HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.HPC.202002261
AGENDA
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
February 26, 2020
4:30 PM,
I.SITE VISIT
II.4:30 ROLL CALL
III.MINUTES
III.A.Draft Minutes 2-12-2020
minutes.hpc.20200212.pdf
IV.PUBLIC COMMENTS
V.COMMISSIONER MEMBER COMMENTS
VI.DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
VII.PROJECT MONITORING
VIII.STAFF COMMENTS
IX.CERTIFICATE OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT ISSUED
X.CALL UP REPORTS
XI.SUBMIT PUBLIC NOTICE FOR AGENDA ITEMS
XII.4:40 OLD BUSINESS
XII.A.303 S. Galena- Minor Development, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM
SEPTEMBER 25, 2019, CONTINUE TO MAY 27, 2020
XIII.4:45 NEW BUSINESS
XIII.A.4:45 Wireless / Small Cell Communications Facilities - Design Guidelines and
related Land Use Code Amendment
Requested HPC feedback for City Council consideration 1
2
Staff Presentation and discussion
Staff Memo_HPC_2_26.pdf
Exhibit A_Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines -Third Draft 021120.pdf
Exhibit B 26.505.trackchanges_2_13.pdf
Exhibit C 26.505.cleandraft_2_13.pdf
Exhibit D Rendering.pdf
Exhibit E Summary of Public Outreach.pdf
XIII.B.5:50 320 E. Hyman Avenue, Wheeler Opera House– Minor Development Review,
Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
HPC memo.pdf
HPC resolution.pdf
Exhibit A_Minor Development.pdf
Exhibit B_Application.pdf
XIV.7:00 ADJOURN
XV.NEXT RESOLUTION NUMBER
Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings
1)Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda)
2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH)
3) Staff presentation
4) Board questions and clarifications of staff
5) Applicant presentation
6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant
7) Public comments
8)Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments
9) Close public comment portion of bearing
10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment
11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification
End of fact finding.
Deliberation by the commission commences.
No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public
12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners.
13) Discussion between commissioners*
14) Motion*
*Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met.
Revised April 2, 2014
2
3
3
1
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Bob Blaich, Nora Berko, Scott Kendrick, Jeffrey
Halferty, Roger Moyer, Absent were: Kara Thompson, Sheri Sanzone
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Historic Planning Director
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
MINUTES: Mr. Kendrick motioned to approve the minutes from January 22nd, 2020. Mr. Moyer
seconded. All in favor, motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: None
CONFLICTS: None.
PROJECT MONITORING: 300 W. Main
Ms. Simon stated that she will discuss this project with Mr. Moyer at the end of the meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that staff are canceling the March 25th meeting and replacing it
with a meeting on March 18th.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: None.
CALL UPS: Ms. Simon stated that 1020 E Cooper was called up by Council for further discussion. They
will decide whether to uphold HPC’s conceptual approval or remand that project for further discussion.
Ms. Yoon stated that she, Ms. Simon, and three board members attended the CPI conference. It was a
good meeting. Ms. Simon presented on the permit process related to historic preservation and held a
roundtable with other small jurisdictions.
OLD BUSINESS: 234 W Francis
Ms. Yoon introduced herself as the Historic Preservation Planner with the City of Aspen. She stated that
this is a continuation. They are here for conceptual major development review. 234 W Francis is a
special property because it has layers of historical significance. It’s a Victorian structure and is
associated with Herbert Bayer. It’s both on the local inventory and the national register for historic
places. The property has two historic resources. It’s on a 9,000 square foot lot in the R6 Zone District.
The commissioners did a site visit earlier today.
Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is here to request conceptual major development, setback variations,
and a floor area bonus in the amount of 472 square feet. She showed the bird’s eye view map and the
Sandborn map showing the resources in their current location. The design guidelines relevant to this
project are those related to site planning and design compatibility related to the proposed addition. At
the last meeting, there were concerns related to open space on the site planning side of things and
design compatibility regarding mass and form. The applicant was asked to restudy. The new application
before the Commission today has taken those comments into consideration. It’s important to note that
4
2
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
this is a corner lot so there are more stringent design guidelines related to design compatibility. It has to
be recognized as a product of its own time, but the addition should be subordinate. She showed a
comparison of the previous site plan and the one before the Commission today. The Parks Department
has made it clear that the spruce trees on the northeast must remain. The historic resources are
remaining in their existing location. These both contribute to where the applicants can build. The new
location for the garage structure in the proposed design simplifies the mass and the relationship along
Second Street. The new mass for the living space is a one-story element that has been pushed into
grade. The massing relationship along Francis for this element is seen to be very respectful and remains
respectful to the historic resources and the site. Open space around the historic structures are
improved and the new structure is designed to be respectful in scale.
Ms. Yoon showed the south elevation on the slide. She stated that the applicant proposes to remove
the non-historic elements on both historic structures and proposes a design that shows a gable end. It is
significantly set back from Francis Street and subordinate in massing.
Ms. Yoon showed the west elevation as seen from Second Street. The two-story addition contains the
garage which is now aligned with the west elevation. The one-story elements of the proposed additions
all read subordinate to the historic resource. The applicant is requesting setback variations for the two-
story above-grade addition and the sub-grade level that follows the structure down to the basement
level. The west side yard setback request will align that garage addition to the historic Victorian’s west
elevation and the rear yard request for the structure so that it sits five feet from the property line. The
resolution also goes into detail about the combined yard setback request that they’ll need, related to
the other resource. The setback request to the west is also included, so to combined yard setback
request is also in the resolution. Staff finds that the setback variation criteria are met with this
application. The applicant has reached out to the Engineering Department since the staff memo has
been released and they’ve been in communication with the engineering comments related to this
revised design. Out of the ten comments, six have been resolved and they’re working on the other four.
Ms. Yoon stated that the applicant is requesting a floor area bonus. With the changes made, the 9,000
square foot lot is eligible for a maximum floor area of up to 500 square feet. The applicant is requesting
for 472 square feet for this project. There is a preservation scope associated with the project. They are
taking away non-historic additions and restoring the historic resources on both the one-story historic
resource and the two-story Victorian. The designed addition is also seen to be compatible with form
and material with the re-design. It reads as subordinate and the site-specific conditions related to the
trees is a factor to take into consideration. Staff finds that the criteria for this is met and requests that
HPC further discuss the criteria and the request for 472 square feet. In conclusion, staff recommends
approval with the following conditions: the applicant should better define the stormwater mitigation
plan and bring those back for final review. The applicant is already working with the relevant
departments. Design the curb-heights for the lightwells to be fewer than 6 inches in height. There is
some investigation of historic framing and historic documentation before restoration, to be reviewed by
staff and monitor. At the appropriate time, obtain a permanent encroachment license from the
Engineering Department. This is related to the historic Herbert Bayer fence. The Commission found out
last time that it is not sitting on the property boundaries. Staff is recommending the bonus for 472
square feet. The setback variations that will be needed for the proposed garage addition are included in
the packet. Final development plan should be submitted to HPC review within the year.
5
3
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sara Adams introduced herself as being from BendonAdams. She is
representing Steve Ells, the owner. She introduced Derek Skalko as the local architect helping Selldorf
Architects who are based in New York and were here in November. She thanked the Commission for the
feedback in November. They went back to the drawing board and really looked at the design guidelines,
listened to the Commission’s direction, and wanted to come back with a really great project.
Ms. Adams stated that they are resting conceptual approval, setback variations, and they are requesting
a portion of the FAR bonus. She is going to touch on the changes that have been made instead of going
through the whole project. She stated that this is a 9,000 square foot lot and has two landmarks on the
site. They are both in their original locations and the applicants think that is very important. They are
not proposing to move them. It’s also important to remember the residential context of the
neighborhood. The applicants did a lot of historic analysis including looking at maps, old pictures from
archives, and Selldorf did a lot of different visual analyses. The applicants have another physical model
and digital models. One of the key things that Mr. Ells wanted to do was bring back the simple style of
the 19th Century Victorians. In the 1990’s there were a lot of decisions made that started to confuse
what was and was not historic. They are proposing to remove all of those non-historic additions. She
showed the existing site plan on the slide. It’s very faux-Victorian and that’s not acceptable. There was
a lot of area for improvement. One of the changes will be shifting the garage to be aligned with the
landmark in an effort to highlight the landmark.
Ms. Adams stated that the feedback that they heard from HPC in November included to restudy the
two-story flat roof addition and increase porosity on site. She showed a comparison of what was
proposed in November and what is being proposed at this hearing. They moved the mass from the east
wing on top of the garage and re-worked that form. The proposed addition to the east is set back 60
feet from the property line. She showed a comparison of the site plans. She stated that the applicants
pushed the garage in so that it’s now aligned with the landmark. They shortened the wing and sunk it.
They moved the bedroom to on top of the garage. They took away the pergola and they moved as much
below-grade square footage as they could. They now have a full basement that’s proposed. She stated
that the applicants took the design guidelines literally and tried to meet every design guideline that they
possibly could.
Ms. Adams stated that feedback from the last meeting included “remove trees from the rear of the
property line.” They met with the Parks Department after the hearing to see if there was going to be
any flexibility at the rear. They’ve had four site visits with the Parks Department, so they are very
familiar with this property. They are very clear that the spruce trees cannot be removed. They are able
to thin out a few of the aspen trees. There are some sight constraints including the landmarks in their
original locations. They are not proposing to move them. Feedback also included restudying the roof
forms. They have moved the mass on top of the garage. This simple form is much more complimentary
and more subordinate to the landmark than what was previously proposed. A gable building on an alley
is typical of a historic property. She thinks it allows the landmark to shine.
Ms. Adams showed the physical model. She stated that they’ve simplified the roof forms, pushed
everything back and down within the site constraints that they have. They’ve removed a lot of the
1990’s stuff that got added. She thanked the commissioners for their feedback in November and stated
that she feels it created a better design.
Ms. Berko asked how far down it is sunken. 6
4
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Mr. Skalko stated that it is sunken eighteen inches into the grade. He stated that the story poles were
situated at eleven feet six inches from the grade line.
Ms. Greenwood asked if the solar panels are flat on the roof.
Mr. Skalko stated that they are. They opted for the flat system even though it’s a little less efficient.
They figured it’s more respectful to the neighborhood and historic resources surrounding it.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mr. David Dowler introduced himself. He stated that he is looking forward to
having Mr. Ells as his neighbor. He lives at 229 W Smuggler and 429 N Second. He discussed the project
with Tom and Suzie Phillipe, who are his next-door neighbors. They concur with his comments. He
thanked Ms. Adams for forwarding him the revisions they are presenting at this meeting. He
appreciates efforts to make the redevelopment appropriate to the neighborhood. Some of his
comments refer back to the November meeting. At that meeting, he stated that all projects should
develop the historic development pattern of the block, which has not been discussed today, and allow
for some porosity on the site, which has been mentioned. He appreciates the reduction in the mass and
scale of the new portion, but it seems to him that the living room building proposed still interferes with
the rhythm of the block, which he described in more detail at the meeting in November. It is shown
clearly on the second page that he sent to the commissioners. He is still concerned about that. He has
struggled in prior years to solve development problems regarding the historic structure of his property
and he empathizes with the new owner. With regard to other aspects of the plan, he understands what
Ms. Adams described in terms of moving the garage. If you don’t move it, it’s an advantage as to leaving
more open space internally, which does affect the porosity. He does not think the existing garage
location detracts from the western elevation at all and it’s not significant from the north elevation. His
stated that a one bay garage with two levels would be a great solution. He appreciates the
improvements made in this plan. If there’s some sort of view through the property, his concern would
dissipate.
Mr. Halferty stated that he wasn’t at the first meeting. He thinks that this is an interesting proposal. He
hears the neighbor’s comment. He was wondering how appropriate the copper canopy is. He
appreciates the restoration of the carriage house and feels that the garage location complies with
guidelines. He appreciates the reduction in mass from the first proposal. He appreciates all the
restorations of the historic resource and the main house. With the changes, he could approve this
project. It does comply with guidelines.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the project has improved enormously. There isn’t a lot of ability to develop
this in modern times and live on the property in a modern way. This is a good solution. It does remove
the porosity on the site, but that’s not necessarily in the guidelines. A lot of the square footage is
below-grade. It’s an enormous restoration project and she would be in favor of it. She agrees with staff
comments. She agrees with the 472 square foot bonus. It’s as quiet as it can be for a modern addition
on a Victorian building. They’ve brought a lot of things into compliance. This tells a beautiful story of
then and now. She would like to see the project move forward.
Mr. Kendrick stated that this is night and day from where it started. It really highlights the historic
buildings on the property. He hears what the neighbors say about the porosity, but given the site-
constraints, this is a good middle ground that addresses that issue. Overall, this is a fantastic project.
He would agree with moving forward.
7
5
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Ms. Greenwood asked if they changed the ridgeline of the garage from the last hearing.
Ms. Adams stated that they did.
Ms. Greenwood stated that that is successful. It’s more harmonious with the two outer buildings on
either side.
Ms. Berko stated that she likes the project. She hears the neighbor’s comments about the porosity. She
feels that the addition is now nestled into the trees, so she will defer to the Park’s Department’s
decision. Her only concern is garage setbacks.
Mr. Moyer stated that this is a much better project. He would like to see the Commission have a work
session on alleys. He feels that there needs to be more discussion on how to deal with alley setbacks.
He does not really oppose putting so much square footage underground. It allows the applicant to have
space for the modern world but not interrupt the existing historic structure. This is ready for
conceptual. He is interested in what Mr. Halferty had to say about the copper canopy, but the
Commission can deal with it at final. He agrees with staff’s recommendations and would vote to
approve.
Ms. Greenwood asked Mr. Halferty what he was referring to in his comment.
Mr. Halferty stated that he does not think the copper should not be attaching to the historic resource. It
seems foreign.
Ms. Greenwood recommended that it be restudied. She asked if there are stairs.
Mr. Skalko stated that there is one platform up to a step.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the living addition is clean. She recommended that they maintain that look
for continuity. She wants to see less stuff on the historic resource. She wants to add it to their
conditions to either eliminate that or figure out an alternative. She wants it to be quieter and simpler.
Ms. Adams stated that they will figure out something for final.
Mr. Blaich is in agreements with the comments that have been made. It’s a huge improvement over the
original proposal.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he does not necessarily have a problem with the overhang. He asked if
everyone else wants to see that removed.
Ms. Berko stated that she does.
Ms. Greenwood stated that it feels like an add-on.
Ms. Yoon asked if the language for the condition they wanted to add was to remove or to simplify.
Ms. Adams asked if they can restudy it.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she would be fine with that.
Ms. Yoon asked if they want the language for the condition to be: restudy the overhang on the
secondary entrance from Second Street, to be reviewed at final review.
8
6
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Ms. Greenwood stated yes.
Mr. Moyer motioned to approve Resolution Five with the conditions. Mr. Halferty seconded.
VOTE: roll call vote: Ms. Greenwood, yes; Mr. Blaich, yes; Ms. Berko, yes; Mr. Kendrick, yes; Mr.
Halferty, yes; Mr. Moyer, yes.
NEW BUSINESS: 227 E Main Street
Ms. Simon stated that this is a 3,000 square foot lot on Main Street. It’s one of the older miner’s
cottages left in Aspen since the town developed from the center out. This one is in the core of town. It
was built in 1886. This building is very deteriorated. In fact, staff have had internal conversations about
demolition by neglect being a concern. The Moore family has owned the building for a very long time.
It was occupied by a retail store for many years. Mark Friedland has purchased it. Staff are very happy
to see the project come in and see some restoration on the building. The plan is to convert it to a single
family home. When you do that in the mixed-use zone district, you take a 20% floor area penalty
because that isn’t necessarily the preferred use in that commercial area, but it is an allowed use. The
total floor area permitted is 1,920 square feet. That’s what’s proposed and a bonus is requested. The
applicant plans to excavate a basement under the miner’s cottage and lift it approximately six inches.
They will be doing restoration on the house. An addition is proposed behind the house. It’s separated
from the building with a ten-foot connector. The connector splays out, which isn’t what normally
happens but it isn’t prohibited. It only touches the historic resource in a minimal way, which is really the
goal. The addition is two stories in the center and drops to one in the back for a single-stall garage. The
applicant needs two on-site parking spaces. One is in the garage and one is uncovered on the site. They
are pushing the whole addition towards the east property line, consistent with how the historic resource
is placed. There is discussion needed about whether that creates conditions that are a problem in terms
of drainage or maintenance. They mentioned that the center two-story piece of the addition has some
form elements to it that aren’t necessarily in compliance with the guidelines, particularly the long slope
that runs over to the staircase. It will probably have some limited visibility but it does appear to peep up
over the top of the historic resource. Compatibility is important. Roof pitches on the addition should
match what’s on the historic resource. Staff is recommending continuation. The constructability of this
is a concern. The Commission is being asked to approve relocation to lift the building and build a
basement. The house is as wide as the site. It can’t move forward off the property because of the
historic trees and the right-of-way. It can’t move into the alley. It can’t be temporarily be moved
somewhere else, there’s no way to maneuver it. They might want to discuss if this is really viable. Staff
are also concerned about future maintenance alongside the structures. The applicant is having trouble
getting a civil engineer on to their project in the early phase. They’ve done what they could do estimate
a stormwater plan. The Engineering Department has responded by saying that drywells won’t be
particularly reasonable on this property because you have to stay ten feet from all property lines.
Transformers seem to be triggered by the next project that comes in over and over again as each alley
reaches capacity. They need a pretty big footprint of about ten by ten. This site plan wouldn’t
accommodate that without some adjustment to the walkway and the parking space in the back.
Ms. Simon stated that there are trees on the Explore Bookseller’s property that are right on the
common property line and appear to impact the ability to excavate a basement under the miner’s
cottage. That doesn’t really have an above-grade impact. They want the applicant to continue to talk to
the Park’s Department. At final and during permit review, everyone is going to need to work together to
9
7
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
find every opportunity to restore this miner’s cottage. There will be a need to post a $30,000 financial
security as always when excavating under a historic resource. The applicant is requesting a number of
setback variations. There’s a front variation requested to continue the exact existing condition. The
house is about four-foot two from the front lot line where ten feet is required. They want to continue
that. The resource is on the lot line on the west, so they want to continue that. They want to be one-
foot one inch from the east property line for the historic resource and the addition and one feet from
the alley. They understand the need for those variations. The applicant is not asking for a floor area
bonus but they are asking to position the constriction and work with the Commission on the benefits to
be able to achieve the best outcome. Staff are in support of the general idea of the project, they just
have a number of concerns. Staff think that a continuation to March 18th would be appropriate.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they upgraded the transformer on a property that she is monitoring. There
will probably be an opportunity to upgrade that with the city.
Ms. Simon stated that they all seem to be reaching capacity. Staff want that conversation to be had.
Ms. Greenwood stated that upgrading the transformers is a benefit.
Mr. Halferty asked Ms. Simon if staff is suggesting that the transformer go on the applicant’s property.
Ms. Simon stated that they are suggesting that they find out sooner rather than later if they’re expected
to accommodate one and figure out how it is going to fit on the site and comply with whatever the
Commission approves.
Ms. Greenwood stated that it looks to her that they’d have plenty of room to move this back on the site
while they excavate.
Ms. Simon stated that the backhoe can’t come over the front of the property. Ms. Raymond mentioned
the possibility of craning it over the historic resource and onto the site.
Ms. Berko asked if the transformer will be where the parking spot is.
Ms. Greenwood stated that, hopefully they can just upgrade one on another existing piece of property.
Mr. Moyer asked Ms. Simon if it would be best if the Commission or staff recommend that the
Engineering Department talks to the neighborhood and starts to solve these issues rather than put it
upon the last person who is doing re-development and look for a better solution that wouldn’t disrupt
the character of the historic neighborhood so that that new piece could be put somewhere that doesn’t
impact a historic property anymore than would be necessary and could be moved to another place.
Why wouldn’t something like that go where there’s space rather than in a place that happens to be
historic. Maybe that’s something that should be looked at again in the future.
Ms. Simon stated that the Commission is probably going to be talking about this issue a lot. They are
going to see more and more transformers. The International Electric Code is requiring certain capacities
10
8
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
and a lot of these houses are very complicated. She will pass on Mr. Moyer’s comments. She just
doesn’t know how realistic it is because nobody wants it.
Ms. Greenwood asked if they are going to have an agreement with Explore about trimming the trees,
which is going to affect construction. She asked if that has been addressed.
Ms. Raymond stated that they have been trying to get ahold of the neighbors on both sides. The Parks
Department met with one of her staff and the tree that is closer to Explore is growing under their
foundation. Staff suggested that that tree came down for the safety of that building and that the trees
between Explore and the applicant’s building should come down. The applicants will do what they can.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Kim Raymond introduced herself as being with Kim Raymond Architects.
Milo Stark introduced himself. Ms. Raymond showed historic pictures that they found showing the
Moore property building. The shorter Moore property building is within a foot of its property line, too.
It’s tight. She showed the decorative above the window, which would be restored as well as the trim
above the porch. There is an old metal railing around the porch. She doesn’t know if that’s historic or
not. They would replace the columns and take it back to wood siding. The wood porch is down into the
sidewalk. Currently the ice is coming up onto the wood porch. What the applicants would like to do,
which is allowed in the historic guidelines, is pull it up just enough so that they don’t have the drainage
issues.
Ms. Raymond stated that the demolition by neglect has been pretty severe with this building. The inside
is falling down. From the outside, it’s sinking in. They are excited about restoring it and making it a
great house again. Also, adding on an addition to the back.
Ms. Raymond showed the current conditions. It’s so tiny between the brick building and Explore.
Picking it up for the drainage helps you even notice it. Taking out some of the extra trees between,
you’ll actually be able to see the historic resource. She showed a rendering of the existing site. She
stated that the little building is not quite straight on the site. On the east side, it touches the property
line. On the west side, the minimum is thirteen inches. It gets bigger because it’s crooked. When they
do the demolition of the building, they will look to see if there are any other windows. From what they
can see now, there aren’t that many windows on the east or west. They will look to see if there are any
windows that can be recovered there. She showed the proposed site plan. They’re going to square up
the little building. Whoever moves in will have square walls. They want to remove the little shed part
and have a patio in that area. There will be one window well, hidden between the buildings to service
the whole level. There is a link where it’s angled. They pulled it in six inches in through the west
property line. There are seven feet of the cabin showing. They are connecting to the historic building
with the smallest footprint that they can and angling it back towards the addition. The garage in the
back is detached. There is a little roof over the doors that go into the building and into the garage. This
allows the applicants to keep the five feet that’s the minimum distance required between the addition
and the detached garage. It lets people be try going from the garage in. There is one parking spot in the
garage, the parking space that’s required. They drew a transformer in the back just in case that’s
required. They’re hoping not. They think that if they had to do that, they’d have to put one of the
concrete piers in the ground.
11
9
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Ms. Raymond showed the landscape plan. She stated that they will keep the grass in the front. They
will keep the concrete sidewalk and wood porch. They will put a border of the little black pebbles
around the front of the building, for drainage purposes, and plant a flower garden in front of that.
Around the side, they’ll have the raised flower gardens that will act as the rain screens. That will help
with the drainage issues.
Mr. Stark pointed out elevated rain gardens on the rendering on the slide. They have been pretty
effective in water filtration. They will sit anywhere from six to twelve inches above the finished grade.
Ms. Raymond pointed out a sidewalk on the alley side that goes past the garage, up to the backdoor of
the house. In talking about setbacks. They were trying to keep the addition as minimal as possible. The
footprint of the addition is actually 200 square feet smaller than the footprint of the historic cabin, if you
don’t count the length. They are asking for a setback for the single-story garage towards the back so
that they can keep the five feet between the garage and the building and have the mass of the addition
feel smaller. There’s a green roof on top of the garage, which is a deck. When the civil engineer finishes
his calculations, they can put green roof over the link also. Between the raised rain gardens and green
roofs, he is very confident that he can make the drainage work. He’s working on that right now.
Mr. Raymond showed their proposed lower level. They are pushing most of the development to the
east side. They’re lining up the new development on the east side with the cabin. They carried that
straight back and left more open space on the other side. She showed the floor plan. In keeping with
HPC guidelines, they’re using all of the cabin as primary usage. Going in the front door that’s existing,
they’re just changing the swing on it. They’re keeping the front porch. All the public spaces are there.
They’re putting a patio off the back and a grate over the window well with an access gate. That will be
the kind of backyard living space that’s in the middle. Upstairs is just the master bedroom and suite.
Ms. Raymond showed rendering of the property from different views and angles. Ms. Raymond showed
the shoring plan. She stated they have enough room to build the foundation by bringing the shoring
out. In the area on the property line, they’ve moved the foundation in a little bit with different shoring.
Ms. Raymond stated that the setbacks they are requesting are for the east property line and the garage
on the rear of the property. Regarding the questions that Ms. Simon posed. When the building is pulled
back and there’s more space around it, they can actually address the siding. That’s going to be the best
way to put the new siding on the building, especially where it’s really close to the existing Moore
building. They can get most of it in there, get it painted, and someone can squeeze in there to touch it
up. They will have a final civil plan at final. Regarding the transformer, they are hoping for the upgrade.
They are working with the Parks Department and Explore on the trees. That’s the next hurdle they’re
trying to get over. They can save some of the trees in the back. They feel that they’ve been sensitive to
the site, the little cabin. They are trying to make it a livable place for someone eventually, but still make
it so that that historic resource is the part that stands out on the site. When they’re done with the
renovation, it will be a great historic building that’s gone back to its original looks.
Mr. Moyer asked if the garage has to be separate from the new addition.
12
10
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Ms. Raymond stated that, to keep the addition to the small cabin smaller, they made it separate.
Ms. Simon stated that there’s a design guideline that prohibits more than doubling the size of the
historic resource. They are already crossing the threshold. She doesn’t know that it’s completely fair to
say that the garage is detached because it has that bridge. She gets the idea that they were trying to
create that condition. It does conflict with the guideline that you can’t more than double the size of the
building. But it’s also a 700-square-foot historic resource. Historic preservation is running into this
more and more, that that guideline is pretty hard to meet.
Mr. Moyer stated that he would like to see the garage moved back from the alley. There are other ways
of doing that. The new addition could be smaller. The garage wouldn’t have to protrude out that much.
He asked if they’ll be able to access to east side of the house when they move the house back.
Ms. Raymond replied yes.
Mr. Moyer asked if they have thought of any plan how they would make that wall so that it will
withstand another 100 years of no maintenance.
Ms. Raymond stated that they don’t know all of those details yet, but they did think about taking off the
asphalt shingles and exposing and refurbishing the siding that’s there, replace the pieces that are bad,
paint it. In some places, when they do renovations like this, they take the siding off, sand it all down,
make sure it’s all really clean. Then they can put sealer on it, put it back, and paint it. It would be very
well protected.
Mr. Moyer asked how much space there will be between the new addition where it’s up against the
brick wall. Is it the same as existing for the house now?
Ms. Raymond stated that the link is seven or eight feet away.
Ms. Simon stated that the historic house and a good part of the new addition are only one foot ten
inches from the property line. So that is not really a lot of room to work in. Hopefully there will always
be agreement with the neighbor. That’s why it was brought up as a concern.
Ms. Raymond stated that she has been working with the neighbor. They have a good relationship with
him and he is happy to help.
Mr. Kendrick asked what happens if they don’t come to an agreement and can’t remove the trees on the
side.
Ms. Raymond stated that they will have to re-design the basement and pull the basement foundation
wall in and cantilever the historic building back out over. It’s a tricky detail, but they can do it.
Mr. Stark stated that the Parks Department has stated that the trees along the west façade are not in
that great of health. The reason they recommended that they open that discussion with Explore
13
11
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Booksellers is that there could be an agreement where the applicants beautify this area for them
because it’s also the entrance to their store.
Ms. Berko asked what the plan is for snow removal.
Ms. Raymond stated that the long section of the new addition that’s close to the property line has that
sloping roof. That will take care of most of the snow and it will just go down into the side yard. The
historic house can’t be changed. The green roof will take care of itself. The long sloping thing makes
that element look smaller, pushes the mass farther back, and creates the drainage they need on their
property.
Mr. Kendrick stated that the neighbor could develop that lot right up against their property line too,
then they wouldn’t be able to do maintenance on the garage since it’s on the property line.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the overhang is right on their property line. She asked what that is.
Ms. Raymond stated that they can cut that back. The little second curb is where the green roof is.
Mr. Stark stated that the overhang is nine inches right now, but it could be flush, in line with the siding
below.
Ms. Raymond stated that they can put cementitious panels on that façade so that there’s no need for
maintenance. They are trying to keep the materials very simple.
Ms. Greenwood stated that this hearing is to discuss massing. The materials can come later.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Ruth Carver introduced herself as a neighbor across the alley, on the corner of
Aspen and Hopkins. The alley is like another street in this area. It’s extremely busy. It would be a
wonder to save the dilapidated building. She does not think there will be any luck getting any of the
neighbors to put the transformer on their property. The garage is a concern. She asked if it’s a variance
to bring it further back into the alley. Directly across from that is the observatory house and they have
some extra space on the alley. Mountain Forge is causing havoc in the alley and probably always will.
With the building moved back, people park there and run into the liquor store. People park there at
night. She stated that it would be great to not have that so close to the alley. Her focus is to protect the
width of the alley as much as possible. It’s important for that neighborhood. The parking lot has all the
people who have businesses there parking in there. The bakery might be a space where they could put
the transformer. The garage is going to collect a lot of snow on the flat roof. Looking at the addition,
the window is out of kilter with the front door and the windows of the Victorian house. It doesn’t line
up with anything, even the roof. They will have to take down the fence between the property and
Explore. She is not sure who that belongs to. It’s in bad shape. If they dig up the poppies in the yard,
she’d love to have them. Otherwise, she thinks this is a great project.
14
12
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Ms. Simon stated that she made a mistake in the memo about the rear yard setback variation. In this
zone district, it’s a five foot setback requirement, not ten in the rear. She overstated the variation that
would be needed.
Ms. Raymond stated that, in response to Ms. Carver’s comments, it does get a lot of south and west sun.
There won’t be a lot of snow staying on that area, so that probably won’t be a problem. Even if the
garage is only a foot off the property line, people can’t drive on that part of the property anyway. She
understands the perception of space. There is a lot of activity in alleys, that’s what alleys are for.
COMMISSIONER DELIBERATION: Ms. Greenwood stated that the issues to discuss are the variances,
especially for the addition and the garage. They’re here to discuss mass and scale, with windows at a
later date, though it’s appropriate to comment on that as they contribute to the design. She would not
be in favor of the variance on the east side of the property for the addition. She thinks it’s a problem for
the neighborhood. She would be in favor of seeing a three-foot. She think the footprint has to be
completely restudied. It’s a new addition and it should try to not create more problems. Since it’s a
total of six feet on both sides, they could break it down to three and three. She won’t vote for this
project until they have a larger three-foot setback at a minimum. Regarding the alley, if they could
reduce that to two feet, she thinks that’s a decent compromise. They’re creating problems for
themselves that they don’t have to have. She doesn’t think this project should move forward until they
solve the setback issues. The massing should also be restudied. She finds the sloping roof to be odd.
When you look at the front elevation, they’re trying to emulate the gable of the Victorian. It has some
relief from the sloping roof so that gable gets emphasized. It wraps the corner. From a massing
standpoint, they should try to make that happen. The proportions are odd. The Victorian residential
buildings have small fascia details and small trim details. They need to take it one step further and think
about those on the addition. The windows could be much better. It’s a new window form when they’re
emulating a historic resource and it’s not successful at all. She agrees with staff about restudying that
long slope and flat roof. Use the historic resource as a guide for design decisions. She thinks they’re
going to have to have a good relationship with the neighbors next door. They should make sure that
they have these issues resolved before they come back. Windows can be discussed at final, but they
need to rethink them on the historic resource. They seem like they don’t speak the language of the
historic property.
Mr. Halferty stated that he does not agree with Ms. Greenwood on the site planning. The variance on
the eastern side is something that can be handled. Creating a variance towards the eastern part is
problematic. As far as the neighbor’s concern, this is a very tight alley. He’s wondering if some part of
the addition could be sucked in there to create a little bit more relief on the back alley from the site-
planning standpoint. The site constraints are challenging. The addition wants to be sort of a shotgun
addition like you’d see in New Orleans. The architect’s done a great job talking about the
constructability. It’s going to be tough to move this structure, but it is possible. As far as the general
site planning, the transformer issue is a challenging one. It would be great if it could happen on site, but
it would be great if they could upgrade that existing transformer. That parking space is important for
the neighborhood. As far as the addition, he agrees with staff as far as the slope roof on the eastern
side. Especially with the glazing, it seems very out of character for that part. The addition itself could be
restudied. The comments that Ms. Greenwood made regarding the thickness of the fascia and the rake
15
13
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
are well taken. He agrees with the comments about the slope roof. He is not sure that is the most
successful solution for that eastern side. He is okay with the ridge height. The addition is the most
challenging part of this as far as the mass and the location. If it could go to the west, it would help the
site planning as well as the mass and scale of the whole thing. It’s a lot of program and a tight lot. The
variances that are requested, it needs a little bit more design continuance. With some of the
suggestions of staff, this could be an exemplary project. It just needs to fine tuning. He recommends
this for continuance.
Ms. Berko stated that she is glad to see this building getting the help it needs. She is not in support of
any variances. She feels that this taking public spaces for private gain. Alleys are busy and it causes
problems. She does not support the alley variance. As she has always said, if they have a small lot, they
need a small addition. She won’t support an eastern one-foot setback. She would like to see the whole
thing moved over or made smaller. The rooflines are confusing, she would love to see those be made
more compatible with the resource. She supports staff’s continuation.
Mr. Moyer stated that the commission needs to hold firm on variances. They are a major problem. If
they give a variance, the design reason has to be exemplary. It’s going to be a really good project and
workable. There will be certain allowances with a two or three-foot setback. Sometimes you have to
just have a small project to make it work. The Commission’s purview is to protect the integrity of the
community. It will work and the applicants can make it work, but they’re going to have to do it without
the variances. They need to think about the drainage issue.
Ms. Simon stated that the reason that the Engineering Department is promoting and supporting the
green roofs and rain gardens is that that does clean and filter the water before it leaves the property,
versus the drywell which doesn’t really accomplish that. The applicants are doing the right thing from
that point of view.
Mr. Moyer stated that the trees that were planted to the east side of explore and west side of the
historic resource were misguided. It’s the last place you’d want to put trees in a small space. They
should be just taken out.
Ms. Greenwood stated that that’s not their purview. But this project will come to a good term, trim
them up, do some nice landscaping. It will give it a nice canopy as you walk in. The issue I definitely
going to be what kind of root damage is going to be done to the trees because they’re not going to be
healthy, given their location. It needs to be rethought. She wouldn’t want to see anything less than
three feet for the addition.
Mr. Kendrick stated that he agrees that this is a very challenging project but it would be nice to see
some life brought back into this house. He agrees with staff on continuation. There are too many
unanswered questions. He agrees with Ms. Berko about the setbacks. He also agrees with most of the
other comments. He is in favor of continuation.
Mr. Blaich stated that he agrees with everything he’s heard, specifically on the setbacks. That’s a very
important place for people being able to park to visit Explore. If they’re going to be talking about
16
14
REGULAR MEETING HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2020
plantings, something ought to be done about snow removal in that area. It all gets dumped right in that
space, people are going to have difficulty with access.
Ms. Greenwood stated that they have unanimous agreement on continuation and the board would like
to see them change the setbacks. Some commissioners want to see the setback reduced to three feet,
some commissioners want no variation at all.
Ms. Berko stated that setbacks exist for a reason.
Ms. Simon stated that they cannot build to capacity on the front half of their property. They have a one-
story limitation, they have to have a connector. There are special considerations and the commissioners
can agree with them or not.
Ms. Greenwood stated that it’s a design issue. They work with what they’ve got. When they buy these
historic properties, they know what they’re buying.
Ms. Raymond stated that they could move the addition over and have the three and three. Since the
historic property was so close, their reasoning was to leave that side of the property close. Her concern
was about the garage.
Ms. Greenwood stated that there are members on the board who are not going to approve setback
variances in this commercial local, but it really depends on what they’re presenting. The board is in
agreement that this is unacceptable at this point. They are all in favor of continuation.
VOTE: Mr. Blaich motioned to continue the hearing to March 28th. Mr. Moyer seconded.
Ms. Greenwood stated that the Commission has given the applicants concrete advice as to what they
need to come back with.
All in favor, motion carried.
OTHER BUSINESS: None.
ADJOURN: Mr. Kendrick moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45 PM. Mr. Moyer seconded. All in favor,
motion carried.
______________________________
Jeannine Stickle, Records Manager
17
MEMORANDUM
TO: Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Justin Forman, P.E., Operations Manager, Utilities;
and
Ben Anderson, AICP, Principal Planner, Community Development
MEMO DATE: February 20, 2020
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020
RE: Wireless Facility Design Guidelines and Related Land Use Code
Amendment; Input for Council consideration
REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION:
On March 10 and 24, City Council will consider Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020. This
Ordinance will propose two things: 1) Adoption of the Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines, and 2) an Amendment to Chapter 26.505 of the Aspen Land Use
Code to accommodate the new design guidelines and update changes to processes in
the review of wireless facilities.
Staff requests that the Historic Preservation Commission provide input, including
statements of support or objection, and specific changes or additions – for consideration
by the City Council.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In 2017 and 2018, rule changes from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and
a new Colorado State Statute fundamentally changed the ability of local jurisdictions to
regulate a particular type of wireless telecommunications facilities called small cell
facilities. The changes were implemented to facilitate wireless providers in the
deployment of new wireless technology. Specifically, these rule changes:
• Preempt local authority over the use of the public right-of-way for these facilities
(FCC)
• Shorten times for local reviews (FCC)
• Limit local fees (FCC)
• Limit local review to aesthetic and location preferences (FCC)
• Allow small cell facilities as a use by right in all zone districts (Colorado)
Like many other communities, these rule changes created challenges for City staff as
there were not regulations, standards, or processes in place to evaluate these facilities in
the public right-of-way. In fall of 2018, COA staff began responding to this new paradigm.
18
Page 2 of 6
Work Completed to Date
To date, a multi-department team has implemented the following:
• A fully new section of the land use code, written in consultation with
telecommunication attorneys, to define new review processes, definitions, and
basic design guidelines.
• A new land use application specific to wireless telecommunications facilities.
• New processes that coordinate reviews by Community Development (planning and
building), Engineering, and Utilities for facilities in the right-of-way. This was
necessary to ensure compliance with new “shot clock” review timelines.
Much of the initial work on this was completed as a stop-gap measure, as the City needed
to get rules and processes in place to respond to what was feared to be imminent
applications for these facilities. When these changes were adopted in March of 2019,
Council directed staff to update the City’s Design Guidelines on new wireless
deployments.
In August of 2019, City Council approved a contract for professional services with
HRGreen, an engineering firm, to assist staff in the creation of a more robust set of design
guidelines in giving specific definition to small cell facilities that are in the public right-of-
way.
Role of Design Guidelines
The completed design guidelines will give definitive and detailed direction to the wireless
carriers and their representatives as they design wireless facilities for the Aspen market.
Additionally, the guidelines will give clear direction to city staff in the processes and criteria
for review of new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities.
Related to the adoption of the Design Guidelines, staff has been drafting an amendment
to the Land Use Code that gives direction to applicability, process, and the use of the
design guidelines within the review of wireless facilities. Once this amendment is adopted,
the design guidelines can be amended and evolve in response to new technology and
federal and state regulations, without having to further amend the Land Use Code. The
relationship of the Wireless Design Guidelines to the LUC will be similar in this way to
Aspen’s Commercial Design, and Historic Preservation Design Standards and
Guidelines.
Public Engagement
In the drafting of the design guidelines, it was essential that staff engage the public on
this topic as the implementation of small cell facilities raised concerns over visual impacts
to the community and a global conversation about potential health concerns of 5G
wireless technology gained the attention of citizens. Developed by City Communications
Department staff, a comprehensive engagement strategy was successfully deployed. We
had direct interactions and received input from 200+ residents and stakeholders.
19
Page 3 of 6
A summary of public outreach – including communication efforts, events, and comments
received is included as Exhibit E.
DISCUSSION:
Key Elements of Design Guidelines (The full draft is included as Exhibit A)
1) Replacement of existing streetlights – staff recommends that our first choice for
small cell facilities in the right-of-way be in the location of an existing streetlight.
The streetlight would be replaced with a small cell pole that would be fully paid for
by the wireless provider.
2) Height – staff recommends that small cell facilities in the right-of-way be limited
to 25 feet in height. Federal rules allow these facilities to be up to 50 feet in height.
Staff based Aspen’s recommended height on the maximum height of structure
allowed in our residential zone districts.
3) Minimum distance between facilities – staff recommends that we limit the
minimum distance between facilities that contain the same wireless provider’s
equipment to 600 feet. This includes both small cell facilities – and larger facilities
that may be on rooftops of private or public buildings.
4) Pole design features – staff recommends the following:
a) The pole will have a fluted pattern to reference our existing streetlights
b) The pole diameter is limited to 18” at the pole’s base
c) The pole and antenna structure will be painted to match the color of
our existing streetlights
d) A luminaire (streetlight fixture) will be mounted to the small cell pole in
replacement of the existing streetlight:
• The fixture will be mounted at a height consistent with best
practices and requirements in streetlight design
• The style of the fixture is “hockey puck” design, approximately
18 inches in diameter.
• The fixture will be flush mounted to the pole (little or no
armature)
• The fixture will be downlit
• The fixture will meet City of Aspen B.U.G. (backlight, uplight,
glare) standards – defined in a policy adopted in 2013.
A rendering of a monopole (standalone facility without a luminaire) and a monopole
with luminaire are attached as Exhibit D.
5) Concealment of related equipment – staff recommends that all equipment
related to small cell facilities shall be located within the pole structure or in an
underground vault.
20
Page 4 of 6
6) Prohibited Locations – Staff recommends the following areas be prohibited in
the location of small cell facilities:
Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way along the property
frontage adjacent to any street facing façade of these iconic Aspen
buildings:
+Wheeler Opera House +Elks’ Building +Independence Building
+Wheeler/Stallard Museum +Hotel Jerome +City Hall (Armory Bldg.)
+Pitkin County Courthouse +St. Mary’s Church +Sardy House
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way of Aspen Pedestrian
Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and Cooper Avenues between
Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and Hyman
Avenues.
Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No small cell facilities are allowed in the foreground of a designated
Mountain View Plane. See Aspen Land Use Code 26.435 for the
identification of these areas.
Relationship to designated Open Space
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any
designated Open Space parcels.
7) Notice Requirements – If a small cell facility meets the design guidelines, they
would be considered as an administrative review – and no public notice would be
required until after an approval was granted. Therefore, staff recommends that
within 15 days of an application being deemed complete, the applicant shall
complete the following:
a) A poster being placed on site that includes
A photo simulation of the proposed facility
A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal
Contact information for the carrier and city staff
b) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the
facility.
c) Newspaper notice in the form of a box advertisement
d) Updates to City of Aspen GIS and Map Aspen showing the
location of the proposed facility.
21
Page 5 of 6
Response to Public Concerns
The most significant and consistent comments that staff received related to small cell
facilities came from citizens concerned about potential health effects of emerging 5G
technology. While Federal Law prohibits local communities from regulating these facilities
based on environmental or health concerns, staff recommends the following requirements
as part of the application and approval of wireless facilities:
1) NIER Reporting – this is a technical description of the specific radio frequencies
that are expected as designed from a specific small cell facility – related to the
FCC rules regarding maximum permissible exposure (MPE). This report, which
Aspen has not required in the past, will provide detailed information about the radio
frequency emissions specific to a given facility. It will be required in the
establishment of a new facility and any time a facility is upgraded.
2) Required testing and reporting of the actual frequencies and strength of
frequencies being emitted following the installation or upgrade of a wireless facility
within 90 days of completion of work. Additionally, annual audits of radio frequency
signals from all facilities will be required. The cost responsibility of this testing is
proposed to be collected as part of the application process but will be conducted
by the City or third-party consultants.
Specific Issues Raised Previously by HPC
Alleys as preferred locations
Staff continues to have concerns about universal encouragement of alleyways due
to the potential conflicts with other utilities and minimal rear setbacks. However,
staff agrees that in specific circumstances alleyways, when evaluated may provide
opportunity to pull small cell facilities from Main Street or other visually prominent
streetscapes. A provision has been included in the draft that would allow for a
case by case evaluation for alleyway locations.
Luminaire design
With the encouragement that small cell facilities replace existing streetlights, the
design of the proposed luminaire has been an important topic of conversation, with
City Council, and in previous conversation with HPC. Staff agrees with HPC that
a larger conversation coordinating street lighting design across the Aspen
landscape is desired, staff is recommending a lighting style that is non-descript,
does not draw further attention to the wireless facility, provides light that is of similar
quality (color and intensity)to existing street lights, and improves safety and dark
sky outcomes. With these goals in mind staff continues to recommend the “hockey
puck” style luminaire described previously and shown more clearly in Exhibit D.
This is a topic that we would very much like additional feed back from HPC – and
will likely be a primary topic of discussion with City Council in March.
22
Page 6 of 6
Key Elements of the Land Use Code Amendment
(Full versions are included as Exhibits B and C)
The proposed amendment to Chapter 26.505 would make relatively minor changes to the
chapter to respond to the new design guidelines and to changes in or review processes.
Highlights of the proposed amendment:
1) All design requirements have been removed from the land use code chapter and placed
into the design guidelines document. The design guidelines, once adopted, are
technically part of the land use code, but having them as a distinct document makes it
easier to make modifications in response to future changes in the technology or new
community desires related to the facilities. This is a relationship of the code to standalone
documents that is shared with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines and The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
2) For wireless facilities, the land use application and any necessary building permits or
right-of-way permits are required to be submitted concurrently. This is departure from
other development processes but will allow staff to better respond to the “shot clock”
requirements for review of wireless facilities.
3) It has been further defined in the proposed amendment, but in essence most reviews
for wireless facilities, including those in the right-of-way will be reviewed administratively
if they conform to the design guidelines. Board Review (P&Z and HPC) will be initiated
for facilities of a particular scale on private property – or for any facility that is requesting
a variance from the design guidelines. The review criteria for granting a variance – are
limited to situations where adhering to the design guidelines would make a facility
technically or practically infeasible.
Recommendation
HPC is encouraged to provide any recommended changes or improvements to either
document for Council consideration. All comments will be presented to Council during
review of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020.
EXHIBIT A: Draft of Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
EXHIBIT B: Track changes / redline version of proposed changes to Chapter 26.505
EXHIBIT C: Clean draft of proposed changes to Chapter 26.505
EXHIBIT D: Renderings of small cell facilities that would meet the proposed
design guidelines.
EXHIBIT E: Summary of Public Outreach
23
Wireless
Communications
Facilities Design
Guidelines
February 11, 2020
24
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 2 | P a g e
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ................................................................................................ 4
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Regulatory Matters ............................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Overview of Key Design Guidelines ................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Statement of Purpose ....................................................................................................................... 6
2. General Information ................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Definitions .......................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Application and Review Procedures ............................................................................................... 9
2.4 Additional Review Procedures ........................................................................................................ 9
2.5 Conditions and Limitations ............................................................................................................ 10
3. SCF Pole Design Guidelines ................................................................................ 12
3.1 General Pole Design Standards .................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Utility Distribution Poles ................................................................................................................ 13
3.3 Streetlight Poles .............................................................................................................................. 13
3.4 Traffic Signal Poles ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.5 New Poles ........................................................................................................................................ 15
4. SCF Pole Siting Requirements ............................................................................ 17
4.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Site selection ..................................................................................................................... 18
4.1.2 Prohibited Locations......................................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way ............................................................. 18
4.2 Height Requirements .................................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Noise................................................................................................................................................. 19
4.4 Related Accessory Equipment. ..................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Lighting ............................................................................................................................................ 19
4.6 Signage ........................................................................................................................................... 19
5. Non-SCF Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements ..................................... 20
5.1 Prohibitions ..................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Site Selection ................................................................................................................................... 20
5.3 Historic sites and structures ......................................................................................................... 20
5.4 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way ........................................................................... 20
5.5 Design Guidelines for all WCFs that are not SCFs in the ROW ................................................. 21
5.5.1 Camouflage/Concealment ................................................................................................ 21
5.5.2 Collocation ......................................................................................................................... 21
25
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 3 | P a g e
5.5.3 Setbacks ............................................................................................................................. 22
5.5.4 Height ................................................................................................................................. 22
5.5.5 Architectural compatibility ............................................................................................... 23
5.5.6 Compatibility with the natural environment ................................................................... 23
5.5.7 Screening ........................................................................................................................... 23
5.5.8 Lighting and Signage ........................................................................................................ 24
5.5.9 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 24
5.6 Additional design requirements .................................................................................................... 24
5.6.1 Base Stations ..................................................................................................................... 24
5.6.2 Alternative Tower Structures not in the Public Right-of-Way ...................................... 25
5.6.3 Towers ................................................................................................................................ 25
5.7 Related Accessory Equipment. ..................................................................................................... 25
5.8 Access ways .................................................................................................................................... 26
6. Safety Requirements ............................................................................................ 27
Appendix A: Design Concepts ................................................................................... 28
A.1 SCF pole without an attached light fixture .................................................................................. 28
A.2 SCF pole with a hockey puck light fixture ................................................................................... 29
Appendix B: Lighting Fixture Specifications ............................................................ 30
B.1 Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED ...................................................................................... 30
Appendix C: SCF Construction Plan Review Checklist ........................................... 35
Appendix D: Small Cell / 5G Background Information ............................................. 43
D.1 Small Cell Definition ....................................................................................................................... 43
D.2 5G Definition ................................................................................................................................... 44
D.3 Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 47
26
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 4 | P a g e
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Background
The City of Aspen (City), as with communities across the country and around the world, is facing the next
wave of communications technology. It has the potential to impact the safety, aesthetic values, and
enjoyment of our community in a manner and to a degree that is far more extensive than cellular phones
and other types of recent technology.
While most carriers closely hold their deployment schedules, Aspen due to its clientele and market potential
will rank among the top 10-20% on the carriers’ lists and can expect to see a significant increase in
applications from most of the major carriers
Small cell communications can also include what is now known as 5G technology. 5G technology can
sometimes utilize higher frequencies, or shorter, “millimeter wave” with the capability to accommodate
significantly higher data needs than current 4G/LTE technologies. The physical limits of some of the higher
frequencies require that the transmitters be installed at a much reduced spacing, and may ultimately be
roughly 300 feet, which is similar to the spacing of streetlights or fire hydrants rather than 2+/- mile or
greater distances that 4G/LTE technologies accommodate. The result of this physical need is that the public
rights-of-way are often the optimal location to install the required equipment.
In September of 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order, known as FCC 18-133. The Order outlines the extent to which local agencies
may or may not regulate the installation of small cell facilities within the public rights-of-way and the use of
existing public infrastructure.
In July of 2017, more than a year before the adoption of the FCC Order, House Bill 17-1193, the State of
Colorado, Small Cell Facilities Permitting and Installation Act (the Act), became effective. In general, the
Act specifies how local authorities throughout Colorado, may regulate the attachment of small cell facilities.
Similar to the advent of the telephone which required extensive wires, switch boxes, poles and other
structures to provide these services, small cell communications technology will ultimately require a structure
to mount a transmitter approximately every 300 to 600 feet most often with fiber optic cable and power
conductor cable connections to each one.
Absent the adoption of standards to assure that installations are context sensitive, service providers would
be free to install equipment with no concern for the visual impact that they create. This document seeks to
accommodate the implementation of the new technology while assuring that the new infrastructure is
installed using context sensitive solutions.
In addition, the equipment needs to be located where it will not interfere with visibility for drivers, interference
with sidewalks, or other common amenities found in public rights -of-way.
Other issues such as safety, aesthetics, noise and accommodating multiple providers at each location are
also addressed within these Guidelines. For more information on small cell background, please see
Appendix D.
1.2 Regulatory Matters
The Order establishes fees, “shot clocks,” and provides limits on local governments’ control of small cell
infrastructure.
Colorado’s Small Cell Facilities Permitting and Installation Act (the Act) became effective July 1, 2017. In a
similar manner to the FCC Order, the Act establishes “shot clocks” and provides limits on local governments’
control of small cell infrastructure in public rights-of-way.
Various provisions of the Colorado and FCC actions provide similar but sometimes conflicting direction on
issues such as fees, shot clocks, aesthetics and other considerations. The City has established the
governing structures in Chapter 26.505 of its City Code, and all references to these items are governed by
(a) Chapter 26.505 of the City Code and subsequently (b) by definition in this Design Guidelines manual.
27
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 5 | P a g e
The purpose of Chapter 26.505 is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers and
wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, provide
for managed development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal of wireless
communications infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town character, while at the
same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a competitive wireless communications
marketplace in the City.
All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment must receive building permits
and/or right-of-way permits, as applicable, prior to installation. Prior to the issuance of appropriate building
permits, WCFs and/or equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Communi ty Development Director
and City Engineer to verify conformance with the provisions and criteria of Chapter 26.505 as well as other
applicable sections of City of Aspen Code including Title 21 – Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places,
Title 25 – Utilities, and Title 29 – Engineering Standards. WCFs and equipment subject to the provisions
and criteria of Chapter 26.505 include without limitation, small cell facilities (SCF) within the Public Rights
of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication
services (PCS), commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial
telecommunication devices and all associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas,
monopoles, towers, masts and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms.
1.3 Overview of Key Design Guidelines
The following is an overview of key elements of these design guidelines.
1) Replacement of existing street lights – the location for small cell facilities in the right-of-way shall
be in the location of an existing street light. The street light would be replaced with a small cell pole
that would be fully paid for by the wireless provider.
2) Height – small cell facilities in the right-of-way shall be limited to 25 feet in height. This is based
on Aspen’s recommended maximum height of structures allowed in residential zone districts.
3) Minimum distance between facilities – the minimum distance between facilities that contain the
same wireless provider’s equipment is 600 feet. This includes both small cell facilities – and larger
facilities that may be on rooftops of private or public buildings.
4) Pole design features:
a. The pole will have a fluted pattern to reference our existing street lights
b. The pole base diameter is limited to 18”
c. The pole and antenna structure will be painted to match the color of our existing street
lights
d. A luminaire (street light fixture) will be mounted to the small cell pole in replacement of the
existing street light fixture:
i. The fixture will be mounted at a height consistent with best practices and
requirements in street light design
ii. The style of the fixture is “hockey puck” design, approximately 18 inches in
diameter.
iii. The fixture will be flush mounted to the pole (little or no armature)
iv. The fixture will be downlit
v. The fixture will meet City of Aspen B.U.G. (backlight, uplight, glare) standards –
defined in a policy adopted in 2013.
5) Concealment of related equipment – all equipment related to small cell facilities shall be located
within the pole structure or in an underground vault.
6) Prohibited Locations
28
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 6 | P a g e
a. Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way along the property frontage adjacent to any street
facing façade of these iconic Aspen buildings:
Wheeler Opera House (320 E Hyman Ave)
Wheeler/Stallard Museum (620 W Bleeker St)
Elks’ Building (510 E Hyman Ave)
Independence Building (404 S Galena St)
Pitkin County Courthouse (506 E Main St)
Hotel Jerome (330 E Main St)
City Hall (Armory Building) (130 S Galena St)
St. Mary’s Church (533 E Main St)
Sardy House (128 E Main St)
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way of the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. However, they may
be placed on private property along the Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and
Cooper Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and
Hyman Avenues.
b. Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No SCFs are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain View Plane. See Aspen
Land Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these areas.
c. Relationship to designated Open Space
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated Open Space parcels.
7) NIER Reporting – this is a technical description of the specific radio frequencies that are expected
as designed from a specific small cell facility – related to the FCC rules regarding maximum
permissible exposure (MPE). This report will provide detailed information about the radio frequency
emissions specific to a given facility. It will be required in the establishment of a new facility and
any time a facility is upgraded.
8) Testing - testing and reporting of the actual frequencies and strength of frequencies being emitted
following the installation or upgrade of a wireless facility is required. Additionally, annual audits of
radio frequency signals from all facilities will be required. This will be the responsibility of the City
or its representative with the assistance of the applicant.
1.4 Statement of Purpose
The City of Aspen Wireless Communications Infrastructure Design Guidelines which provide objective,
technically feasible criteria applied in a non-discriminatory manner are hereby established with the goal of
accommodating the installation of wireless communications facilities including small cells (4G, LTE, 5G,
and other systems currently under development) technology within the City of Aspen, provided that the
installations meet the following standards:
Aesthetics
Location
Spacing of facilities
Accommodation of multiple providers at each location
Safety
Noise
29
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 7 | P a g e
2. General Information
2.1 Introduction
These Wireless Communications Infrastructure Design Guidelines are intended to supplement the
requirements of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505 , Wireless communications facilities and
equipment as well as T itle 21 – Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places , Title 25 – Utilities, and
Title 29 – Engineering Standards. They provide objective, technically feasible criteria consistent with
Aspen’s small mountain town character, applied in a non -discriminatory manner that reasonably match
the aesthetics and character of the immediate area regarding all of the following, which the City shall
consider in reviewing an application:
(a) The location of any wireless communications facilities (WCF) including their relationship to
other existing or planned WCF sites regardless of provider
(b) The location of a WCF on a wireless support structure
(c) The appearance and concealment of WCFs, including those relating to materials used for
arranging, screening, and landscaping
(d) The design and appearance of a wireless support structure including any height requirements
adopted in accordance with these Guidelines
It is the goal of the City to allow the installation of a wireless communications infrastructure with a minimum
foot print. This shall be accomplished by WCF siting and the use of multi-cell poles that can accommodate
multiple service providers.
The City may revise, develop new, update, or amend these Guidelines as necessary to meet the goals
of the City. The provisions of these Guidelines shall not limit or prohibit the City's discretion to
promulgate and make publicly available other information, materials or requirements in addition to,
and separate from these Wireless Communications Infrastructure Design Guidelines that do not
conflict with state or federal law.
2.2 Definitions
The definitions in Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505 shall apply to this document unless defined
differently here. If a word is not defined here or in City Code, it shall have the usual and customary meaning
as defined in a standard dictionary. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this document,
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
Administrative Review means ministerial review of an Application by the City relating to the review and
issuance of a Permit, including review by the designated staff to determine whether the issuance of a Permit
is in conformity with the applicable provisions of these Guidelines and all City Codes.
Applicable Codes means any Code drafted and adopted by the City, including Title 21 – Streets, Sidewalks
and Other Public Places, Title 25 – Utilities, and Title 29 – Engineering Standards, as well as uniform
building, fire, safety, electrical, plumbing, Uniform Traffic Control or mechanical codes adopted by a
recognized national code organization to the extent such codes have been adopted by the City, including
any amendments adopted by the City, or otherwise are applicable in the jurisdiction.
Applicant means the person submitting an application that is proposing an action requiring review and
approval by one or more of the sections in Chapter 26.505, as well as Title 21 – Streets, Sidewalks and
Other Public Places, Title 25 – Utilities, and Title 29 – Engineering Standards. An applicant may
subsequently become the developer once approval is granted, and in this case the terms shall be
interchangeable.
Attached Wireless Facilities are those affixed to a structure except optical fiber, wires, coaxial cable and
the mounting hardware used to attach optical fiber, wires, and coaxial cable. Examples of attached facilities
30
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 8 | P a g e
include but are not limited to antennas, telephone boxes, power boxes, and other e quipment boxes and
cabinets on structures located.
Base Cabinet means a cabinet at the base of a SCF that houses the Base Station.
CDOT means the Colorado Department of Transportation.
City means the City of Aspen.
City Council means the Aspen City Council.
City Manager means the Aspen City Manager or designee.
Code means the Aspen City Code.
Development Code means Chapter 26 of the City Code, as amended.
Director means the City’s Community Development Director or designee.
Facilities means any and all equipment, structures, materials or tangible components located in the rights -
of-way and used to provide a service, including without limitation: all plants, whether inside or outside, fiber
strands or optic lines, electronic equipment, amplification equipment, optic equipment, transmission and
distribution structures, antennas of any type, lines, termination equipment, pipes, poles, ducts, mains,
conduits, inner ducts, regenerators, repeaters, underground lines, vaults, manholes, pull bo xes, splice
closures, wires and cables, and all other like equipment, fixtures and appurtenances used in connection
with transmitting, receiving, distributing, offering, and/or providing such service. Facilities shall include, as
the context dictates, wireless communications facilities, as defined herein.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission of the United States.
FCC Order means the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC
Docket No. 17-84, FCC-18-133, released September 27, 2018, which is incorporated herein by this
reference.
Height means maximum height of the WCF, including antenna, above established grade measured at
the base of the structure.
House Bill 17-1193 or Act means Colorado’s Small Cell Facilities Permitting and Installation Act ,
which became effective on July 1, 2017 and is incorporated herein by this reference.
Macro Wireless Telecom Facility or Macrocell means a cell in a mobile phone network that provides
radio coverage served by a power cellular base station (tower). The antennas for macrocells are mounted
on ground-based masts, rooftops and other existing structures, at a height that provides a clear view over
the surrounding buildings and terrain. The term macrocell is used to describe the widest range of cell sizes.
Multi-User Facility means a facility that is designed to accommodate two or more service providers.
Ordinance means Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505, Wireless communications facilities and
equipment, as amended, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Ordinary Maintenance and Repair means inspections, testing and/or repair that maintain functional
capacity, aesthetic and structural integrity of a Communications Facility and/or the associated Su pport
Structure, Pole or Tower, that does not require blocking, damaging or disturbing any portion of the Public
ROW.
Structure means anything constructed or erected with a fixed location below, on, or above grade, including,
without limitation, service cabinets, junction boxes, foundations, fences, retaining walls, awnings, balconies,
and canopies.
Telecommunications means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and
received.
31
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 9 | P a g e
Telecommunication service(s) means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public,
or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities
used.
Telecommunication service provider or telecommunications applicant means any provider of
telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications
services (as defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 226).
Telecommunication system means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or
to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.
A system that provides both cable and telecommunications or information services may be considered both
as a cable system and a telecommunications system pursuant to this Code.
Toll – a pause in the progression of the shot clock due to an incomplete application.
Unreasonable Interference means any use of the Right-of-Way that disrupts or interferes with its use by
the City, the general public, or other person authorized to use or be present upon the Right -of-way, when
there exists an alternative that would result in less disruption or int erference. Unreasonable interference
includes any use of the Right-of-way that disrupts vehicular, bike, or pedestrian traffic, any interference with
public utilities, and any other activity that will present a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare. This shall
also apply to any violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2.3 Application and Review Procedures
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur except after
a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with Section
26.505.050 and Section 26.505.060 in City Code.
2.4 Additional Review Procedures
In addition to the applicable application and review procedures listed in the Section 26.505.050 and Section
26.505.060 in City Code, all applications shall be reviewed based on the following procedures:
A. All applicable requirements outlined in Title 21 – Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places, Title
25 – Utilities, and Title 29 – Engineering Standards.
B. Small cell facility applicants must execute a master license agreement with the City, granting a non-
exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way.
C. Because shot clocks greatly reduce staff's ability to help a submitted project through the process,
the City strongly encourages applicants to submit voluntary preliminary review applications for any
SCF project. Preliminary reviews are not a project and are not subject to any shot clock. Staff can
then work with an applicant to address issues prior to submittal.
D. Attachment of SCFs on an existing traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure shall require
written evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
E. The City of Aspen reserves the right to require an applicant to pay the fees and costs of any
consultant retained by the City to assist in the review of plans, applications, reports, inspections,
and/or testing.
F. Certification of compliance. The wireless provider shall certify that the WCF is in compliance with
applicable FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) regulations, by submitting a site specific
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) report for the WCF equipment type and model being
installed at the site that is endorsed by a radiofrequency engineer licensed in the State of Colorado,
including a certification that the WCF complies with all radiation and electromagnetic standards.
The report shall specify approach distances to the general public and occupational workers at the
ground and antenna centerline levels. The report shall include instructions regarding powering off
the equipment or contact information for a person who can power off the equipment. No significant
changes to the power, location, RF emission patterns and/or emitting frequencies may be made
32
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 10 | P a g e
without prior notification and approval. However, non -substantive changes, for example, in-kind
replacements of transmitters of the same frequency, radiation patterns and power are permitted.
The City retains the right to independently verify the RF patterns as installed.
G. Public Safety. The wireless provider shall comply with all applicable FCC, state, and local codes,
provisions, or regulations that concern public safety. WCFs must not result in human exposure to
radio frequency radiation in excess of applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR Rule
1.1307(b). After transmitter and antenna system optimization, but prior to unattended operations of
the facility, the wireless provider or its representative must notify the City, so the City or its
representative can conduct on-site post-installation RF emissions testing to demonstrate actual
compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules for general
population/uncontrolled RF exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the wireless provider shall
ensure that the transmitter is operating at maximum operating power. The testing shall occur
outwards to a distance where the RF emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general
population limit. The City or its representative, with the assistance of the wireless provider, shall
also conduct annual RF emissions testing.
H. Notice Requirements. At the issuance of a completeness letter for an application for a new SCF
installation, the following procedures for public notice will be followed by the applicant:
Within 15 days of the completeness letter being issued, the following notice materials are required:
1) A 24x36 poster will be placed at the location of the proposed facility. The poster will include
the following information:
A photo simulation of the proposed facility.
A brief description of the type of equipment an d RF signal that is emitting from the
facility
Contact information for the applicant.
Contact information for City staff.
2) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The mailed
notice will include the information required by the on-site poster – and shall additionally
include text that better explains what a SCF is.
3) Newspaper Notice – City of Aspen Community Development will facilitate.
4) Location information shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS can update the locat ion
in a layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless facilities
City of Aspen Community Development Department will assist the applicant in the provision of
notice. Any delays in the provision of necessary materials for public notice by the applicant will
result in a hard stop on the shot clock tolling. All costs associated with the issuance of public notice
shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
2.5 Conditions and Limitations
Except for Eligible Facility Requests or SCF applications, the City shall reserve the right to add, modify or
delete conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest related to
health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the owner and operator in advance
and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the affected party of a substantial revenue source in
the exercising of such right.
Approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer of a W CF application shall not be
construed to waive any applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise specified, all
other requirements of City Code shall apply, including Title 21 – Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places,
Title 25 – Utilities, and Title 29 – Engineering Standards. All requests for modifications of existing facilities
or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and City Engineer for review under
all provisions and requirements of these Guidelines. If other than minor changes are proposed, a new,
complete application containing all proposed revisions shall be required.
33
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 11 | P a g e
Any changes to approved plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City in accordance with the
process required above.
34
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 12 | P a g e
3. SCF Pole Design Guidelines
The following Design Guidelines are only for small cell facilities (SCF) in the public right-of-way. The Design
Guidelines for all other wireless communications facilities (WCF), including SCFs not in the public right-of-
way, can be found in other sections of this docum ent.
3.1 General Pole Design Standards
Every small cell facility (SCF) in the public right-of-way shall comply with the following standards:
1. All SCF equipment and appurtenances shall be housed internally with regard to the pole or
alternative tower structure which hosts the SCF antennas.
2. Top-mounted antennas and their enclosures shall not extend the diameter of the utility pole or
wireless support structure at the level of the antenna attachment. SCFs shall be contained in a pole
with a base diameter of no more than 18 inches. The maximum diameter indicated shall extend no
more than five (5) feet from ground level. Above the base, the diameter of the pole shall be a
maximum of 12” and tapered to a diameter of 8” at the top.
3. Side-mounted SCF antennas are not allowed.
4. SCFs located on street light poles or traffic control devices shall not block light emanating from the
street light fixture or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the street light fixture or traffic control
device.
5. All WCFs shall be installed in accordance with all applicable City Codes. No wiring or cabling shall
interfere with any existing wiring or cabling installed by the City, a utility or a wireless services
provider.
6. No guy or other support wires will be used in connection with a SCF unless the SCF is to be
attached to an existing utility pole or wireless support structure that incorporates guy wires prior to
the date the applicant has applied for a permit.
7. The SCF, including the antenna, and all related equipment when attached to a new pole or wireless
support structure, must be designed to withstand a wind force and ice loads in accordance with the
applicable standards established in Chapter 25 of the National Electric Safety Code for utility poles,
Rule 250-B and 250-C standards governing wind, ice, and loading forces on utility poles, in the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in TIA/EIA Section 222 -G established by the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the Electronics Industry Association (EIA) for
steel wireless support structures and the applicable industry standard for other existing structures.
The evaluation must be prepared by a professional structural engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado.
8. The minimum distance between SCFs that contain the same wireless provider’s equipment is 600
feet.
9. Ground mounted enclosures, including backup power supply, and electric meters must be
concealed within existing above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground
equipment vault or within approved design standard treatments adopted by the City.
10. SCFs shall be located in a manner that meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and does
not obstruct, impede or hinder the usual bike, pedestrian or vehicular path of travel.
11. SCFs collocated on City-owned poles may not use the same power or communication source
providing power and/or communication for the existing infrastructure. The City may permit a new
SCF to use unused fibers within the same fiber cable if available. The wireless provider shall
coordinate, establish, maintain and pay for all power and communication connections with private
utilities.
12. SCF poles and associated equipment must meet minimum clearances from all utility infrastructure
as specified in Title 25 – Utilities and Title 29 – Engineering Standards.
35
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 13 | P a g e
13. If required by a utility provider, a related electric meter shall not be contained within or adjacent to
the SCF but will instead be located proximate to the transformer or underground with other related
equipment. This requirement may be wholly or partially waived by the City’s Electric
Superintendent.
14. All related cabling shall connect to the SCF underground. Above ground connections to the facility
are prohibited.
15. Concealment of all SCF equipment and appurtenances shall be required, pursuant to these
Guidelines.
16. Unless required by the FCC, signage is prohibited on all SCFs and wireless support structures,
except for a four (4) inch by six (6) inch plate with the wireless provider’s name, location identifying
information, and emergency telephone number shall be permanentl y fixed to the SCF equipment
enclosure or shroud. The provider is required to update this information whenever it changes.
3.2 Utility Distribution Poles
All attachments to utility distribution poles that provide aerial support for overhead utility lines with or without
a streetlight attached shall be approved by the City’s Electric Superintendent or Holy Cross Energy prior to
installation. All equipment shall meet the City’s Electric Superintendent or Holy Cross Energy requirements
and all of Aspen’s permit requirements.
Antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet.
Ground mounted enclosures, including backup power supply, and electric meters must be concealed within
an existing, previously approved above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground
equipment vault unless otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City to not be feasible.
All wiring shall be concealed within the pole or in conduit. The color of conduit shall be approved by the
City.
3.3 Streetlight Poles
No SCF shall be attached to any existing streetlight pole unless the existing streetlight pole was specifically
designed to support SCF equipment or is approved by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer. In all
other cases, the applicant shall have the existing streetlight pole removed. The applicant shall be
responsible for any and all costs for removal of the streetlight pole. The applicant shall place a new
combined SCF and streetlight pole in place of the removed streetlight pole or within 5 feet of the removed
streetlight pole.
1. The pole design in the City right-of-way shall match the aesthetics, spacing, and architectural
characteristics of existing streetlights installed adjacent to the pole.
2. The color of the pole shall be Federal color 16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book .
3. SCFs shall have a fluted pattern on the shaft of the pole – in reference to the existing street light
design.
4. The pole shall be designed and located in accordance with all City requirements as specified in
these Guidelines, and 2015 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, and approved by the City prior to submittal of the application. Designs will be in
accordance with the design concepts shown in Appendix A or as otherwise approved by the City.
5. Pole caissons should be circular in nature and designed to minimize impact of adjacent and future
utilities. Concrete must follow the latest Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Road &
Bridge Specification for applicable mix design. All designs must be stamped and signed by a
registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado.
6. Pole caissons must be flush-to-grade and must show the number of conduits and their locations.
36
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 14 | P a g e
7. Geotechnical boring may be used to install pole caissons.
8. The applicant must provide a service letter for both electric and fiber.
9. All new conduits (fiber, electric, etc.) and appropriate information must be shown in the complete
layout.
10. Location of existing electrical items must be shown on plans.
11. The applicant shall furnish and install a Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED streetlight
luminaire as shown in section B.1 of Appendix B.
12. If required, the applicant shall wire the SCF equipment to its own meter, with recurring monthly
electric service and metering paid for by the applicant.
13. The applicant shall wire the LED streetlight luminaire to the previously existing power source , with
recurring monthly electric service and metering (if applicable) continuing to be paid for by the City.
14. The new pole shall have space for at least one internal bay to house SCF equipment. If the new
pole is capable of housing two collocated SCFs, the pole shall have space for two internal bays .
The second bay will be available to another applicant with City approval and upon demonstrating
no interference with the first occupant’s SCF.
15. Support facilities and enclosures, backup power supply, and electric meters must be concealed
within existing above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
16. Antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet. Post-top
“cantenna” style antennas shall be used.
17. All wiring shall be concealed inside the pole within a channel separate from municipal wiring within
the pole.
18. If the new pole results in the removal of an existing streetlight pole, any existing caisson shall be
completely removed. Landscaping, sidewalk or other surface treatment shall be restored above
the removed caisson to the satisfaction of the City.
19. Due to the related street light service, the City shall be the owner of all new poles in the right-of-
way including streetlight poles and luminaires upon completion of construction. The applicant shall
retain ownership of any SCF.
20. The new pole shall have secured safety shutoff controls within the pole base for the City to be able
to turn off the SCF equipment for streetlight maintenance purposes.
21. Removed streetlights and luminaires shall be salvaged and returned to the City of Aspen.
3.4 Traffic Signal Poles
SCFs may be installed on CDOT -owned and City-owned traffic signal poles. This assumes that the traffic
signal pole is not expected to be used for emergency communications or tolling equipment. No SCF shall
be attached to any existing traffic signal pole unless the existing traffic signal pole was specifically designed
to support SCF equipment or is approved by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer. In all other cases,
the traffic signal pole and mast arm shall be replaced with a traffic signal pole and ma st arm designed to
accommodate the SCF equipment in addition to the required traffic signal and street light equipment. An
applicant may be limited to one traffic signal pole within 300 feet. For example, at a signalized intersection
there are generally 4 signal poles. A single applicant may be approved for only 1 of the 4 signal poles.
Other applicants may be approved for the other poles. Span wire designs are not permitted.
1. New traffic signal poles, mast arms, and luminaires shall meet the City of Aspen adopted standards
at the time the SCF application is made. The pole shall be designed and located in accordance
with all requirements as specified by the standards and specifications of CDOT, these guidelines,
and 2015 (as amended) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, and approved by CDOT and the City prior to submittal of the application. 37
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 15 | P a g e
2. Foundations shall be designed to meet the structural requirements of the pole. Concrete must
follow the latest Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Road & Bridge Specification (as
amended) for applicable mix design. All designs must be stamped and signed by a registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and shall be submitted to CDOT and the City.
3. The applicants shall provide their own power and fiber (or other communications medium) to their
SCF attached to the traffic signal pole.
4. Support facilities and enclosures, backup power supply, and electric meters must be in existing
above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
5. Antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet. Post-top
“cantenna” style antennas shall be used.
6. All wiring shall be concealed inside the signal pole within a channel separate from CDOT’s wiring
within the pole.
7. Due to the function of the pole as an official traffic control device, the new traffic signal pole, mast
arm, traffic signal equipment, and luminaire, upon completion of construction, shall be owned by
either the City or CDOT. The applicant shall retain ownership of any SCF equipment.
8. The new traffic signal pole shall have secured safety shutoff controls on the pole for CDOT and the
City to be able to turn off the SCF equipment for maintenance purposes.
9. Removed traffic signal poles, mast arms, luminaires, and equipment shall be salvaged and returned
to City or CDOT.
3.5 New Poles
1. If a replacement pole design is not possible, then a new wireless support structure shall be
designed to minimize the visual and aesthetic impact of the new vertical element and associated
SCFs upon the surrounding area and shall blend in with the surrounding streetscape with minimal
visual impact. The City requires that new wireless support structures to be constructed of a specific
material that will enhance the stealth and concealment of the structure. New poles shall be
designed as monopoles, consistent with the pole designs concepts detailed in Appendix A.
2. New wireless support structures shall match the design, type, and material of existing utility poles,
including street light poles, within the immediate area, except as otherwise approved by the City.
3. The color of the pole shall be Federal color 16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book.
4. New wireless support structures shall have a fluted pattern on the base and shaft of the pole.
5. New wireless support structures shall be equal distance from other utility poles based upon the
average distance between existing utility poles within the designated area. If a new wireless support
structure cannot be located the average distance from other utility poles, a new wireless support
structure may be approved if such wireless support structure is designed as a stealth pole.
6. The centerline of a new wireless support structure shall be in alignment with existing utility poles
where present, or with street or parkway trees along the same side of the right-of-way.
7. New wireless support structures shall not exceed the heights as authorized by City Code and these
Guidelines, which, unless otherwise specified by the City, is 25 feet above ground level.
8. New wireless support structures shall be context sensitive based on poles in the surrounding area
of the City, which could include poles that are round in shape with a fluted pole shaft unless
otherwise directed by the City.
9. New wireless support structures incorporating SCFs in an equipment enclosure within a base shall
utilize poles tapered in diameter.
10. All new wireless support structures must be supported with a reinforced concrete foundation
designed, stamped, sealed and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado,
38
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 16 | P a g e
and subject to the City’s approval.
11. All anchor bolts must be concealed from public view, with an appropriate pole boot or cover powder-
coated to match the wireless support structure color, which shall be Federal color 16187 from the
Federal Standards 595C Colors book.
12. For all new pole installations, the City reserves the right to require a second applicant for the same
general space to install a new pole capable of collocating both applicants internally in the pole. The
first applicant is required to allow the subsequent applicant to replace the pole with a multi-cell pole.
13. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Requirements
and Construction Management Plan (CMP) where applicable.
39
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 17 | P a g e
4. SCF Pole Siting Requirements
The following Siting Requirements are only for small cell facilities (SCF) in the public right-of-way. The
Siting Requirements for all other wireless communications facilities (WCF), including SCFs not in the public
right-of-way, can be found in other sections of this document.
4.1 Location
The City reserves the right to approve all proposed pole locations and to modify those locations as
necessary for future City needs, functional and/or aesthetic reasons. The City will work with the applicant
to find a suitable location for both the City and the applicant.
The City of Aspen encourages location of small cell facilities (SCF) outside of designated Historic Districts,
and on non-historically designated properties. SCFs shall not interfere with prominent vistas or significant
public view corridors.
Where ever possible the poles shall be sited to take advantage of existing screening.
Poles shall not be located:
Within 30 feet of a fire hydrant unless replacing an existing pole in the same location , reduced
distances can be approved by the City .
In any manner which would obstruct a public sidewalk or roadway including reducing vertical
or horizontal clearances required by the City and shall not result in a change in the slope of
any sidewalk adjacent to the SCF.
Within 12 feet of driveway aprons.
Within sight triangle – per City engineer at intersections
Within the dripline of an existing tree.
Within roadway medians due to non -breakaway design.
Within 12 feet of an occupied space or patio.
When located adjacent to a commercial establishment, such as a shop or restaurant, care should be
taken to locate the SCF such that it does not negatively impact the business. SCFs shall not be located
in-front of store front windows, primary walkways, primary entrances or exits, or in such a way that it
would impede a delivery to the building. SCFs should be located between properties as much as
possible.
SCFs shall not impede existing and futur e facilities, including sidewalks, stormwater infrastructure,
water infrastructure, fiber optic infrastructure, and electric infrastructure, and other infrastructure
included in adopted City plans, inclusive of the Capital Asset Plan, Fiber Master Plan and Bike-Ped
Master Plan.
In areas of the City identified as parks and open space or designated as a historical district, or within
500 feet of a landmark, the applicant shall conduct a consultation with the applicable department s,
divisions, or personnel of the City to discuss aesthetically significant structures, views , or community
features and options to minimize any adverse aesthetic impacts of attaching or installing SCFs in such
areas.
Except for equipment mounted in the base cabinet, n o equipment, shelters, or cabinets, and no
electrical distribution panels may be at ground level, except after all reasonable alternative pole
locations have been explored and found unavailable or lacking in some substantial way, and only with
the prior written approval of the City upon a good faith showing of necessity, and upon such conditions
as the City deems appropriate under the circumstances. The City shall weigh such requests against
historic preservation policies, aesthetic considerations, pedestr ian, and disabled person access to
40
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 18 | P a g e
sidewalks, public safety concerns, technical installation conflicts, and compliance with all applicable
laws.
4.1.1 Site selection
Wireless communication facilities, including SCFs shall be located in the following order of preference:
1. Co-located on the rooftop of private property
2. Co-located on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building
3. New facility on the rooftop of private property
4. New facility on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building
5. Co-located on an already established or future small cell facility in the right of way.
6. New small cell facility established on the site and in replacement of an existing City of Aspen
street light and including an attached luminaire or contained w ithin the structure of existing or
redesigned traffic signals, with cooperation of CDOT.
7. New stand-alone facility in a new location – this may or may not include a luminaire .
8. Alley locations may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
4.1.2 Prohibited Locations
1. Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way along the property frontage adjacent to any street
facing façade of these iconic Aspen buildings:
Wheeler Opera House (320 E Hyman Ave)
Wheeler/Stallard Museum (620 W Bleeker St)
Elks’ Building (510 E Hyman Ave)
Independence Building (404 S Galena St)
Pitkin County Courthouse (506 E Main St)
Hotel Jerome (330 E Main St)
City Hall (Armory Building) (130 S Galena St)
St. Mary’s Church (533 E Main St)
Sardy House (128 E Main St)
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way of the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. However, they may
be placed on private property along the Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and
Cooper Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and
Hyman Avenues.
2. Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No SCFs are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain View Plane. See Aspen
Land Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these areas.
3. Relationship to designated Open Space
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated Open Space parcels.
4.1.3 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way
Leasing of public buildings, publicly owned structures and/or public rights -of-way for the purposes of
locating SCFs and/or equipment is encouraged. In cases where a facility is proposed on City property
that is not in the Public Right -of-Way, specific locations and compensation to the City shall be
negotiated in lease agreements between the City and the provider on a case -by-case basis and would
41
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 19 | P a g e
be subject to all of the review criteria contained in this Section. Lease agreements shall be executed
prior to location approval under this Section. Such agreements shall not provide exclusive
arrangements that could tie up access to the negotiated sites or limit competition and must allow for
the possibility of Collocation with other providers as described in Section 26.505.080.B.
4.2 Height Requirements
SCFs within the City of Aspen’s right-of-way are limited to 25 feet in height.
4.3 Noise
Noise generated on the site must not exceed the levels permitted, pursuant to Title 18 - Noise Abatement,
of City Code, except that a SCF owner or operator shall be permitted to exceed Code noise standards for
a reasonable period of time during repairs, not to exceed two hours without prior authorization from the
City. Maintenance crews will not be allowed access between midnight and 6 AM unless emergency repairs
are required and the City is notified. Crews shall manage construction impacts including noise and lighting
to minimize impacts to residential land uses whenever they are working between dusk and dawn.
4.4 Related Accessory Equipment.
All equipment related to SCFs shall be located within the facility’s pole structure or in an underground vault.
Beyond the antenna, related shroud, and luminaire, no equipment may be attached to the exterior of the
pole.
4.5 Lighting
SCFs shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable governmental
authority, or the SCF is mounted on a light pole or other similar structure primarily used for lighti ng
purposes. If lighting is required it shall conform to other applicable sections of the City Code regulating
outdoor lighting.
Luminaires attached to SCFs shall have the following characteristics :
1. A LED, “hockey puck” design as shown in Section A.2 of Appendix A.
2. The fixture shall be the Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED as shown in Section B.1 of
Appendix B.
3. The fixture shall be mounted at a height of 15 to 16 feet as approved by the City.
4. The fixture shall be painted to match the pole to which it is attached, and shall be Federal color
16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book .
5. The fixture shall be designed to be modular – in that it could be easily replaced with an
alternative fixture in the future.
6. The fixture shall comply with City of Aspen B.U.G. Standards.
7. The fixture shall be dark sky compliant.
8. All luminaires must be equipped with a dimmable driver regardless of output .
4.6 Signage
Signage is prohibited on all SCFs and wireless support structures, including stickers, logos, and other
non-essential graphics and information with the following exceptions . If signage is required it shall
conform to other applicable sections of the City Code regula ting signage.
1. Required by the FCC.
2. A required small placard identifying the service provider and providing a 24-hour contact
number, which shall be placed facing away from the public rights of way.
42
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 20 | P a g e
5. Non-SCF Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements
The following Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements are for wireless communications facilities (WCF)
that are not small cell facilities (SCF) in the public right-of-way. WCFs and equipment subject to the
provisions and criteria of this section include without limitation, small cell facilities (SCF) not within the public
right-of-way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal
communication services (PCS), commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and other wireless comme rcial
telecommunication devices and all associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas,
monopoles, towers, masts and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms.
The Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements for SCFs in the public right-of-way can be found in other
sections of this document.
The following provisions apply to all WCFs and equipment applications, sites and uses, except for Small
Cell Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way
5.1 Prohibitions
1. Lattice towers (a structure, with three or four steel support legs, used to support a variety of
antennae; these towers generally range in height from sixty (60) to two hundred (200) feet and are
constructed in areas where great height is needed, microwave antennas are required or where the
weather demands a more structurally sound design) are prohibited within the City.
2. Towers, excluding Alternative Tower Structures and Small Wireless Facilities attached to Towers,
shall be prohibited in the following Zone Districts: Medium -Density Residential (R-6); Moderate-
Density Residential (R-15, R-15A, R-15B); Low-Density Residential (R-30); Residential Multi-
Family (RMF, RMFA); and Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH -1/PUD);
Conservation (C); Agricultural (Ag); Park (P); Open Space (OS); Rural Residential (RR).
3. All WCFs and equipment not prohibited by the preceding statements shall be allowed in all other
zone districts subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director pursuant to
the provisions, requirements and standards of this Chapter, including consistency with the
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
5.2 Site Selection
Except for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Rights -of-Way, Wireless communication facilities shall be
located in the following order of preference:
First: Collocated on existing structures such as buildings, communication towers, flagpoles, church
steeples, cupolas, ball field lights, non-ornamental/antique street lights such as highway
lighting, etc.
Second: In locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures provide the
greatest amount of screening.
Least: On vacant ground or highly visible sites without significant visual mitigation and where
screening/buffering is difficult at best.
5.3 Historic sites and structures
In addition to the applicable standards of Chapter 26.415, all of the foregoing and foll owing provisions and
standards of this Chapter shall apply when wireless telecommunication services, WCFs and equipment are
proposed on any historic site or structure or within any historic district.
5.4 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way
Leasing of public buildings, publicly owned structures and/or public rights-of-way for the purposes of
locating WCFs and/or equipment is encouraged. In cases where a facility is proposed on City property that
is not in the Public Right-of-Way, specific locations and compensation to the City shall be negotiated in
43
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 21 | P a g e
lease agreements between the City and the provider on a case -by-case basis and would be subject to all
of the review criteria contained in this Section. Such agreements would not provide exclusiv e arrangements
that could tie up access to the negotiated sites or limit competition and must allow for the possibility of
Collocation with other providers.
5.5 Design Guidelines for all WCFs that are not SCFs in the ROW
5.5.1 Camouflage/Concealment
All WCFs and any Transmission Equipment shall, to the extent possible, use Camouflage Design
Techniques including, but not limited to the use of industry best practices materials, colors, textures,
screening, undergrounding, landscaping, or other design option s that will blend the WCF into the
surrounding natural setting and built environment.
1. Camouflage design may be of heightened importance where findings of particular sensitivity are
made (e.g. proximity to historic, natural, or aesthetically significant structures or areas, views,
and/or community features or facilities). In such instances where WCFs are located in areas of
high visibility, they shall (where possible) be designed (e.g., placed underground, inside of existing
structure, depressed, or located behind earth berms) to minimize their profile.
2. The camouflage design may include the use of Alternative Tower Structures should the Community
Development Department determine that such design meets the intent of this Code and the
community is better served thereby.
3. All WCFs, such as Antennas, vaults, equipment rooms, equipment enclosures, and tower
structures shall be constructed out of non-reflective materials (visible exterior surfaces only).
Coloring of welds, bands, bolts, and the like, shall be of a similar color to the main WCF.
4. When located adjacent to a commercial establishment, such as a shop or restaurant, care should
be taken to locate the WCF such that it does not negatively impact the business. WCFs shall not
be located in-front of store front windows, primary walkways, primary entrances or exits, or in such
a way that it would impede a delivery to the building. WCFs should be located between properties
as much as possible.
5. When located within a City right-of-way, deployment shall not impede existing and future facilities,
including sidewalks, stormwater infrastructure, water infrastructure, and electric infrastructure, and
other infrastructure included in adopted City plans, inclusive of the Capital Asset Plan, and Bike-
Ped Master Plan.
5.5.2 Collocation
Collocation of facilities with other providers is encouraged. Collocation can be achieved as either building-
mounted, roof-mounted or ground-mounted facilities. In designing or retrofitting Towers, applicants are
strongly encouraged to consider the possibility of present or future co-location of other WCFs by structurally
overbuilding in order to handle the loading capacity of additional WCFs, for the use of the applicant and for
other wireless service providers to use as well. Applicant s shall use good faith efforts to negotiate lease
rights to other users who desire to use an approved WCF site. Collocation on an existing support structure
shall be permitted as an accessory use. Projections of any type on the monopole, which are not an tennas,
are strongly discouraged.
1. Multiple use facilities are encouraged as well. WCFs and equipment may be integrated into
existing, replacement of existing, or newly developed facilities that are functional for other
purposes, such as ball field lights, flagpoles, church steeples, highway lighting, etc. All multiple
use facilities shall be designed to make the appearance of the antennae relatively inconspicuous.
2. The collocation requirement may be waived by the Community Development Director upon a
showing that either federal or state regulations prohibit the use, the proposed use will interfere with
the current use, the proposed use will interfere with surrounding property or uses, the proposed
user will not agree to reasonable terms, such co-location is not in the best interest of the public
health, safety or welfare or collocation is not reasonably feasible from a technological, construction 44
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 22 | P a g e
or design perspective. Time needed to review a collocation request shall not greatly exceed that
for a single applicant.
5.5.3 Setbacks
All WCFs shall comply with setback requirements. At a minimum, except for WCFs in the Public Right -of-
Way all WCFs shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zone district; if the
following requirements are more restrictive than those of the underlying zone district, the more restrictive
standard shall apply.
1. All WCFs (except for WCFs in the Public Right-of Way) shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from
any property lines, except when roof-mounted (above the eave line of a building) or wall mounted.
Flat-roof mounted facilities visible from ground level within one-hundred (100) feet of said property
shall be concealed to the extent possible within a compatible architectural element, such as a
chimney or ventilation pipe or behind architectural skirting of the type generally used to conceal
HVAC equipment, and shall comply with any applicable design requirements of Chapter 26.412,
Commercial Design Review, and 26.415, Historic Preservation. Pitched -roof-mounted facilities
shall always be concealed within a compatible architectural element, such as chimneys or
ventilation pipes.
2. Monopole towers (except for monopole towers in the Public Right-of-Way) shall be set back from
any residentially zoned properties a distance of at least three (3) times the monopole's height (i.e.,
a sixty (60) foot setback would be required for a twenty (20) foot monopole) and the setback from
any public road, as measured from the right-of-way line, shall be at least equal to the height of the
monopole.
3. No WCF may be established within one-hundred (100) feet of any existing, legally established WCF
except when located on the same building or structure.
4. No portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or into any front yard area.
Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area but may be attached to the building.
5. Any Alternative Tower Structure utilizing existing facilities shall meet all Right -of-Way design
guidelines, pursuant to adopted standards in Title 21 - Streets, Sidewalks, and Other Public Places,
Title 25 – Utilities, and Title 29 - Engineering Standards. Considerations should be given to the
general safety of the traveling public.
5.5.4 Height
The following restrictions shall apply:
1. WCFs not attached to a building shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height or the maximum
permissible height of the given Zone District, whichever is more restrictive.
2. Whenever a WCF antenna is attached to a building roof, the antenna and support system for panel
antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet
walls and the antenna and support system for whip antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height
as measured from the point of attachment.
3. The Community Development Director may approve a taller antenna height than stipulated in 2.
above if it is his or her determination that it is suitably camouflaged, in which case an administrative
approval may be granted.
4. If the Community Development Director determines that an antenna taller than stipulated in 2.
above cannot be suitably camouflaged, then the additional height of the antenna shall be reviewed
pursuant to the process and standards (in addition to the standards of this Section) of Chapter
26.430 (Special review).
5. Support and/or switching equipment shall be located inside a building, unless it can be fully
screened from view as provided in the "Screening" standards (26.475.130 and 26.505.080.F -G)
below or no building exists in which to locate the equipment.
45
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 23 | P a g e
5.5.5 Architectural compatibility
WCFs shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned
or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. In addition:
1. If such WCF is accessory to an existing use, it shall be constructed out of materials that are equal
to or of better quality than the materials of the principal use and shall exhibit compatible architectural
characteristics to the principal use.
2. WCF equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such
equipment is mounted, unless otherwise required by Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review
or 26.415, Historic preservation, or as required by the appropriate decision-making authority
(Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission or City Council, as applicable).
3. Whenever WCF equipment is mounted to the wall of a building or structure, the equipment shall be
mounted or a dark, neutral tone, whichever is found to provide better camouflage, in a configuration
designed to blend with and be architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure,
be as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which i t is
mounted. Variations to this standard in order to meet applicable requirements of Chapter 26.412,
Commercial Design Review or 26.415, Historic Preservation, may be approved during the review.
4. Monopole support buildings, which house switching devices and/or other equipment related to the
use, operation or maintenance of the subject monopole, must be designed to match the architecture
of adjacent buildings. If no recent and/or reasonable architectural theme is present, the Community
Development Director may require a particular design that is deemed to be suitable to the subject
location.
5. All utilities associated with WCFs shall be underground (also see "Screening" below), unless the
applicant demonstrates that it is not reasonably feasible from a cons truction, design, and
engineering perspective.
5.5.6 Compatibility with the natural environment
WCFs shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography
and other natural features and shall not dominate the landscape or present a dominant silhouette on a ridge
line. In addition:
1. If a location at or near a mountain ridge line is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized,
three-dimensional, visual simulations of the WCF and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate
the visual impact on the view of the affected ridges or ridge lines; an 8040 Greenline Review,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.435.030, may also be required.
2. Site disturbances shall be minimized and existing vegetation shall be pre served or improved to the
extent possible, unless it can be demonstrated that such disturbance to vegetation and topography
results in less visual impact to the surrounding area.
3. Surrounding view planes shall be preserved, as required in Section 26.435.05 0, Mountain View
Plane Review.
5.5.7 Screening
All WCF equipment, including accessory equipment, shall be screened from adjacent and nearby public
rights-of-way and public or private properties placing equipment internal to the structure, by paint color
selection, parapet walls, screen walls, fencing, landscaping and/or berming in a manner compatible with
the building's and/or surrounding environment's design, color, materials, texture, land forms and/or
topography, as appropriate or applicable in a given zone district. In addition:
1. Whenever possible, if monopoles are necessary for the support of antennas, they shall be located
near existing utility poles while maintaining National Electric Safety Code clearance and/or other
governing regulations, trees or other similar objects; consist of colors and materials that best blend
46
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 24 | P a g e
with their background; and, have no individual antennas or climbing spikes on the pole other than
those approved by the appropriate decision-making authority (Community Development Director,
Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, as
applicable).
2. For ground-mounted facilities, landscaping may be required to achieve a total screening effect at
the base of such facilities or equipment in order to screen the mechanical characteristics; a heavy
emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. Landscaping shall be of
a type and variety capable of growing within one (1) year to a landscape screen which satisfactorily
obscures the visibility of the facility. This requirement may be waived by the Community
Development Director if it is determined it is not necessary or reasonably feasible.
3. Unless otherwise expressly approved, all cables for a WCF shall be fully concealed from v iew
underground or inside of the screening or monopole structure supporting the antennas; any cables
that cannot be buried or otherwise hidden from view shall be painted to match the color of the
building or other existing structure.
4. All screening shall meet the requirements of applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
and Commercial Design Guidelines. Additionally, all fence screening shall meet the requirements
of 26.575.050, Fence Materials.
5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the WCF shall comply with all additional measures deemed
necessary to mitigate the visual impact of the facility. Also, in lieu of these screening standards,
the Community Development Director may allow use of an alternate detailed plan and
specifications for landscape and screening, including plantings, fences, walls, sign and structural
applications, manufactured devices and other features designed to screen, camouflage and buffer
antennas, poles and accessory uses. The plan should accomplish the same degree of screening
achieved by meeting the standards outlined above.
5.5.8 Lighting and Signage
WCFs shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable governmental authority,
or the WCF is mounted on a light pole or other similar structure pri marily used for lighting purposes. If
lighting is required, it shall conform to other applicable sections of the code regulating signage or outdoor
lighting. The following standards shall apply to WCFs and equipment:
1. The light source for security lighting shall feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries to direct,
control, screen or shade in such a manner as to ensure that there is no spillage of illumination off -
site.
2. Light fixtures, whether free standing or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height
as measured from finished grade.
3. The display of any sign or advertising device other than public safety warnings, certifications or
other required seals on any wireless communication device or str ucture is prohibited.
4. The telephone numbers to contact in an emergency shall be posted on each facility in conformance
with the provisions of Chapter 26.510, Signs, of this Title.
5.5.9 Noise
Noise generated on the site must not exceed the levels permitted, pursuant to Title 18 - Noise Abatement,
except that a WCF owner or operator shall be permitted to exceed Code noise standards for a reasonable
period of time during repairs, not to exceed two hours without prior authorization from the City.
5.6 Additional design requirements
The following requirements shall be applicable to the various types of WCFs as specified below:
5.6.1 Base Stations
47
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 25 | P a g e
If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a Tower or Alternative Tower Structure, such as a Base
Station (including, but not limited to the antennas and accessory equipment) it shall be of a neutral, non -
reflective color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure, or uses
other camouflage/concealment design techniques so as to make the antenna and related facilities as
visually unobtrusive as possible, including for example, without limitation, painting the Antennas and
accessory equipment to match the structure. Additionally, any ground mounted equipment shall be located
in a manner necessary to address both public safety and aesthetic concerns in the reasonable discretion
of the Manager, and may, where appropriate, and reasonable feasible from a technological, construction
or design perspective, require a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
5.6.2 Alternative Tower Structures not in the Public Right-of-Way
1. Alternative Tower Structures shall be designed and constructed to look like a building, facility, or
structure typically found in the area.
2. Be camouflaged/concealed consistent with other existing natural or manmade features near the
location where the Alternative Tower Structure will be located.
3. Such structures shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding area;
4. Height or size of the proposed alternative tower structure should be minimized as much as possible;
5. WCFs shall be sited in a manner that evaluates the proximity of the facility to residential structures
and residential district boundaries;
6. WCFs should take into consideration the uses on adjacent and nearby properties and the
compatibility of the facility to these uses;
7. Compatibility with the surrounding topography;
8. Compatibility with the surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
9. Compatibility of the design of the site, with particular reference to design characteristics that have
the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness; and
10. Impact on the surrounding area of the proposed ingress and egress, if any.
5.6.3 Towers
1. Towers shall be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness as determined by the
City;
2. Tower structures should use existing land forms, vegetation, and structures to aid in screening the
facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built and natural environment;
3. Monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip;
4. All Towers, excluding Alternative Tower Structures in the Right-of-Way, shall be equipped with an
appropriate anti-climbing device.
5.7 Related Accessory Equipment.
Accessory equipment for all WCFs shall meet the following requirements:
1. All buildings, shelter, cabinets, and other accessory components shall be grouped as closely as
technically possible;
2. The total footprint coverage area of the WCF’s accessory equipment shall not exceed 350 square
feet per carrier;
3. No related accessory equipment or accessory structure shall exceed 12 feet in height;
48
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 26 | P a g e
4. Accessory equipment, including but not limited too remote radio units, shall be located out of sight
whenever possible by locating behind parapet walls or within equipment enclosures. Where such
alternate locations are not available, the accessory equipment shall be camouflaged or concealed.
5.8 Access ways
In addition to ingress and egress requirements of the Building Code, access to and from WCFs shall be
regulated as follows:
1. No WCF shall be located in a required parking, maneuvering or vehicle/pedestrian circulation area
such that it interferes with or in any way impairs, the intent or functionality of the original design.
2. The WCF, except for Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, must be secured from
access by the general public but access for emergency services must be ensured. Access r oads
must be capable of supporting all potential emergency response vehicles and equipment.
3. The proposed easements for ingress and egress and for electrical and telecommunications shall
be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the is suance of building permits.
49
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 27 | P a g e
6. Safety Requirements
Prevention of failures and accidents. Any Person who owns and/or operates any Wireless
Communications Facility, including a small cell facility in the right-of-way, and/or Wireless Support Structure
shall at all times employ ordinary and reasonable care , and install and maintain using industry standard
technology for preventing failures and accidents which are likely to cause damage, injury, or nuisance to
the public.
Compliance with fire safety. Wireless Communications Facilities, including small cell facilities in the right-
of-way, Wireless Support Structures, wires, cables, fixtures, and other equipment shall be installed and
maintained in substantial compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Code, all state and local
regulations, and in such manner that will not interfere with the use of other property.
Compliance with FCC regulations. The wireless provider shall comply with all applicable FCC, state, and
local codes, provisions, or regulations that concern public safety. All wireless communications facilities must
not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of applicable safety standards specified
in 47 CFR Rule 1.1307(b).
Changes in state or federal standards and regulations. If state or federal standards and regulations are
amended, the owners of Wireless Communications Facilities, including small cell facilities in the right-of-
way, and/or Wireless Support Structures governed by this document shall bring any facilities and/or
structures into compliance with the revised standards and regulations within six months of the effective dat e
of the standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the regulating
agency. Failure to bring Wireless Communications Facilities, including small cell facilities in the right-of-
way, and/or Wireless Support Structures into compliance with any revised standards and regulations shall
constitute grounds for removal at the owner's expense.
50
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 28 | P a g e
Appendix A: Design Concepts
A.1 SCF pole without an attached light fixture
51
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 29 | P a g e
A.2 SCF pole with a hockey puck light fixture
52
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 30 | P a g e
Appendix B: Lighting Fixture Specifications
B.1 Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED
53
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 31 | P a g e
54
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 32 | P a g e
55
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 33 | P a g e
56
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 34 | P a g e
57
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 35 | P a g e
Appendix C: SCF Construction Plan Review Checklist
REVIEWER: _______________________ DATE: ___________
PROJECT: ________________________
Small Cell Facility Construction Plan Review Checklist
___________________________________________________________________________________
Master License Agreement (MLA):
An MLA is required prior to submitting a Small Cell Facility (SCF) application.
Is the MLA executed?
If YES, provide an executed copy of the MLA.
If NO, submit the following items for an MLA review:
Draft of MLA
If required – a copy of the approved Master Structural Plan (MSP)
Small Cell Attachment & Right of Way Permit Application
Electric service map with electric service shown to proposed site.
Metering:
For Unmetered Service: Location of point of demarcation / connection for unmetered
service for proposed site in the event of a direct connection to electrical power source.
For metered Service – location of meter (a related electric meter shall not be contained
within or adjacent to the SCF but will instead be located proximate to the transformer or
underground with other related equipment).
Once the MLA is fully executed, then the following items are required to be included in the first
submittal package. Failure to do so will result in a determination of an incomplete application.
General Application / Form
A fee or deposit.
Site Plan – see page 2
NIER Report – see page 3
Construction Plans and Master Structural Plan including calculations stamped and signed by a
licensed Engineer in the State of Colorado. (Calculations may be consolidated onto the plan and
may not be a separate document). See page 4
If any of the proposed work is to be located within CDOT right of way, submit copies of all
required permits and approvals provided by CDOT.
If any of the proposed work is to be located on National Forest Property, provide copies of all
required permits and approvals provided by the appropriate agencies.
If any of the proposed work is to be located on private property, provide documentation of all
necessary approvals by the property owner.
Provide proof of any required public notifications – see page 7
58
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 36 | P a g e
Site Plan Requirements:
Four sets of plans shall be prepared in accordance with the following requirements:
11” x 17” minimum sized plans (do they want electronic submittals?)
Structures within any Height Limit Overlay Zone and in Residential zones shall not exceed local
regulations.
Each pole type requires a separate detail sheet.
Each configuration requires a separate detail sheet.
Site Plan drawn to scale (1:30)
Show all properties and buildings with addresses within 300 feet of the location,
Proposed pole location with dimensions to surface infrastructure and nearest property line
Electronic connection location,
Data cable connection,
Any Designated Historic Property or District within 300 feet
Any Designated Mountain View Plane point of reference within 600 feet.
Any National Forest Property within 300 feet.
Identify right of way line, sidewalk, curb line, and street centerline.
Identify street names.
Identify the curb to property line distance and sidewalk width.
Show designated bike lanes. Narrow trenches are not allowed in bike lanes except micro
trenching.
When excavating in a bike lane, please add a note for contractor to grind and overlay full width of
bike lane
Identify the distances from edge of trench of proposed utility line to face of curb, water lines,
sewer lines, and any other dry utilities near the vicinity of the project.
Identify all existing utilities (wet and/or dry) within the street.
Identify all existing public and private improvements within the parkway area where excavation is
proposed, such as driveways, utility boxes, fire hydrants, trees, curb ramps, street signs, etc.
Identify vertical clearance between proposed utility line(s) and existing utility line(s) at each
crossing locations.
Any attachments shall be identified on the plans:
o Banners.
o Top Antenna Mount
o Signs required by FCC
Typical Distances Used to Measure Visibility Areas:
o For visibility areas at the intersection of streets, two sides of the triangle extend along the
intersecting property lines for 30 feet and the third side is a diagonal line that connects
the two.
o For visibility areas at the intersection of a street and alley, two sides of the triangle extend
along the intersecting property lines for 30 feet and the third side is a diagonal line that
connects the two.
59
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 37 | P a g e
Non-Ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER) Report Requirements one per Small Cell Facility
(SCF).
Include: % Maximum Permissible Exposure Simulations at Antenna Face and Ground Level + 5
Feet
Color Photo Simulation to scale for each configuration/pole location.
Show simulation of antenna, beam, nearest structure(s), topography and
Show separate % MPE estimate for each transmitter
1. On report/drawings, provide:
Page numbers on every page of the NIER report
Indicate Scale on every graphic of the NIER report
Acronyms should be spelled out/defined for improved interpretation by the general public
State the general purpose and type of transmitter(s) (i.e., “…Omni-directional cellular 4G
LTE, Point-to-multipoint backhaul microwave hop,” etc.)
2. Provide separate simulations noting limits and % of MPE:
At antenna level – Show plan and profile/elevation views
At ground level – Show plan and profile/elevation views
Calculate square feet of private property exceeding 100% MPE at antenna and any level
Graphically illustrate MPE values considering the topography beyond the nearest
potentially affected residence. For example, if an antenna radiates a high-power beam
to the north from 20 feet above ground level at the horizon over irregular terrain, include
graphically the distance the beam(s) will pass from the nearest potentially affected
residence on the plan and profile.
Provide Assurances.
Only licensed contractors with a proven track record for safety will work on the project.
The proposed equipment will not be significantly changed in power, frequency or
direction without prior approval and a new application process from the City of Aspen.
The proposed facility will be operated in full compliance with the FCC’s emissions
standards
After transmitter and antenna system optimization, but prior to unattended operations of
the facility, the wireless provider or its representative will notify the City, so the City or its
representative, with the assistance of the wireless provider, can conduct on-site post-
installation RF emissions testing to demonstrate actual compliance with the FCC OET
Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules for general population/uncontrolled RF exposure in
all sectors. The City or its representative, with the assistance of the wireless provider,
shall also conduct annual RF emissions testing.
The transmitter will be properly registered with the FCC national small cell transmitter
data base when completed.
60
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 38 | P a g e
Construction Plans and Master Structural Plan Requirements
For most recent forms, please refer to:
The following forms must be com pleted and signed by an authorized agent or permit holder:
Supplemental ROW Application
Provide current picture and latitude and longitude coordinate of site and associated address
Verify that no other SCFs for the same service provider exists within 600 feet of this site.
Verify that the correct Streel Light and existing attachments match the details shown on the site
plan. Dimension shown shall comply with actual field conditions.
Kill Switch must be identified on the pole.
Identify the minimum horizontal and vertical clearance between City Mains and proposed utility
conduit:
Horizontal Clearances:
10 feet to Sewer Mains; 5 feet in alleys
10 feet to Recycled Mains
5 feet to Water Mains
5 feet to all valves
5 feet to Storm Drains
5 feet to Storm Drain Structures
1 foot to other telecom and gas utilities
5 feet from existing street tree
Vertical Clearances:
1 foot to all City utilities.
NOTE: If minimum separation cannot be met, an approval from the respective asset owner is re quired
Street Excavation Table
List each trench in separate lines for multiple trenches in one street.
Last street overlay date,
Coordination and conflict – verify that there are no other construction activities active or planned
within the proposed work zone.
Average Daily Traffic Count Table (ADT) (Not required for the initial submittal)
Traffic Control Plan
All work in the public ROW requires a Traffic Control Permit. Franchise utility companies will obtain via
MOU. Any telecommunication company that is not a franchise is required to submit a traffic control plan
with a right of way permit.
Striping and Street Light Notes
Environmental and Landscaping Notes
Utility Details
Small Wireless Facility Right of Way Permit (construction plan):
1. Small Cell-Wireless Facilities (SCFs):
61
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 39 | P a g e
Installation and Trenching for SCFs shall be submitted at the same time except when the
installation of the SC-WCF does not require trenching.
Include the required tracking number. This will allow staff to actively set up these projects
in advance to minimize wait time.
The invoice issued on the date of the submittal must be paid before any review can be
done.
2. SCF Sites:
For Existing Street Light, the applicant will be required to remove and replace the Street Light to a
fabricated pole of materials meeting the City of Aspen standard fixture requirements. For
standard street light details, please refer to the diagram in Section A.2 of Appendix A, and the
specifications for the Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED as shown in Section B.1 of
Appendix B, of this document.
Existing Traffic Signal: one (1) SCF allowed per pole
For Existing Street Light and Traffic Signal: one (1) SCF allowed per pole
For Existing Street Light: one or more SCFs per pole
Verify the number of devices indicated on the electric service map to proposed site and
the total existing power consumption in amps.
Documentation verifying that the proposed light fixture, luminaire and distribution pattern
will comply with the City of Aspen Backlight, Uplight and Glare (BUG) standards for the
specific location.
If a connection to an existing City of Aspen or Holy Cross electric service line is requested , the following
requirements shall be met:
There are no other SCF connected to the electric service line, and
The SCF power consumption is less than 5 amps or less, and
The Electric Service Line shall have a total power consumption of 15 amps or less.
The Right-of-Way (ROW) Permit Application for installation of an SCF and for proposed trenching in the
ROW will be reviewed by the Engineering Division, Drainage and Grades review disciplines.
Please be advised other review disciplines (including but not limited to Traffic Safety, Environmental,
Utilities, Geology, etc.) may be required and added on a case by case basis depending on site locat ion
and scope of work.
62
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 40 | P a g e
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED:
Identify separation distance (from edge to edge) between existing improvements and proposed
utility conduit/box.
Identify the minimum required 3’ separation between proposed trench and the face of curb.
Identify the minimum 4’ wide ADA Path of Travel between above ground structure(s) and the
edge of Path of Travel/sidewalk.
Handholes shall not be in the Path of Travel.
Identify the minimum required 24” clearance between the replacement/new pedestal and face of
curb in accordance with Standard Drawings.
Identify the minimum required 12’ separation between any above grade utility structure(s) and
existing driveway flare in accordance with standard drawing(s).
Any above grade obstruction 3 ft or greater in height that are placed at intersections or driveway
shall evaluate sight distance requirements per AASHTO Standards and Land Development Code
Identify any existing pole or other structure to be removed.
Refers to §9.5 Intersection Sight Distance of AASHTO Greenbook:
Clear sight triangles concept
AASHTO presents different situations based on type of traffic control at the location. The recommended
dimensions of the sight triangles vary with the type of traffic control used at an intersection because
different types of control impose different legal constraints on drivers and, therefore, result in different
driver behavior.
The typical AASHTO cases evaluated are as follows:
Case B—Intersections with stop control on the minor road or driveway
Case B1—Left turn from the minor road
Case B2—Right turn from the minor road
Case B3—Crossing maneuver from the minor road
Case D –Signal control (right turn on red)
Case F –Left turns from major road
Case B1 example –left turn from driveway onto major road
Identify all survey monuments (inclusive of vertical benchmarks and survey off-sets).
Identify all existing traffic loops/sensors.
Identify Maintenance Assessment / Metro District / Special District Areas on plans.
Plans shall identify any landscape, irrigation lines or other appurtenances being removed and replaced
63
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 41 | P a g e
Notice Requirements
At the issuance of a completeness letter for an application for a new SCF installation, the following
procedures for public notice will be followed by the applicant:
Within 15 days of the completeness letter being issued, the following notice materials are required, so the
applicant should be prepared to submit them:
A 24x36 poster will be placed at the location of the proposed facility. The poster will include the
following information:
A photo simulation of the proposed facility.
A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal that is emitting from the facility
Contact information for the applicant.
Contact information for City staff.
A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The mailed
notice will include the information required by the on-site poster – and shall additionally
include text that better explains what a SCF is.
Newspaper Notice – City of Aspen Community Development will facilitate.
Location information shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS can update the location
in a layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless facilities
City of Aspen Community Development Department will assist the applicant in the provision of notice. Any
delays in the provision of necessary materials for public notice by the applicant will result in a hard stop
on the shot clock tolling. All costs associated with the issuance of public notice shall be the responsibility
of the applicant.
64
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 42 | P a g e
I Hereby Acknowledge and certify that:
1. I am accountable for knowing and complying with the governing policies, regulations and
submittal requirements applicable to this proposed development(s);
2. I have performed reasonable research to determine the required documents and
information for the proposed project, and that failure to accurately identify the requ ired
documents and information could significate delay the permitting process.
3. If required documents or plan content is missing, project review will be delayed, and
4. This submittal package meets all the minimum submittal requirements contained in the
checklist provided in this document.
Name: _________________________________________
Signature: ______________________________________
Date: __________________________________________
65
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 43 | P a g e
Appendix D: Small Cell / 5G Background Information
D.1 Small Cell Definition
Small cells are low-powered cellular radio access facilities that provide a small radio footprint, which can
range from 10 meters (approximately 30 feet) within urban locations to 2 km (approximately 6500 feet) for
rural locations depending upon the radio frequencies being used. They are "small" compared to a mobile
macrocells, primarily because they have a shorter range. They make the best use of available spectrum by
reusing the same frequencies over and over again within a geographical area. F ewer macrocell sites are
being built, with a larger number of small cells being built as an important method of increasing cellular
network capacity, quality and resilience. Small cells support both today’s 4G/LTE technologies and
tomorrow’s 5G technologies, as well as potentially supporting other technologies that might be developed
in the future. [3]
Small cells complement today’s macrocell network to improve coverage, add capacity, and support new
services and user experiences. There are various types of small cells, with varying ranges, power levels
and form factors. While the smallest units are for indoor residential use, the largest are for urban or rural
outdoor uses. [3]
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order, titled “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment” (the Order). The FCC Order defines Small Cell Facilities as facilities that meet
each of the following conditions [6]:
(1) The facilities—
i. are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or
ii. are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjac ent structures, or
iii. do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or
by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no
more than three cubic feet in volume;
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment
associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no
more than 28 cubic feet in volume;
(4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of the FCC Order;
(5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and
(6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radi ation in excess of the
applicable safety standards.
66
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 44 | P a g e
D.2 5G Definition
5G refers to the fifth generation of mobile phone networks. 5G will enable significantly greater mobile
speeds to enable real‐time connectivity for mission‐critical devices and applications. In the near future, 5G
networks will connect billions of IoT devices that will require a wide variety of speed and large volumes of
data. [2]
The industry continues looking to the future as the uses and demands for mobile data keep expanding. 5G,
which was rolled out in 2019 and will continue to grow for years to come, is being designed to provide
higher speeds, while offering improved capacity, scale, latency, and reliability. [2]
As was the case with earlier steps along the way to faster mobile data, 5G will require new hardware at the
network and device level that is compatible with the 5G New Radio (NR) standards. There are reportedly
just a handful of commercially available handheld mobile 5G devices in the US today, with new 5G devices
continuously being developed and released. [2]
Latency
Latency is the lag or delay between when data is sent and when it is received. Low latency becomes
essential for critical control in certain situations such as autonomous vehicles and remotely controlled
surgical procedures. [2]
Spectrum
An analogy that could be used to best describe spectrum is to think about it as a highway. The amount of
spectrum determines how many lanes a highway has. With more data (cars on the highway), the more
lanes (spectrum) the better. [2]
The bandwidth that is available within a spectrum determines how much network performance is available
to network users. In low‐band spectrum, bandwidth is typically limited, so data rates tend to be low. In mid‐
band and high band spectrum, the available bandwidth can be many times greater than what is available
in low‐band, which results in higher data rates. [2]
In some 5G solutions, high-band spectrum offers higher capacity and speed. However, the high ‐band
spectrum has an extremely short range of just a few hundred meters. Due to its short range, this spectrum
requires massive network densification. [2]
Although mid-band and high-band spectrum have reduced range, the higher frequencies involved mean
that antennas can be smaller. [2]
Capacity
One of the best ways to describe capacity is to examine one of the more popular uses of wireless networks,
streaming a movie. When trying to stream a 4K movie over today’s 4G/LTE wireless network, people
probably encounter an on‐screen-spinning disk or other message indicating that the movie is buffering.
That is because existing wireless networks often do not have enough capacity to handle demands such as
streaming 4K movies due to lack of spectrum. In part, this lack of capacity stems fro m the relatively low
frequencies used by existing networks. [2]
On the other hand, 5G will use higher frequencies and a variety of technologies to allow, for example, users
to watch 4K high definition movies without being bothered by that annoying little s pinning disk in the center
of their screen. [2]
Speed
Because 5G will use higher frequencies, it will provide much higher data speeds. 5G is designed to
incorporate a number of technologies that will enable users to do things like download an entire HD movie
in a couple of seconds. [2]
67
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 45 | P a g e
Coverage
In addition to capacity and speed, coverage is another very important factor in determining how usable any
wireless network may be. If a user cannot get a signal, the potential capacity and speed are meaningless.
[2]
5G wireless networks will use a much broader range of frequencies than were utilized in earlier networks.
While higher frequencies can deliver much higher bandwidth and data rates, higher frequency radio waves
can only be effective over much shorter distances, so small cells only supply a few hundred feet of
coverage. [2]
Densification
Densification is adding more cell sites to an area. Network densification is being implemented due to the
growing number of devices and increasing demand for data. When more cell sites exist in an area, users
will most likely be closer to one of those sites, which means that coverage and capacity become less of a
problem. [2]
Deploying a large number of low powered small cells is a solution for network densification. A network of
small cells can be deployed anywhere needed as a complement to the existing network of macro cells to
increase capacity and data rates. [2]
Network densification needs to be complemented by fiber optic backhaul.
Uses
Remote workers / off-site job locations
5G can be used to replace traditional wireline connections by increasing data bandwidth available to
devices and minimizing latency. For remote workers, this increases flexibility in work locations, allowing for
communication with the office, without being tied to a desk in a home office with a wireline connection. For
situations that involve frequently changing off -site job locations, the lower technical requirements for 5G
deployment allow for setting up a 5G connection to which existing dev ices can connect to a 5G router via
Wi-Fi. [1]
Internet of Things (IoT) devices
Improving network connectivity for IoT devices is one of the priorities for the design of 5G networks. For
some LTE capable IoT devices the limitations of battery sizes that ca n be included in these devices and
the comparatively high-power requirements of LTE limit the usefulness of mobile network connectivity in
these situations. 5G networks are focusing on reducing power requirements, making the use of IoT devices
more feasible. [1]
City centers, office buildings, arenas, and stadiums
5G technologies can also be used to improve the quality of service for situations in which a large number
of devices make use of the mobile network in densely populated areas. These benefits can b e realized
easily in situations with variable traffic and in areas where large numbers of employees work during the
week. Densely populated city centers can also benefit from the ability of 5G networks to provide service to
more devices in physically smaller spaces. [1]
Future
As technology advances, older devices will inevitably reach end-of-life. Much in the same way that the
digital switchover occurred for over-the-air TV broadcasts, older mobile networks are actively being
dismantled to free spectrum for LTE and 5G networks. [1]
In the US, AT&T disabled its 2G network on January 1, 2017, rendering countless phones unusable.
Verizon planned to disable its legacy 2G and 3G networks by the end of 2019, which will render older
68
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 46 | P a g e
smartphones unusable, as well as IoT devices such as water meters. End-of-life plans for the 2G networks
of Sprint and T-Mobile have not been publicly disclosed. [1]
As 5G is used to deliver wireless broadband, wireline broadband providers will face competition as the two -
services approach feature parity. With many people using smartphones both as their primary computing
device and for tethering a traditional computer to the internet, the extra cost of a traditional wireline network
connection may become unnecessary for some people, and enable those outside the reach of traditional
wireline networks to have affordable access to high-speed broadband for the first time. [1]
5G’s low-power and low-latency attributes are expected to spark a revolution in IoT deployments. 5G will
enable the deployment of billions of IoT devices by 2020, leading to the creation of the "industrial internet,"
which will affect a number of industries. This will also make 5G well suited for applications that require
continuous response and data analysis, such as self-driving cars and traffic control. [1]
69
Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines
Working Draft 47 | P a g e
D.3 Sources
1. “5G mobile networks: A cheat sheet”. Tech Republic. (14 November 2018). Retrieved March 13,
2019, from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/5g-mobile-networks-a-cheat-sheet/ .
2. “5G For Dummies®, Sprint Business Special Edition”. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2018). Retrieved
March 13, 2019 from https://business.sprint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/05/5G-For-
Dummies-Sprint-Business-Special-Edition.pdf .
3. “Small cell”. Definition from Wikipedia. (14 March 2019). Retrieved March 20, 2019 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_cell .
4. “Forging paths to 5G”. ITU News Magazine. (February 2017). Retrieved August 25, 2019 from
https://www.itu.int/en/itunews/Documents/2017/2017-02/2017_ITUNews02-en.pdf
5. “How Cell-phone Radiation Works - Potential Health Risks”. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved
November 26, 2019 from https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation2.htm
6. “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment”. Federal Communications Commission: Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and
Order. (26 September 2018). Retrieved September 29, 2018 from
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf
70
Chapter 26.505
Wireless Communication Facilities and Equipment
Sec. 26.505.010 Purpose
Sec. 26.505.020 Applicability
Sec. 26.505.030 Definitions
Sec. 26.505.040 Operational Standards
Sec. 26.505.050 Procedures for Review
Sec. 26.505.060 Application Contents
Sec. 26.505.070 General Provisions and Requirements
Sec. 26.505.080 Design Standards
26.505.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers
and wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
public, provide for managed development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal
of wireless communications infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town
character, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a
competitive wireless communications marketplace in the city.
Adoption of Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
The City Council hereby adopts design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines, which are incorporated by reference and made part
of the Aspen Land Use Code. These Guidelines set forth the design parameters to ensure safe and
secure installation and minimize negative aesthetic impacts of wireless communications facilities
installed on private property or in the public right-of-way. The Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines may be amended, updated, and expanded from time to time by City Council
Resolution. At least (1) copy shall be available for public inspection at the Community
Development and Engineering Departments and on the City of Aspen’s webpage.
26.505.020 Applicability
All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment must receive land
use approval, building permits, and/or right-of-way permits, as applicable, prior to installation.
Concurrent to the Prior to the issuance of appropriate building and right-of-way permits, WCFs
and/or equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Community Development Director (and
when applicable, the City Engineer) in conformance with the provisions and criteria of this
Chapter. WCFs and equipment subject to the provisions and criteria of this Chapter include
without limitation, WCFs within the Public Rights of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication services (PCS), commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial telecommunication devices and all
associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas, monopoles, towers, masts
and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms. These provisions and criteria do not apply
to noncommercial satellite dish antennae, radio and television transmitters and antennae incidental
to residential use. All references made throughout this Chapter, to any of the devices to which this
Chapter is applicable, shall be construed to include all other devices to which this Chapter is
applicable.
Formatted: Font: Italic
71
A. Future Amendments to Chapter 26.505.
All future amendments to this Chapter shall be exempt from the requirement of Policy
Resolution for code amendments (Section 26.310.020.B.1-2). Future amendments may
proceed directly to a First and Second Reading, pursuant to Section 26.310.020.B.3.
.
26.505.0330 Wireless Definitions.
All words used in this Chapter or in the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines,
except where specifically defined herein, shall carry their customary meanings when not
inconsistent with the context. Definitions contained elsewhere in this Code shall apply to this
Section unless modified herein.
Accessory Wireless Equipment. Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction
with a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF), including, but not limited to, utility or
transmission equipment, power supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment
buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or other structures.
Alternative Tower Structure. Man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light poles,
traffic signals, buildings, and similar alternative design mounting structures that are
intended to be compatible with the natural setting and surrounding structures, and
camouflage or concealment design techniques so as to make the presence of antennas or
towers compatible with the surrounding area pursuant to this Chapter. This term also
includes any antenna or antenna array attached to an Alternative Tower Structure and a
Replacement Pole. A stand-alone Monopole in the Public Right-of-Way that
accommodates Small Cell Wireless Facilities is considered an Alternative Tower Structure
to the extent it meets the camouflage and concealment standards of this Chapter.
Antenna. Any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves such
as, but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes, whip antennas,
directional and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more elements, multiple
antenna configurations, or other similar devices and configurations. Any exterior
apparatus designed for telephone, radio, or television communications through the sending
and/or receiving of wireless communications signals.
Base Station. A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") licensed or authorized wireless communications
between user equipment and a communications network. The definition of base station
does not include or encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with
a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
(1) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private
broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed
wireless services such as microwave backhaul that, at the time the relevant application
is filed with the city pursuant to this chapter has been reviewed and approved under
the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Italic
72
review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of
providing such support; and
(2) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup
power supplied, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks) that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the city pursuant to title 26 of the Code has been
reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another
state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole
or primary purpose of providing such support.
The definition of base station does not include any structure that, at the time the
application is filed with the city under this chapter, does not support or house
equipment described herein in sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this definition.
Camouflage, Concealment, Or Camouflage Design Techniques. A Wireless
Communication Facility (“WCF”) is camouflaged or utilizes Camouflage Design
Techniques when any measures are used in the design and siting of Wireless
Communication Facilities with the intent to minimize or eliminate the visual impact of
such facilities to surrounding uses. A WCF site utilizes Camouflage Design Techniques
when it (i) is integrated in an outdoor fixture such as a flagpole, or (ii) uses a design which
mimics and is consistent with the nearby natural, or architectural features (such as an
artificial tree) or is incorporated into (including, without limitation, being attached to the
exterior of such facilities and painted to match it) or is integral within, incorporated on or
replaces existing permitted facilities or vertical infrastructure located in the right-of-way
(including without limitation, stop signs or other traffic signs or freestanding light
standards) so that the presence of the WCF is not readily apparent.
Collocation. (1) mounting or installing a WCF on a pre-existing structure, and/or (2)
modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that structure.
Provided that, for purposes of Eligible Facilities Requests, “Collocation” means the
mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for
the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes.
Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an Existing Tower existing
WCF that does not Substantially Change the physical dimensions of such WCF Tower
involving: (i) collocation of new Transmission Equipment, (ii) removal of Transmission
Equipment, or (iii) replacement and/or addition of Transmission Equipment.
Eligible Support Structure. Any Tower or Base Station as defined in this Section,
provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under
this Section.
Existing Tower or Base Station. A constructed Tower or Base Station is existing for
purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning
73
or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that
a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when
it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.
Micro Cell Facility. A small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15
inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no
more than eleven inches in length.
Monopole. A single, freestanding pole-type structure supporting one or more Antennas.
Public right-of way. Any public way or public thoroughfare dedicated or devoted to public
use, including street, highway, road, alley, lane, court, boulevard, sidewalk, public square, mall
or like designation.
Replacement Pole. An Alternative Tower structure that is a newly constructed and
permitted traffic signal, utility pole, street light, flagpole, electric distribution, or street
light poles or other similar structure of proportions and of equal height to a pre-existing
pole or structure in order to support a WCF or Small Cell Facility or to accommodate
collocation and remove the pre-existing pole or structure.
Small Cell Facility. A WCF where each Antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more
than three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an Antenna that has exposed elements,
the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no
more than three cubic feet; and primary equipment enclosures are no larger than seventeen
cubic feet in volume. The following associated equipment may be located outside of the
primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not included in the calculation of
equipment volume: electric meter, concealment, telecommunications demarcation box,
ground-based enclosure, back-up power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer
switch and cut-off switch. Small cells may be attached to Alternate Tower Structures,
Replacement Pole, and Base Stations.Small cell facilities may be located in the public
Right-of-Way.
Substantial Change to a WCF. A modification substantially changes the physical
dimensions of an Eligible Support Structure if after the modification, the structure meets
any of the following criteria:
(1) For Towers, other than Alternative Tower Structures or Towers in the Right-of-
Way, it increases the height of the Tower by more than ten percent (10%) or by the
height of one (1) additional antenna array, with separation from the nearest existing
antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other Eligible Support
Structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than ten percent (10%) or
more than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater;
(2) For Towers, other than Towers in the Right-of-Way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the Tower that would protrude from the Tower more than
twenty (20) feet, or more than the width of the Tower Structure at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater; for Eligible Support Structures, it involves adding
74
an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the side of the
structure by more than six (6) feet;
(3) For any Eligible Support Structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or
(4) For Towers in the Right-of-Way and Base Stations, it involves installation of any
new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets
associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are
more than ten percent (10%) larger in height or overall volume than any other existing,
individual ground cabinets associated with the structure;
(5) For any Eligible Support Structure, it entails any excavation or deployment outside
the current Site;
(6) For any Eligible Support Structure, it would defeat the concealment elements of the
Eligible Support Structure. For purposes of this definition, any change that undermines
concealment elements of an eligible support structure shall be interpreted as defeating
the concealment elements of that structure; or
(7) For any Eligible Support Structure, it does not comply with conditions associated
with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the Eligible Support
Structure equipment, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase
in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that would not exceed the thresholds
identified in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this Definition. For purposes of
determining whether a Substantial Change exists, changes in height are measured from
the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated
horizontally, such as on buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height
are measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally
approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to February
22, 2012.
Tower. Any structure that is designed and constructed for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting one or more any FCC-licensed or authorized Antennas and their associated
facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and
the associated site. The term includes self-supporting lattice towers, guyed towers,
monopole towers, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common
carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, Alternative Tower Structures and the like.
Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC licensed
or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio
transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply.
The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services
75
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
Wireless Communications Facility Or WCF. A facility used to provide personal
wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(C); or wireless information
services provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available
directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or Smart City, Internet of
Things, wireless utility monitoring and control services. A WCF does not include a
facility entirely enclosed within a permitted building where the installation does not
require a modification of the exterior of the building; nor does it include a device attached
to a building, used for serving that building only and that is otherwise permitted under
other provisions of the Code. A WCF includes an Antenna or Antennas, including
without limitation, direction, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, support
equipment, Alternative Tower Structures, and Towers. It does not include the support
structure to which the WCF or its components are attached if the use of such structures
for WCFs is not the primary use. The term does not include mobile transmitting devices
used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or hand-held radios/telephones and
their associated transmitting Antennas, nor does it include other facilities specifically
excluded from the coverage of this Chapter.
26.505.040 Operational Standards.
A. Federal Requirements. All WCFs shall meet the current standards and
regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the federal government with the
authority to regulate WCFs, including, without limitation, the requirement that WCFs shall
not present a hazard to air navigation under Part 77, Federal Aviation, Federal Aviation
Regulations. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the WCF
shall bring such facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within the time period mandated by the controlling federal agency. Failure to meet such
revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the WCF at
the WCF owner’s expense.
B. Radio Frequency Standards. All WCFs shall comply with federal standards for
radio frequency emissions. Applicants for WCFs shall submit a letter certifying that all
WCFs that are the subject of the application shall comply with federal standards for radio
frequency emissions. The owner or operator of an approved WCF shall also provide the
City with the FCC license for the WCF at the time the license is issued for the facility.
C. Signal Interference. All WCFs shall be designed and sited, consistent with
applicable federal regulations, so as not to cause interference with the normal operation of
radio, television, telephone and other communication services utilized by adjacent
residential and non-residential properties; nor shall any such facilities interfere with any
public safety communications. The Applicant shall provide a written statement from a
qualified radio frequency engineer, certifying that a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed facilities indicates no potential interference problems and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during this process.
Additionally, the Applicant shall notify the City at least ten calendar days prior to the
76
introduction of new service or changes in existing service, and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during the testing process.
D. License to Use. The Applicant may execute a license agreement with the City,
granting a non-exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way. Attachment of WCFs
on an existing traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure shall require written
evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
E. Operation and Maintenance. To ensure the structural integrity of WCFs, the
owner of a WCF shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with the standards
contained in applicable local building, safety, and engineering codes. If upon inspection,
the City concludes that a WCF fails to comply with such codes and constitutes a danger to
persons or property, then, upon written notice being provided to the owner of the WCF,
the owner shall have 30 days from the date of notice to bring such WCF into compliance.
Upon good cause shown by the owner, the City’s Chief Building Official may extend such
compliance period not to exceed 90 days from the date of said notice. If the owner fails
to bring such WCF into compliance within said time period, the City may remove such
WCF at the owner’s expense.
F. Abandonment and Removal. If a WCF has not been in use for a period of three
months, the owner of the WCF shall notify the City of the non-use and shall indicate
whether re-use is expected within the ensuing three months. Any WCF that is not operated
for a continuous period of six months shall be considered abandoned. The City, in its sole
discretion, may require an abandoned WCF to be removed. The owner of such WCF shall
commence removal of the same within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the City.
If such WCF is not removed within said 30 days, the City may remove it at the owner’s
expense and any approved permits for the WCF shall be deemed to have expired.
Additionally, the City, in its sole discretion, shall not approve any new WCF application
until the Applicant who is also the owner or operator of any such abandoned WCF has
removed such WCF or payment for such removal has been made to the City.
G. Hazardous Materials. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in association
with WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF and only in accordance
with all applicable laws governing such materials.
H. Collocation. No WCF owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a
telecommunications competitor from using the same facility or location. Upon request by
the Community Development Department, the owner or operator shall provide evidence
explaining why Collocation is not possible at a particular facility or site.
I. Compliance with Applicable Law.
Notwithstanding the approval of an application for new WCFs or Eligible Facilities
Request as described herein, all work done pursuant to WCF applications must be
completed in accordance with all applicable building, structural, engineering, electrical,
77
and safety requirements as set forth in the Aspen Municipal Code and any other applicable
laws or regulations. In addition, all WCF applications shall comply with the following:
1. Comply with any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal agency
with jurisdiction of the WCF;
2. Comply with easements, covenants, conditions and/or restrictions on or
applicable to the underlying real property;
3. Be maintained in good working condition and to the standards established
at the time of application approval; and
4. Remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism.
Any damage shall be repaired as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than
ten calendar days from the time of notification by the City or after discovery by the
owner or operator of the Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any graffiti on WCFs
located in the Public Rights-of-Way or on Public Property may be removed by the
City at its discretion, and the owner and/or operator of the WCF shall pay all costs
of such removal within 30 days after receipt of an invoice from the City.
26.505.050 Procedures for Review.
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur
except after a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance
with this Chapter.
A. Review Procedures for certain WCFs, including Base Stations, Alternative Tower
Structures, and Alternative Tower Structures within Public Rights-of-Way, but excepting
Eligible Facilities Requests, and Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way.
In all zone districts, applications for these WCF facilities shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for conformance to this Section and using Wireless Communications
Facilities Design Guidelines. the Design Review procedures set forth in Section26.505.080. For
WCFs in the rights-of-way, except for Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way, that are found to
have a significant visual impact (e.g.. proximity to historical sites, obstructing views), be
incompatible with the structure or surrounding area, or not meet the intent of these provisions, the
Community Development Department may refer the application to Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, for a Special Review
determination.
B. Review Procedures for Towers.
In all zone districts, Towers, other than those defined or excepted in (A) above, must apply for
Special Review approval. These WCFs shall be reviewed for conformance using the procedures
set forth in Section 26.505.050.L. All applications for Towers shall demonstrate that other
alternative design options, such as using Base Stations or Alternative Tower Structures, are not
viable options as determined by the City.
C. Review Procedures for Eligible Facilities Requests.
1. In all zone districts, Eligible Facilities Requests shall be considered a permitted use,
subject to administrative review. The City shall prepare, and from time to time revise,
and make publicly available, an application form which shall require submittal of
Formatted: Font: Italic
78
information necessary for the City to consider whether an application is an Eligible
Facilities Request. Such required information may include, without limitation, whether
the project:
a. Constitutes a Substantial Change; or
b. Violates a generally applicable law, regulation, or other rule codifying objective
standards reasonably related to public health and safety.
The application shall not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case
for the proposed modification or Collocation.
2. Upon receipt of an application for an Eligible Facilities Request pursuant to this
Section, the Community Development Department shall review such application to
determine whether the application so qualifies.
3. Timeframe for Review. Subject to the tolling provisions of subparagraph 4 below,
within 60 calendar days of the date on which an applicant submits a complete
application seeking approval under this Section, the City shall approve the application
unless it determines that the application is not covered by this Subsection, or otherwise
in non-conformance with applicable codes.
4. Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day review period begins to run when
the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement of the City and the
applicant, or in cases where the Community Development Department determines that
the application is incomplete:
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written notice
to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application;
b. The timeframe for review begins running again the following business day after
the applicant makes a supplemental written submission in response to the City’s
notice of incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the applicant within
ten (10) days that if the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to
the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case of a
second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original notice
of incompleteness.
5. Failure to Act. In the event the City fails to act on a request seeking approval for an
Eligible Facilities Request under this Section within the timeframe for review
(accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The request becomes
effective when the applicant notifies the City in writing after the review period has
expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.
79
6. Interaction with Telecommunications Act Section 332(c)(7). If the City determines
that the applicant’s request is not an Eligible Facilities Request as delineated in this
Chapter, the presumptively reasonable timeframe under Section 332(c)(7) of the
Telecommunication Act, as prescribed by the FCC’s Shot Clock order, will begin to
run from the issuance of the City’s decision that the application is not a covered request.
To the extent such information is necessary, the City may request additional
information from the applicant to evaluate the application under Section 332(c)(7)
reviews.
D. Review Procedures for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way.
1. Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way may be approved pursuant to a
Master License Agreement or similar form of authorization or individually in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
2. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, the Director shall provide written
comments to the applicant determining completeness of the application and setting
forth any modifications required to complete the application to bring the proposal
into full compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
3. The Director shall review the completed application for conformance with the
provisions in this Chapter and may approve or deny an application within 90 days of
the date the application is submitted for new stand-alone facilities or 60 days for
facilities collocated on city infrastructure.
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written
notice to the Applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of the application,
specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the
application;
b. The timeframe for review resets to zero (0) when the Applicant makes a
supplemental written submission in response to the City’s notice of
incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the Applicant
within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant
to the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case
of a second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original
notice of incompleteness.
4. Consolidated applications. The City shall allow a wireless provider to file a
consolidated application for up to twenty six (6) small cell facilities and receive a
single permit approval for the small cell networkconsolidated application. The
80
City’s denial of any individual small cell facility is not a basis to deny the
application as a whole or any other small cell facility incorporated within the
consolidated application.
4.5.
E. General.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the
applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the Community Development
Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre-application summary describing the submission
requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the reviews and
the review process in general. A pre-application conference is not required, but is recommended,
for Eligible Facility Requests or Small Cells in the Right-of-Way.
F. Administrative review.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, after the pre-application summary is
received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by
staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In order to proceed with additional
land use reviews or obtain a development order, the Community Development Director shall find
the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards
of this Chapter and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
G. Decision.
Any decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a WCF, shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The applicant shall receive a
copy of the decision.
H. Appeal of Director's determination.
The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as
deemed necessary to ensure conformance with applicable review criteria in Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines Section 26.505.080. If the Community
Development Director determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do not comply with the
review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of
approval determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for
special review (Chapter 26.430) by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, by the
Historic Preservation Commission, and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar
days of the day on which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All
appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
I. Historic Preservation Commission review.
With the exception of Eligible Facilities Requests and Small Cell Facilities in the ROW, proposals
for the location of WCFs or equipment on any historic site or structure, shall be reviewed by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for WCFs and/or equipment
by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise,
if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do
not comply with the review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to
the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Condensed by 0.05 pt
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
81
may appeal the decision to the City Council, and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered.
All appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
J. Building permit.
A building permit application cannot be filed unless and until final land use approval has been
granted and a development order has been issued. When applying for building permits, the
applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision granting land use
approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a copy of the signed
document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application.
A building permit, shall be submitted concurrently with the Land Use Application. Depending
on the nature of project, a full Building Permit may be necessary, or as would be the case for most
Eligible Facilities Requests, an Electrical Permit. A contractor for the proposed work must be
identified with the submitted application. A Building or Electrical Permit without an identified
contractor will be deemed incomplete – and the application will be tolled until the contractor is
identified.
K. Right of Way permit.
For all facilities located in the public right-of-way, aA Right of Way Ppermit shall be submitted
concurrently with the Land Use Application. application cannot be filed unless and until final land
use approval has been granted and a development order has been issued. When applying for Right
of Way permits, the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision
granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a copy
of the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application.
For facilities in the right-of-way, the permit and design requirements are extensive. Applicants
should review Exhibit – a checklist that describes in detail the submittal requirements. A
contractor for the proposed work must be identified with the submitted application. A Right-of-
Way permit without an identified contractor will be deemed incomplete – and the application will
be tolled until the contractor is identified. Additionally, an Electrical Permit shall be required for
any installation that involves line voltage.
L. Special review.
An application requesting a variance from the review standards for height or location of WCFs
and/or equipment as as set forth in this chapter (except for Eligible Facilities Requests) and the
Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines or an appeal of a determination made by
the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with
the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304, and the Special Review
Chapter, 26.430. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has
been posted and mailed, pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.b and c.
1. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is listed on the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or within a Historic Overlay District and
the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Chapter 26.304, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the special review. Such special review
Formatted: Font: Italic
82
may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the
following criteria:
a. Conformance with the applicable review standards of Subsection
26.505.080Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
b. If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen inventory of
historic landmark sites and structures or within any historic district, then the
applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development involving the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or development in an "H,"
Historic Overlay District) shall apply.
c. If the facility or equipment is located on property that is subject to the Commercial
Design Standards of Chapter 26.412, those applicable standards shall apply.
d. The applicant, in making the case for the variance, shall provide evidence that strict
adherence to the standard(s) or guideline(s), shall render the proposed facility
technically or practically infeasible.
c.e. The applicant in making the case for the variance shall provide evidence that there
are no feasible alternatives to the location and/or design of the proposed facility.
26.505.060 Application Contents
An application for approval of new WCFs and modified or additional WCFs, that are not Eligible
Facilities Requests, and or Small Cell Facilities Requests shall comply with the submittal
requirements applicable to all Land Use Reviews conditional use reviews pursuant to Chapter
26.304, Common development review. procedures and Chapter 26.425, Conditional uses of the
Aspen Municipal Code. Also, WCFs and equipment applications shall also, subject to their nature
shall contain at least the following additional information: contain required materials as described
in the checklist contained within the City of Aspen Wireless Development Application Packet and
the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines. Additionally, subject to their nature,
required Building, Electrical, and/or Right-of-Way permits shall be submitted concurrent to the
Land Use Application.
A. Site plan meeting the requirements of Title 29, Engineering Design Standards (29.01.020).
B. Visual "before and after" photographs (simulations) specifying the location of antennas,
support structures, transmission buildings and/or other accessory uses, access, parking, fences,
signs, lighting, landscaped areas and all adjacent land uses within one hundred fifty (150) feet.
Such plans and drawings should demonstrate compliance with the review standards of this
Chapter.
C. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
including all utilities, easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified (wet ink signed
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
83
and stamped and dated within the past twelve (12) months) by a registered land surveyor, licensed
in the State, which meets the requirements of Title 29, Engineering Design Standards (29.01.020).
D. Landscape plan drawn to a scale of one (1) inch equals ten (10) feet or one (1) inch equals
twenty (20) feet, including "before and after" photographs (simulations) indicating size, spacing
and type of plantings and indicating steps to be taken to provide screening as required by the
review standards of this Section. The landscape plans shall also indicate the size, location and
species of all existing vegetation and whether each of those indicated are proposed for removal
(indicate proposed mitigation), relocation (indicate from and to) or preservation. The planner can
determine if a landscape plan is necessary; for instance, when an antenna is to be attached to a
building, this requirement may be waived by the Community Development Director.
E. Lighting plan and photometric study indicating the size, height, location and wattage of
all proposed outdoor lighting sources. This study must also include a graphic indicating backlight,
up-light, and glare of light from each source/fixture. This requirement can be waived by the
Community Development Director if little or no outdoor lighting is proposed.
F. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, structural integrity report from a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado documenting the following:
1. Tower height and design, including technical, engineering, and other pertinent
factors governing selection of the proposed design;
2. Total anticipated capacity of the structure, including number and types of antennas
which can be accommodated;
3. Failure characteristics of the tower and demonstration that site and setbacks are of
adequate size to contain debris in the event of failure; and
4. Specific design and reconstruction plans to allow shared use. This submission is
required only in the event that the applicant intends to share use of the facility by
subsequent reinforcement and reconstruction of the facility; and
5. Specific design considerations for impact or breakaway characteristics as required
in specific roadway right of ways.
G. Evidence that an effort was made to locate on an existing wireless telecommunication
services facility site including coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis and a brief
statement as to other reasons for success or no success.
H. Written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in locating facilities in accordance
with site selection order of preference outline below.
I. Inventory of Existing Sites. On an annual basis at the request of the City, each applicant
for a WCF shall provide to the Community Development Department a narrative description, a
map, and a GIS compatible data file of the applicant’s existing or currently proposed WCFs within
the City, and outside of the City within one mile of its boundaries. The inventory list should
identify the site name, address, and a general description of the Facility (i.e., rooftop Antennas and
ground-mounted equipment).
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Don't add spacebetween paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single
84
J. Abandonment and Removal. Affidavits shall be required from the owner of the property
and from the applicant acknowledging that each is responsible for the removal of a WCF that is
abandoned or is unused for a period of six (6) months.
A. Conditions and limitations. The City shall reserve the right to add, modify or delete
conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest related to
health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the owner and operator
in advance and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the affected party of a substantial
revenue source in the exercising of such right.
Approval by the Community Development Director for a WCF and/or equipment application shall
not be construed to waive any applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise
specified, all other requirements of this Code shall apply, including Title 21(Street, Sidewalks, and
other public places, and Title 29 (Engineering Design Standards). All requests for modifications
of existing facilities or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for
review under all provisions and requirements of this Section. If other than minor changes are
proposed, a new, complete application containing all proposed revisions shall be required.
Note – 26.505.070 and 26.505.080 have been removed from this chapter and relocated into the
Design Guidelines
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
85
Chapter 26.505
Wireless Communication Facilities and Equipment
Sec. 26.505.010 Purpose
Sec. 26.505.020 Applicability
Sec. 26.505.030 Definitions
Sec. 26.505.040 Operational Standards
Sec. 26.505.050 Procedures for Review
Sec. 26.505.060 Application Contents
Sec. 26.505.070 General Provisions and Requirements
Sec. 26.505.080 Design Standards
26.505.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers
and wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
public, provide for managed development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal
of wireless communications infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town
character, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a
competitive wireless communications marketplace in the city.
Adoption of Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
The City Council hereby adopts design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines, which are incorporated by reference and made part
of the Aspen Land Use Code. These Guidelines set forth the design parameters to ensure safe and
secure installation and minimize negative aesthetic impacts of wireless communications facilities
installed on private property or in the public right-of-way. The Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines may be amended, updated, and expanded from time to time by City Council
Resolution. At least (1) copy shall be available for public inspection at the Community
Development and Engineering Departments and on the City of Aspen’s webpage.
26.505.020 Applicability
All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment must receive land
use approval, building permits, and/or right-of-way permits, as applicable, prior to installation.
Concurrent to the issuance of appropriate building and right-of-way permits, WCFs and/or
equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Community Development Director (and when
applicable, the City Engineer) in conformance with the provisions and criteria of this Chapter.
WCFs and equipment subject to the provisions and criteria of this Chapter include without
limitation, WCFs within the Public Rights of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication services (PCS), commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial telecommunication devices and all
associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas, monopoles, towers, masts
and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms. These provisions and criteria do not apply
to noncommercial satellite dish antennae, radio and television transmitters and antennae incidental
to residential use. All references made throughout this Chapter, to any of the devices to which this
Chapter is applicable, shall be construed to include all other devices to which this Chapter is
applicable.
86
A. Future Amendments to Chapter 26.505.
All future amendments to this Chapter shall be exempt from the requirement of Policy
Resolution for code amendments (Section 26.310.020.B.1-2). Future amendments may
proceed directly to a First and Second Reading, pursuant to Section 26.310.020.B.3.
26.505.030 Wireless Definitions.
All words used in this Chapter or in the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines,
except where specifically defined herein, shall carry their customary meanings when not
inconsistent with the context. Definitions contained elsewhere in this Code shall apply to this
Section unless modified herein.
Accessory Wireless Equipment. Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction
with a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF), including, but not limited to, utility or
transmission equipment, power supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment
buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or other structures.
Alternative Tower Structure. Man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light poles,
traffic signals, buildings, and similar alternative design mounting structures that are
intended to be compatible with the natural setting and surrounding structures, and
camouflage or concealment design techniques so as to make the presence of antennas or
towers compatible with the surrounding area pursuant to this Chapter. This term also
includes any antenna or antenna array attached to an Alternative Tower Structure and a
Replacement Pole. A stand-alone Monopole in the Public Right-of-Way that
accommodates Small Cell Wireless Facilities is considered an Alternative Tower Structure
to the extent it meets the camouflage and concealment standards of this Chapter.
Antenna. Any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves such
as, but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes, whip antennas,
directional and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more elements, multiple
antenna configurations, or other similar devices and configurations. Any exterior
apparatus designed for telephone, radio, or television communications through the sending
and/or receiving of wireless communications signals.
Base Station. A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") licensed or authorized wireless communications
between user equipment and a communications network. The definition of base station
does not include or encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with
a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
(1) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private
broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed
wireless services such as microwave backhaul that, at the time the relevant application
is filed with the city pursuant to this chapter has been reviewed and approved under
the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory
review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of
providing such support; and
87
(2) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup
power supplied, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks) that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the city pursuant to title 26 of the Code has been
reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another
state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole
or primary purpose of providing such support.
The definition of base station does not include any structure that, at the time the
application is filed with the city under this chapter, does not support or house
equipment described herein in sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this definition.
Camouflage, Concealment, Or Camouflage Design Techniques. A Wireless
Communication Facility (“WCF”) is camouflaged or utilizes Camouflage Design
Techniques when any measures are used in the design and siting of Wireless
Communication Facilities with the intent to minimize or eliminate the visual impact of
such facilities to surrounding uses. A WCF site utilizes Camouflage Design Techniques
when it (i) is integrated in an outdoor fixture such as a flagpole, or (ii) uses a design which
mimics and is consistent with the nearby natural, or architectural features (such as an
artificial tree) or is incorporated into (including, without limitation, being attached to the
exterior of such facilities and painted to match it) or is integral within, incorporated on or
replaces existing permitted facilities or vertical infrastructure located in the right-of-way
(including without limitation, stop signs or other traffic signs or freestanding light
standards) so that the presence of the WCF is not readily apparent.
Collocation. (1) mounting or installing a WCF on a pre-existing structure, and/or (2)
modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that structure.
Provided that, for purposes of Eligible Facilities Requests, “Collocation” means the
mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for
the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes.
Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an existing WCF that does
not Substantially Change the physical dimensions of such WCF involving: (i) collocation
of new Transmission Equipment, (ii) removal of Transmission Equipment, or (iii)
replacement and/or addition of Transmission Equipment.
Eligible Support Structure. Any Tower or Base Station as defined in this Section,
provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under
this Section.
Existing Tower or Base Station. A constructed Tower or Base Station is existing for
purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning
or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that
88
a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when
it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.
Micro Cell Facility. A small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15
inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no
more than eleven inches in length.
Monopole. A single, freestanding pole-type structure supporting one or more Antennas.
Public right-of way. Any public way or public thoroughfare dedicated or devoted to public
use, including street, highway, road, alley, lane, court, boulevard, sidewalk, public square, mall
or like designation.
Replacement Pole. An Alternative Tower structure that is a newly constructed and
permitted traffic signal, utility pole, street light, flagpole, electric distribution, or street
light poles or other similar structure of proportions and of equal height to a pre-existing
pole or structure in order to support a WCF or Small Cell Facility or to accommodate
collocation and remove the pre-existing pole or structure.
Small Cell Facility. A WCF where each Antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more
than three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an Antenna that has exposed elements,
the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no
more than three cubic feet; and primary equipment enclosures are no larger than seventeen
cubic feet in volume. The following associated equipment may be located outside of the
primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not included in the calculation of
equipment volume: electric meter, concealment, telecommunications demarcation box,
ground-based enclosure, back-up power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer
switch and cut-off switch. Small cells may be attached to Alternate Tower Structures,
Replacement Pole, and Base Stations. Small cell facilities may be located in the public
Right-of-Way.
Substantial Change to a WCF. A modification substantially changes the physical
dimensions of an Eligible Support Structure if after the modification, the structure meets
any of the following criteria:
(1) For Towers, other than Alternative Tower Structures or Towers in the Right-of-
Way, it increases the height of the Tower by more than ten percent (10%) or by the
height of one (1) additional antenna array, with separation from the nearest existing
antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other Eligible Support
Structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than ten percent (10%) or
more than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater;
(2) For Towers, other than Towers in the Right-of-Way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the Tower that would protrude from the Tower more than
twenty (20) feet, or more than the width of the Tower Structure at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater; for Eligible Support Structures, it involves adding
89
an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the side of the
structure by more than six (6) feet;
(3) For any Eligible Support Structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or
(4) For Towers in the Right-of-Way and Base Stations, it involves installation of any
new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets
associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are
more than ten percent (10%) larger in height or overall volume than any other existing,
individual ground cabinets associated with the structure;
(5) For any Eligible Support Structure, it entails any excavation or deployment outside
the current Site;
(6) For any Eligible Support Structure, it would defeat the concealment elements of the
Eligible Support Structure. For purposes of this definition, any change that undermines
concealment elements of an eligible support structure shall be interpreted as defeating
the concealment elements of that structure; or
(7) For any Eligible Support Structure, it does not comply with conditions associated
with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the Eligible Support
Structure equipment, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase
in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that would not exceed the thresholds
identified in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this Definition. For purposes of
determining whether a Substantial Change exists, changes in height are measured from
the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated
horizontally, such as on buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height
are measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally
approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to February
22, 2012.
Tower. Any structure that is designed and constructed for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting one or more any FCC-licensed or authorized Antennas and their associated
facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and
the associated site. The term includes self-supporting lattice towers, guyed towers,
monopole towers, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common
carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, Alternative Tower Structures and the like.
Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC licensed
or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio
transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply.
The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services
90
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
Wireless Communications Facility Or WCF. A facility used to provide personal
wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(C); or wireless information
services provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available
directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or Smart City, Internet of
Things, wireless utility monitoring and control services. A WCF does not include a
facility entirely enclosed within a permitted building where the installation does not
require a modification of the exterior of the building; nor does it include a device attached
to a building, used for serving that building only and that is otherwise permitted under
other provisions of the Code. A WCF includes an Antenna or Antennas, including
without limitation, direction, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, support
equipment, Alternative Tower Structures, and Towers. It does not include the support
structure to which the WCF or its components are attached if the use of such structures
for WCFs is not the primary use. The term does not include mobile transmitting devices
used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or hand-held radios/telephones and
their associated transmitting Antennas, nor does it include other facilities specifically
excluded from the coverage of this Chapter.
26.505.040 Operational Standards.
A. Federal Requirements. All WCFs shall meet the current standards and
regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the federal government with the
authority to regulate WCFs, including, without limitation, the requirement that WCFs shall
not present a hazard to air navigation under Part 77, Federal Aviation, Federal Aviation
Regulations. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the WCF
shall bring such facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within the time period mandated by the controlling federal agency. Failure to meet such
revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the WCF at
the WCF owner’s expense.
B. Radio Frequency Standards. All WCFs shall comply with federal standards for
radio frequency emissions. Applicants for WCFs shall submit a letter certifying that all
WCFs that are the subject of the application shall comply with federal standards for radio
frequency emissions. The owner or operator of an approved WCF shall also provide the
City with the FCC license for the WCF at the time the license is issued for the facility.
C. Signal Interference. All WCFs shall be designed and sited, consistent with
applicable federal regulations, so as not to cause interference with the normal operation of
radio, television, telephone and other communication services utilized by adjacent
residential and non-residential properties; nor shall any such facilities interfere with any
public safety communications. The Applicant shall provide a written statement from a
qualified radio frequency engineer, certifying that a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed facilities indicates no potential interference problems and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during this process.
Additionally, the Applicant shall notify the City at least ten calendar days prior to the
91
introduction of new service or changes in existing service, and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during the testing process.
D. License to Use. The Applicant may execute a license agreement with the City,
granting a non-exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way. Attachment of WCFs
on an existing traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure shall require written
evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
E. Operation and Maintenance. To ensure the structural integrity of WCFs, the
owner of a WCF shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with the standards
contained in applicable local building, safety, and engineering codes. If upon inspection,
the City concludes that a WCF fails to comply with such codes and constitutes a danger to
persons or property, then, upon written notice being provided to the owner of the WCF,
the owner shall have 30 days from the date of notice to bring such WCF into compliance.
Upon good cause shown by the owner, the City’s Chief Building Official may extend such
compliance period not to exceed 90 days from the date of said notice. If the owner fails
to bring such WCF into compliance within said time period, the City may remove such
WCF at the owner’s expense.
F. Abandonment and Removal. If a WCF has not been in use for a period of three
months, the owner of the WCF shall notify the City of the non-use and shall indicate
whether re-use is expected within the ensuing three months. Any WCF that is not operated
for a continuous period of six months shall be considered abandoned. The City, in its sole
discretion, may require an abandoned WCF to be removed. The owner of such WCF shall
commence removal of the same within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the City.
If such WCF is not removed within said 30 days, the City may remove it at the owner’s
expense and any approved permits for the WCF shall be deemed to have expired.
Additionally, the City, in its sole discretion, shall not approve any new WCF application
until the Applicant who is also the owner or operator of any such abandoned WCF has
removed such WCF or payment for such removal has been made to the City.
G. Hazardous Materials. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in association
with WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF and only in accordance
with all applicable laws governing such materials.
H. Collocation. No WCF owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a
telecommunications competitor from using the same facility or location. Upon request by
the Community Development Department, the owner or operator shall provide evidence
explaining why Collocation is not possible at a particular facility or site.
I. Compliance with Applicable Law.
Notwithstanding the approval of an application for new WCFs or Eligible Facilities
Request as described herein, all work done pursuant to WCF applications must be
completed in accordance with all applicable building, structural, engineering, electrical,
92
and safety requirements as set forth in the Aspen Municipal Code and any other applicable
laws or regulations. In addition, all WCF applications shall comply with the following:
1. Comply with any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal agency
with jurisdiction of the WCF;
2. Comply with easements, covenants, conditions and/or restrictions on or
applicable to the underlying real property;
3. Be maintained in good working condition and to the standards established
at the time of application approval; and
4. Remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism.
Any damage shall be repaired as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than
ten calendar days from the time of notification by the City or after discovery by the
owner or operator of the Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any graffiti on WCFs
located in the Public Rights-of-Way or on Public Property may be removed by the
City at its discretion, and the owner and/or operator of the WCF shall pay all costs
of such removal within 30 days after receipt of an invoice from the City.
26.505.050 Procedures for Review.
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur
except after a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance
with this Chapter.
A. Review Procedures for certain WCFs, including Base Stations, Alternative Tower
Structures, and Alternative Tower Structures within Public Rights-of-Way, but excepting
Eligible Facilities Requests, and Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way.
In all zone districts, applications for these WCF facilities shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for conformance to this Section and usingWireless Communications
Facilities Design Guidelines. . For WCFs in the rights-of-way, except for Small Cell Facilities in
the Right-of-Way, that are found to have a significant visual impact (e.g.. proximity to historical
sites, obstructing views), be incompatible with the structure or surrounding area, or not meet the
intent of these provisions, the Community Development Department may refer the application to
Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, for a
Special Review determination.
B. Review Procedures for Towers.
In all zone districts, Towers, other than those defined or excepted in (A) above, must apply for
Special Review approval. These WCFs shall be reviewed for conformance using the procedures
set forth in Section 26.505.050.L. All applications for Towers shall demonstrate that other
alternative design options, such as using Base Stations or Alternative Tower Structures, are not
viable options as determined by the City.
C. Review Procedures for Eligible Facilities Requests.
1. In all zone districts, Eligible Facilities Requests shall be considered a permitted use,
subject to administrative review. The City shall prepare, and from time to time revise,
and make publicly available, an application form which shall require submittal of
information necessary for the City to consider whether an application is an Eligible
Facilities Request. Such required information may include, without limitation, whether
93
the project:
a. Constitutes a Substantial Change; or
b. Violates a generally applicable law, regulation, or other rule codifying objective
standards reasonably related to public health and safety.
The application shall not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case
for the proposed modification or Collocation.
2. Upon receipt of an application for an Eligible Facilities Request pursuant to this
Section, the Community Development Department shall review such application to
determine whether the application so qualifies.
3. Timeframe for Review. Subject to the tolling provisions of subparagraph 4 below,
within 60 calendar days of the date on which an applicant submits a complete
application seeking approval under this Section, the City shall approve the application
unless it determines that the application is not covered by this Subsection, or otherwise
in non-conformance with applicable codes.
4. Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day review period begins to run when
the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement of the City and the
applicant, or in cases where the Community Development Department determines that
the application is incomplete:
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written notice
to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application;
b. The timeframe for review begins running again the following business day after
the applicant makes a supplemental written submission in response to the City’s
notice of incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the applicant within
ten (10) days that if the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to
the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case of a
second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original notice
of incompleteness.
5. Failure to Act. In the event the City fails to act on a request seeking approval for an
Eligible Facilities Request under this Section within the timeframe for review
(accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The request becomes
effective when the applicant notifies the City in writing after the review period has
expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.
94
6. Interaction with Telecommunications Act Section 332(c)(7). If the City determines
that the applicant’s request is not an Eligible Facilities Request as delineated in this
Chapter, the presumptively reasonable timeframe under Section 332(c)(7) of the
Telecommunication Act, as prescribed by the FCC’s Shot Clock order, will begin to
run from the issuance of the City’s decision that the application is not a covered request.
To the extent such information is necessary, the City may request additional
information from the applicant to evaluate the application under Section 332(c)(7)
reviews.
D. Review Procedures for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way.
1. Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way may be approved pursuant to a
Master License Agreement or similar form of authorization or individually in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
2. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, the Director shall provide written
comments to the applicant determining completeness of the application and setting
forth any modifications required to complete the application to bring the proposal
into full compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
3. The Director shall review the completed application for conformance with the
provisions in this Chapter and may approve or deny an application within 90 days of
the date the application is submitted for new stand-alone facilities or 60 days for
facilities collocated on city infrastructure.
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written
notice to the Applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of the application,
specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the
application;
b. The timeframe for review resets to zero (0) when the Applicant makes a
supplemental written submission in response to the City’s notice of
incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the Applicant
within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant
to the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case
of a second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original
notice of incompleteness.
4. Consolidated applications. The City shall allow a wireless provider to file a
consolidated application for up to six (6) small cell facilities and receive a single
approval for the consolidated application. The City’s denial of any individual small
cell facility is not a basis to deny the application as a whole or any other small cell
95
facility incorporated within the consolidated application.
5.
E. General.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the
applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the Community Development
Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre-application summary describing the submission
requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the reviews and
the review process in general. A pre-application conference is not required, but is recommended,
for Eligible Facility Requests or Small Cells in the Right-of-Way.
F. Administrative review.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, after the pre-application summary is
received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by
staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In order to proceed with additional
land use reviews or obtain a development order, the Community Development Director shall find
the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards
of this Chapter and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
G. Decision.
Any decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a WCF, shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The applicant shall receive a
copy of the decision.
H. Appeal of Director's determination.
The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as
deemed necessary to ensure conformance with applicable review criteria in Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines If the Community Development Director
determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do not comply with the review criteria and
denies the application or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by
the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for special review (Chapter
26.430) by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, by the Historic Preservation
Commission, and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on
which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require
public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Paragraphs
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
I. Historic Preservation Commission review.
With the exception of Eligible Facilities Requests and Small Cell Facilities in the ROW, proposals
for the location of WCFs or equipment on any historic site or structure, shall be reviewed by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for WCFs and/or equipment
by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise,
if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do
not comply with the review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to
the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant
may appeal the decision to the City Council, and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered.
96
All appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
J. Building permit.
A building permit, shall be submitted concurrently with the Land Use Application. Depending
on the nature of project, a full Building Permit may be necessary, or as would be the case for most
Eligible Facilities Requests, an Electrical Permit. A contractor for the proposed work must be
identified with the submitted application. A Building or Electrical Permit without an identified
contractor will be deemed incomplete – and the application will be tolled until the contractor is
identified.
K. Right of Way permit.
For all facilities located in the public right-of-way, a Right of Way Permit shall be submitted
concurrently with the Land Use Application. For facilities in the right-of-way, the permit and
design requirements are extensive. Applicants should review Exhibit – a checklist that describes
in detail the submittal requirements. A contractor for the proposed work must be identified with
the submitted application. A Right-of-Way permit without an identified contractor will be deemed
incomplete – and the application will be tolled until the contractor is identified. Additionally, an
Electrical Permit shall be required for any installation that involves line voltage.
L. Special review.
An application requesting a variance from the review standards as set forth in this chapter (except
for Eligible Facilities Requests) and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be processed
as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures set forth in
Chapter 26.304, and the Special Review Chapter, 26.430. The special review shall be considered
at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to Paragraphs
26.304.060.E.3.b and c.
1. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is listed on the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or within a Historic Overlay District and
the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Chapter 26.304, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the special review. Such special review
may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the
following criteria:
a. Conformance with the applicable review standards of Wireless Communications
Facilities Design Guidelines.
b. If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen inventory of
historic landmark sites and structures or within any historic district, then the
applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development involving the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or development in an "H,"
Historic Overlay District) shall apply.
97
c. If the facility or equipment is located on property that is subject to the Commercial
Design Standards of Chapter 26.412, those applicable standards shall apply.
d. The applicant, in making the case for the variance, shall provide evidence that strict
adherence to the standard(s) or guideline(s), shall render the proposed facility
technically or practically infeasible.
e. The applicant in making the case for the variance shall provide evidence that there
are no feasible alternatives to the location and/or design of the proposed facility.
26.505.060 Application Contents
An application for approval of new WCFs and modified or additional WCFs, Eligible Facilities
Requests, and Small Cell Facilities Requests shall comply with the submittal requirements
applicable to all Land Use Reviews pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common development review.
WCFs and equipment applications shall also, subject to their nature contain required materials as
described in the checklist contained within the City of Aspen Wireless Development Application
Packet and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines. Additionally, subject to
their nature, required Building, Electrical, and/or Right-of-Way permits shall be submitted
concurrent to the Land Use Application.
A. Conditions and limitations. The City shall reserve the right to add, modify or delete
conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest related to
health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the owner and operator
in advance and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the affected party of a substantial
revenue source in the exercising of such right.
Approval by the Community Development Director for a WCF and/or equipment application shall
not be construed to waive any applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise
specified, all other requirements of this Code shall apply, including Title 21(Street, Sidewalks, and
other public places, and Title 29 (Engineering Design Standards). All requests for modifications
of existing facilities or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for
review under all provisions and requirements of this Section. If other than minor changes are
proposed, a new, complete application containing all proposed revisions shall be required.
Note – 26.505.070 and 26.505.080 have been removed from this chapter and relocated into the
Design Guidelines
98
Exhibit D – Rendering of Small Cell
Facilities in Right-of-Way
99
100
EXHIBIT E – Summary of Public Outreach Efforts
Communications
+Press release about small group workshops
+Press release about Feedback Forum (event at the Limelight)
+Paid advertisements on Facebook throughout the workshop period and
Feedback Forum
+Advertisements in Aspen Daily News and Aspen Times
(November 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,12, 19, 21)
+Aspen Daily News articles – November 12, 2019 and November 27, 2019
+Aspen Public Radio stories – November 10, 2019 and December 19, 2019
+Aspen Community Voice – information and portal to receive comments
+Social Media posts November 1, 4 ,5, 26, December 2
Events
+Tabling at Aspen Saturday Market
+Project introduction meetings with: ACRA, CCLC, P&Z, HPC
+Discussion sessions with staff representatives of Town of Basalt, Town of
Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County
+Small group forums/workshops (1 hour – 1.5 hours each) a total of 8 sessions
Held at APD, Redbrick, and City Hall November 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 (2 sessions),
13, and 21 (total of 8 sessions)
+Feedback Forum – Limelight – December 4 – 11a - 1p and 4:30p - 6:30p
While the number of attendees at the small group forums was modest, staff had very
good conversations with members of the community who have been most concerned
about potential health impacts of the new technology. Additionally, we received useful
feedback on the individual elements of the design guidelines. Moving forward, staff
sees this tool as having great potential with other community discussions.
101
P&Z and HPC comments
Two primary comments emerged from discussions with P&Z and HPC. First, HPC was
particularly concerned about potential visual impacts to Main Street and the Commercial
Core Historic Districts. They recommended that staff identify alleyways as a preferred
location for small cell facilities. Secondly, both boards asked questions related to the
design of the luminaires (street lights) that will be attached to small cell poles. While staff
agrees that both topics likely need further discussion and study, staff recommends that
for the time being, the proposed location and street light design guidelines be adopted as
presented.
Summary of Public Comments – primarily from small group forums and Limelight
event
Question:
Do you support additional wireless facilities in Aspen if they would improve coverage /
service / speed of your wireless devices?
Responses:
• Don’t have a choice so yes.
• “they’re already here, just a different way of delivering the service”
• A lot more street lights – density makes it different in telecommunication
• Impossible to ignore pace of technology
• “necessary evil”
• Make it happen in a responsible way
• If aspen gets driverless vehicles, I am all for it. If only for the internet, then no
• Need to take case of customers
• Need guaranteed emergency contact
• Make parameter box too hard
• 1) health/safety, 2) aesthetics, 3) how tech we need?
• Not to lose “Aspen aesthetics” and turn to suburban America
• Nice to have better coverage but not at a cost
• Tourists have expectations to be up to date
• Big events cause interruption in service
• Concerned about density
• Service seems fine now, so no support to more
• “I’m fine with my cell service right now.” (i.e., as it is)
• “Speed is important for my work with video surveillance cameras, but overall health is
more important than everything else.”
• Do not support yet
• Need a case where it was worth it
• Do I need to download a movie super fast? No.
• Horrified, could care less about speed. Concerned about health and items in front of
house. Aspen worked hard not to have things in way, open to petitioning this off.
• Not important if improved. Can see how this might benefit others for example the
hospital.
102
• On both sides. No one asked us if we want it and health is a concern. 82% of people
interact with Parks on cell phones, affluent town and computer savvy, people on calls
are driving this endless no frontier. Don’t think we have a choice, mitigate best we can.
Think more yea the nay people
• Work on mitigation and carrier control. Quality of life feelings affected, being invaded.
Doesn’t feel right.
• “No, I don’t support additional small cell facilities due to aesthetic and health concerns”
• “ “No, I will use WiFi or a wired/fiber connection if I need better broadband”
• “I don’t care what it looks like. I don’t want it in my neighborhood.”
• No don’t care about improved service
• Put aside a fund to fight and lobby
• Aspen hasn’t done anything about it like other communities have
• Towers in China with face recognition. We should just say NO
• Make the best of this non-great situation
• No – 13 separate responses
• It’s fine for now but can it handle more growth? That’s intangible.
• Mine is working fine now
• It is fine now
• Absolutely not!
Question:
If health is your primary concern with small cell facilities, please discuss with your group
the issues that concern you the most and why?
Responses:
• A lot like politics, liars don’t figures….done tests with rats when you go to health side you
get fear (microwave oven/ atomic bombs), cherry picking of information, not enough
research
• Nick DeWolf – people next to tower freak out, they say sun is worse, 5G is same as
pickled vegetables, undusted concerns but not overly, believe concerns if can.
• Lack of data on knowing what impacts might be
• FCC isn’t commissioning studies – frustrating
• Lobby federal gov. to do studies
• Equating federal gov. to big tobacco “this is fine”
• Not enough info yet
• Shouldn’t be moving forward until there is more info
• Failure to have info is suspicious
• Work with the state for info
• If there is enough community will, maybe companies wouldn’t want the negative publicity
• Frustrated by the lack of control
• “Tower density and potential health impacts”
• “Get more providers on each pole/tower, multiple carriers and competition will result in
better service”
• The failure of having reliable health information is concerning
• I heard there are potential risks to health. So hold off if we can?
• I would like council to work with state
103
• How long can we delay this?
• I would like more information mater about health
• There is not enough information regarding health
• There is a good and a bad side. Do you want to give the tourist business to Vail because
you don’t have high speed internet?
• Push back in Europe
• I am a healthcare provider, read about studies but there are major health concerns.
Maybe not anything we can do
• Maybe a mass petition, but aren’t confident it’s going to happen
• Money is too large to change
• GMO is example to look at
• Support council to lobby against
• “Yes, because the radio frequency engineers are concerned with being in close
proximity to these facilities”
• Yes, health concerns, closer proximity of facilities and use of new RF bands (e.g.
millimeter wave)”
• “Aesthetics are important but health effects are my primary concern”
• Seriously concerned about how bad health impacts are
• Get safety study first
• “Health above all”
• “Who doesn’t want faster service? But who wants cancer, brain disease, other health
impacts?”
• Huge health risk
• Need to educate people
• Huge concerns, there are no safety studies! We do not want to be guinea pigs
• I have no technology. Please do not contaminate my world outside my door! This can
not be safe! Do I have to move out of these cell towers?
• Absolutely a concern due to higher levels of radiation proven unsafe. All of Europe is
fighting it. Why should we accept it?
• Concerns appears to be emerging through zero studies on health but legitimate issues.
• Please, please consider the long-term health impacts of radiation exposure. I don’t carry
a cell phone everywhere exactly for this concern.
• Yes, a concern, so wait.
• It’s our main concern in the health of the community, children and grandchildren.
• Not a concern
• Limit to extent possible near homes and schools
• A concern since no real data suggests it’s safe after long term exposure
• Put down your cell phone
• Huge concern- stop- delay
• New poles are a clutter. Use existing vertical segments
• Let’s get real health data – until then, wait
• Please wait. Bad for people and animals
• 5G at close proximity is more like a microwave not a radiowave
104
Page 1 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: February 26, 2020
RE: 320 E. Hyman Avenue, Wheeler Opera House– Minor Development Review,
Commercial Design Review, PUBLIC HEARING
APPLICANT /OWNER:
City of Aspen
REPRESENTATIVE:
BendonAdams
LOCATION:
Street Address:
320 E. Hyman Avenue
Legal Description:
Lots P, Q, R, and S, Block 81, City
and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-073-38-851
CURRENT ZONING & USE
CC, Commercial Core,
Retail, restaurant,
arts/cultural/civic/community
uses
PROPOSED LAND USE:
No change
SUMMARY:
The Wheeler Opera House proposes an infrastructure
improvement project including new mechanical equipment and
solar panels on the roof. Minor exterior changes related to the
existing freight elevator are also planned. HPC is asked to
perform design review.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends partial approval,
with conditions.
320 E. Hyman Avenue
105
Page 2 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Minor Development (Section 26.415.070.C)- design review of alterations to a landmarked
property.
• Commercial Design Review (Section 26.412.070.C)- design review of development located in the
Commercial Core Historic District.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority on the reviews listed above.
The scope of the project is not subject to Call-Up notice to City Council.
An associated Administrative review is being processed concurrent with HPC’s hearing. The property
sits within the mid-ground of the Main Street view plane. As depicted in the application, only a small area
of the Wheeler Opera house, primarily the north face of the elevator addition, can be seen from the
origination point of the view plane, which begins in front of the Hotel Jerome courtyard. From that vantage
point, most of the Wheeler is blocked from view by other, closer buildings.
A determination must be made by the Community Development Director as to whether or not the work
entailed in this application meets the standards for Mountain View Plane approval found in Section
26.415.050.E of the Municipal Code. This section requires a finding that the infringement is erected only
to the minimum height needed to accomplish the purpose for which it serves and the height and
setbacks comply with the standards of Section 26.575.020, the dimensional requirements of Chapter
26.710, and the Design Guidelines and Standards in Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review or 26.415,
Historic Preservation, as applicable. After a preliminary review, the Community Development Director
is prepared to issue this approval, pending final verification by the Chief Building Official that the chiller
is appropriately sized to the use.
Additionally, the placement of the solar panels must be reviewed relative to minimum setback
requirements for mechanical. The array that faces east does not meet the 20’ setback required for
rooftop equipment. Because this equipment is for energy production, the Community Development
Director may allow a reduction. Administrative approval will not be issued until the HPC provides
guidance to the director through their findings on design guideline compliance.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The review criteria and staff recommendations in response to this proposal are detailed in Exhibit A.
The applicant has provided four options for roof mounted solar panels. Roof plans labelled Options 1-
4, are found on sheet A 3.3. The distinction between the options has to do with the number of panels
proposed on the east and west facing roof pitches, and the angle of the panels to be placed on the flat
roof. Staff supports Option 1, which, on the flat roof of the historic building, has solar panels arranged
in a peaked “cupola” form that has some relationship to the historic structure. Option 1 has some west
facing panels, but no east facing panels. Staff finds that this option will have little public visibility while
still achieving some energy production goals. Staff also supports a modification of Option 3, which is
106
Page 3 of 3
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
like Option 1 but has more panels facing west. Staff would support this concept if the east facing panels
were eliminated.
The Historic Preservation Design guidelines and the Commercial Design guidelines provide direction
on the placement of rooftop equipment. All of the guidelines emphasize minimizing visibility and
grouping equipment together. Roofs are referred to as the “fifth façade” given the visibility of Aspen’s
built environment from mountaintop perspectives. The proposed roof equipment in this project will be
clearly visible from high vantage points.
The application includes renderings
indicating that the solar panels will
not be easily visible from the Mill
Street Mall, but they will be visible
on the Hyman Avenue mall. From
the mid-point of the mall, a
significant length of the east facing
roof pitch can be seen.
Staff finds that east facing panels
would detract from the historic
character of this important and
prominent building. The other
proposed locations are more
discreet and appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends HPC approve Option 1
or a modified Option 3 as stated in
the resolution. All other aspects of
the proposal are also found to be
appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2020
Exhibit A- Minor
Development/Staff Findings
Exhibit B- Application
East facing Wheeler roof, viewed from the center of the Hyman mall
107
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #__, SERIES OF 2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION GRANTING
MINOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 320 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LOTS P, Q, R AND S, BLOCK 81,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-851
WHEREAS, the applicant, the City of Aspen, represented by BendonAdams, has requested
Minor Development and Commercial Design approval for the property located at 320 E.
Hyman Avenue, Lots P, Q, R and S, Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the review is subject to the Municipal Code in place at the time of application
completeness on January 27, 2020; and
WHEREAS, HPC held a public hearing on the project on February 26, 2020. HPC considered
the application, the staff memo, and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with
the review standards and granted approval with conditions by a vote of __ to __.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: Minor Development Review
HPC hereby approves Minor Development and Commercial Design Review with the following
conditions:
1. Regarding the proposed solar panels, approval is granted for Option 1 or Option 3
with no east-facing panels. The rooftop chiller and modifications to the west side of
the elevator addition are approved as represented in the application.
2. The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development
plan vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of a development
order. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to
this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless
otherwise exempted or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements
required to be recorded, as specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of
the development order shall also result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights
and shall render the development order void within the meaning of Section 26.104.050
(Void permits). Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific development plan
shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval of all requisite reviews necessary
to obtain a development order as set forth in this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to
be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of
the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific 108
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 2 of 3
development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such
notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property:
320 E. Hyman Avenue.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the development order from subsequent reviews
and approvals required by this approval of the general rules, regulations and
ordinances or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not
inconsistent with this approval.
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial
review; the period of time permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not
begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development approval
as required under Section 26.304.070(A). The rights of referendum shall be limited as
set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic
Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
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 ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
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.
109
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2020
Page 3 of 3
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the _____ day of ______________,
2020.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
110
Page 1 of 4
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Commercial Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.070 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.
26.415.070.C. Certificate of appropriateness for a minor development.
3. The procedures for the review of minor development projects are as follows:
a) The Community Development Director will review the application materials and if they are
determined to be complete, schedule a public hearing before the HPC. The subject
property shall be posted pursuant to Paragraph 26.304.060.E.3.b.
b) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This
report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project
and a recommendation to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the report and the evidence
presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
c) The HPC shall approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny. If the
application is approved, the HPC shall issue a certificate of appropriateness and the
Community Development Director shall issue a development order.
d) The HPC decision shall be final unless appealed by the applicant or a landowner within
three hundred (300) feet of the subject property in accordance with the procedures set
forth in Chapter 26.316.
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These elements may be
appropriate on an addition.
111
Page 2 of 4
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash
storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual impact.
Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with materials that are
compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete location.
Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with their
backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a manner
that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Staff Finding: The proposed solar panels do not affect historic fabric, as the original roof of the
Wheeler has long since been replaced and was a different material. Staff finds that panels on the east
(Mill Street) pitch do not meet the clearly stated goal of minimizing visual impact. Rooftop mechanical
should generally not be visible from the public way. In emphasis of this priority, the City has
implemented other requirements such as setback for rooftop infrastructure, so that even an element
as small as a boiler vent is to be recessed 20’ from a street-facing façade. Staff supports the applicant’s
Option 1, which has panels on the flat section of the roof arranged in a “cupola” form that has some
relationship to the historic structure, but has no east facing panels. Staff also supports a modification
of Option 3, with additional panels facing west, the cupola panels on the flat roof, but with no east
facing panels.
112
Page 3 of 4
Staff finds that the other elements of the proposal, a chiller unit on the elevator addition and
insignificant changes to the west façade of the elevator addition, comply with the guidelines.
26.412.060 Commercial Design Review
Except as outlined below, this Section applies to all commercial, lodging and mixed-used
development within the City requiring a building permit. All development shall be reviewed pursuant
to the Character Area in which it is located. The Community Development Director shall assign an
appropriate Character Area to properties subject to Commercial Design Review that are not located
within a defined Character Area.
Review Criteria. An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with
conditions or denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. Guidelines and Standards
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are
met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines
include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the
application is appropriate.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a Variation pursuant to Section
26.412.040.D, Variations.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines
must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a) determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately
met in order to approve a project proposal;
b) weigh the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Relevant Commercial Design Guidelines:
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the
building.
• Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view.
• Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley access.
• Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual
interest.
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within the
building and/or co-located on the roof.
113
Page 4 of 4
• Screen rooftop mechanical equipment and venting with a low fence or recess behind a parapet wall to
minimize visual impacts.
Staff Finding: Like the Historic Preservation Guidelines, the Commercial Design Guidelines
emphasize the discreet location of rooftop equipment, with solar panels specifically named as an
element which should be screened from view.
Staff finds that the Commercial Design Guidelines are not met, with the exception of the applicant’s
Option 1, and Option 3 with no east facing panels.
114
300 SO SPRING ST | 202 | ASPEN, CO 81611
970.925.2855 | BENDONADAMS.COM
January 27, 2020
City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
c/o Amy Simon
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: 320 East Hyman Ave. Wheeler Opera House - Minor HPC Review, Commercial Design,
Administrative Viewplane and Administrative Height Exemptions
Dear Historic Preservation Commission and Ms. Simon:
Please accept this application to make the Wheeler Opera House a leading example of how to merge
historic preservation and sustainability. City Council has directed City Staff to minimize carbon impacts
and utilize renewable energy wherever possible. The Wheeler is undergoing an infrastructure
improvement project which creates an opportunity to install renewable energy for its operations moving
forward. The City of Aspen strives to be at the forefront of environmental sustainability and declares its
energy initiatives on the www.cityofaspen.com website:
Desire Outcome: The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing
adverse environmental impacts. Energy generation and consumption, while integral to a
prosperous economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants that
contaminate land, air and water. By replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewable resources
–and maximizing energy efficiency across all sectors - Aspen meets its energy demands in an
efficient, clean and affordable manner. In doing so, Aspen maintains a thriving economy while
reducing the adverse environmental impacts of its energy needs.
Proposal
The Wheeler Opera House proposes to add solar panels to the non-historic standing seam metal roof (the
roof was originally tin shingles). An existing rooftop chiller that needs approval is included as part of this
application. A few minor changes to the non-historic west elevation are proposed including shifting a
door opening, consolidating mechanical ducts and venting, and removing a large existing mechanical vent.
The proposal to add solar panels aligns with the City’s sustainability goals, meets the historic preservation
design guidelines (Exhibit A.1) and is consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic
Preservation recommendations that solar collectors are “inconspicuous from the public right of way and
do not damage or obscure character-defining features.” The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards do not
recommend “radically changing a character-defining roof shape or damaging or destroying character-
defining roofing materials as a result of incompatible design or improper installation techniques.” The
Wheeler Opera House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places for Romanesque Revival
architecture, association with J.B. Wheeler, and association with architect W. J. Edrooke. The addition of
solar panels on the roof do not obscure the architectural significance of the Romanesque Revival
Page 1 of 62
115
2
architecture - the rusticated sandstone, arched windows, columns, ornate cornice, or other character
defining features on the street facing facades.
In addition to not obscuring important architectural features, the proposed solar panels will offset 12% of
the annual electricity demand for the Wheeler and will mitigate $238,187 in REMP fees. Maximizing the
solar panels on the Wheeler aligns with the City of Aspen and Pitkin County Ecological Bill of Rights
adopted in 2000 including specifically “9) the right to the efficient and renewable use of energy.” It is
important for the City to be stewards of our natural resources and to lead by example. Adding solar panels
to the Wheeler Opera House meets the goal of maximizing renewables for an essential public facility that
is enjoyed by the community while at the same time preserving the iconic architecture.
Sincerely,
Sara Adams, AICP
BendonAdams LLC
sara@bendonadams.com
970.925.2855
Exhibits:
A – Review Criteria
1. Design Reviews
2. Exemption for mechanical
3. Exemption for viewplane
B – Land Use Application + Dimensional Form
C – Pre- application summary
D – Agreement to Pay
E – Authorization to Represent
F – Proof of Ownership
G – HOA form
H – Vicinity Map
I - Mailing list
J – Chiller replacement report and Cut sheets for mechanical equipment
K - Streetscape
L – Drawings, roof plan, viewplane analysis
Page 2 of 62
116
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
Exhibit A A.1 Design Reviews
26.415.060.B.2 The City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines, as amended, which
are on file with the Community Development Department, will be used in the review of requests
of certificates of no negative effect or certificates of appropriateness. Conformance with the
applicable guidelines and the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter
26.304 will be necessary for the approval of any proposed work:
Please find an analysis of the Commercial Core Historic District Design Standards and
Guidelines. Commercial Design Standard Review uses the same design guidelines for
the Commercial Core Historic District and the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines. As
described below, the project conforms with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines/
Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
26.412.040. Commercial Design Procedures for Review.
E. Consolidation of applications and combining of reviews. If a development project includes
additional City land use approvals, the Community Development Director may consolidate or
modify the review process accordingly, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.B of this title.
If a proposed development, upon determination of the Community Development Director in
consultation with the applicant, is of limited scope, the Director may authorize the application to
be subject to a one-step process that combines both conceptual and final design reviews…
Response - This application proposes a reduction of the onsite pedestrian amenity in
exchange for right of way improvements, and the addition of rooftop solar panels and a
chiller unit. All pertinent guidelines listed in the Commercial Core Historic District
Character Area are addressed below.
26.412.060 Review Criteria.
An application for commercial design review may be approved, approved with conditions or
denied based on conformance with the following criteria:
A. Guidelines and Standards
1. The Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines are
met as determined by the appropriate Commission. The Standards and Guidelines
include design review criteria that are to be used to determine whether the application is
appropriate.
2. All applicable standards in the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines shall be met unless granted a variation pursuant to Section
26.412.040.D.
3. Not every guideline will apply to each project, and some balancing of the guidelines
must occur on a case-by-case basis. The applicable Commission must:
a. determine that a sufficient number of the relevant guidelines are adequately
met in order to approve a project proposal.
Page 3 of 62
117
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
b. weight the applicable guidelines with the practicality of the measure.
Commercial Design Standards and Guidelines – General Chapter
1.1 All projects shall provide a context study.
• The study should include the relationship to adjacent structures and streets through
photographs, streetscape elevations, historic maps, etc.
1.2 All projects shall respond to the traditional street grid.
• A building shall be oriented parallel to the street unless uncharacteristic of the area. Refer
to specific chapters for more information.
• Buildings on corners shall be parallel to both streets.
1.3 Landscape elements (both hardscape and softscape) should complement the
surrounding context, support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the
building.
• This applies to landscape located both on-site and in the public right of way.
• High quality and durable materials should be used.
• Early in the design process, consider stormwater best management practices as an
integral part of the landscape design process.
1.4 Where there is open space on a site, reinforce the traditional transition from public
space to semi-public space to private space.
• This may be achieved through a fence, a defined walkway, a front porch element, covered
walkway, or landscape.
1.5 – 1.8 n/a.
1.9 Minimize the visual impacts of parking.
1.10 – 1.21 n/a – refer to HP specific design guidelines below.
Response – Hardscape changes are not proposed as part of Phase 1.
1.18 The roofscape should be designed with the same attention as the elevations of the
building.
• Consolidate mechanical equipment, including solar panels, and screen from view.
• Locate mechanical equipment toward the alley, or rear of a building if there is no alley
access.
• Use varied roof forms or parapet heights to break up the roof plane mass and add visual
interest.
Response – Solar panels and the existing rooftop “chiller” are designed to be sensitive to the
landmark, pulled back from the street, and intended to provide renewable energy for the
Wheeler’s operations.
1.22 Complete and accurate identification of materials is required.
• Provide drawings that identify the palette of materials, specifications for the materials, and
location on the proposed building as part of the application.
• Physical material samples shall be presented to the review body. An onsite mock-up prior
to installation may be required.
1.23 Building materials shall have these features:
• Convey the quality and range of materials found in the current block context or seen
historically in the Character Area.
• Convey pedestrian scale.
• Enhance visual interest through texture, application, and/or dimension.
• Be non-reflective. Shiny or glossy materials are not appropriate as a primary material.
• Have proven durability and weathering characteristics within Aspen’s climate.
Page 4 of 62
118
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
• A material with an integral color shall be a neutral color. Some variation is allowed for
secondary materials.
1.24 Introducing a new material, material application, or material finish to the existing
streetscape may be approved by HPC or P&Z if the following criteria are met:
• Innovative building design.
• Creative material application that positively contributes to the streetscape.
• Environmentally sustainable building practice.
• Proven durability.
1.25 - 1.28 n/a
1.29 Delivery areas shall be located along an alleyway where one exists.
1.30 Mechanical equipment, ducts, and vents shall be accommodated internally within
the building and/or co-located on the roof.
1.31 Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes.
1.32 Transformer location and size are dictated by City and utility company standards
and codes.
Response – No new buildings or additions are proposed as part of this application. Delivery occurs
from the alley. Ducts and vents are consolidated on the north and west walls where possible.
New radon and mechanical vents are consolidated on the west elevation as shown on drawing
A3.3.
An existing door on the non-historic west elevation is proposed to be relocated and replaced with
and overhead sliding door with man door and overhead track. Bricks will be infilled to match
existing bricks. The location of the door may shift slightly during development of construction
documents – we respectfully request to work with Staff and monitor to review and approve slight
adjustment to the location. In addition, the vent above the new door location is proposed to be
infilled with matching brick.
Solar panels are proposed to meet the City’s environmental goals. The panels are hidden as
much as possible while also maximizing solar gain.
1.33 – 1.37 – n/a
Figure 1: Existing west elevation showing door to be shifted to other side of mechanical equipment and
gas service.
Page 5 of 62
119
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
Commercial Core Historic District Design Guidelines
2.1- 2.3 n/a
2.4 Respect adjacent iconic historic structures.
• Development near historic landmarks may use Pedestrian Amenity design as a transition
or buffer to highlight the importance of adjacent historic structures.
• Use simple architectural details, materials and massing that do not detract from nearby
historic landmarks.
2.5 – 2.13 n/a
2.14 Architectural details should reinforce historic context and meet at least two of the
following qualities.
• Color or finish traditionally found downtown.
• Texture to create visual interest, especially for larger buildings.
• Traditional material: brick, stone, metal and wood.
• Traditional application” for example, a running bond for masonry.
Response – The proposed rooftop chiller is located on a non-historic addition that is lower than
the height of the iconic historic structure. Solar panels are flush mounted to the roof slope as
permitted by the manufacturer. The solar panels on the flat roof portion of the landmark have a
slight slope as shown in the elevation and detailed drawings.
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Chapter 1: Site planning and landscape design
1.2 Preserve the system and character of historic streets, alleys and ditches.
Response – The alley continues to serve deliveries.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
Response – No change to the hardscape is proposed in this proposal.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
Response – Grading and drainage needs will be accommodated in a later phase.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a historic structure. These
elements may be appropriate on an addition.
Response – Solar panels are proposed to be flush mounted on the metal roof of the Wheeler
Opera House. The existing Wheeler Opera House roof is non-historic metal standing seam. The
solar panels do not damage historic material, nor do the panels visually obscure the roof form or
character defining features of the iconic building. A chiller is located on the rooftop setback 60
feet from the Mill Street facade. The chiller has been in place since the spring of 2019 (it replaced
a previous piece of mechanical equipment) but needs approval for its location.
Page 6 of 62
120
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment
and trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their
visual impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening
with materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low
profile units available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a
discrete location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic
building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending
with their backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall,
in a manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Response – The chiller is proposed on a non-historic addition that is lower than the historic
building and was previously the location of a swamp cooler. The visual impacts of the chiller are
minimal. The increase in safety for Wheeler Opera House visitors far outweighs any visual impact.
A.2 Exceptions to Land Use Code Section 26.575.020
26.575.020.5.n Heating and air conditioning equipment and similar mechanical equipment
shall have the following requirements:
a. Prohibited between any lot line adjacent to a street and any structure; and
b. Shall be located at least double the minimum setback for a primary structure from
any lot line adjacent to a street; and
c. If visible from the street, these features shall be screened in accordance with
Section 26.575.050, Fences; and
d. If located within a setback not adjacent to a street, these features shall not exceed
thirsty (30) inches above or below finished grade. These features may be up to
thirty (30) inches above and below finished grade simultaneously.
The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to the requirements of m)
and n) above. The Community Development Director must first determine that the visual
impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable option exists. Approval
shall be in the form of a recordable administrative determination.
Page 7 of 62
121
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
Response – The proposed location of the chiller is the only reasonable option that exists. Impacts
on the landmark are minimized by placing the chiller on the non-historic addition, and toward the
rear of the property. The chiller is setback 60 feet from the Mill Street façade. The chiller, as
shown below, is not visible from the street.
Figure 2: Proposed roof plan showing setbacks.
Figure 3: Street view of Wheeler Opera House.
Figure 4: West elevation showing chiller.
Page 8 of 62
122
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
26.575.020.f.4.e Mechanical equipment. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems,
and similar mechanical equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may
extend up to six (6) feet above height of the building at the point the equipment is attached.
This allowance is inclusive of any pad the equipment is placed on, as well as any
screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened, combined, and co-located to the
greatest extent practicable. On structures other than a single family or duplex residential
building or an accessory building, all mechanical equipment shall be set back from any
Street façade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
Response – The proposed mechanical equipment (aka chiller) is 6 feet 5.75 inches high with
required 9.5 inch tall pad. It is located on the non-historic addition and is lower than the height of
the iconic Wheeler Opera House. The chiller meets setback requirements from both Hyman and
Mill Streets. There is limited equipment on the roof and the chiller is placed in the far rear corner
of the building on a non-historic addition to limit any visual impacts.
26.575.020.f.4.f Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy Production Systems and
Equipment. Energy efficiency systems or renewable energy production systems and
equipment including solar panels, wind turbines, or similar systems and the system’s
associated equipment which is located on top of a building may extend up to five (5) feet
above the height of the building at the point the equipment is attached.
On any structure other than a single family or duplex residential building or an accessory
building, these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above the height of the building at
the point the equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing façade of the building
a minimum of twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the equipment is minimized and
combined to the greatest extent practicable. Certain additional restrictions may apply
pursuant to Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review.
Response – The proposed solar panels are well under height limitation; however, the panels do
not meet the setback requirements. The preferred option “Array Layout 3” has a 6 feet setback
from Mill Street façade and a 19 feet setback from Hyman Street façade. Maximizing solar energy
for the Wheeler Opera House operations is a priority for City Council. The City of Aspen has an
opportunity to set an example for future and existing buildings to pursue renewable energy by
installing solar at the community focused and iconic Wheeler Opera House.
The Wheeler Opera House currently operates from a 1600A 208/120V 3- Phase electrical service
which has served the demands of the building over the past decades. Due to the upcoming
addition of an 400A electrical panel at the stage level, the installation of an electric snowmelt
system and the desire to “future proof” the building and in the near future replace the (3) existing
natural gas boilers at their end of life with clean electric units, the project team is intending to
install an additional 1600A 480/277 -3 Phase electrical service along with corresponding
transformers, disconnects and switchgear.
In order to help to offset this additional electric demand to the City of Aspen grid, City Staff would
like to install a roof top photovoltaic system on the Wheeler Opera House. Working through
conceptual design the project team has identified (2) different potential options for a rooftop solar
array at the Wheeler Opera House:
1. We maximize the roof area and install a 39.56KW solar system on the roof with an
estimated yearly production rate of 46,066KWH. This will net $238,187.76 in REMP
credits. (Option 3 on our PV drawing)
Page 9 of 62
123
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
2. The PV system complies with Land Use Code setback requirements. This system would
be sized at 14.74 KW with an estimated yearly production of 16,711KWH or only 36% of
the maximized potential. This option will net $86,458.54 in REMP credits. (Option 1 on
our PV drawing)
To date, City Council has directed City Staff to minimize carbon impact and utilize renewable
energy whenever possible. Based on this direction, a proposal is submitted for solar panels that
maximize solar power generation of the Wheeler Opera House roof as a part of the Wheeler
Infrastructure Improvement Project and “future proof” the building with the ability to utilize
renewable energy for its operations moving forward.
26.575.020.J Exceptions for Energy Efficiency. The Community Development Director
may approve exceptions to the dimensional restrictions of this Section to accommodate
the addition of energy production systems or energy efficiency systems or equipment in
or on existing buildings when no other practical solution exists. The Community
Development Director must first determine that the visual impact of the exemption is
minimal and that no other reasonable way to implement energy production or efficiency
exists. The Director may require notice be provided to adjacent landowners. Approval
shall be in the form of a recordable administrative decision.
Response – The proposed roof mounted solar
panels on the existing Wheeler Opera House
are the only practical solution to provide
renewable energy to this essential public
facility. The solar panels are flush with the
existing roof pitch, and the panels located on
the flat roof portion are slightly angled as
shown on the elevation. The visual impact of
the panels does not impede the
understanding of the historic Wheeler Opera
House architecture.
Figure 5: Hyman façade with solar panels proposed on the east, west and
rooftop.
Page 10 of 62
124
Exhibit A – Review Criteria
Wheeler Opera House
A.3 Viewplane Exemption Section 26.435.050
26.435.050.E. Administrative Review. An addition to a structure or an attached building
feature that does not the criteria in subsections 1 and 2 above may be approved by the
Community Development Director through Administrative Review if:
1. The infringement is erected only to the minimum height needed to accomplish the
purpose for which is serves and the height and setbacks comply with the standards
of Section 26.575.020, the dimensional requirements of Chapter 26.710, and the
Design Guidelines and Standards in Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review or
26.415, Historic Preservation as applicable; or
2. The infringement cannot be seen with the naked eye from the reference point as
demonstrated by a visual resource analysis.
Response – As demonstrated in the attached visual resource analysis, the solar panels are not
visible to the naked eye form the reference point. The chiller meets the setback requirements but
is over the allowed height. The chiller is mostly hidden behind the Miner’s building as viewed
from the reference point.
Page 11 of 62
125
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 2 - Historic Preservation Land Use Application
PROJECT:
Name:
Location:
(Indicate street address, lot & block number or metes and bounds description of property)
Parcel ID # (REQUIRED)___________________________________________________________
Applicant:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:_______________________________________________
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name:
Address:
Phone #: _______________________Fax#:___________________E-mail:________________________________________________
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
Historic Designation
Certificate of No Negative Effect
Certificate of Appropriateness
-Minor Historic Development
-Major Historic Development
-Conceptual Historic Development
-Final Historic Development
-Substantial Amendment
Relocation (temporary, on
or off-site)
Demolition (total demolition)
Historic Landmark Lot Split
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 62
126
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
General Information
Please check the appropriate boxes below and submit this page along with your application. This
information will help us review your plans and, if necessary, coordinate with other agencies that
may be involved.
YES NO
Does the work you are planning include exterior work; including additions, demolitions,
new construction, remodeling, rehabilitation or restoration?
Does the work you are planning include interior work, including remodeling,
rehabilitation, or restoration?
Do you plan other future changes or improvements that could be reviewed at this time?
In addition to City of Aspen approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness or No Negative
Effect and a building permit, are you seeking to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation or restoration of a National Register of Historic Places
Property in order to qualify for state or federal tax credits?
If yes, are you seeking federal rehabilitation investment tax credits in
Conjunction with this project? (Only income producing properties listed
on the National Register are eligible. Owner-occupied residential
properties are not.)
If yes, are you seeking the Colorado State Income Tax Credit for
Historical Preservation?
Please check all City of Aspen Historic Preservation Benefits which you plan to use:
Rehabilitation Loan Fund Conservation Easement Program Dimensional Variances
Increased Density Historic Landmark Lot Split Waiver of Park Dedication Fees
Conditional Uses Tax Credits
Exemption from Growth Management Quota System
Page 13 of 62
127
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
ATTACHMENT 3 - Dimensional Requirements Form
(Item #10 on the submittal requirements key. Not necessary for all projects.)
Project:
Applicant:
Project
Location:
Zone District:
Lot Size:
Lot Area:
(For the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high
water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the
Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Number of residential units: Existing:__________Proposed:_________________
Proposed % of demolition: __________
DIMENSIONS: (write N/A where no requirement exists in the zone district)
Floor Area:
Height
Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Principal Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
Accessory Bldg.: Existing:_________Allowable:__________Proposed:________
On-Site parking: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Site coverage: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
% Open Space: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Front Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Rear Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Front/Rear:
Indicate N, S, E, W
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Side Setback: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Combined Sides: Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Distance between
buildings:
Existing:_________Required:___________Proposed:________
Existing non-conformities or encroachments and note if encroachment licenses have been issued:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Variations requested (identify the exact variances needed): ______________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 62
128
PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PLANNER: Amy Simon, amy.simon@cityofaspen.com
DATE: November 21, 2019
PROJECT LOCATION: 320 E. Hyman Avenue
REQUEST: HPC Minor Development, Commercial Design Review, and Administrative View Plane Review
REPRESENTATIVE: BendonAdams. sara@bendonadams.com
DESCRIPTION: In the summer of 2019, the City of Aspen was permitted to proceed with emergency
replacement of a rooftop chiller unit that is necessary for the operation of the Wheeler Opera House. It was
understood that after-the-fact land use approvals would be needed because the Wheeler is landmarked and
sits in the mid-ground of the Main Street View Plane. The City is prepared to pursue the land use review and
has also recently decided to propose installation of solar panels on the roof of the structure.
Design review approval is required from the Historic Preservation Commission. The board will evaluate the
proposal for compliance with the Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Commercial, Lodging and
Historic District Design Guidelines.
Any approved work will then be subject to Administrative View Plane Review by the Community
Development Director. It is staff’s understanding that the Main Street View Plane spans the entirety of the
Wheeler Opera House parcel and that it crosses the rear lot line at a height of approximately 55’, increasing
to approximately 70’ at the southern edge of the site. The Wheeler itself is about 65’ tall, so it breaks through
the View Plane, as would any equipment on the roof. Mechanical equipment in the mid-ground of a View
Plane can be approved through Administrative Review if it is found to meet the criteria of Section
26.415.050.E of the Municipal Code, which require the equipment to be the minimum height necessary for
its purpose, or invisible to the naked eye from the view plane’s point of origin. Surveys, photographs, mock-
ups, mechanical equipment specifications, mechanical engineer analysis of the building needs, and similar
evidence supporting a positive finding on the criteria must be provided in the application. It is desirable to
demonstrate compliance with these criteria as the alternative is a request for a Variation to Mountain View
Plane Review, an action which would be subject to Section 13.14 of the Municipal Code, commonly known
as “Referendum 1.”
Concurrent with the Community Development Director’s consideration of the Administrative View Plane
review will be consideration of an exception to allowed projections over the established height limit, as it is
staff’s understanding that the proposed equipment may not meet aspects of the requirements described
below, located at Section 26.575.020.f.4 of the Municipal Code.
Mechanical Equipment. Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, and similar mechanical
equipment or utility apparatus located on top of a building may extend up to six (6) feet above
height of the building at the point the equipment is attached. This allowance is inclusive of any pad
the equipment is placed on, as well as any screening. Mechanical equipment shall be screened,
combined, and co-located to the greatest extent practicable. On structures other than a single-
Page 15 of 62
129
family or duplex residential building or an accessory building, all mechanical equipment shall be set
back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of fifteen (15) feet.
Energy Efficiency or Renewable Energy Production Systems and Equipment. Energy efficiency
systems or renewable energy production systems and equipment including solar panels, wind
turbines, or similar systems and the system’s associated equipment which is located on top of a
building may extend up to five (5) feet above the height of the building at the point the equipment
is attached.
On any structure other than a single-family or duplex residential building or an accessory building,
these systems may extend up to ten (10) feet above height of the building at the point the
equipment is attached if set back from any Street facing façade of the building a minimum of
twenty (20) feet and the footprint of the equipment is minimized and combined to the greatest
extent practicable. Certain additional restrictions may apply pursuant to Chapter 26.412,
Commercial Design Review.
The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to these dimensional restrictions to
accommodate improvements required to achieve compliance with building, fire, or accessibility codes in
or on existing buildings when no other practical solution exists. The Community Development Director
must first determine that the visual impact of the exemption is minimal and that no other reasonable way
to implement code compliance exists. Technical analysis of the building’s mechanical needs, and
corroboration by the Chief Building Official will be important to this determination.
RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS:
Section Number Section Title
26.304 Common Development Review Procedures
26.412.040.E Consolidated Commercial Design Review
26.415.070.C Historic Preservation, Minor Development
26.435.050 Mountain View Plane Review
26.575.020 Measurements and Calculations
For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application, Land Use Code and design guidelines are below:
Land Use Application Land Use Code
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Commercial Design Guidelines
Review by: Staff for completeness and recommendations. HPC and Community
Development Director for determinations.
Public Hearing: Yes, at HPC.
Neighborhood Outreach: No.
Referrals: Staff may seek referral comments from the Building Department, Zoning,
Engineering and Parks regarding any relevant code requirements or
considerations. There will be no Development Review Committee meeting
or referral fees.
Planning Fees: $0, per City policy providing waiver of land use fees for General Fund
Departments.
Total Deposit: $0.
Page 16 of 62
130
APPLICATION CHECKLIST: Below is a list of submittal requirements, which may be consolidated into one
application.
Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.
Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of
a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and
encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all
owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements
affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application.
Applicant’s name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant that states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
HOA Compliance form (Attached).
An 8 1/2” by 11” vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
A written description of the proposal and written explanation of how the request complies with the review
standards relevant to the application.
A survey indicating the projection of the Wheeler Opera House view plane across the property.
A scaled roof plan showing the existing and proposed features.
A visual depiction of the proposal using diagrams, maps, photographs, models or streetscape elevations to
accurately depict location, extent and design of the proposed work, its relationship to surrounding context
and visibility from the point of origin of the Main Street View Plane.
Technical analysis to verify the proposed equipment is the minimum height necessary for its purpose and
that no other practical solution exists that complies with height limits and building code requirements.
Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:
1 digital PDF copy of the complete application packet.
Total deposit for review of the application.
Disclaimer:
The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current
zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate.
The summary does not create a legal or vested right.
Page 17 of 62
131
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Aspen Historic Preservation Land Use Packet
City of Aspen|130 S. Galena Street.| (970) 920 5090 Historic Land Use Application Requirements, Updated: March 2016
Agreement to Pay Application Fees
An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and
Property Phone No.:
Owner (“I”): Email:
Address of Billing
Property: Address:
(Subject of (send bills here)
application)
I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No., Series of 2011, review fees for Land Use applications and payment of
these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner that I
am responsible for paying all fees for this development application.
For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are
non-refundable.
$___________flat fee for ____________________ $____________ flat fee for ____________________________________
$___________ flat fee for ___________________ $_____________ flat fee for____________________________________
For Deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not
possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application.
I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for
City staff to complete processing, review and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be
made for project consideration, unless invoices are paid in full.
The City and I understand and agree that invoices mailed by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the
City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an
invoice by the City for such services.
I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy including consequences for no-payment. I agree to pay
the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not
render and application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree
to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for the processing of my application at the hourly rates
hereinafter stated.
$________________ deposit for_____________ hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time
above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
$________________ deposit for _____________ hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the
deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour.
City of Aspen: Property Owner:
________________________________ _______________________________________________
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Community Development Director Name:
_______________________________________________
Title:
____________________________________________________
City Use:
Fees Due: $____Received $_______ waived per pre-application summaryPage 18 of 62
132
Page 19 of 62
133
Page 20 of 62
134
Page 21 of 62
135
320 E Hyman - Wheeler Opera House
City of Aspen
Historic Sites
Parcels
12/18/2019, 1:36:24 PM 0 0.01 0.020.01 mi
0 0.02 0.040.01 km
1:1,128
Hym
a
n
A
v
e
n
u
e Mill StreetPage 22 of 62
136
Pitkin County Mailing List of 300 Feet Radius
Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this web
site as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to
ensure that the information and data contained in this electronic
system is accurate, but the accuracy may change. Mineral
estate ownership is not included in this mailing list. Pitkin County
does not maintain a database of mineral estate owners.
Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning
the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this
site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and
reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the
user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and
liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or
data obtained on this web site.
This document contains a Mailing List formatted to be
printed on Avery 5160 Labels. If printing, DO NOT "fit to
page" or "shrink oversized pages." This will manipulate the
margins such that they no longer line up on the labels
sheet. Print actual size.
From Parcel: 273707338851 on 01/07/2020
Instructions:
Disclaimer:
http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com
Page 23 of 62
137
415 EAST HYMAN AVE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
LIMELIGHT SUB/PUD
ASPEN, CO 81611
E HYMAN AVE
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
BARNETT FYRWALD HOLDINGS INC
LITTLE ROCK, AR 722022017
2222 COTTONDALE LN #200
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10023
60 COLUMBUS CIR
400 HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 816112118
1010 E HYMAN AVE
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
THOR 228 S MILL ST LLC
ARLINGTON, VA 22209
1000 WILSON BLVD #2100
ASPEN GOLDEN HORN LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FL
ISIS GROUP
MIAMI, FL 33140
2301 N MERIDIAN AVE
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
401 HYMAN AVENUE LLC
NORTHBROOK, IL 60062
1435 LAWRENCE LN
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS MEDIA CO
CARSON CITY, NV 89701
580 MALLORY WY
HART GEORGE DAVID & SARAH
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5491
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
ISIS BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
Page 24 of 62
138
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
407 HYMAN LLC
GLENWOOD SPRINGS , CO 81601
51027 HWY 6 & 24 #100
KANDYCOM INC
ARCADIA, CA 91006
766 SINGING WOOD DR
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
ASPEN SKIING COMPANY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 1248
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
COLUMBIA, MO 65203
211 N STADIUM BLVD STE 201
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10023
60 COLUMBUS CIR
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
ROARING FORK CONDOS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
415 E HYMAN AVE
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
JOHNSON PETER C & SANDRA K
ASPEN, CO 81611-1008
51 OVERLOOK DR
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
305-7 MILL STREET LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 NORTH HALSTED #304
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
419 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 NORTH HALSTED # 304
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10023
60 COLUMBUS CIR
400 BUILDING LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432-3933
306 N PLAZA REAL
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
Page 25 of 62
139
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
KATIE REED PLAZA CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HOPKINS AVE
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
PARAGON PENTHOUSE LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9950 SANTA MONICA BLVD
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
ELK MOUNTAIN HOSPITALITY LLC
BASALT, CO 81621
371 MARKET ST
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
PARK CENTRAL CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST STE 203
FIERCELY LOCAL
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 8970
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
314 HEXAGON LLC
OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210
9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800
ASPEN GOLDEN HORN LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FL
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
HOPKINS ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED ST #304
NORTON LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33487
5499 N FEDERAL HWY #I
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
314 E HYMAN AVE
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210
9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800
Page 26 of 62
140
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
KANTZER TAYLOR FAM TRST #1
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
PARAGON BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
419 E HYMAN AVE
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
400 BUILDING LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432-3933
306 N PLAZA REAL
CLARK LOIS P REV TRUST
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5815
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305
AJAX JMG INVESTMENTS LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 902122974
9401 WILSHIRE BLVD 9TH FL
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
BRINING ROBERT D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #203
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
DOLE MARGARET M
ASPEN, CO 816111989
400 E HYMAN AVE #302
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
MOTHER LODE CONDO ASSOC INC
OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210
9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800
HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST
GREENBANK, WA 98253
4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
ASPEN, CO 81611
420 E HOPKINS AVE
Page 27 of 62
141
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
BERNSTEIN JEREMY M PROFIT SHARING PLAN
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
DUVIKE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
420 E HYMAN AVE
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC
NEW YORK, NY 10023
60 COLUMBUS CIR
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
BATES NATHANIEL B TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 9909
RACZAK FAMILY TRUST
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
CLARK LOIS P REV TRUST
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5815
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
WOODS FAMILY LP
ASPEN, CO 81611
514 TWINING FLATS RD
400 EAST HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E HYMAN AVE # A202
MTN ENTERPRISES 80B
EAGLE, CO 816315739
PO BOX 5739
BRAND BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
COLLINS BLOCK CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
204 S MILL ST
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
CITY OF ASPEN PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTH
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
COTTONWOOD VENTURES I LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
419 E HYMAN AVE
314-PH HEXAGON LLC
OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210
9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
WENDELIN ASSOC
PITTSFORD , NY 14534
1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
ASPEN GOLDEN HORN LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FL
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
Page 28 of 62
142
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
426 EAST HYMAN AVE LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
TRUE JAMES R
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2864
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
PALADINO LISA
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2314
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
413 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO , IL 60614
2001 NORTH HALSTED #304
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
RACZAK FAMILY TRUST
SNOWMASS, CO 81654
0234 LIGHT HILL RD
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
BELLA SUNRISE LLC
PALM BEACH, FL 33480
401 WORTH AVE #301
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
ISIS THEATRE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
406 E HOPKINS AVE
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
COX ANTHONY E LIVING TRUST
CAPITOLA, CA 95010
1260 41ST AVE #O
WHITMAN FINE PROPERTIES
ASPEN, CO 81611
210 E HYMAN AVE #101
SHVACHKO NATALIA
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
ORR ROBERT L
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
2700 G ROAD #12A
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
410 AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
WHEELER SQUARE CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
GOLDEN HORN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
400 E COOPER AVE
PARAGON PENTHOUSE LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9950 SANTA MONICA BLVD
Page 29 of 62
143
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
JPS NEVADA TRUST
HENDERSON, NV 89074
1701 N GREEN VALLEY PKWY #9C
400 HYMAN LLC
RIFLE, CO 816500351
PO BOX 351
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
PLUMERIA PARTNERS LLLP
ASPEN, CO 81611
925 CHATFIELD RD
414 422 EAST COOPER AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED #304
HOPKINS ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED ST #304
CARLSON BRUCE E TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 3587
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
400 HYMAN LLC
RIFLE, CO 816500351
PO BOX 351
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
WELLS FARGO BANK
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
PO BOX 2609
COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC
DALLAS, TX 75367
PO BOX 670709
CITY OF ASPEN
ASPEN, CO 81611
130 S GALENA ST
CLARK LOIS P REV TRUST
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5815
WHITE RIVER HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE # 401
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
TOM THUMB BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
400 E HYMAN AVE
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
314-200 HEXAGON LLC
OVERLAND PARK , KS 66210
9401 INDIAN CREEK PKWY STE 800
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
SEDOY MICHAEL
NEW YORK, NY 10022
35 SUTTON PL #19B
400 HYMAN LLC
ASPEN, CO 816112118
1010 E HYMAN AVE
Page 30 of 62
144
GOODING NANCY A
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
4800 S HOLLY ST
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
SEGUIN BUILDING CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
304 E HYMAN AVE
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
WENDELIN ASSOC
PITTSFORD , NY 14534
1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250
400 BUILDING LLC
BOCA RATON, FL 33432-3933
306 N PLAZA REAL
HOPKINS ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED ST #304
ASPEN GOLDEN HORN LLC
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
9420 WILSHIRE BLVD 4TH FL
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
HOPKINS ASPEN HOLDINGS LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED ST #304
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
KELLY GARY
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 12356
419 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 NORTH HALSTED # 304
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC
DALLAS, TX 75367
PO BOX 670709
KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG SP TRUST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
2311 LA MESA DR
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
419 AH LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 4068
ASPEN FILM
ASPEN, CO 81611
110 E HALLAM ST #102
312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED # 304
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
LEVY ASPEN RESIDENCE TRUST
MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140
5959 COLLINS AVE
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
CLARK LOIS P REV TRUST
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5815
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
ROBERTS JANET A
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
Page 31 of 62
145
BRINING ROBERT
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #203
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP INC
ATLANTA, GA 30327
3539 NORTHSIDE PKWY
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
OSA TRUST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
2311 LA MESA DR
CLARK LOIS P REV TRUST
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
PO BOX 5815
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
308 EAST HOPKINS CONDO ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
COMMON AREA
308 E HOPKINS AVE
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
ELLIOTT ELYSE A TRUST
ASPEN, CO 81611
610 NORTH ST
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
301 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
GREENWICH, CT 06830
411 W PUTNAM AVE
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC
CANON CITY , CO 812129484
44 SILVERADO CT
F & M VENTURES LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
415 E HYMAN AVE
CLARKS ASPEN LLC
BLANDING , UT 84511
818 SOUTH MAIN ST
411 EAST HYMAN AVENUE LLC
CHICAGO, IL 60614
2001 N HALSTED #304
1000 EAST HOPKINS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
PCU-5 LLC
ASPEN, CO 81612
PO BOX 2563
GRAND SLAM HOLDINGS LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #101
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
MOJO ASPEN LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #G102
WENDELIN ASSOC
PITTSFORD , NY 14534
1173 PITTSFORD VICTOR RD #250
G & K LAND CO LLC
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
0167 WILLOW LN
Page 32 of 62
146
DAVIS HORN INCORPORATED
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH #104
FREDRICK LARRY D
ASPEN, CO 81611
215 S MONARCH ST #G101
HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST
GREENBANK, WA 98253
4415 HONEYMOON BAY RD
DOWNTOWN 420 LLC
CALABASAS, CA 91302
23622 CALABASAS RD #200
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
COTTONWOOD VENTURES II LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
419 E HYMAN AVE
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
ASPEN , CO 81611
602 E COOPER #202
BLAU JEFF T
NEW YORK, NY 10023
60 COLUMBUS CR 19TH FL
BRAND BUILDING LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
WHEELER SQUARE - CASPER FAMILY LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN
COLLINS BLOCK LLC
ASPEN, CO 81611
205 S GALENA ST
KAUFMAN GIDEON I
ASPEN, CO 81611
315 E HYMAN AVE #305
PROSPECTOR FRACTIONAL OWNERS ASSOC
ASPEN, CO 81611
301 E HYMAN AVE #108
Page 33 of 62
147
Unit Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Unit Information
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Condenser Type:Air Cooled
Compressor Type:Scroll
Nameplate Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
Refrigerant:R410A
Independent Refrigerant Circuits:2
Capacity Control Steps:5
Minimum Capacity:20.0 %
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Chiller Warranty Information (Note: for US & Canada only)
First Year - Parts Only (Standard)
Ordering Information
Part Number Description Quantity
30RAP0705F-00100 Packaged Chiller 1
Base Unit
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 1 of 14
Low Ambient - Motormaster V
Security Grilles/Hail Guards
BACnet Translator
Accessories - Field Installed
Page 34 of 62
148
Certified Drawing for CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 2 of 14
Page 35 of 62
149
Field Wiring Diagram for CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 3 of 14
Page 36 of 62
150
Summary Performance Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
PackagedChillerReport:DoNotEdit;
AquaSnapTM Air-Cooled Scroll Chiller
Unit Information
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
ASHRAE 90.1:2010, 2007
Refrigerant:R-410A
Independent Refrigerant Circuits:2
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit A):26 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit B):35 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
Chiller Pressure Drop*:17.7 ft H2O
*Use Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps. This value
includes losses due to chiller piping, fittings, 40 mesh factory
supplied strainer and BPHX.
Evaporator Information
Fluid Type:Fresh Water
Fouling Factor:0.000100 (hr-sqft-F)/BTU
Leaving Temperature:44.00 °F
Entering Temperature:54.00 °F
Fluid Flow:157.4 gpm
Evaporator Pressure Drop*:10.9 ft H2O
*Refer to Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps.
Condenser Information
Altitude:8,000 ft
Number of Fans:5
Total Condenser Fan Air Flow:48,500 CFM
Entering Air Temperature:95.0 °F
Integrated Pump Information
No Pump Selected
Performance Information
Cooling Capacity:65.82 Tons
Total Compressor Power:80.34 kW
Total Fan Motor Power:4.709 kW
Total Unit Power (without pump):85.04 kW
Efficiency (without pump) (EER):9.288 BTU/Wh
IPLV:.IP:15.11 BTU/Wh
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Electrical Information
Unit Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Connection Type:Single Point
Electrical Electrical
Amps Circuit 1 Circuit 2
MCA 323.0 ---
MOCP 350.0 ---
ICF 593.2 ---
Rec Fuse Size 350.0 ---
An uncoated Novation condenser coil was selected for this product. This is based on an installed location with postal code 81505 and
a non-corrosive localized environment.
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 4 of 14
Page 37 of 62
151
Summary Performance Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Sound power measured in accordance with ANSI/AHRI Standard 370-2015.
Certified in accordance with the AHRI Air-Cooled Water-Chilling Packages Certification Program, which is based on AHRI
Standard 550/590 (I-P) and AHRI Standard 551/591 (SI). Certified units may be found in the AHRI Directory at www.ahridirectory.org.
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 5 of 14
Page 38 of 62
152
Summary Performance Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Unit Parameters
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Condenser Type:Air Cooled
Compressor Type:Scroll
Chiller Nameplate Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
Refrigerant:R-410A
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit A):26 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit B):35 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
1 - Chiller Height Above Ground
2 - Horizontal Distance From Chiller to Receiver
3 - Receiver Height Above Ground
(See Note 3)
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Acoustic Information
Table 1. A-Weighted Sound Power Levels (dB re 1 picowatt). See note #1.
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 31 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
100% Load 37 62 72 79 85 88 87 81 71 92
75% Load 37 61 72 79 85 88 87 80 71 92
50% Load 36 60 71 78 84 87 86 79 70 91
25% Load 34 59 70 77 83 85 84 78 69 90
Table 2. A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels (dB re 20 micropascals) calculated based upon user defined input for
dimensions 1, 2 and 3 as shown in above diagram. See note #2 and #3.
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 31 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
100% Load 9 33 44 51 57 59 59 52 43 64
75% Load 9 33 44 51 57 59 59 52 43 64
50% Load 8 32 43 50 56 58 58 51 42 63
25% Load 6 31 42 49 54 57 56 50 40 62
Notes: (1) Measurements performed in accordance with AHRI Standard 370-2015 for air cooled Chillers.
(2) Chiller is assumed to be a point source on a reflecting plane.
(3) Without user defined input, the default dimensions used to construct Table 2 are as follows:
1 - Chiller Height Above Ground = 0.0 ft
2 - Horizontal Distance From Chiller to Receiver = 30.0 ft
3 - Receiver Height Above Ground = 3.0 ft
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 6 of 14
Page 39 of 62
153
Acoustic Summary For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
PackagedChillerReport:DoNotEdit;
Please refer to Performance Output Summary or Detailed
Performance Report for Acoustic information
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 7 of 14
Page 40 of 62
154
Detailed Performance Summary For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
PackagedChillerReport:DoNotEdit;
AquaSnapTM Air-Cooled Scroll Chiller
Unit Information
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Condenser Type:Air Cooled
Compressor Type:Scroll
Nameplate Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
ASHRAE 90.1:2010, 2007
Refrigerant:R-410A
Capacity Control Steps:5
Minimum Capacity:20.00 %
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit A):26 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit B):35 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
Minimum Outdoor Operating Temp:32.0 °F
Chiller Pressure Drop*:17.7 ft H2O
*Use Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps. This value
includes losses due to chiller piping, fittings, 40 mesh factory
supplied strainer and BPHX.
Performance Information
Cooling Capacity:65.82 Tons
Total Compressor Power:80.34 kW
Total Fan Motor Power:4.709 kW
Total Unit Power (without pump):85.04 kW
Efficiency (without pump) (EER):9.288 BTU/Wh
Evaporator Information
Fluid Type:Fresh Water
Fouling Factor:0.000100 (hr-sqft-F)/BTU
Leaving Temperature:44.00 °F
Entering Temperature:54.00 °F
Fluid Flow:157.4 gpm
Fluid Flow Min:87.00 gpm
Fluid Flow Max:310.0 gpm
*Refer to Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps.
Evaporator Pressure Drop*:10.9 ft H2O
*Refer to Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps.
Condenser Information
Altitude:8,000 ft
Number of Fans:5
Total Condenser Fan Air Flow:48,500 CFM
Entering Air Temperature:95.0 °F
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 8 of 14
Page 41 of 62
155
Detailed Performance Summary For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Integrated Pump Information
No Pump Selected
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Electrical Information
Unit Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Connection Type:Single Point
Electrical Electrical
Amps Circuit 1 Circuit 2
MCA 323.0 ---
MOCP 350.0 ---
ICF 593.2 ---
Rec Fuse Size 350.0
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 9 of 14
Page 42 of 62
156
Detailed Performance Summary For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Integrated Part Load Value (AHRI)
IPLV.IP:15.11 BTU/Wh
Unit Performance
Percent of Full Load Capacity, %100.00 75.00 50.00 25.00
Percent of Full Load Power, %100.00 57.05 30.67 13.74
Unloading Sequence A A A A
Cooling Capacity, Tons 68.44 51.33 34.22 17.11
Total Unit Power, kW 82.28 46.94 25.24 11.31
Efficiency (EER), BTU/Wh 9.981 13.12 16.27 18.15
Evaporator Data
Fluid Entering Temperature, °F 54.00 51.49 48.99 46.79
Fluid Leaving Temperature, °F 44.00 44.00 44.00 44.00
Fluid Flow Rate, gpm 163.7 163.7 163.7 163.7
Fouling Factor, (hr-sqft-F)/BTU 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100 0.000100
Condenser Data
Entering Air Temperature, °F 95.0 80.0 65.0 55.0
For some 75% operating points, the efficiency may be calculated at a condenser inlet air operating temperature as much as 0.8
degrees higher.
An uncoated Novation condenser coil was selected for this product. This is based on an installed location with postal code 81505 and
a non-corrosive localized environment.
Sound power measured in accordance with ANSI/AHRI Standard 370-2015.
Certified in accordance with the AHRI Air-Cooled Water-Chilling Packages Certification Program, which is
based on AHRI Standard 550/590 (I-P) and AHRI Standard 551/591 (SI). Certified units may be found in the AHRI Directory at
www.ahridirectory.org.
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 10 of 14
Page 43 of 62
157
Detailed Performance Summary For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Unit Parameters
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Condenser Type:Air Cooled
Compressor Type:Scroll
Chiller Nameplate Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
Refrigerant:R-410A
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit A):26 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit B):35 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
1 - Chiller Height Above Ground
2 - Horizontal Distance From Chiller to Receiver
3 - Receiver Height Above Ground
(See Note 3)
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Acoustic Information
Table 1. A-Weighted Sound Power Levels (dB re 1 picowatt). See note #1.
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 31 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
100% Load 37 62 72 79 85 88 87 81 71 92
75% Load 37 61 72 79 85 88 87 80 71 92
50% Load 36 60 71 78 84 87 86 79 70 91
25% Load 34 59 70 77 83 85 84 78 69 90
Table 2. A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels (dB re 20 micropascals) calculated based upon user defined input for
dimensions 1, 2 and 3 as shown in above diagram. See note #2 and #3.
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 31 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
100% Load 9 33 44 51 57 59 59 52 43 64
75% Load 9 33 44 51 57 59 59 52 43 64
50% Load 8 32 43 50 56 58 58 51 42 63
25% Load 6 31 42 49 54 57 56 50 40 62
Notes: (1) Measurements performed in accordance with AHRI Standard 370-2015 for air cooled Chillers.
(2) Chiller is assumed to be a point source on a reflecting plane.
(3) Without user defined input, the default dimensions used to construct Table 2 are as follows:
1 - Chiller Height Above Ground = 0.0 ft
2 - Horizontal Distance From Chiller to Receiver = 30.0 ft
3 - Receiver Height Above Ground = 3.0 ft
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 11 of 14
Page 44 of 62
158
Engineering Performance Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
PackagedChillerReport:DoNotEdit;
AquaSnapTM Air-Cooled Scroll Chiller
Unit Information
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
ASHRAE 90.1:2010, 2007
Refrigerant:R-410A
Independent Refrigerant Circuits:2
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit A):26 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit B):35 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
Chiller Pressure Drop*:17.7 ft H2O
*Use Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps. This value
includes losses due to chiller piping, fittings, 40 mesh factory
supplied strainer and BPHX.
Evaporator Information
Fluid Type:Fresh Water
Fouling Factor:0.000100 (hr-sqft-F)/BTU
Fouling Factor Temp Adjustment:0.27 °F
Leaving Temperature:44.00 °F
Fouling Factor Adjustment:43.73 °F
Entering Temperature:54.00 °F
Fluid Flow:157.4 gpm
Evaporator Pressure Drop*:10.9 ft H2O
*Refer to Chiller Pressure Drop for sizing pumps.
Condenser Information
Altitude:8,000 ft
Number of Fans:5
Total Condenser Fan Air Flow:48,500 CFM
Entering Air Temperature:95.0 °F
Integrated Pump Information
No Pump Selected
Performance Information
Cooling Capacity:65.82 Tons
Total Compressor Power:80.34 kW
Total Fan Motor Power:4.709 kW
Total Unit Power (without pump):85.04 kW
Efficiency (without pump) (EER):9.288 BTU/Wh
IPLV:.IP:15.11 BTU/Wh
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Electrical Information
Unit Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Connection Type:Single Point
Electrical Electrical
Amps Circuit 1 Circuit 2
MCA 323.0 ---
MOCP 350.0 ---
ICF 593.2 ---
Rec Fuse Size 350.0 ---
An uncoated Novation condenser coil was selected for this product. This is based on an installed location with postal code 81505 and
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 12 of 14
Page 45 of 62
159
Engineering Performance Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
a non-corrosive localized environment.
Sound power measured in accordance with ANSI/AHRI Standard 370-2015.
Certified in accordance with the AHRI Air-Cooled Water-Chilling Packages Certification Program, which is based on AHRI
Standard 550/590 (I-P) and AHRI Standard 551/591 (SI). Certified units may be found in the AHRI Directory at www.ahridirectory.org.
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 13 of 14
Page 46 of 62
160
Engineering Performance Report For CH-1
Project: ~Untitled38 04/16/2019
Prepared By: 04:18PM
Unit Parameters
Tag Name:CH-1
Model Number:30RAP070
Condenser Type:Air Cooled
Compressor Type:Scroll
Chiller Nameplate Voltage:208/230-3-60 V-Ph-Hz
Quantity:1
Manufacturing Source:Charlotte, NC USA
Refrigerant:R-410A
Shipping Weight:3356 lb
Operating Weight:3410 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit A):26 lb
Refrigerant Weight (Circuit B):35 lb
Unit Length:151 in
Unit Width:88 in
Unit Height:78 in
1 - Chiller Height Above Ground
2 - Horizontal Distance From Chiller to Receiver
3 - Receiver Height Above Ground
(See Note 3)
Accessories and Installed Options
Evaporator Heater
Micro Channel, E-Coat
Low Sound
Single Point
Fixed Speed Condenser Fan
Acoustic Information
Table 1. A-Weighted Sound Power Levels (dB re 1 picowatt). See note #1.
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 31 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
100% Load 37 62 72 79 85 88 87 81 71 92
75% Load 37 61 72 79 85 88 87 80 71 92
50% Load 36 60 71 78 84 87 86 79 70 91
25% Load 34 59 70 77 83 85 84 78 69 90
Table 2. A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels (dB re 20 micropascals) calculated based upon user defined input for
dimensions 1, 2 and 3 as shown in above diagram. See note #2 and #3.
Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz 31 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Overall
100% Load 9 33 44 51 57 59 59 52 43 64
75% Load 9 33 44 51 57 59 59 52 43 64
50% Load 8 32 43 50 56 58 58 51 42 63
25% Load 6 31 42 49 54 57 56 50 40 62
Notes: (1) Measurements performed in accordance with AHRI Standard 370-2015 for air cooled Chillers.
(2) Chiller is assumed to be a point source on a reflecting plane.
(3) Without user defined input, the default dimensions used to construct Table 2 are as follows:
1 - Chiller Height Above Ground = 0.0 ft
2 - Horizontal Distance From Chiller to Receiver = 30.0 ft
3 - Receiver Height Above Ground = 3.0 ft
Packaged Chiller Builder NACO 3.59 Page 14 of 14
Page 47 of 62
161
The Wheeler Opera House chiller replacement
Consulting Engineers • Mechanical • Structural • Energy
Crested Butte & Golden Colorado • reginc.com
1
Wheeler Opera House
Chiller replacement
320 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, Colorado
Report prepared by:
Arliss Merrell, P.E.
August Hasz, P.E.
Resource Engineering Group, Inc.
April 24, 2019
Table of contents
Section 1: Goals and Overview
Section 2: Existing Conditions
Section 3: System Recommendations
Section 4: Conclusion
Section 1: Goals and Overview
Goal:
This report will assess the proposed Carrier chiller replacement selection that was
provided by Falcon Mechanical, dated 04/16/2019.
Overview:
The existing Trane 60-ton air cooled chiller is experiencing cracking of coils and
compressor failures. Increasing maintenance costs are driving the desire to look at
replacement over repair of the existing equipment.
Section 2: Existing Conditions
General:
· The existing air-cooled chiller located on the roof serves (7) air handlers and (2)
fan coils. The chilled water system is configured in a primary/secondary pumping
configuration.
· The primary chilled water flow thru the chiller is constant volume. Secondary
loop flow is variable and controlled by an external differential pressure sensor.
Comparisons:
· The minimum flow for the chiller is increasing from 67.1 to 87 gpm (201 to 310
gpm max). This is going to increase the mixing at the de-coupler and increase the
potential for low dT at the chiller.
· The proposed glycol percentage in the Carrier selection indicates fresh water. This
selection will need to be updated to account for the glycol in the existing system.
Notes from previous project phases indicated that the existing glycol
Page 48 of 62
162
The Wheeler Opera House chiller replacement
Consulting Engineers • Mechanical • Structural • Energy
Crested Butte & Golden Colorado • reginc.com
2
concentration is 35% by volume. The Contractor should confirm the existing
glycol concentrations and refill the chilled water loop with the appropriate glycol
concentration and corrosion inhibitors.
· The operating weight of the existing chiller is 4,156 lbs, with the proposed chiller
being listed at 3,410 lbs. This is a reduction in load on the existing structure.
· Required clearances at the existing site are along the edge of the roof and the
proposed unit should be arranged to ensure adequate clearance around the unit for
service and maintenance.
· The height of the proposed chiller (78”) is lower than the existing height of 85”,
however the City of Aspen limits rooftop equipment heights to 72” above the
roofing membrane. This should be confirmed with the Building Department.
· The winterization protocol should be confirmed. There are various references in
previous drawing sets that indicate the chiller shall shut down below a certain
outside air temperature. Considerations should be given to draining down the
chiller for winterization when it will not be in use. In addition, if it is not possible
to drain down the chiller the controls should be updated to provide pumping thru
the chiller when the outside air temperatures are lower than the temperature rating
of the glycol solution.
· Is there a crankcase heater that is used for low ambient operation? This is
something that should be considered for the proposed chiller as well.
· Integrated pump is not included with the Carrier selection, this will need to be
addressed with providing either a primary pump or reusing the existing primary
loop pump if it is suitable for the flow and pressure drop of the proposed chiller.
There was limited information available on the primary chilled water pump, but if
there is TAB information for this pump we can help determine if it is able to be
re-used.
· The electrical MCA listed is 323A for the Carrier, as compared to 257A for the
existing Trane chiller. The Carrier MCA is also listed without a primary pump,
which will also need to be factored in to the final electrical loads if primary
pumping is still desired. The MOCP also increases with the proposed chiller, from
300A to 350A. The existing electrical infrastructure will need to be upgraded
accordingly.
· Existing controls indicate a Trane Tracer system or Lon Talk. Ensure that the
BACnet card in the proposed chiller can communicate with the existing controls
system.
Section 3: System Recommendations
· Commissioning should be the priority of the existing mechanical systems. This
will allow for a deeper dive into existing issues in the mechanical systems. The
insight gained from commissioning may then be used to improve additional
recommendations.
· Chilled water valves should be replaced with pressure independent 2-way valves.
Modifications to the controls should be made to account for adequate minimum
flow thru the chiller during low load conditions on the system. This can be
Page 49 of 62
163
The Wheeler Opera House chiller replacement
Consulting Engineers • Mechanical • Structural • Energy
Crested Butte & Golden Colorado • reginc.com
3
accomplished in multiple ways; we recommend variable primary loop pumping
that is controlled to a temperature differential across the S/R of the primary loop.
This will allow the primary pump to slow down under low load conditions to
better match the secondary loop. Removing excessive bypasses from the system
will also increase pumping effectiveness, allowing the variable speed pump to
utilize more of its’ range with a larger system pressure differential.
· Controls should be upgraded to provide freeze protection to the chiller by
pumping the chilled water loop under colder than normal conditions. Data trends
should also be established and logged to provide data on system operation.
· Winterization measures should be revisited. In addition to the glycol and
pumping options mentioned above, the exposed condenser coil may be freezing
during colder than normal conditions. The wind and snow conditions may be
increasing the potential for premature wear if the system is not protected
adequately. We can work with you to determine the best approach to resolve these
issues.
Section 4: Conclusion
Based on the known conditions of the chilled water system, it is our recommendation that
measures be taken to address the proposed measures above. Replacing the chiller itself
will not alleviate the chilled water system of other issues being experienced, and these
issues may be resulting in the premature wear of the existing chiller. It would be short
sighted to install a replacement for the existing chiller, only for it to fail for similar
reasons prior to the end of its’ expected life. Once the direction to proceed with
replacement of the chiller has been decided, the system recommendations above and
thorough systems commissioning should be budgeted for the same phase of construction.
Feel free to contact us with any additional questions or comments.
Arliss Merrell, P.E.
Page 50 of 62
164
Page 51 of 62
165
DCBA12345DCBA12345Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216412/20/20191909PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM LAYOUTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PHASE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO ABPCGEXISTINGELEVATIONSA-3.0PVPage 52 of 62166
DCBA12345DCBA12345Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216412/20/20191909PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM LAYOUTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PHASE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO ABPCGARRAY LAYOUT 1ELEVATIONSA-3.1PVPage 53 of 62167
DCBA12345DCBA12345Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216412/20/20191909PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM LAYOUTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PHASE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO ABPCGARRAY LAYOUT 2ELEVATIONSA-3.2PVPage 54 of 62168
DCBA12345DCBA12345Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216412/20/20191909PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM LAYOUTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PHASE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO ABPCGARRAY LAYOUT 3ELEVATIONSA-3.3PVPage 55 of 62169
DCBA12345DCBA12345Checked ByDate200 Forrestal Road
Suite 3A
Princeton, NJ 08540
T: 609.681.2480
F: 609.681.2481
www.msarchitectsllc.comDrawing TitleProject NoFile NameRevisionsDrawn ByMichael J. Mills FAIANJC - 8207Michael Schnoering AIANJC - 1216412/20/20191909PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM LAYOUTS
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE PHASE 2
ASPEN, COLORADO ABPCGARRAY LAYOUT 4ELEVATIONSA-3.4PVPage 56 of 62170
Page 57 of 62
171
ARRAY LAYOUT 1 - WITH HISTORICAL SETBACKSSYSTEM SIZE - 14.74 KW DC STC(44) Q.PEAK DUO BLK-G6+ 335 WATT MODULESYEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 16,711 KWHWEST FACING ARRAYFLUSH MOUNT TO STANDING SEAM ROOF6.03 KW DC STC | (18) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 26.6° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 285°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 6,006 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <4 PSFFLAT ROOF ARRAYEAST-WEST FACING TILT MOUNT ON FLAT ROOF8.71 KW DC STC | (26) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 10° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 285° & 105°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 10,705 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <5 PSFARRAY LAYOUT 2 - WITH HISTORICAL SETBACKSSYSTEM SIZE - 12.73 KW DC STC(38) Q.PEAK DUO BLK-G6+ 335 WATT MODULESYEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 14,482 KWHWEST FACING ARRAYFLUSH MOUNT TO STANDING SEAM ROOF6.03 KW DC STC | (18) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 26.6° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 285°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 6,006 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <4 PSFFLAT ROOF ARRAYSOUTH FACING BALLAST MOUNT ON FLAT ROOF6.7 KW DC STC | (20) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 10° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 195°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 8,476 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT ~4.5 PSF TO 12 PSF(LOWER PSF HAS MORE MECHANICAL ATTACHMENTS)ARRAY LAYOUT 3 - NO HISTORICAL SETBACKSSYSTEM SIZE - 39.53 KW DC STC(118) Q.PEAK DUO BLK-G6+ 335 WATT MODULESYEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 46,066 KWHWEST FACING ARRAYFLUSH MOUNT TO STANDING SEAM ROOF9.715 KW DC STC | (29) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 26.6° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 285°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 9,676 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <3 PSFEAST FACING ARRAYFLUSH MOUNT TO STANDING SEAM ROOF21.105 KW DC STC | (63) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 26.6° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 105°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 25,685 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <3 PSFFLAT ROOF ARRAYEAST-WEST FACING TILT MOUNT ON FLAT ROOF8.71 KW DC STC | (26) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 10° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 285° & 105°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 10,705 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <5 PSFARRAY LAYOUT 4 - NO HISTORICAL SETBACKSSYSTEM SIZE - 37.52 KW DC STC(112) Q.PEAK DUO BLK-G6+ 335 WATT MODULESYEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 43,837 KWHFLAT ROOF ARRAYSOUTH FACING BALLAST MOUNT ON FLAT ROOF6.7 KW DC STC | (20) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 10° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 195°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 8,476 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT ~4.5 PSF TO 12 PSF(LOWER PSF HAS MORE MECHANICAL ATTACHMENTS)WEST FACING ARRAYFLUSH MOUNT TO STANDING SEAM ROOF9.715 KW DC STC | (29) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 26.6° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 285°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 9,676 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <3 PSFEAST FACING ARRAYFLUSH MOUNT TO STANDING SEAM ROOF21.105 KW DC STC | (63) 335 WATT MODULESARRAY TILT 26.6° | ARRAY AZIMUTH - 105°YEARLY PRODUCTION ESTIMATE - 25,685 KWHDISTRIBUTED WEIGHT <3 PSFThis drawing is the property of Sunsense, Inc.
This information is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work described by
Sunsense, Inc. No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from Sunsense Inc.
Confidentiality StatementREV.DESCRIPTION DATE
Project:
Drawing:
PRELIMINARY LAYOUTS
Address:
Sheet No.PV 1 REV.
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
1.0
1.0
CHK. BYDRN. BY
320 EAST HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
12/13/2019 JWL CHSheet No.PV 11629 Delores Way, Ste. E, Carbondale, CO 81623
www.sunsensesolar.com 970.963.1420
PRELIMSCALE: 3/32" = 1'0"ARRAY LAYOUT 1 - WITH HISTORICAL SETBACKSSCALE: 3/32" = 1'0"SCALE: 3/32" = 1'0"ARRAY LAYOUT 3 - NO HISTORICAL SETBACKSSCALE: 3/32" = 1'0"ARRAY LAYOUT 4 - NO HISTORICAL SETBACKSARRAY LAYOUT 2 - WITH HISTORICAL SETBACKS20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ft20 ftCHILLERCHILLERCHILLERCHILLER60 ft6 ft19 ftPage 58 of 62172
3'-7 1/4"BALLAST BLOCK/MECHANICALATTACHMENT LOCATIONDYNORAXXEVOLUTION FR4 LEG BASKETDYNORAXX EVOLUTION FR2 LEG BASKETPHOTOVOLTAIC MODULESDYNORAXX DYNORAIL1'-2"
7 1/4"3'-4 1/2"IRONRIDGE FRONT TILT LEGIRONRIDGE BACK TILT LEGMEMBRANE SURFACE1'-4 7/8"2'-4 3/4"1-5/8" STEEL STRUTPHOTOVOLTAIC MODULEFLASHED MOUNTING POST7 1/2"5 3/4"7"SEAM CLAMPIRONRIDGE L-FOOTMEASUREMENT FROM TOP OF SEAM1-5/8" STEEL STRUTPHOTOVOLTAIC MODULELANDSCAPE ORIENTATIONIRONRIDGE RAIL4 1/8"5 3/8"PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULESPORTRAIT ORIENTATIONIRONRIDGE RAILSEAM CLAMPIRONRIDGE L-FOOTSTANDING SEAM ROOFMEASUREMENTS FROM TOP OF SEAMThis drawing is the property of Sunsense, Inc.
This information is confidential and is to be used
only in connection with work described by
Sunsense, Inc. No part is to be disclosed to others
without written permission from Sunsense Inc.
Confidentiality StatementREV.DESCRIPTION DATE
Project:
Drawing:
ARRAY ELEVATIONS
Address:
Sheet No.PV 2 REV.
PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM
WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
1.0
1.0
CHK. BYDRN. BY
320 EAST HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
12/13/2019 JWL CHSheet No.PV 21629 Delores Way, Ste. E, Carbondale, CO 81623
www.sunsensesolar.com 970.963.1420
PRELIMINARY SOUTH ELEVATION - FLAT ROOF EAST-WEST ARRAY1SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION - FLAT ROOF BALLASTED ARRAY2SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION - PITCHED ROOF ARRAY (LANDSCAPE MODULES)3SCALE: 1-1/2" = 1'-0"4SCALE: 1-1/2" = 1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATION - PITCHED ROOF ARRAY (PORTRAIT MODULES)Page 59 of 62173
N81° 17' 21"ES74° 13' 18"E 51.40'S28° 22' 14"E(TIE TO GPS-5) S37° 21' 55"E 592.24'7920793079407950796079707980799079147916791879227924792679287932793479367938794279447946794879527954795679587962796479667968797279747976797879827984798679887992WHEELER OPERA HOUSEMAIN STREET VIEW PLANE REFERENCE BASE LINEELEVATION = 7912.21'*LOCATION OF PHOTOS PROVIDED ON SHEET 3LOT QLOT RLOT SLOT PLOT OLOT NLOT MLOT LLOT KGPS-5GALENA & HOPKINSHYMAN AVE.HOPKINS AVE.MAIN STREETMILL S
T
R
E
E
T
MONARCH STREET
GALE
N
A
S
T
R
E
E
T MAIN STREET VIEW PLANECONTOUR LINE & ELEVATION(TYPICAL)SITE BENCHMARKTOP OF PK NAILEL.=7911.58'PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONLOTS P,Q, R, & SBLOCK 81CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPENCOUNTY OF PITKINSTATE OF COLORADOSURVEYOR'S STATEMENTI, Mark S. Beckler, do hereby state that this survey was prepared by SoprisEngineering, LLC for The City of Aspen - Asset Management Department, andthat it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.__________________________Mark S. Beckler L.S. No. 28643NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 1/22/2020 - PROJECT# - G:\2019\19270 WHEELER\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Working Base Dwgs\19270 BASE.dwgVIEW PLANE ANALYSIS OF:THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE& MAIN STREET VIEW PLANESHEET 1 OF 3PURPOSE STATEMENTDEFINITION OF MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE AGAINST SUBJECT PROPERTYNOTES1) DATE OF SURVEY: JANUARY 3, 2020.2) DATE OF PREPARATION: JANUARY 2020.3) LINEAR UNITS: THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S.SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONALINSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.4) BASIS OF SURVEY: THE 1896 W. C. WILLITS MAP OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THE OFFICIAL MAPOF THE CITY OF ASPEN PREPARED BY G.E. BUCHANAN DATED DECEMBER 15, 1959, THE 2009CITY OF ASPEN GPS CONTROL SURVEY PREPARED BY MARCIN ENGINEERING (REV. 2010),CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.435.050 MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW(MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE), VARIOUS DOCUMENTS OF RECORD AND THE FOUNDMONUMENTS, AS SHOWN.5) BASIS OF BEARING: A BEARING OF N 74°14'01" E BETWEEN GPS-5 AND GPS-4 OF THE CITYOF ASPEN GPS CONTROL MONUMENTATION 2009, BRASS CAPS FOUND IN SURVEYMONUMENT BOXES AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH GALENA STREET AND EAST HOPKINSSTREET AND AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH WEST END STREET AND EAST HOPKINSSTREET, RESPECTIVELY.6) BASIS OF ELEVATION: AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88' (NAVD 1988) ON THE NGS STATION"S-159", PER THE 2009 CITY OF ASPEN GPS CONTROL SURVEY. THIS ESTABLISHED THE LOCALSITE BENCHMARK OF 7911.58' FEET ON TOP OF A PK NAIL AS SHOWN HEREON.7) THE CONTOUR INTERVAL IS TWO (2) FEET. THE CONTOURS SHOWN HEREON REPRESENT THESURFACE OF THE VIEW PLANE DESCRIBED IN THE LAND USE CODE SECTION 26.435.050MOUNTAIN VIEW PLANE REVIEW (MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE).8) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. NO TITLE COMMITMENT WAS USEDIN THE PREPARATION OF THIS EXHIBIT.9) ADDRESS: 520 E. HYMAN AVE.10) PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL NO.--2737073388511 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE05050100502002501-22-2020Page 60 of 62174
AIR HANDLERCORNEREL. = 7977.92'AIR HANDLER CORNEREL. = 7977.92'ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7973.05'CHIMNEY CORNER - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7983.52'CHIMNEY CORNER - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7983.75'ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7983.75'ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7983.73'ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7974.75'ELEVATION AT STREET LEVELEL. = 7915.98'ELEVATION AT STREET LEVELEL. = 7915.75'AIR HANDLERCORNEREL. = 7978.08'AIR HANDLER CORNEREL. = 7978.13'7970798079687972797479767978798279847986ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7973.02'ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7975.67'ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7974.84'EXISTINGCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7980.3'EXISTINGCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7980.3'EXISTINGCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7980.3'EXISTINGCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7980.3'HYMAN AVE.MILL S
T
R
E
E
TMAIN STREET VIEW PLANEELEVATION & CONTOUR LINE(TYPICAL)PROPOSEDCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7979.17'PROPOSED CHILLER CORNEREL. = 7979.22'EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7973.02'EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7975.67'EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7974.84'PROPOSEDCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7979.17'PROPOSEDCHILLER CORNEREL. = 7979.22'7970798079687972797479767978798279847986EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7983.75'EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHINGEL. = 7983.73'EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHING(HEIGHT ASSUMED FROM NORTHERN SURVEY SHOT)EL. = 7983.75'EXISTING ROOF - METAL FLASHING(HEIGHT ASSUMED FROM NORTHERN SURVEY SHOT)EL. = 7983.73'PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL+0.58' EL. = 7984.33' (TOP)+0.58' EL.= 7976.25' (BOTTOM)PROPOSED SOLAR PANELROOF EL. + 2.40'=EL.=7986.14PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL+0.58' EL. = 7984.31' (TOP)+0.58' EL. = 7975.42' (BOTTOM)PROPOSED SOLAR PANELROOF EL. + 2.40'=EL.=7986.14'PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL+0.58' EL. = 7984.33' (TOP)+0.58' EL.= 7976.25' (BOTTOM)PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL+0.58' EL. = 7984.31' (TOP)+0.58' EL. = 7975.42' (BOTTOM)MAIN STREET VIEW PLANEELEVATION & CONTOUR LINE(TYPICAL)NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 1/22/2020 - PROJECT# - G:\2019\19270 WHEELER\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Working Base Dwgs\19270 BASE.dwgVIEW PLANE ANALYSIS OF:THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE& MAIN STREET VIEW PLANESHEET 2 OF 3PURPOSE STATEMENTEXISTING AND PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE ELEVATIONS VS. MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0202040208010EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE VS. MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE1 inch = ft.( IN FEET )GRAPHIC SCALE0202040208010PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE VS. MAIN STREET VIEW PLANENOTES:1) ELEVATION OF EXISTING CHILLER HEIGHT DERIVED FROMINFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN ASSETMANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT01-22-2020Page 61 of 62175
EXISTING ROOF CORNEREL.=7983.75'EXISTING CHIMNEY CORNEREL.=7983.52'EXISTING CHILLER CORNEREL.=7980.30'PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL CORNER - SLOPED ROOFEL.=7984.33'PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL CORNER - SLOPED ROOFEL.=7984.31'PROPOSED SOLAR PANEL CORNER - FLAT ROOFEL.=7986.14'EXISTING ROOF CORNEREL.=7983.75'EXISTING CHIMNEY CORNEREL.=7983.52'PROPOSED CHILLER CORNEREL.=7979.17'NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 1/22/2020 - PROJECT# - G:\2019\19270 WHEELER\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Working Base Dwgs\19270 BASE_SHT3.dwgVIEW PLANE ANALYSIS OF:THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE& MAIN STREET VIEW PLANESHEET 3 OF 3PURPOSE STATEMENTEXISTING ELEVATIONS AND PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE BASELINEEXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE FROM MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE BASELINEPROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE FROM MAIN STREET VIEW PLANE BASELINENOTES:1) LOCATION OF PHOTO PROVIDED ON SHEET 12) PHOTO DEPICTS PROPOSED CHILLER UNIT AS INSTALLEDAT TIME OF SURVEY ON JANUARY 3, 2020.01-22-2020Page 62 of 62176
177
178