitigation, in effect on the date of application acceptance.
Providing a fee-in-lieu payment in excess of .10 FTE shall require City
Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C.
Example 1: A new home of 3,400 square feet of Floor Area on a vacant lot
created by a historic lot split. The applicant must provide affordable
housing mitigation for .54 FTEs.
3,400 / 1,000 x .16 = .54
In this example the applicant may provide a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit or request City Council accept a fee-in-lieu payment.
Example 2: An existing home of 4,400 square feet of Floor Area is
expanded by 250 square feet of Floor Area. The applicant must provide
affordable housing mitigation for .07 FTEs, the difference in employee
generation of the two house sizes.
(4,500 / 1,000 x .16) + (150 / 1,000 x .36) – (4,400 / 1,000 x .16) = .07
In this example the applicant may provide a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit or a fee-in-lieu payment.
d. For property owners qualified as a full-time local working resident, an affordable
housing mitigation deferral agreement may be accepted by the City of Aspen
and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. This allows deferral of the
mitigation requirement until such time as the property is no longer owned by a
full-time local working resident. Staff of the City of Aspen Community
Development Department and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority can
assist with the procedures and limitations of this option.
C. B. Multi-Family Residential Expansion. The following types of free-market residential
P156
IX.a
10
development shall require the provision of affordable housing in one of the methods
described below:
1) The net increase of Floor Area of an existing free-market multi-family unit or
structure, regardless of when the lot was subdivided or legally described and
provided demolition does not occur. (When demolition occurs, see Section
26.470.100.E, Demolition or redevelopment of multi-family housing.) This type
of development shall not require a growth management allocation and shall not
be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established
pursuant to Section 26.470.040.
2) Affordable housing mitigation requirements for the type of free-market
residential development described above shall be as follows. The applicant shall
have four options:
a. Recording a resident-occupancy (RO), or lower, deed restriction on the
dwelling unit(s) being expanded. An existing deed restricted unit does not
need to re-record a deed restriction.
b. Providing a deed restricted one-bedroom or larger affordable housing unit
within the Aspen Infill Area acceptable to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority (which may require certain improvements) in a size equal to or
larger than 30% of the Floor Area increase to the Free-Market unit(s). The
mitigation unit(s) must be deed-restricted as a "for sale" Category 2 (or lower)
housing unit and transferred to a qualified purchaser according to the
provisions of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority.
c. Providing a fee-in-lieu payment or extinguishing a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit in a full-time-equivalent (FTE) amount based on the following
schedule:
Floor Area per dwelling unit Employment Generation Rate
square feet of expansion (Floor Area) .18 employees per 1,000 square
feet of Floor Area
Notes:
- The calculation of the Employment Generation shall be assessed per dwelling unit.
Multiple dwelling units do not combine their floor area for one calculation.
- When a unit adds floor area, the difference between the generation rates of the
existing floor area and the proposed floor area shall be the basis for determining
the number of employees generated. No refunds shall be provided if Floor Area
is reduced.
- When demolition is proposed, please see Section 26.470.100.E – Demolition or
Redevelopment of Multi-Family Housing. Projects
P157
IX.a
11
- The above generation rates are based on a study of employment generation of
Aspen residences, from both initial construction and ongoing operation,
performed by RRC Associates of Boulder, Colorado, dated March 4, 2015.
Affordable housing mitigation must be provided at a Category 2 (or lower)
rate. Certificates must be extinguished pursuant to the procedures of
Chapter 26.540, Certificates of Affordable Housing Credit. Fee-in-lieu rates
shall be those stated in Section 26.470.050 – Calculations; Employee
Generation and Mitigation, in effect on the date of application acceptance.
Providing a fee-in-lieu payment in excess of .10 FTE shall require City
Council approval, pursuant to Section 26.470.110.C.
Example 1: A multi-family unit of 1,400 square feet of Floor Area is
expanded by 400 square feet of Floor Area. The applicant must provide
affordable housing mitigation for .09 FTEs.
500 / 1,000 x .18 = .09
In this example the applicant may provide a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit or a fee-in-lieu payment.
Example 2: A multi-family unit of 1,400 square feet of Floor Area is
expanded by 2,600 square feet of Floor Area. The applicant must provide
affordable housing mitigation for .47 FTEs, the difference in employee
generation of the two unit sizes.
2,600 / 1,000 x .18 = .47
In this example the applicant may provide a Certificate of Affordable
Housing Credit or request City Council accept a fee-in-lieu payment.
d. For property owners qualified as a full-time local working resident, an
affordable housing mitigation deferral agreement may be accepted by the
City of Aspen and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. This allows
deferral of the mitigation requirement until such time as the property is no
longer owned by a full-time local working resident. Staff of the City of Aspen
Community Development Department and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority can assist with the procedures and limitations of this option.
D. C. Change in use of historic landmark sites and structures. The change of use
between
the development categories identified in Section 26.470.020, of a property, structure
or portion of a structure designated as an historic landmark shall be approved,
approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director if no
more than one (1) free-market residence is created. No employee mitigation shall be
P158
IX.a
12
required. If more than one (1) free-market residence is created, the additional units shall
be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.G. The change in amount of
development and number of units shall not be added or deducted from the respective
annual development allotments.
E. D. Minor enlargement of an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-
use
development. The enlargement of a property, structure or portion of a structure
designated
as an historic landmark for commercial, lodge or mixed-use development shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development
Director based on the following criteria. The additional development of uses identified
in Section 26.470.020 shall not be deducted from the respective annual development
allotments.
1) If the development increases either floor area or net leasable space/lodge units,
but not both, then no employee mitigation shall be required.
2) If the development increases both floor area and net leasable space/lodge units,
up to four (4) employees generated by the additional commercial/lodge shall not
require the provision of affordable housing mitigation. This shall be cumulative.
An expansion generating more than four (4) employees shall not qualify for this
administrative approval and shall be reviewed pursuant to Paragraph
26.470.100.A.
3) No more than one (1) free-market residence is created. This shall be cumulative
and shall include administrative GMQS approvals granted prior to the adoption
of Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2016.
F. E. Minor expansion of a commercial, lodge or mixed-use development. The minor
enlargement of a property, structure or portion of a structure for commercial, lodge or
mixed-use development when demolition is not triggered shall be approved, approved
with conditions or denied by the Community Development Director based on the
following criteria. The additional development of uses identified in Section 26.470.020
shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments.
1) The expansion involves no more than five-hundred (500) square feet of net
leasable space, no more than two-hundred-fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area,
and no more than three (3) additional hotel/lodge units. No employee mitigation
shall be required.
2) The expansion involves no residential units.
P159
IX.a
13
3) This shall be cumulative and shall include administrative GMQS approvals
granted prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2013.
4) When demolition is triggered, the application shall be reviewed pursuant to
Section 25.470.100(F), Expansion or new commercial development.
G. F. Sale of locally-made products in common areas of commercial buildings.
Commercial use of common areas within commercial and mixed-use buildings which
contain commercial use (a.k.a. “non-unit spaces,” “arcades,” “hallways,” “lobbies,” or
“malls”) shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community
Development Director based on the following criteria.
1) Products shall be limited to arts, crafts, or produce designed, manufactured,
created, grown, or assembled in the Roaring Fork Valley, defined as the
watershed of the Roaring Fork River plus the municipal limits of the City of
Glenwood Springs. Exempt from these product and geographic limitations are
items sold by a hardware store adjacent to the common area and items incidental
to arts, crafts, and produce such as frames and pedestals.
2) The area can be used by an existing business within the building or by “stand-
alone” businesses. Multiple spaces may be created.
3) These areas shall not be considered net leasable space for the purposes of
calculating impact fees or redevelopment credits. No employee mitigation shall
be required. Compliance with all zoning, building, and fire codes is mandatory.
H. G. Outdoor food/beverage vending license. Outdoor food/beverage vending
shall be
approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Community Development
Director based on the following criteria:
1) Location. All outdoor food/beverage vending must be on private property and
may be located in the Commercial Core (CC), Commercial (C1), Neighborhood
Commercial (NC), or Commercial Lodge (CL) zone districts. Outdoor Food
Vending may occur on public property that is subject to an approved mall lease.
Additional location criteria:
a. The operation shall be in a consistent location as is practically reasonable and
not intended to move on a daily basis throughout the duration of the permit.
b. Normal operation, including line queues, shall not inhibit the movement of
pedestrian or vehicular traffic along the public right-of-way.
P160
IX.a
14
c. The operation shall not interfere with required emergency egress or pose a
threat to public health, safety and welfare. A minimum of six (6) foot
ingress/egress shall be maintained for building entrances and exits.
2) Size. The area of outdoor food/beverage vending activities shall not exceed fifty
(50) square feet per operation. The area of activity shall be defined as a counter
area, equipment needed for the food vending activities (e.g. cooler with drinks,
snow cone machine, popcorn machine, etc.), and the space needed by employees
to work the food vending activity.
3) Signage. Signage for outdoor food/beverage vending carts shall be exempt from
those requirements found within Land Use Code Section 26.510, Signs, but not
excluding Prohibited Signs. The total amount of signage shall be the lesser of
fifty percent (50%) of the surface area of the front of the cart, or six (6) square
feet. Sign(s) shall be painted on or affixed to the cart. Any logos, lettering, or
signage on umbrellas or canopies counts towards this calculation. Food carts may
have a sandwich board sign in accordance with the regulations found within
Chapter 26.510.
4) Environmental Health Approval. Approval of a food service plan from the
Environmental Health Department is required. The area of outdoor food vending
activities shall include recycling bins and a waste disposal container that shall be
emptied daily and stored inside at night and when the outdoor food vending
activities are not in operation. Additionally, no outdoor, open-flame char-broiling
shall be permitted pursuant to Municipal Code Section 13.08.100, Restaurant
Grills.
5) Building and Fire Code Compliance. All outdoor food/beverage vending
operations must comply with adopted building and fire codes. Applicants are
encouraged to meet with the City’s Building Department to discuss the vending
cart/stand.
6) Application Contents. An application for a food/beverage vending license shall
include the standard information required in 26.304.030.B, plus the following:
a. Copy of a lease or approval letter from the property owner.
b. A description of the operation including days/hours of operation, types of
food and beverage to be offered, a picture or drawing of the vending
cart/stand, and proposed signage.
c. The property survey requirement shall be waived if the applicant can
demonstrate how the operation will be contained on private property.
7) License Duration. Outdoor food/beverage vending licenses shall be valid for a
one (1) year period beginning on the same the date that the Notice of Approval is
P161
IX.a
15
signed by the Community Development Director. This one (1) year period may
not be separated into non-consecutive periods.
8) License Renewal. Outdoor food/beverage vending licenses may be renewed.
Upon renewal the Community Development Director shall consider the returning
vendor’s past performance. This shall include, but shall not be limited to, input
from the Environmental Health Department, Chief of Police, special event staff,
and feedback from adjacent businesses. Unresolved complaints may result in
denial of a renewal request.
9) Business License. The vending operator must obtain a business license.
10) Affordable Housing and Impact Fees Waived. The Community Development
Director shall waive affordable housing mitigation fees and impact fees
associated with outdoor food/beverage vending activities.
11) Maintenance and public safety. Outdoor food/beverage vending activities shall
not diminish the general public health, safety or welfare and shall abide by
applicable City regulations, including but not limited to building codes, health
safety codes, fire codes, liquor laws, sign and lighting codes, and sales tax license
regulations.
12) Abandonment. The City of Aspen may remove an abandoned food/beverage
vending operation, or components thereof, in order protect public health, safety,
and welfare. Costs of such remediation shall be the sole burden of the property
owner.
13) Temporary Cessation. The Community Development Director may require a
temporary cancelation of operations to accommodate special events, holidays, or
similar large public gatherings. Such action will be taken if it is determined that
the food/beverage cart will create a public safety issue or create an excessive
burden on the event activities.
14) License Revocation. The Community Development Director may deny renewal
or revoke the license and cause removal of the food/beverage vending operation
if the vendor fails to operate consistent with these criteria. An outdoor
food/beverage vending license shall not constitute nor be interpreted by any
property owner, developer, vendor, or court as a site specific development plan
entitled to vesting under Article 68 of Title 24 of the Colorado Revised Statutes
or Chapter 26.308 of this Title. Licenses granted in this subsection are subject to
revocation by the City Manager or Community Development Director without
requiring prior notice.
P162
IX.a
16
I. H. Temporary uses and structures. The development of a temporary use or structure
shall
be exempt from growth management, subject to the provisions of Chapter 26.450,
Temporary and Seasonal Uses. Temporary external airlocks shall only be exempt from the
provisions of this Chapter if compliant with applicable sections of Commercial Design
Review – Chapter 26.412, and approved pursuant to Chapter 26.450 Temporary and
Seasonal Uses. Tents, external airlocks, and similar temporary or seasonal enclosures
located on commercial properties and supporting commercial use shall only be exempt
from the provisions of this Chapter, including affordable housing mitigation requirements,
if compliant with applicable sections of Commercial Design Review – Chapter 26.412, if
erected for 14 days or less in a 12-month period, and approved pursuant to Chapter 26.450
– Temporary and Seasonal Uses. Erection of these enclosures for longer than 14 days in a
12-month period shall require compliance with Commercial Design Review – Chapter
26.412, and compliance with the provisions of this Chapter including affordable housing
mitigation. Affordable housing mitigation shall be required only for the days in excess of 14
in a 12-month period. Cash-in-lieu may be paid by-right. The mitigation calculation shall
include the expected lifespan of a building, which is currently 30 years. For instance, a
500 sq. ft. tent proposed to be up for 21 days shall only require mitigation for seven (7)
days. The calculation would be as follows:
Methodology:
• 500 sq. ft. / 1000 sq. ft. = .5 sq. ft.
• .5 sq. ft. x 4.7 FTEs = 2.35 FTEs generated
• 2.35 FTEs x 65% mitigation rate = 1.5275 FTEs to be mitigated if structures are in
use 100% of year
• 1.5275 FTEs / 365 days per year = .004184931 daily rate
• .004184931x 7 days = .029294517FTEs
• .029294517x $223,072 cash-in-lieu rate = $6,534.78
• $6,534.78/ 30 years = $217.82 due for mitigation of the structure for a period
of 7 days
CHAPTER 26.535, TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR)
26.535.070 Review criteria for establishment of a historic transferable development
right
A historic TDR certificate may be established by the Mayor if the City Council, pursuant to
adoption of an ordinance, finds all the following standards met.
A. The sending site is a historic landmark or property identified on the AspenModern Map,
on which the development of a single-family or duplex residence is a permitted use,
P163
IX.a
17
pursuant to Chapter 26.710, Zone Districts. Properties on which such development is a
conditional use shall not be eligible.
B. It is demonstrated that the sending site has permitted unbuilt development rights, for
either a single-family or duplex home, equaling or exceeding two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates requested.
C. It is demonstrated that the establishment of TDR certificates will not create a
nonconformity. In cases where a nonconformity already exists, the action shall not
increase the specific nonconformity.
D. The analysis of unbuilt development right shall only include the actual built development,
any approved development order, the allowable development right prescribed by zoning
for a single-family or duplex residence, and shall not include the potential of the sending
site to gain floor area bonuses, exemptions or similar potential development incentives.
Properties in the MU Zone District which do not currently contain a single-family home
or duplex established prior to the adoption of Ordinance #7, Series of 2005, shall be
permitted to base the calculation of TDRs on 100% of the allowable floor area on an
equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. This is only for the purpose of creating TDRs
and does not permit the on-site development of 100% of the allowable floor area on an
equivalent-sized lot in the R-6 zone district. If the additional 20% of allowable floor area
exceeds 500 square feet, the applicant may not request a floor area bonus from HPC at
any time in the future.
E. Any development order to develop floor area, beyond that remaining legally connected
to the property after establishment of TDR Certificates, shall be considered null and
void.
F. The proposed deed restriction permanently restricts the maximum development of the
property (the sending site) to an allowable floor area not exceeding the allowance for a
single-family or duplex residence minus two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of floor
area multiplied by the number of historic TDR certificates established.
For properties with multiple or unlimited floor areas for certain types of allowed uses,
the maximum development of the property, independent of the established property
use, shall be the floor area of a single-family or duplex residence (whichever is permitted)
minus two hundred fifty (250) square feet of floor area multiplies by the number of
historic TDR certificates established.
The deed restriction shall not stipulate an absolute floor area, but shall stipulate a square
footage reduction from the allowable floor area for a single-family or duplex residence,
as may be amended from time to time. The sending site shall remain eligible for certain
floor area incentives and/or exemptions as may be authorized by the City Land Use
Code, as may be amended from time to time. The form of the deed restriction shall be
acceptable to the City Attorney.
P164
IX.a
18
G. A real estate closing has been scheduled at which, upon satisfaction of all relevant
requirements, the City shall execute and deliver the applicable number of historic TDR
certificates to the sending site property owner and that property owner shall execute
and deliver a deed restriction lessening the available development right of the subject
property together with the appropriate fee for recording the deed restriction with the
County Clerk and Recorder's office.
H. It shall be the responsibility of the sending site property owner to provide building plans
and a zoning analysis of the sending site to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. Certain review fees may be required for the confirmation of built
floor area.
I. The sale, assignment, conveyance or other transfer or change in ownership of
transferable development rights certificates shall be recorded in the real estate records
of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder and must be reported by the grantor to the
City of Aspen Community Development Department within five (5) days of such transfer.
The report of such transfer shall disclose the certificate number, the grantor, the grantee
and the total value of the consideration paid for the certificate. Failure to timely or
accurately report such transfer shall not render the transferable development right
certificate void.
J. TDR certificates may be issued at the pace preferred by the property owner.
K. City Council may find that the creation of TDRs is not the best preservation solution for
the affected historic resource and deny the application to create TDRs. HPC shall
provide Council with a recommendation.
CHAPTER 26.710, ZONE DISTRICTS
26.710.040 Medium-Density Residential (R-6).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to
all permitted and conditional uses in the Medium-Density Residential (R-6) Zone District:
11. Floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
P165
IX.a
19
P166
IX.a
20
*Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (1) lot shall not
exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) duplex. Total external floor area for multiple
detached residential dwellings on a lot less than nine thousand (9,000) square feet listed on
the inventory of historic landmark sites and structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed
for one (1) detached residential dwelling.
a. Each City of Aspen Historic Transferable Development Right certificate
extinguished, pursuant to Section 26.535, Transferable Development Rights, shall
allow an additional two hundred and fifty (250) square feet of Floor Area. Each
residence on the parcel, excluding accessory dwelling units and carriage houses,
shall be eligible for one (1) floor area increase in exchange for the extinguishment of
one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed on the inventory of historic sites and
structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. Non-conforming uses
and structures shall not be eligible for this Floor Area increase. No more than one
(1) floor area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the following exceptions:
b. Non-historic properties with a net lot area of 9,000 sf or larger that contain only a
single family residence are eligible to extinguish up to two (2) historic TDRs.
c. Properties within the same subdivision or planned development as a sending site
may be specified as eligible for up to two (2) floor area increases per residence
pursuant to the subdivision or planned development approval. The properties to be
specified as eligible for up to two (2) floor area increases per residence shall be
located within the same subdivision or planned development so as to enhance
preservation of the historic resource, considering a recommendation from the
Historic Preservation Commission, shall not be located adjacent to the sending site
and shall be described and depicted in the subdivision or planned development
approvals granted by City Council. The total number of floor area increases
permitted within the subdivision or planned development shall not exceed an
aggregate total of one (1) per non-historic residence within the entire subdivision or
planned development.
26.710.50 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) Zone District.
10. External floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of
record):
P167
IX.a
21
Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (1) lot shall
not exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) duplex. Total external floor area for multiple
detached residential dwellings on a lot less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet
listed on the inventory of historic landmark sites and structures shall not exceed the floor
area allowed for one (1) detached residential dwelling.
Each City historic transferable development right certificate extinguished, pursuant to
Chapter 26.535, Transferable development rights, shall allow an additional two hundred and
fifty (250) square feet of floor area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding accessory
dwelling units and carriage houses, shall be eligible for one (1) floor area increase in
exchange for the extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed on the inventory
of historic sites and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase.
Nonconforming uses and structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. No
more than one (1) floor area increase shall be allowed per residence, with the following
exceptions:
P168
IX.a
22
a. Non-historic properties with a net lot area of 15,000 sf or larger that contain only a
single family residence are eligible to extinguish up to two (2) historic TDRs.
26.710.60 Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A).
D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all
permitted and conditional uses in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15A) Zone District:
10. Floor area ratio (applies to conforming and nonconforming lots of record):
P169
IX.a
23
Total external floor area for multiple detached residential dwellings on one (1) lot shall not
exceed the floor area allowed for one (1) duplex. Total external floor area for multiple detached
residential dwellings on a lot less than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet listed on the
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures shall not exceed the floor area allowed for
one (1) detached residential dwelling.
Each City historic transferable development right certificate extinguished, pursuant to Chapter
26.535, Transferable development rights, shall allow an additional two hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of floor area. Each residence on the parcel, excluding accessory dwelling units and
carriage houses, shall be eligible for one (1) floor area increase in exchange for the
extinguishment of one (1) historic TDR. Properties listed on the inventory of historic sites and
structures shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. Nonconforming uses and structures
shall not be eligible for this floor area increase. No more than one (1) floor area increase shall
be allowed per residence, with the following exceptions:
a. Non-historic properties with a net lot area of 15,000 sf or larger that contain only a
single family residence are eligible to extinguish up to two (2) historic TDRs.
P170
IX.a
RESOLUTION#108
SERIES OF 2018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
POLICIES IN SUPPORT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE CODE
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(A),a Policy Resolution is required to
initiate the process of amending the City of Aspen Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310,.020(A), the Community Development
Department received direction from City Council to explore amendments to the City's
historic preservation regulations; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1),the Community Development
Department conducted Public Outreach with members of the public, historic property
owners, local architects, designers, and planners; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director recommends Council consider
changes to the Historic Preservation, Growth Management Quota System, Subdivision,
Transportation and Parking Management, Transferable Development Rights, Impact Fees
and Zone Districts sections of the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the proposed code amendment policy
direction,and finds it meets the criteria outlined in Section 26.310.040;and,
WHEREAS, amending the Land Use Code as described below will ensure the
ongoing effectiveness and viability of the regulations within the City of Aspen Land Use Code
to achieve City Council's policy and regulatory goals; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(2), during a duly noticed public
hearing on September 17, 2018 the City Council approved Resolution#108, Series of 2018,
by a r-)to vote,requesting code amendments to the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS, this Resolution does not amend the Land Use Code, but provides
direction to staff for amending the Land Use Code; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety,and welfare.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Overall Code Amendment Objectives
The objectives of these code amendments are to:
A. Ensure continued preservation of all historic resources.
Resolution#108, Series 2018
Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 1 of 3
P171
IX.a
B. Ensure historic preservation projects appropriately balance development opportunities
and community benefit.
Section 2: Historic Preservation Benefit Code Amendment Goals by Topic
The goals of the Historic Preservation Benefits amendments are to:
A. Maintain the ability to create two detached units where currently allowed, while
limiting the total amount of square footage that can be developed as a result of the
additional unit.
B. Strengthen the review criteria for the Floor Area Bonus,including
1. Provide no bonus for lots that can achieve 500 square feet or more from the
creation of two detached units or a duplex.
2. Create a sliding scale of potential Floor Area Bonus based on lot size.
3. Update criteria for a bonus and/or create a sliding scale of potential Floor Area
Bonus based on the level of preservation achieved.
4. Limit the ability for a Floor Area Bonus when significant interior space is
removed in an effort to create a larger addition.
5. Establish criteria that reward an owner for exceeding requirements for other
community priorities, such as the creation of affordable housing.
C. Return review of Historic Preservation State Income Tax Credit applications to the
State of Colorado.
Section 3: Growth Manazement Code Amendment
The goals of the Growth Management amendments are to:
A. Balance the importance of the historic preservation and affordable housing programs
by ensuring that any affordable housing mitigation waivers or reductions for
residential projects are directly related to the preservation of a historic resource.
Section 4: Transferable Development RiEhts Code Amendment
The goals of the TDR amendments are to:
1. Strengthen the criteria for the establishment of TDRs.
2. Limit creation of TDRs only to lots that contain a historic resource.
Section 5: Zone Districts Code Amendment
The goal of the Zone District code amendments is to:
1. Ensure the items listed in sections 2-4 are appropriately incorporated into the relevant
zone districts.
Section 6: New Benefits
The goal of these amendments is to:
A. Determine if other benefits may be beneficial and achievable, including expedited
permit review,or permit review fee reductions.
Section 7•
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the resolutions or ordinances
Resolution#108, Series 2018
Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 2 of 3
P172
IX.a
repealed or amended as herein provided,and the same shall be conducted and concluded under
such prior resolutions or ordinances.
Section 8•
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction,such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
FINALLY,adopted this 'day of September,2018.
4 4i 1V/
Steven Ska on,r
A TEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
C It Lmc
Linda Manning, City Clerk ames R True, City Attorney
Resolution#108, Series 2018
Historic Preservation Benefits Code Amendments Policy Resolution
Page 3 of 3
P173
IX.a
25.41%31
57.38%70
10.66%13
6.56%8
Q1 Transferable Development Rights (TDR): Square footage that could
be added to a historic property can be severed, sold and built on a
different, non-historic property within the city. The historic property owner
captures the value of the square footage without making an addition to a
historic building.My perception of TDRs is:
Answered: 122 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 122
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:DATE
1 Additional development should occur where permitted by basic zoning rather than transfer
additional impacts to other neighborhoods. As I recall, Historic TDR's are in part created by historic
FAR bonuses, increasing impact.
4/9/2018 10:35 AM
2 In the case below, the lot size is disproportionate to the building. Allowing for a TDR would
appropriate the site more cohesively. This also should not be a historic property as the building
has very little aesthetic and architectural value.
4/5/2018 9:56 AM
3 I think the TDRs should be capped at 3....... this is a "make believe" market and it seems silly to
allow that much to be removed from one site
4/4/2018 9:47 PM
4 make it a staff-level review. requiring City Council review is an unnecessary disincentive; the
criteria are objective anyway
4/4/2018 4:23 PM
5 5 TDRs is too much to preserve 1,250 sq ft. in the case you list here. % TDRs has more than a
million dollar value
4/4/2018 11:32 AM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
1 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey
EXHIBIT D
Community Survey ResultsP174
IX.a
6 I don’t believe all development rights should be severed from a property. Some should remain to
allow minor expansions in the future.
4/3/2018 7:34 PM
7 keep buildings as historically accurate as possible 4/3/2018 1:47 PM
8 TDR's are great, but as per usual, case by case evaluation better keeps to the mission of historic
preservation. Unusual circumstances require attention is all.
4/3/2018 1:34 PM
9 This would be appropriate where the Owner of the historic property wishes to (1) first and foremost
retain the historic nature of a listed historic property, and (2) not be financially harmed by its
preservation. This is NOT a tool or trick to be used by a developer to gain square footage on
another parcel.
4/3/2018 1:14 PM
10 I wish that there wasn't a square footage bonus at all... but having it on a non-historic building is
better than having it on a historic building!!
4/3/2018 12:34 PM
11 TDR are an outdated incentive for historic preservation.Aspen's real estate is all based on
maximizing developable sq footage. Secondf why should rneighbors of a receiving site bear the
burden of a de facto upzoning that is the result of a speculative real estate development.
4/2/2018 6:18 PM
12 TDRs are not always the answer to appropriate historic preservation. Too many TDRs flood the
market and impact the value of the incentive. There is a delicate balance that needs to be
considered when granting TDRs.
4/2/2018 7:33 AM
13 Hard for the Board to determine which projects do and do not deserve the bonus; too subjective. In
addition, the question does not let the reader know that the bonus is currently determined by the
Board.
4/1/2018 7:38 PM
14 just a way to promote corruption 3/29/2018 8:34 PM
15 Appropriate when a building fits in with the Victorian Character of Aspen. Not appropriate when a
building is preserved simply to be preserved and may not actually be worth preserving.
3/29/2018 3:23 PM
16 The ability to sever TDRs should be available to all properties. It will then be up to the property
owner to decide if it is appropriate for his/her situation.
3/29/2018 2:10 PM
17 TDR's are too freely given and shift mass & scale to other properties. In the example below, the
site and location can appropriately accommodate 1,250 SF in new development
3/29/2018 1:38 PM
18 We need appropriate easements and multigenerational homes 3/29/2018 12:59 PM
19 Don't allow additions.3/29/2018 12:35 PM
20 It is very subjective whether the site is better as-is, or added to. There are many excellent
examples of historic buildings with interesting modern additions.
3/29/2018 12:09 PM
21 It should only land on certain (size limited) properties 3/27/2018 11:47 AM
22 Historic property must not look out of place but more a base where newer building appearances
are based on. A segue to modern building appearances etc
3/27/2018 10:28 AM
23 I think the TDR program has been administered in a haphazard way based on political whims not
on the guidelines of the program. There needs to be consistency and fairness with this program.
3/27/2018 10:21 AM
2 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P175
IX.a
21.19%25
62.71%74
7.63%9
8.47%10
Q2 Historic Landmark Lot Split/Density Increase: Instead of attaching a
large addition to a historic building, a property owner may divide their
allowed square footage into two buildings; the historic structure and a
new structure alongside it. The historic property owner achieves his/her
development rights, while the development is comprised of smaller
structures which are likely more in scale with the neighborhood. My
perception of the historic landmark lot split/increase density is:
Answered: 118 Skipped: 5
TOTAL 118
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:DATE
1 Parking should be accommodated on site - not depending on street parking 4/14/2018 7:37 PM
2 good idea 4/12/2018 2:02 PM
3 Lot split should not increase permitted FAR 4/9/2018 10:36 AM
4 If the historic structure is saved, the lot split should be allowed to go whichever direction.4/5/2018 10:26 AM
5 Jane Jacobs states that new builds should be interwoven with old builds to gain a more complete
timeline and aesthetic of a city/town/neighborhood. This is excellent.
4/5/2018 9:59 AM
6 no physical connection should be allowed when allowing lot split 4/4/2018 11:34 AM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
3 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P176
IX.a
7 I believe this is the most important benefit for ensuring sensitive development next to historic
homes.
4/3/2018 7:35 PM
8 The historic value of a building should include the property it is on.4/3/2018 3:51 PM
9 Appropriate in Most Cases.4/3/2018 1:36 PM
10 Appropriate when fire ratings of exterior walls is not required for code when 2 buildings are too
close together, and the lot is wide enough, and has adequate access to both homes as if they
were individually built (including adequate parking for both.)
4/3/2018 1:16 PM
11 The reality however seems to be that the add on structures ovehwhelm the scale of the historic
resource.
4/2/2018 6:21 PM
12 Depends on the size of the lot.4/2/2018 4:18 PM
13 While sometimes appropriate, this can result in more density that negatively impacts the landmark.
However, the new Design Guidelines are challenging to meet for new additions, so a lot split may
be the best option.
4/2/2018 7:35 AM
14 Appropriate in all cases, if the lot size meets the minimal requirement.4/1/2018 7:39 PM
15 Destroy's the character of the town 3/29/2018 8:34 PM
16 A small house will rarely fit the needs of many families.3/29/2018 3:25 PM
17 Again, I like having this tool available to property owners. They can determine if it makes sense for
them. The example below is wonderful!
3/29/2018 2:11 PM
18 Lot splits increase density and total developable SF due to exclusions. Lot splits are very valuable
so an increase in (exempt or other) SF is inappropriate if lot split granted.
3/29/2018 1:40 PM
19 Style should be consistent 3/29/2018 1:00 PM
20 don't allow additions.3/29/2018 12:36 PM
21 I do like the smaller massing.3/29/2018 12:14 PM
22 "in scale" : a presumption that small is better. Not always so.3/29/2018 12:11 PM
23 The architecture of the new, separate building takes away from the character of the neighborhood.3/27/2018 8:25 PM
24 Building a mansion behind a historic house is a joke and an abuse of the system 3/27/2018 5:29 PM
25 except where we want to limit overall sq ft. building divide remains the best choice.3/27/2018 11:49 AM
4 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P177
IX.a
25.66%29
54.87%62
10.62%12
8.85%10
Q3 Variations: Historic properties are eligible for reductions in required
building setbacks from property lines, reduction of parking requirements,
and increase in maximum building footprint. This provides the property
owner with flexibility given the fact a historic structure may occupy much
of their lot, and variations may allow more sympathetic placement of new
development on a historic property.My perception of the variation benefit
is:
Answered: 113 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 113
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS:DATE
1 Street parking should not be an option 4/14/2018 7:38 PM
2 Should include permission to remove overgrown trees planted in historic times that threaten
foundations OR are providing too much shade and blocking interface with the residential streets.
4/12/2018 2:03 PM
3 Reduction of set backs impacts neighbors 4/9/2018 10:37 AM
4 There's no a reason a shed should be considered historic. In this case the addition could be
compensated by the removal of this shed. Allowing for more landscaping and a better design all
around.
4/5/2018 10:03 AM
5 it needs to not 4/4/2018 9:53 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
5 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P178
IX.a
6 eligibility is appropriate in all cases; whether or not to grant the variation is appropriate in some
cases
4/4/2018 4:25 PM
7 not appropriate when impacting neighbors or changing line of sight 4/4/2018 11:36 AM
8 Setback variations are appropriate almost all the time. I don’t think parking variances should ever
be allowed.
4/3/2018 7:36 PM
9 Not All cases, a scenario where a historical home's presence is dwarfed or diminutized is a
scenario of failure.
4/3/2018 3:50 PM
10 Appropriate when the goal of design is historic preservation. NOT appropriate to give developers
more square footage or relaxed requirements when developing on a historic lot.
4/3/2018 1:18 PM
11 I think it could be percentage based so that we retain green space. I think having yards increases
the feel of having a community here.
4/3/2018 12:37 PM
12 Set backs for off street parking seem logical 4/2/2018 6:22 PM
13 Variations are necessary for all hp projects. They should not just be granted to the historic
landmark, but also to the new construction. There needs to be a compromise on historic
developments and appropriate variations for new construction that support good preservation and
placement of additions is necessary.
4/2/2018 7:36 AM
14 In some cases a zero, or minimal setback id not sympathetic to the neighboring property.4/1/2018 7:40 PM
15 We tried. We refused to pay the bribe demanded.3/29/2018 8:35 PM
16 The more tools the better!3/29/2018 2:12 PM
17 Front & back yard set back variances only - side yard set backs with adjacent properties produce
unreasonable impact on neighboring lots.
3/29/2018 1:43 PM
18 This is only true of historic properties which already been “improved”3/29/2018 1:01 PM
19 Leave the buildings they way they are.3/29/2018 12:36 PM
20 Old buildings generate the same number of cars as new. Forgiveness of on-site parking just
pushes the car on to the street.
3/29/2018 12:13 PM
21 Moving a historic house to make room for a mansion should never be approved 3/27/2018 5:29 PM
22 variances to set backs and parking requirements should be reviewed on a case by case bases to
ensure they do not have negative impacts on the neighborhood and/or surrounding development
3/27/2018 10:19 AM
6 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P179
IX.a
31.86%36
49.56%56
11.50%13
7.08%8
Q4 Square Footage Bonus: Historic preservation projects that
demonstrate exemplary practices and meet specific criteria may be
awarded up to 500 square feet of bonus square footage to construct on
the site. This provides the property owner with additional value to off-set
the potential extra costs of a historic preservation project.My perception
of the square footage benefit is:
Answered: 113 Skipped: 10
TOTAL 113
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:DATE
1 Bonus SF should never become a TDR - must only be used within basic zoning, set backs without
impact to other properties.
4/9/2018 10:38 AM
2 eligibility is appropriate in all cases but the granting of the bonus is case-by-case and that's
appropriate
4/4/2018 4:26 PM
3 not in addition to TDRs 4/4/2018 11:39 AM
4 We should not be adding more development on historic properties.4/3/2018 7:37 PM
5 When appropriate. Bonuses and incentives to keep very strict to a historic profile should be offered
if they actually show that they encourage folks to embrace the historical qualities.
4/3/2018 3:52 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
7 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P180
IX.a
6 Not appropriate. Historic residences were typically small and allowing more footage than currently
allowed only diminishes historical significance.
4/3/2018 1:19 PM
7 Historic buildings cannot be removed. The great number of renovations is for speculative resale
purposes. Why because the developer is getting a free upzoning of additonal sq footage. Question
how many of the recently renoved Victorian builidngsd have been doen for owner occupants- very
few. The free additonal space is a developers dream becasue they didn't have to pay for the extra
s developable land. Eliminating it would likely result in lower prices for the roperties for a while. But
not for long since the supply is fixed.
4/2/2018 6:27 PM
8 The bonus provides an important award for the detail, time and patience required to go through the
historic preservation review process and to accurately restore a historic home.
4/2/2018 7:38 AM
9 Rules are far to strict. One either has to ******** or spend thousands finding historic pictures.
We tried and gave up.
3/29/2018 8:36 PM
10 If a property owner is performing outstanding stewardship, they should be commended for it.
Historic properties are expensive to maintain and to improve. This is a great incentive!
3/29/2018 2:13 PM
11 500 square foot bonus is highly valuable and in my view typically too freely given - a bad trade for
the community that creates excess value for property owner and impacts on neighbors in the form
of increased development.
3/29/2018 1:45 PM
12 Connector requirement should be eliminated.3/29/2018 1:32 PM
13 Live small. More square feet with fewer year round residents is not desirable 3/29/2018 1:03 PM
14 The point is to "PRESERVE". The whole neighborhood has to be considered. Taking one lot out of
context ignores the overall effect. There is nothing in the "constitution" that says one has to have a
bigger house. If you need a bigger house, go somewhere else.
3/29/2018 12:43 PM
15 real estate value is market driven. Extra cost of historic project? Myth.3/29/2018 12:15 PM
16 Developers will always jump through hoops to increase square footage which is the only reason
people want to do these projects
3/27/2018 5:31 PM
17 Where exemplary practices are demonstrated 3/27/2018 10:19 AM
8 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P181
IX.a
42.73%47
28.18%31
11.82%13
17.27%19
Q5 Affordable Housing Reduction: Historic properties are allowed to
provide less affordable housing mitigation than non-historic properties to
offset the impacts of new development on the site. This alleviates the
requirement to add more mass to a historic site in the form of affordable
units and/or reduces a significant cost to the property owner, who can
then direct those funds to preservation.My perception of the affordable
housing reduction benefit is:
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 110
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:DATE
1 AH is a critical community need that should not be burdened by Historic preservation.4/9/2018 10:40 AM
2 If you're going to make me look at an eye-sore it better have some benefits to the community. In
this case the whole thing should have been torn down.
4/5/2018 10:06 AM
3 I think commercial properties need to have more strict guidelines 4/4/2018 9:56 PM
4 with historic properties, an owner does not have the demolish option and renovation of historic
fabric is often quite expensive and more expensive than demolishing and rebuilding would be.
don't punish people for having to maintain a historic property by making it more expensive to work
with than a non historic property. allow the offset to remain.
4/4/2018 4:28 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
9 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P182
IX.a
5 not appropriate if there are real increases in number of employees 4/4/2018 11:41 AM
6 I think commercial reductions are appropriate, but not residential reductions.4/3/2018 7:37 PM
7 Who is actually building ADUs? They are mitigated to the city with a check, not an actual bed for a
head. Obviously that check affords to build elsewhere, but could you imagine how cool it would be
to live in an Affordable Housing Unit attached to a historic home? Cause I can't, too few of these
exist. Some day none will.
4/3/2018 3:57 PM
8 housing requirements should be kept and the owner/builder need to offset housing somewhere
other than the historic site. The buyers of these properties can afford it.
4/3/2018 1:51 PM
9 Again, not appropriate. Affordable housing or lack thereof has no impact on historical significance.
This would be a loophole for a developer to overbuild and under-provide for the community.
4/3/2018 1:20 PM
10 Need more information.4/3/2018 12:39 PM
11 However its questionable whether or not the "saved " fees actually result in better historic
preservation.
4/2/2018 6:32 PM
12 HP projects are generally much more time consuming and expensive than typical non-historic
development. Waiving affordable housing is an important balance to the overall development
equation. The new Design Guidelines restrict above grade development on a site which will create
a huge road block for onsite affordable housing.
4/2/2018 7:40 AM
13 This is an important cornerstone benefit and should continue to be available.4/1/2018 7:47 PM
14 Bad example since it appears all work has stopped there and the suggestion of a new business is
gone. Now an eye sore on Main. They should loose any exceptions. Dont let them add mass or
avoid the affordable housing requirement. A business that purchases an historic building can pay
for it and requires housing off site.
3/31/2018 8:03 AM
15 limit to commercial only 3/30/2018 11:19 AM
16 The idea of affordable housing is good. Many cities are now using. However, affordable housing
does not bring more workers into the town. It just rewards the lucky few, many who retire and do
not work in Aspne.
3/29/2018 8:38 PM
17 Waiver of AH fees for historic preservation unfairly burdens other community needs. $100,000 AH
fee is immaterial compared to acquisition and development cost.
3/29/2018 1:48 PM
18 The intent is desirable the actual consequences are not.3/29/2018 1:05 PM
19 *******3/29/2018 12:44 PM
20 "direct those funds to preservation." All development must meet AH requirements. In your
example below - the developer needs no help. This is a purely commercial enterprise, and the for-
profit venture must stand on its own.
3/29/2018 12:18 PM
21 I think that offsets like this are crucial to the affordability of renovated an historic structure.3/29/2018 12:16 PM
22 The new developments often result in homes that are large enough they require several
employees to run them, or at least several to manage them throughout the year.
3/28/2018 9:57 AM
23 On site mitigation for employee housing for residential (ADUs) have been removed from the land
use code. The burden of employee housing should be shared equally by all development,
especially businesses, with credit for the existing floor area that is remaining.
3/27/2018 10:25 AM
10 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P183
IX.a
7.00%7
12.00%12
55.00%55
26.00%26
Q6 Exemptions or reduced affordable housing requirements is often one
of the few Historic Preservation Benefits applicable to Commercial
properties.Should this benefit be offered to:
Answered: 100 Skipped: 23
TOTAL 100
Residential
properties only
Commercial
properties only
Both
residential ...
Neither (or no
properties)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Residential properties only
Commercial properties only
Both residential and commercial properties
Neither (or no properties)
11 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P184
IX.a
37.27%41
40.00%44
9.09%10
13.64%15
Q7 Development Fee Waivers: Historic properties may be allowed a
reduction or waiver in fees associated with city parks, transportation, and
parking that are typically charged to offset the impacts of new
development. This reduces costs to the property owner, who can then
direct those funds to preservation.My perception of development fee
waiver benefit is:
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 110
#COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT:DATE
1 Purchase price of a property should reflect the cost of development. Cost of fees should be borne
by the seller/owner/new owner not the broader community.
4/9/2018 10:41 AM
2 When my client can save money wherever they can, that means I'm more likely to get that contract
signed and which may lead to reallocated money into the project budget.
4/5/2018 10:08 AM
3 problem is, City Council never likes to grant any fee waivers 4/4/2018 4:28 PM
4 only for the historic properties which best reflect Aspen's history 4/4/2018 11:43 AM
5 These are relatively small fees, but can provide a major benefit to enable preservation. I think
these are important to retain.
4/3/2018 7:38 PM
Appropriate in
all cases
Appropriate in
some cases
Rarely
appropriate
Not appropriate
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Appropriate in all cases
Appropriate in some cases
Rarely appropriate
Not appropriate
12 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P185
IX.a
6 The buyers and owners of these properties can still afford to support parks, transportation and
parking.
4/3/2018 1:52 PM
7 fess for tree removal should be removed. Too many historic houses are blocked from view or
excessively shaded by evergreens in parwticular. Evergreens are generally not native to the valley
floor.
4/2/2018 6:34 PM
8 The benefit of historic preservation to the community is on par with the Impact fees for
Transportation/Air Quality and Parks. The community benefits from restored historic properties the
same way that the community benefits from Parks and from Transportation initiatives.
4/2/2018 7:42 AM
9 Residential only. Commercial should pay to play!3/31/2018 8:04 AM
10 Not a good idea. It promotes corruption.3/29/2018 8:38 PM
11 A fourth generation aspen family should not be forced to sell and move out of aspen because of
“affordable housing” fees
3/29/2018 1:07 PM
12 ******3/29/2018 12:44 PM
13 "direct those funds to preservation"?? These are simply real estate deals - no help needed. You
won't see any Aspen developers standing in line at the St. Mary's soup kitchen.
3/29/2018 12:21 PM
14 It is too time consuming and too expensive to renovate historic structures in Aspen. More waivers
and more efficient and quicker approvals are helpful.
3/29/2018 12:18 PM
15 Saving 100k means nothing to these people, why are we giving them anything?3/27/2018 5:32 PM
13 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P186
IX.a
34.23%38
39.64%44
19.82%22
6.31%7
0.00%0
Q8 Do you think the historic preservation projects you are aware of in the
community contribute to telling the unique story of Aspen’s past?
Answered: 111 Skipped: 12
TOTAL 111
Greatly
contributes
Contributes
Somewhat
contributes
Does not
contribute
I don't know
of any histo...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Greatly contributes
Contributes
Somewhat contributes
Does not contribute
I don't know of any historic preservation projects
14 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P187
IX.a
20.00%22
38.18%42
29.09%32
9.09%10
3.64%4
Q9 Do you think that the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Program is
successful in retaining and maintaining historic landmarks?
Answered: 110 Skipped: 13
TOTAL 110
Very successful
Successful
Somewhat
successful
Not successful
I don't know
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Very successful
Successful
Somewhat successful
Not successful
I don't know
15 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P188
IX.a
Q10 Please provide your zip code of residence.
Answered: 109 Skipped: 14
#RESPONSES DATE
1 81611 4/14/2018 7:40 PM
2 81611 4/12/2018 2:05 PM
3 81611 4/11/2018 10:58 PM
4 81611 4/10/2018 10:31 AM
5 81611 4/10/2018 9:15 AM
6 81612 4/9/2018 3:36 PM
7 81611 4/9/2018 3:27 PM
8 81611 4/9/2018 10:42 AM
9 81621 4/6/2018 11:29 AM
10 81611 4/6/2018 10:30 AM
11 81611 4/6/2018 9:13 AM
12 81623 4/6/2018 8:41 AM
13 81611 4/5/2018 5:54 PM
14 81611 4/5/2018 11:55 AM
15 81611 4/5/2018 10:30 AM
16 81623 4/5/2018 10:17 AM
17 81611 4/5/2018 10:09 AM
18 81611 4/5/2018 7:54 AM
19 81611 4/4/2018 9:56 PM
20 81611 4/4/2018 4:29 PM
21 81611 4/4/2018 11:44 AM
22 81611 4/4/2018 9:48 AM
23 81621 4/3/2018 7:44 PM
24 81611 4/3/2018 7:38 PM
25 81611 4/3/2018 6:47 PM
26 81611 4/3/2018 4:47 PM
27 81611 4/3/2018 3:58 PM
28 81611 4/3/2018 3:55 PM
29 81611 4/3/2018 3:16 PM
30 81621 4/3/2018 2:44 PM
31 81623 4/3/2018 1:55 PM
32 81656 4/3/2018 1:52 PM
33 81611 4/3/2018 1:45 PM
34 80122 4/3/2018 1:42 PM
35 81611 4/3/2018 1:21 PM
16 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P189
IX.a
36 81611 4/3/2018 1:21 PM
37 20016 4/3/2018 1:17 PM
38 81623 4/3/2018 12:40 PM
39 81611 4/2/2018 6:35 PM
40 81611 4/2/2018 4:23 PM
41 81621 4/2/2018 10:19 AM
42 81611 4/2/2018 9:43 AM
43 81623 4/2/2018 8:29 AM
44 81611 4/2/2018 7:56 AM
45 81621 4/2/2018 7:43 AM
46 81611 4/1/2018 7:48 PM
47 81623 4/1/2018 12:44 PM
48 81611 3/31/2018 8:05 AM
49 81611 3/31/2018 7:33 AM
50 81611 3/30/2018 12:49 PM
51 81611 3/30/2018 11:20 AM
52 81611 3/30/2018 9:28 AM
53 81611 3/30/2018 8:01 AM
54 81623 3/29/2018 9:12 PM
55 81611 3/29/2018 9:02 PM
56 80220 3/29/2018 8:39 PM
57 81611 3/29/2018 8:17 PM
58 81611 3/29/2018 6:20 PM
59 81615 3/29/2018 6:09 PM
60 81611 3/29/2018 5:27 PM
61 81611 3/29/2018 5:04 PM
62 55345 3/29/2018 3:43 PM
63 81611 3/29/2018 3:28 PM
64 81611 3/29/2018 3:06 PM
65 81651 3/29/2018 2:47 PM
66 81611 3/29/2018 2:21 PM
67 81611 3/29/2018 2:18 PM
68 81654 3/29/2018 2:14 PM
69 81623 3/29/2018 2:14 PM
70 81623 3/29/2018 2:11 PM
71 81654 3/29/2018 2:09 PM
72 85266 3/29/2018 1:51 PM
73 81611 3/29/2018 1:49 PM
74 81611 3/29/2018 1:33 PM
75 81611 3/29/2018 1:31 PM
76 81623 3/29/2018 1:27 PM
17 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P190
IX.a
77 81612 3/29/2018 1:11 PM
78 81611 3/29/2018 1:10 PM
79 81611 3/29/2018 1:09 PM
80 81154 3/29/2018 1:03 PM
81 81611 3/29/2018 12:47 PM
82 81623 3/29/2018 12:45 PM
83 81623 3/29/2018 12:41 PM
84 80911 3/29/2018 12:35 PM
85 81621 3/29/2018 12:31 PM
86 81611 3/29/2018 12:27 PM
87 81611 3/29/2018 12:22 PM
88 81621 3/29/2018 12:18 PM
89 81650 3/29/2018 12:14 PM
90 81611 3/29/2018 12:13 PM
91 60616 3/29/2018 12:12 PM
92 81623 3/29/2018 12:09 PM
93 81611 3/29/2018 12:09 PM
94 81611 3/29/2018 12:07 PM
95 81621 3/29/2018 12:06 PM
96 81611 3/28/2018 8:51 PM
97 81611 3/28/2018 10:01 AM
98 81611 3/28/2018 8:07 AM
99 81611 3/28/2018 7:26 AM
100 81623 3/27/2018 8:30 PM
101 81611 3/27/2018 5:33 PM
102 81611 3/27/2018 5:09 PM
103 81612 3/27/2018 4:42 PM
104 81611 3/27/2018 12:16 PM
105 81611 3/27/2018 11:51 AM
106 81611 3/27/2018 11:38 AM
107 81611 3/27/2018 10:43 AM
108 81611 3/27/2018 10:28 AM
109 81611 3/27/2018 10:27 AM
18 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P191
IX.a
10.38%11
89.62%95
Q11 Do you own a designated historic landmark in the City of Aspen?
Answered: 106 Skipped: 17
TOTAL 106
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
19 / 19
Historic Preservation Benefits - Survey P192
IX.a
Exhibit D
Stakeholder Meeting Summary
Historic Preservation Benefits Stakeholder Meeting
Date/Time: July 2, 2018 at 12:00-1:00 p.m.
Location: Aspen City Hall
List of Participants:
Planners: Sara Adams, Mitch Haas, Stan Clauson
Architects: Gilbert Sanchez, Derek Skalko, Sarah Broughton, Eric Westerman
Owners: Bill Guth, Howard Mallory, Lou Stover, David Harris
Interested Public: Dorothea Farris
Staff: Amy Simon, Ben Anderson, Kevin Rayes
Meeting Summary:
New Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
-The new Design Guidelines are much more restrictive and this is a concern.
-The new Design Guidelines have caused some to walk away from pursuing historic projects.
-Since the implementation of the new Design Guidelines, new cases have slowed down.
-Corner lots have become difficult to take on. If incentives are not provided, people will avoid
corner lots.
-Council’s concerns regarding visual impact are a result of projects under the old Design
Guidelines. Time is needed to test the new Design Guidelines. Some issues may resolve
themselves.
Incentives/Benefits:
-Aspen’s HP incentive program has been very successful over the years.
-Incentives are in good working order, no fixing required because it is not broken.
-Incentives are so important for HP projects.
-Focus on benefits that do not require expansion.
-Support parking reductions and waive fees for HP projects.
-Allow a mix of benefits.
-Cannot implement changes to the incentives with the new Design Guidelines. A breaking point
will be reached where HP projects will be difficult to undertake.
-There is a disconnect between the 500 sf bonus and the TDR program.
-Without the incentive program, certain HP projects would not be possible to undertake.
-Preservation program will not go away if the bonuses go away.
-Floor Area Bonus: some more criteria would be good.
P193
IX.a
Financial Benefits:
-Monetary values are difficult to establish because there is not a standard cost. Each project is
different. You shouldn’t put an arbitrary cap on the value of incentives to be granted.
-A private property owner’s financial gain should not be a concern. The City gains other things
through the process.
Future Requests/Suggestions for Historic Preservation Program:
-Add worksession back, possibly as part of due diligence.
-Explain interior demolition and floor area impacts, partial removal is okay.
-Create a standard expectation for getting on HPC agenda and approximate timeframe.
-Add expedited timing and review process for HP projects.
-Reintroduce the idea of double basements for HPC projects.
P194
IX.a
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2019
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) - EOTC Follow-Up
Meeting - 18’ vs. 26’
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator
ISSUE STATEMENT: At the March 21, 2019 EOTC meeting, the Committee directed Staff to provide
additional information regarding the visual impact of an 18' and a 26’ wide DMS board. In addition, the
Committee requested to view the impact of the board width on the display messages.
BACKGROUND: As a part of the EOTC budget, $450,000 has been allocated to install a DMS on the
up valley side of Highway 82. This sign is to be installed approximately one mile down valley of the
Brush Creek Park and Ride in order to convey messages to drivers related to parking, congestion, bus and
vehicle travel times, and emergency situations. The goal is to encourage drivers to utilize the Brush Creek
Park and Ride to either carpool or utilize the free bus to either Snowmass or Aspen.
At the March 21, 2019 EOTC meeting, the following decisions were made regarding the DMS:
●Reallocate $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019 for DMS ($450,000 total).
●Utilize Butterfly design.
●EOTC requested further information on the sign’s visual and message impacts in order to decide
between a 26’ and 18’ wide Butterfly sign. Staff indicated they would bring further visualizations
and messages to each EOTC jurisdiction to find consensus.
●Standardize name to “Brush Creek Park and Ride”.
The Butterfly design that was agreed to by the EOTC on March 21 is able to accommodate up to a 26’
wide board. The standard size for Butterfly signs is 18’ wide, which is the width of the sign that is located
on down valley Highway 82 near Pitkin County Public Works.
In order to convey longer and more legible messages while not having the visual impact of the Cantilever
design, Staff has recommended the 26’ wide Butterfly board as a middle ground between the very
prominent Cantilever sign and the standard 18’ wide Butterfly sign.
Staff considered constructing a replica of an 18’ and 26’ wide DMS at the desired location. However, due
to construction costs, construction time, and the necessary permitting required to obtain CDOT approval
for such a temporary structure, a location identification post has been placed and visualizations have been
rendered instead (see attached visualizations).
1
P195
X.a
Attached is a visualization of the 18’ wide board and a 26’ wide board. In addition, the list of messages
that is anticipated to be submitted to CDOT for approval has been attached to show how the size of the
board impacts the messages that can be displayed.
For the next steps, Staff is bringing the attached visualization and message list to Pitkin County, the City
of Aspen, and the Town of Snowmass Village for a decision on the preferred sign board size. Should
agreement be found between the three EOTC jurisdictions on the size of the board, then Staff will move
forward to obtain bids for the DMS. Should the bids come in over budget, then Staff will bring them to
the EOTC meeting on June 20 for consideration.
BUDGETARY IMPACT:
None at this time.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction for staff to pursue either an 18’ or 26’ DMS board.
ATTACHMENTS:
1) Visualization of 18’ and 26’ wide Butterfly DMS
2) DMS Messages List - 18’ and 26’ wide DMS Board
2
P196
X.a
3Attachment 1P197X.a
4Attachment 1P198X.a
5Attachment 1P199X.a
EOTC BC PnR DMS Messages - 14 Characters (18' Board)
No.Type
Message Display LINE WIDTH LINE WIDTH
Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 1 Panel 2
1 Emergency
CONTROLLED
BURN
DON'T CALL 911
10
4
14
2 Emergency
FIRE BAN
IN EFFECT
NO OPEN BURNS
8
9
13
3 Emergency FIREWORKS
PROHIBITED
9
10
4 Emergency
HIGHWAY 82
CLOSED
AHEAD
10
6
5
5 Emergency BRUSH CREEK RD
CLOSED
14
6
6 Emergency
INDEPENDANCE
PASS
CLOSED
12
4
6
7 Emergency
WILDFIRE
EVACUATION
IN PROGRESS
TUNE TO
1234 AM
8
10
11
7
7
8 Safety
BIKES
ON ROADWAY
USE CAUTION
5
10
10
9 Safety BIKE RACE
EXPECT DELAYS
9
13
10 Safety RUNNING RACE
EXPECT DELAYS
12
13
11 Safety
SNOWMASS
CHAIN LAW
IN EFFECT
SNOW TIRES OR
CHAINS
REQUIRED
8
9
9
13
6
8
12 Congestion HIGHWAY 82
HVY CONGESTION
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
10
14
13
12
13
13 Congestion BRUSH CREEK RD
HVY CONGESTION
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
14
13
12
13
14 Congestion
SNOWMASS EVENT
HVY CONGESTION
LMTD PARKING
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
14
12
13
12
13
15 Congestion
ASPEN EVENT
HVY CONGESTION
LMTD PARKING
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
11
14
12
13
12
13
6
Attachment 2
DRAFTP200
X.a
16 Congestion
ASPEN
BY CAR: 99 MIN
BY BUS: 99 MIN
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
5
14
14
13
12
13
17 Congestion
SNOWMASS
BY CAR: 99 MIN
BY BUS: 99 MIN
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
14
14
13
12
13
18 Congestion
RT LANE HOV 2+
AND RIGHT TURN
6AM TO 9AM M-F
HOV ENFORCED
14
14
14
12
19 Congestion
RT LANE HOV 2+
AND RIGHT TURN
6AM TO 9AM M-F
14
14
14
20 Parking ASPEN
PARKING FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
5
12
13
12
13
21 Parking
ASPEN
RIO GRANDE
LOT FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
5
10
8
13
12
13
22 Parking
SNOWMASS
PARKING LOTS
FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
12
4
13
12
13
23 Parking
SNOWMASS RODEO
PARKING
LOT FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
7
8
13
12
13
24 Parking
SNOWMASS
FREE SKIER
PARKING FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
10
12
13
12
13
25 Parking SNOWMASS EVENT
PARKING FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
11
13
12
13
26 Parking
SNOWMASS
CONCERT
PARKING FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
7
12
13
12
13
27 Parking AIRPORT
PARKING FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
7
12
13
12
13
28 Parking MAROON BELLS
PARKING FULL
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
12
12
13
7
13
29 Parking MAROON BELLS
PARKING FULL
BUTTERMILK P&R
FOR BUS 12
12
14
7
30 Parking
ASPEN CARPOOL
PASS AT
BRUSH CRK P&R
13
7
13
31 Parking
ASPEN
PAID PARKING
IN EFFECT
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
5
12
9
13
12
13
32 Parking
SNOWMASS
PAID PARKING
IN EFFECT
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
12
9
13
12
13
7
Attachment 218' Wide DMS Board
DRAFTP201
X.a
33
Parking
ASPEN/SNOWMASS
PAID PARKING
IN EFFECT
BRUSH CRK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
12
9
13
12
13
34
Construction
CAUTION
ROAD WORK
BRUSH CRK ROAD
7
9
14
35
Construction
CAUTION
ROAD WORK
HWY 82 AHEAD
7
9
12
8
Attachment 218' Wide DMS Board
DRAFTP202
X.a
EOTC BC PnR DMS Messages - 21 Characters (26' Board)
No.Type
Message Display LINE WIDTH LINE WIDTH
Panel 1 Panel 2 Panel 1 Panel 2
1 Emergency
CONTROLLED BURN
IN PROGRESS
DO NOT CALL 911
15
11
15
2 Emergency
FIRE BAN
IN EFFECT
NO OPEN BURNING
8
9
15
3 Emergency FIREWORKS
PROHIBITED
9
10
4 Emergency HIGHWAY 82 CLOSED
AHEAD
17
5
5 Emergency INDEPENDENCE PASS
CLOSED
17
6
6 Emergency BRUSH CREEK RD
CLOSED
14
6
7 Emergency WILDFIRE EVACUATION
IN PROGRESS
TUNE TO 1234 AM 19
11 16
8 Safety BIKES ON ROADWAY
USE CAUTION
9
10
9 Safety BIKE RACE
EXPECT DELAYS
9
13
10 Safety RUNNING RACE
EXPECT DELAYS
12
13
11 Safety SNOWMASS CHAIN LAW
IN EFFECT
SNOW TIRES OR
CHAINS REQUIRED
18
9
13
15
12 Congestion
SNOWMASS EVENT
HEAVY CONGESTION
LIMITED PARKING
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
16
15
19
12
13
13 Congestion
ASPEN EVENT
HEAVY CONGESTION
LIMITED PARKING
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
11
16
15
19
12
13
14 Congestion HIGHWAY 82
HEAVY CONGESTION
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
10
16
19
12
13
15 Congestion BRUSH CREEK RD
HEAVY CONGESTION
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
16
19
12
13
9
Attachment 2
DRAFTP203
X.a
16 Congestion
ASPEN
BY CAR: 99 MIN
BY BUS: 99 MIN
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FREE BUS EVERY 99 MIN
LEFT AT LIGHT
5
14
14
19
21
13
17 Congestion
SNOWMASS
BY CAR: 99 MIN
BY BUS: 99 MIN
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FREE BUS EVERY 99 MIN
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
14
14
19
21
13
18 Congestion
RIGHT LANE HOV (2+)
AND RIGHT TURN ONLY
6 AM TO 9 AM M-F
HOV ENFORCED
18
19
16
12
19 Congestion
RIGHT LANE HOV (2+)
AND RIGHT TURN ONLY
6 AM TO 9 AM M-F
18
19
16
20 Parking ASPEN PARKING FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
18
19
12
13
21 Parking ASPEN RIO GRANDE
LOT FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
16
8
19
12
13
22 Parking SNOWMASS
PARKING LOTS FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
17
19
12
13
23 Parking SNOWMASS RODEO
PARKING LOT FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
16
19
12
13
24 Parking SNOWMASS FREE SKIER
PARKING FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
19
11
19
12
13
25 Parking SNOWMASS EVENT
PARKING FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
14
11
19
12
13
26 Parking SNOWMASS CONCERT
PARKING FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
16
11
19
12
13
27 Parking AIRPORT PARKING FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
20
19
12
13
28 Parking MAROON BELLS
PARKING FULL
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
12
12
19
7
13
29 Parking MAROON BELLS
PARKING FULL
USE BUTTERMILK P&R
FOR BUS
12
12
18
7
30 Parking
ASPEN CARPOOL PASS
AVAILABLE AT
BRUSH CREEK P&R ONLY
18
12
20
31 Parking
ASPEN
PAID PARKING
IN EFFECT
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
5
12
9
19
12
13
32 Parking
SNOWMASS
PAID PARKING
IN EFFECT
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
8
12
9
19
12
13
10
Attachment 226' Wide DMS Board
DRAFTP204
X.a
33 Parking
ASPEN / SNOWMASS
PAID PARKING
IN EFFECT
USE BRUSH CREEK P&R
FOR FREE BUS
LEFT AT LIGHT
16
12
9
19
12
13
34 Construction
CAUTION
ROAD WORK
BRUSH CREEK ROAD
7
9
16
35 Construction
CAUTION
ROAD WORK
HIGHWAY 82 AHEAD
7
9
16
11
Attachment 226' Wide DMS Board
DRAFTP205
X.a
Amy Simon
From: Bill Guth <bill@wnggroup.com>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 3:10 PM
To: Amy Simon; Mitchell Haas; (clauson@scaplanning.com); Derek Skalko; Kim Raymond;
Mark Friedland; Rally Dupps; Steev Wilson
Subject: Re: City Council review of Historic Preservation Benefits
Dear Amy and City Council:
As a developer of multiple historic properties in the City, including the Blue Vic, Innsbruck Inn, 124 W. Hallam and 320
Lake Avenue, I'd like to pass along my thoughts on these historic benefits amendments.
These code amendments are completely unnecessary and remove any incentive for restoration of a historic resource by
either a developer or homeowner.The current code provides just enough incentive for a developer to 'level the playing
field' when choosing between a historic and non-historic project—these proposed amendments make a historic
restoration project completely unappealing to me.Anyone unfortunate enough to have a historic home that is in need
of renovation/restoration will be penalized unnecessarily by these amendments.
Specifically, my biggest concerns are:
-Affordable housing fee reductions—one of the only meaningful contributions by the city to reduce the burden of
maintaining a historic structure—if this is eliminated, it will be a major disincentive for historic rehabilitation
-Why prohibit removing more than 50%of an interior floor?Why not just say the FAR is not transferable to a new
structure at full credit? For example, if you have a small historic cabin that used to have an upper loft/floor, but you'd
like it to be one floor with high ceilings, why can't you do so if you're not proposing to utilize the full amount of FAR in
the addition?
- Duplex rules—what about a new duplex on a designated site with no existing historic asset?Why can't you have the
demising wall on grade?
-Sliding scale for FAR Bonus- I really dislike the reduction of maximum bonus on a 6,000(most typical in my experience)
square foot lot to 375.The 500 square foot bonus,and doing a great job to try to attain it, is the#1 motivator for me to
redevelop historic projects
-Criteria E for the FAR bonus. I'm likely not to conform with at least one of these on any potential project,which means
I'll never get the bonus, and makes it worthless-Just a few examples of how this is going to be an issue-What if the
historic resource is a small single story cabin—nobody wants a single story addition. What if you have a large site with a
small historic resource?You're penalized from getting the bonus because the historic asset is small and you choose to
use all of your available FAR?
Thanks for your consideration.
Bill
Bill Guth
970-300-2120
bill@wnggroup..com
From: Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>
Date: Monday, April 8, 2019 at 10:32 AM
To: Mitch Haas <mitch@hlpaspen.com>, "(clauson@scaplanning.com)" <clauson@scaplanning.com>, Bill Guth
<bill@wnggroup.com>, Derek M Skalko <derek@lfriday.com>, Kim Raymond <kim@krai.us>, Mark Friedland
<aspenstarwood@gmail.com>, Rally Dupps <rallydupps@gmail.com>, Steev Wilson <swilson@forumphi.com>
Subject: City Council review of Historic Preservation Benefits
Hi all-tonight is second reading of the Historic Preservation Benefits amendments at City Council. Here is a link to the
packet:
http://aspen.siretechnologies.com/SIREPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1842&doctVpe=AGENDA
At First Reading last month,staff suggested Council replace some of the benefits that appear to be on their way out
(particularly affordable housing reductions)with other types of fee waivers or expedited permitting. There was mixed
response to that. Based on Council comments,there are additional benefits, like parking reductions,which seem to be
at risk of removal.
We as staff want to respond appropriately to Co.uncil's direction and protect as much of the incentives the City has for
preservation as possible. We have no public comment for the hearing tonight. If any of you, as frequent HPC
applicants,would like to send me an email to present to Council, or if you want to attend tonight's meeting, please
do. This should come up on the agenda by around 5:45 or 6.
Thank you.
2
Amy Simon
From: Derek Skalko <derek@lfriday.com>
Sent: Monday,April 8, 2019 2:23 PM
To: Amy Simon
Cc: Mitchell Haas; (clauson@scaplanning.com); Bill Guth; Kim Raymond; Mark Friedland;
Rally Dupps; Steev Wilson; Derek Skalko
Subject: Re: City Council review of Historic Preservation Benefits
Good Afternoon Amy&All,
Thank you in kind for the forwarding of information; I'll be tuning in again tonight to see the resulting outcome.
only write the following in respect to everything you and the HPC(and it's many decades of dedicated volunteers and
invested homeowners) have done to shape what is, in actuality, a very fine and functioning program. In most recently
working under the "new" guidelines for a west end property, I have gained a far greater comprehension of where the
city's current preservation efforts stand. It is riot incorrect to stress, as others on this list have voiced, a great majority of
,the past"concerns" have and are already addressed by the most recent adoption of the revised HPC design standards.
There is simply no additional need at this current juncture to further clamp down on the HPC process before allowing
"current" design guideline efforts to at least surface, and gain some perspective on what aspects are ultimately better,
and what aspects may, in certain cases, be worse-this is an inevitability of the process that can only be realized with
time itself.
As voiced in earlier discussions held on this matter, I continue to have concern any additional overlay of design
restriction and program benefit reductions being considered tonight only work to undermine the long term goals and
efforts of what is, and has been for many years,a very conscientious and successful-program in championing historic
preservation within the Aspen community.
Respectfully,
Derek Skalko
Derek M. Skalko, AIAA
Design Principal 111 FRIDAY DESIGN
PO Box 7928 Aspen,CO 81612
970.309.0695
Linkedln
Projects I Philosophy I Imaging
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 10:32 AM Amy Simon <amy.simon@cityofaspen.com>wrote:
Hi all-tonight is second reading of the Historic Preservation Benefits amendments at City Council. Here is a link to the
packet:
i
i
http://aspen.siretechnologies.com/SIREPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1842&doctVpe=AGENDA
1
At First Reading last month, staff suggested Council replace some of the benefits that appear to be on their way out
(particularly affordable housing reductions) with other types of fee waivers or expedited permitting. There was mixed
response to that. Based on Council comments,there are additional benefits, like parking reductions,which seem to be
at risk of removal.
We as staff want to respond appropriately to Council's direction and protect as much of the incentives the City has for
preservation as possible. We have no public comment for the hearing tonight. If any of you, as frequent HPC
applicants,would like to send me an email to present to Council, or if you want to attend tonight's meeting, please
do. This should come up on the agenda by around 5:45 or 6.
Thank you.
2
Amy Simon
From: ralph dupps <rallydupps@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 11:53 AM
To: Stan Clauson
Cc: Amy Simon; Mitchell Haas; Bill Guth; Derek Skalko; Kim Raymond; Mark Friedland; Steev
Wilson
Subject: Re: City Council review of Historic Preservation Benefits
I support these code amendments. Thank you Amy
Rally Dupps
720-481-7353
www.rallyduppsarchitect.com
J
iD
Rally DuppsArchitec:t
On Mon;Apr 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Stan Clauson<stan@scaplanning.com>wrote:
Whatever they choose to do is fine with us. Q
Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA
i
STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES INC
I
landscape architecture.planning .resort design
I
412 N. Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611
i
t.970/925.2323 f. 970/920.1628
I�
stan(q-)scallanninq corn www.scaplannind.com
I
i
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
I
FatebookI
i
I
I
From:Amy Simon<amy.simon@citvofaspen.com>
Sent: Monday, 8 April,2019 10:32 AM
To: Mitchell Haas<mitch@hIpaspen.com>;Stan Clauson <stan@scaplanninR.com>; Bill Guth<bill@wnggroup.com>;
Derek Skalko<derek@lfriday.com>; Kim Raymond<kim@krai.us>; Mark Friedland <aspenstarwood@gmail.com>; Rally
Dupps<rallvdupps@gmail.com>;Steev Wilson<swilson@forumphi.com>
Subject:City Council review of Historic Preservation Benefits
Hi all-tonight is second reading of the Historic Preservation Benefits amendments at City Council. Here is a link to the
j packet:
i
http://aspen.siretechnologies.com/SIREPub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=1842&doctype=AGENDA
i
At First Reading last month, staff suggested Council replace some of the benefits that appear to be on their way out
(particularly affordable housing reductions)with other types of fee waivers or expedited permitting. There was mixed
response to that. Based on Council comments,there are additional benefits,like parking reductions,which seem to be
at risk of removal.
We as staff want to respond appropriately to Council's direction and protect as much of the incentives the City has for
preservation as possible. We have no public comment for the hearing tonight. If any of you, as frequent HPC
applicants,would like to send me an email to present to Council, or,if you want to attend tonight's meeting, please
do. This should come up on the agenda by around 5:45 or 6.
Thank you.
I
i
i
2