HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150224
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 24, 2015
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Construction Management Plan Update
II. Park Circle & Brown Lane Pedestrian Improvements
III. Lodge Incentive Discussion
IV. Rio Grande Lighting Site Visit - no memo
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Chris Bendon, Director of Community Development
Tyler Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager
Tony Kornasiewicz, Construction Mitigation Officer
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
CJ Oliver, Director of Environmental Health
DATE: February 19, 2015
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2015
RE: Revisions to the Construction Mitigation Requirements
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff seeks Council input regarding the Construction Mitigation Program rules. This includes establishing
parameters for mitigating impacts of encroachments including duration, size, penalties and aesthetics.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council approved the creation and implementation of the Construction Mitigation Program in April
of 2006. Below is a timeline of this program.
April 2006: The City creates the Construction Mitigation Program to reduce the impact of
construction on the general public and to provide a liaison between the City, contractors, and the
general public. This is accomplished by requiring contractors to submit a plan detailing how they
intend to meet all city codes during construction.
March 2007: The Original Plan Requirement Manual is drafted and presented at a work session.
The Plan lays out explicit rules and codes construction projects must obey with the overall goal of
balancing the needs of construction while maintaining our mountain character for our Citizens
and Tourists.
April 2007: Edits from the March 2007 work session are incorporated into the “Plan.” These
edits include an established haul route, restricting work hours from 12 hours per day to 10 hours
per day, creating the Aspen Holiday List, which restricts construction on federal holidays and
during special events such as the Food and Wine Classic.
April 2007: The start and end time for weekday work is altered to 8 a.m. – 6 p.m.
May 2007: The original start and end times, which were 7 a.m. – 5 p.m., are re-instated.
January 2008: The program is expanded to include inspections on all active projects regardless of
impact. Additional inspections were also added which included sediment and erosion control and
parking.
May 2009: Three changes/additions were made:
o Manufacturing Restrictions: Require all manufacturing activities (i.e. stone cutting) to be
conducted offsite, reducing the duration and overall impact to surrounding
neighborhoods. Additionally, if a further modification to the material is required, then the
hours of operation will be limited to 9 a.m. – 5 p.m., Monday through Friday.
P1
I.
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 2 of 7
o Holiday Hours: Creation of a new geographic zone in town to help address the impacts of
construction while at the same time maintaining a resort atmosphere in the community.
This zone is referred to as the Central Resort Area (CRA). The geographic boundaries
mirror the expanded pay-to-park area. This boundary was chosen because the area is
impacted heavily during special events and the winter / summer tourist season. The
adoption of the CRA allows work in the “non-core” neighborhoods, which are less
impacted during the peak seasons. Below is a summary of the requirements:
Thank
sgiving
X mas
Week
X mas
Day
New
Year’s
Day
President
s Day
Memorial
Day
Food
&
Wine
4th of
July
Labor
Day
Central
Resort Area
(CRA)
closed closed closed closed closed closed closed closed closed
Outside CRA
i.e. “non-
core”
closed open closed closed open closed open closed closed
o Superfund Permitting: Alterations were made to the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site
Soil Removal Permit to stream line the process and ensure the sites are captured in
regular inspections.
May 2010: Time restrictions were modified to allow 24-hour interior work in the CRA.
Weekday construction hours were modified to 7 a.m. – 5 p.m. during the on-season and 8
a.m. – 7 p.m. during the off-season.
May 2012: Erosion and sediment control section was updated. CRA hours and zone was
revisited but Council decided to not modify rules related to CRA.
July 2012: Weekday Construction hours were modified to 7:30 am – 5:30 pm year round.
September 2012: Creation of the encroachment zone map limiting duration of encroachments
by creating the Red (near the Mall), Orange (a block out side of the Mall) and Yellow (two
blocks outside of the Mall) Zones.
BACKGROUND:
The Mayor initiated a series of public outreach meetings (on November 3rd, November 5th, November
12th, and January 7th) with the goal of receiving input on how to make the City more livable and desirable
with the increased construction activity. The goals of these meetings included the following:
Reduce the duration of projects
Limit noise impacts from earth retention systems
Reduce the number of parking spaces used
Give an area a reprieve from all construction
Further reduce noise impacts on residential areas
Limit the size and duration of encroachments
Reduce impacts on adjacent businesses
Additionally input was received through the Open City Hall Site and through direct outreach from staff to
citizens and the business community including meeting with CCLC and ACRA. Attachment A contains
the input received.
P2
I.
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 3 of 7
DISSCUSION:
Throughout the outreach efforts, several questions came up wondering how other municipalities handle
construction mitigation. Additionally there were several concerns related to future Mall development
impacts. Lastly there were several discussions related to duration of projects and how that relates to
impact. Below is a summary of the research performed by staff related to these concerns:
Research:
Below is a summary of how other municipalities handle encroachments and parking as it relates to
construction. Attachment B contains a summary of how construction mitigation in general is handled in
other cities.
City of Portland – Does allow sidewalk and street closure determined on as needed basis for a
maximum of 13 weeks and is renewable based on verification.
Boulder, CO. - Temporary encroachments for construction are based on the amount of area
demonstrated by need. There is not a square footage fee charged, but an administrative fee of
$338 per month. Parking for construction is controlled by the issuance of “dash permits” with no
time limitations other than reasonable need.
The Town of Vail, CO – Construction use of ROW is restricted during their busy seasons. During
“Construction Season”, staging and parking is allowed, though discouraged (an approved plan is
required).
New York City imposes the following types of limits:
o Building Materials on street, 3 month max, with a maximum of 300 linear ft, but not
more than 80% frontage maybe encumbered.
o Crane placement, 1 week max, not more than one third width of roadway. (some location
restrictions apply)
o Trailer placement, 3 month max
o Full street closures lasting more than 180 days require a “Community Re-assessment,
Impact and Amelioration” statement.
o Some high traffic streets have work hour limitations
Mall Development Impacts
It is difficult to determine how many properties will go through redevelopment at the same time.
It is also difficult to determine the duration of this anticipated redevelopment. However, because
several properties on the Mall have gone through some ownership changes the City can anticipate
future redevelopment of the Mall. As a result, the construction impacts of this redevelopment will
have an impact on the Mall experience and will likely need addressing by the City.
Duration
Impact vs Duration: During our public meetings, there was a lot of discussion about allowing
larger encroachments which would result in a decrease in schedule. Based our research the actual
reduction in project length equates to 3 -4 weeks for a 2 year project.
P3
I.
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 4 of 7
Based on input received, staff is proposing a menu of options categorized into immediate changes,
recommended changes that need more input and ideas that are not recommended. Of the menu options
below, staff is seeking Council input on the options.
Immediate changes proposed:
Below is a list of immediate changes that can be implemented. Attachment C includes a redline version of
the City’s Construction Management Program that incorporates these changes.
Construction Hours
Extend the definition of Christmas week and do not allow for construction in the Core during this
week. For years when Christmas falls on a Friday the “week” is defined as Monday (the 20th) to
Friday (the 1st). However exceptions may be granted for indoor work only.
Add additional work restrictions to Aspen Events such as the USA Pro Cycling challenge and
Farmer’s Market
Community Impacts
Require sites to accommodate adjacent businesses This can include limiting work during sales
events, maintaining site lines to these businesses, adjusting work hours to accommodate adjacent
retail stores, lodges and restaurants.
Creation of a Construction Mitigation Committee to review exemptions for project duration,
number of encroachments and noise exceptions. All exemptions are subject to additional fees.
Create a contractor / community panel to provide input on construction mitigation on a quarterly
basis.
Require sites to reduce their landfill waste. Each site will need to demonstrate how they will
comply with the City’s waste reduction requirements through a waste reduction and diversion
plan.
Aesthetics
Require that the type and look of project fencing be pre-approved by the Engineering
Department.
Parking / Encroachments
Require sites develop a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan to mitigate the impacts of
traffic and parking.
Limitations on sidewalk closures. Pedestrians must be accommodated without having to cross the
street. Short duration closures in the core may be considered during the off season.
Limitations on size of encroachments and duration of encroachments (i.e. red, yellow orange
zones). Red zone one encroachment, Yellow zone two encroachments, Orange zone three
encroachments. Allow for larger encroachments if the site can demonstrate the benefits of doing
so. Site will be required to submit two schedules one with a larger encroachment and one without.
Limit the impacts of soldier beam caissons and mico piles in the ROW.
Enforcement
Adding the use of “stop work orders” and citations for the following circumstances:
o Work without a permit
o Work that is endangering public safety
o Work that is endangering public health including work that may affect water quality.
P4
I.
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 5 of 7
o Work on holidays or Sundays (unless the site received an exemption to work during these
times)
o Require that the general contractor is responsible for subs. If a sub violates our rules the
general will be ultimately responsible
Noise
Require large projects (as determined by impact and location) hire a sound engineer/consultant
model the site plans and insert noise sources and specify noise mitigation measures to see how
noise levels will be impacted. The models can show the anticipated noise levels at various
locations surrounding the project and can take into account a variety of proposed mitigation
measures.
The Noise Section should be modified so that current requirements are clearly outlined.
Utilize the City’s noise meter to monitor sites that we receive complaints on.
Stormwater
Section should be modified so that current requirements are clearly outlined.
Recommendations that require more research and community input:
Staff is requesting Council input on the following options. After receiving input staff will come back to
Council with specific recommendations along with associated costs to implement.
Duration
Limit Duration of projects to 18 months with allowance for a 6 month extension. Projects
requesting an extension will be subject to an increase in Construction Mitigation Fees.
Noise
Limiting noise levels for the summer on season for impactful residential projects to 65 Db (with
allowances to go 10 Db over for short durations)
Limiting noise levels for the summer and winter on season for impactful projects located on the
Mall to 65 Db (with allowances to go 10 Db over for short durations)
Limiting noise levels in the summer on seasons in the Core to 75 Db (with allowances to go 10
Db over for short durations)
All other projects and seasons will be limited to 80 Db at the property line.
Allowance for an excess noise variance from the above limits. The excess noise variance would
be granted in cases where it is in the interest of public safety as determined by the Construction
Mitigation Committee. Additionally an excess noise variance may be granted for City capital
projects and large utility projects where it is in the interest of the public as it relates to safety and
the expedited use of public areas.
Limit the types of backup alarms: Backup alarms can be very impactful to neighboring properties.
One way to limit this is to require sites use a spotter or instead of a backup alarm or the use of an
adjustable backup alarm.
Require the type of equipment that can be used: There are types of equipment that may be quieter
than others such as compressors powered by electricity and silent pile drivers.
Incentive and monitoring programs to encourage sites to reduce impacts
Incentive for completing projects in less than 18 months such as a reduction in fees
P5
I.
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 6 of 7
Require the use of continued noise monitoring for sites that have a large impact and for sites that
receive continued neighborhood complaints. Allow remote online access to the system for the
City’s Construction Mitigation Officer.
Require a survey to be sent out to neighboring properties to rate the construction site. (I.e. 1 – 5
star rating that is published on how a site is doing with noise, dust, parking, waste reduction
etc…) In addition to the survey actual numbers on noise, dust, and waste reduction will be
included to be entered by the construction mitigation officer.
Public Outreach
Create a web site where citizens can access a site’s construction mitigation plan. Utilize this site
to gather citizen input and to communicate a project’s progress and upcoming impacts.
Require documentation that neighborhood has been notified on project’s progress and impacts.
Parking / Encroachments
Allowing the intercept lot to be used for staging.
Require that sites schedule deliveries outside of peak hours
Encourage the use of the Rio Grande Parking Garage through the use of discounted fees
Require On-site equipment storage and/or shuttling
Increase enforcement staffing to ensure sites are complying with required TDM measures
Enforcement
Require certain sized sites have a CMP monitor. This person is responsible for construction
mitigation on the site, including keeping logs on encroachments, parking, noise, stormwater
BMPs, waste management and recycling. We may require these logs be submitted or just made
available to us.
Increase our enforcement penalties for repeat offenders.
Develop a CMP certification system utilizing an on line training program and our business
licensing system
Ideas that have not been recommended at this time:
Noise canceling systems: These are systems that send out anti-noise through the use of speakers.
They are currently being used in Japan. Through our research we have determined that these
systems are just too new and have not been fully vetted. There are no production models available
and they will not address the large impact noises such as soil nailing. Staff will continue to
monitor this technology as it advances.
Construction pacing: Cities can regulate the pace of growth by metering land use entitlements
(growth management). Or regulate the pace of development activity through metering building
permits (pacing). The value of a growth management system is that meters entitlements and that
we a familiar with the system. The downside is that entitlements can “stack-up” and can be
deployed in bunches and the fact that most of our development activity is not actually “growth”
but rather redevelopment of existing buildings/uses. We have very rarely seen a limiting
environment in growth management in that past 15-20 years – it’s more theory than practical.
The upside of a pacing system is that is occurs much closer to the construction activity and can
better meter the pace of construction. It treats growth and redevelopment the same which is a
better way to manage development activity. The downsides are that we would need to create a
system that will go through the period of adjusting it for logistics, expectations, etc., which could
P6
I.
Construction Mitigation Program Changes
Page 7 of 7
take years. Because it may be more practical and effect more property owners, it will be subject
to more community debate.
A pacing system may present difficulty arbitrating between vested rights and construction timing
– most of our large projects go through a land use review and receive a statutory vested
right. This differs from these pacing examples where the projects subject to pacing are only
subject to permit review – it looks like most of these program exempt projects that have a vested
right. This last point would require a lot more research. The concern is that we require someone
to apply for a permit within three years (or their approval expires) but may also be preventing the
same person from applying for a permit for three or more years. e.g. If the faucet is larger than
the drain there could be problems.
Use of precast and panelized systems. They may affect the duration of a project however they do
cost much more than traditional systems. Currently there are limited suppliers for these systems.
Extend construction hours. Currently the hours are 7:30am to 5:30 pm Mon through Fri and 9am
to 5pm on Saturday. Due to citizen concern, staff is not recommending an extension of these
hours.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Public Outreach Comments
Attachment B: Research
Attachment C: Construction Mitigation Program Redline Version
P7
I.
Attachment A: Public Outreach Comments
P8
I.
Notes From Nov 3rd Contractor Meeting
• Sound mitigation paneling (Aspen Core Bld)
o Less than $50k for 7months
• Encroachment fees are very expensive
o Have potential to drive cost per sq ft
• Contractors really need that space for projects
o Minimize duration of project
o Or minimize impacts
o Can be conflicting
o Zero lot line projects
o Take away space/increase time
• Reduction in contractor vehicles at sites
o Contractors can self regulate
• Open Pedestrian walkways
o Aids in parking
o Aids in pedestrian street connectivity
• More residential the more complex the project becomes
• Commercial projects are more straight forward
• Aspen Core Building
o With unlimited room contractor could save months
(2-3)
• Zero setbacks create a condition where use of the ROW is
needed
P9
I.
o Need to put cranes, equipment
• Tower Cranes are helpful
o Helps space requirement
• More deliveries caused by limited room outside of building
• Carpooling
o Most contractors have vans for certain employees
o Most sub contractors need an onsite or mobile
vehicle
o Parking is a hassle so contractors are naturally policed
o General contractor level is likely managing carpooling
• Deliveries with high density development
o Use smaller delivery vehicles
o Daily staging area potentially outside the City
o Example: Steel contractors could use staging areas,
changes dynamic between in-valley, front range
contractors
• Fencing aesthetics
o Encouraged to use creative fencing
• Japan uses noise cancelling systems at construction sites
(anti-sound/noise cancelling)
• Shuttle for “on-site” trucks for sites with no parking
• Reduce duration vs increasing hours
o During week increase hours of operations?
• Internal construction (24 hours)
P10
I.
• Gap building required to speak adjacent businesses to get
“buy-in”
o Engage adjacent businesses
o Pre construction reaching out to adjacent businesses
o Currently a 300 foot radius for site notification
o Should it be an additional requirement
• Spelling out regulation for mufflers for certain equipment
• Think hours currently work well
o Many subs don’t want to work overtime
• Can you work 24hrs in the Core
o Yes for internal projects
o No public complaints
• Disruption to businesses, lost revenues
o City to do a study about impact to adjacent
businesses
• Cooper Street project, hurt PE 101 in terms of revenue
o Ask merchant like PE 101 about duration vs
encroachment
• Other municipalities using pacing
o Reach frustration point and reverse rules
o Tough for building owners and updates to property
o Not reaching the established limits
• Like to see loosen time restrictions
o Should be contingent on noise
o Interior vs exterior
P11
I.
o Not all construction activities have same level of
impact
o Interior finishes can be 1/3 of the project
o Longer hours in off seasons, more impact to “locals”
o Not a large effect on contractors with changes in
hours
o 8-6 could be a minimum allowable work hours
• More space in ROW (in core area)
• Encroachments in off season
o Fee structure incentive
Higher fee for on season
Lower for off season
o Gives the project more room in off seasons
More room to get more done
Maybe helps reduce length of project
Juggling locals vs tourists
• Sheer volume of development in pipeline
o Need to do more than just accept it
o Need to make in pleasant for both visitors and locals
• Developers have been waiting to spend the money
o More projects pushed due to moratorium
• More restrictive can make it more attractive
• Difficult to fit all buildings into a code
o Differences in lay down, access, etc
• Build code around intent
P12
I.
o Let staff administer
• Would fewer restrictions allow more creativity
• Public improvements in Parks have limited spaces to
escape construction
o Make sure private and public construction
coordination
• Construction hours
o 7-7 is too much for a citizen
o 7:30-5:30 has helped, made it acceptable
o Continuous construction
o More construction mitigation officers have been
helpful addressing issues
• Post CO audit/review
o By neighbors (residential or commercial)
Rate experience by neighbors (exit interview)
Potential for fee recovery for ROW, permit fees,
etc
People who want to redevelop will look at
contractor “report cards” and select
Rating system can outline fee structure
• Tap into New York, policy discussion
• Construction mitigation consultant (3rd party/firms)
• Walkable pedestrian scaffolding
• Contractor and subs are creating some of the issues
• Police not familiar with 5:30pm enforcement
P13
I.
• After 3rd enforcement (inside/outside noise or hours)
o Contractor must pay to rent sound recording device
Automated to send email/video about non-
compliance
Cost would be on contactors
• “Pitkin County courthouse model”
o Sound proof neighboring properties
o Air conditioning
o Cost on contractor
• Construction mitigation personnel could work later than 5,
maybe 6pm
o Complaints often occur after hours
• Off season repair type work
o fit this work in a seasonal economy
• Look at system at Moab (film monitor system)
o Hires person at expense (licensed by the City)
o Out of compliance, monitor can shut project down
o Paid by contractor
o Teaching program to license
• Condos different from residential
o Condos often have few residents during off season
o The setback with parking helps impacts to street
o Change neighborhood to neighborhood
One size will not fit all
• Neighborhood discussion associated with rating system
P14
I.
o Rebate on permit
o Or complaints from a neighbor, larger fee assessment
• Accountability
o “throw most valuable player out” of the game
• Correlation between amount of variance granted and
amount of impact(Com dev)
• Money space time triangle
o Money can help but space and time are still difficult
issues to solve
o Community needs to get together on the space/time
issues
• Enforce rules on the book
o Not sure if rules in place are enforced that much
o What someone can be punished vs what they actually
are may be currently different
• Decibel reader
• First round of contractor rating system may be graded
harshly
• Visitor and locals expect a more peaceful experience
• Like to stay away from pacing
• New era of construction – buildings with mall
o Large number of pedestrians
o Impacts on adjacent properties/businesses
• Additional level of restriction on Malls
o Pace public/private developments on the mall
P15
I.
o Can project team for a Mall development present to
City Council about plan
o Needs to be something more than just a green
construction fence for noise, dust, etc
o Two story fencing
• Time and technology are not limited by seasons
• City reaching out to properties, conversation about plans
and what City can do to help think through the building
process.
November 5ĂŶĚϭϮth 2014 – Mayor’s Chat Notes
• Necessary amount of time for a project to be completed
o Breaks on projects
o Can we take an extension during off season?
At least 7am-7pm
Reduced dB readings
o Noise making work
30 days of noisy work from 9-5
Or a reduced schedule for 7-7
o Finishing a building has reduced noise
Night work for finished work interior
Less conflict with other trades
o Evolution of mitigation requirements
Demand during 10 yr boom cycle
Private and public sector are both building
P16
I.
Shared impacts
Airport expansion and glenwood bridge project
are large scale impact projects
Aspen’s mitigation efforts are copied throughout
the valley
Public works is in a 10 yr replacement effort
o Size of encroachments in Core
Saturday market limits size of encroachments
No place for laydown/logistics
Deliveries occur more often b/c of lack of
stockpiling
Expand size and duration of encroachments
• Hold contractor to schedule associated with
larger encroachments
Ask contractor to submit two schedules with
both current encroachment requirements vs
ideal encroachment
• 20-30% possible difference
Encroachment needs vary widely project to
project
Additional encroachment and use of parking
spaces amounted to a 25% reduction (Wagner
Park)
o Allowance Earth retention into the ROW
Soil nails vs beam and lag system
P17
I.
30% quicker with a soil nails
Reduction in noise requirements
o Large equipment using amber beacons instead of
backup alarms
City reach out to OSHA to vet this request
o General contractor encroachments
Take CMP seriously
Ask for consistency from City enforcement
Respect for the CMP
o Positioning of equipment is important to neighbors
• Alternative equipment/power supplies
• Sticks vs carrots
o Costs increases are passed on to owner
o Reduction in permit fees for thoughtful approach
o 4% cost of a total project for permit fees currently
o Plan and monitor contractor provided plan
o Graduated system for reduction in fees
• Potential for fee earn back
o Ahead of schedule
o Neighborhood weigh in
o Post project metric for fee earn back
o Monitoring system
o Bonus – reverse liquidated damages
• RMI in Basalt
o Integrated project delivery
P18
I.
o When issues arise the team splits
• Integration between private and public permitting
o Permitting process takes time
o Timing of permitting/resolution of issues
• Relief available to teams meeting or exceeding community
expectations
• Publicly funded projects
o Bonuses for early schedule completion
o Large impacts in the roadway projects
• Precast concrete, panel systems allowances to reduce
duration of construction
o City to provide allowances for this type of
construction
Longer hours
Larger encroachment
Credits for material uses
Tip decision toward alternative materials
• Permit times
o Difference for “walk-in” type permits
o A quicker review for permits like a deck
o Defending the City
o Comments back in 6 weeks
o 300% permit costs in City of County costs
o Submitting things that are not flushed out
• Change orders are difficult
P19
I.
o Owners change their minds
o Lengthen project when project change orders occur
• City of Denver
o One point of contact
o He or she could coordinate process
• Coordination with City entities after permit process
• OHSA definitions, creating employer, controlling employer
• Contractors are here to service existing building industry
• Morning trips to landfill at 40 mins, then increase to 1hr
40mins
o Using HOV lanes to reduce haul times
• CMP, highest and best practice
• Education of public about what the CMP says
• Need to give name for complaints to keep open lines of
communication
o CMP in the paper for education
o Performance bond will eat into project budget
• Complaints come from many places
• Is the City pro or con for construction
• City wants to address complaints
• Construction Mitigation Program
o How can we use best practices to mitigate community
impacts
o Facilitation/communication between neighbors and
contractors
P20
I.
• City loan out equipment for noise, etc
o Come from permit fees
• Do we need stabilization requirements
• Progressive requirements vs other communities
requirements
• City staff responsible to field comments
• Accessibility of CMP document
o Public access
• Direct contact with contractor reduces time delay to
complaints
• Proactivity reduces need for 3 party to resolve
• City requirement is to give 300 foot notice to neighbors
• Do neighbors need CMP or additional information
• Noise suppression plan addresses shrouds
o Equipment that meets current requirements
• Look at location of work
o Don’t have means, don’t bid the work
• Business license process
o Not capturing subs
o Opportunity for education process
o Can filter out contractors not meeting
o Contract between the City, architect, contractor
Need to be certified
Testing
Quarterly meeting to discuss issues
P21
I.
• If CMP becomes a “contract” it becomes a more important
document
o CMP can be reviewed with the neighborhood
• Public outreach is a good tool
o Number of attendees is sometimes problematic
o 8:1 sub contractors vs neighbors in attendance
o May need to be more than a one time occurrence
• Owners
o Rigid process to get through the City process
o Making through the entire process before they get
paid
o Standard that is set by the City and owners and
contractors need to adhere to
o Penalty for not following standards
• Make a requirement for community outreach
o Contractors and budget for it upfront
• Communication
o Here is what the City has
o CMP we’ve provided
o Here are the rules
o We will give you X notification for larger impacts
• Owners participating in neighborhood communication
helps
• Preconstruction planning, ongoing communication
becomes part of the “carrot”
P22
I.
o Reward for process
• Need a metric to address the success of the process
• Neighbors don’t understand what is allowed
o Is there an onsite tool
o Monitoring onsite that is available online
• Facilitation of construction is benefiting the community
o Shorten time, size, etc
o Store materials in ROW helps project
o Site by site assessment of use of ROW
• Public ROW vs neighbor
o Use of ROW and cost of use
• Impacts often occur during “front end” of construction
o Incentives to get the building dried in
o Minimize impacts
• Construction Pacing
o Currently have growth management system to
control entitlements
o Many communities with this have a trigger that has
never been reached
o Proposed legislation has not been well received in the
past
o Large projects coming up adjacent to the Malls
o Public enjoying town is important
o Sequencing projects vs all at once approach
P23
I.
o Expediting projects by coordination between adjacent
projects
Closing streets to facilitate projects, increase
pace
o Talk to utility providers
Coordinate to update utilities
One large impact to the streets
• Impacts of earthwork contractors
o 6 day a week schedules
o Variances for deep digging and soil nailing
o Limits the time frame of impacts
o Mitigate high impact parts of the job
• ROW space in off season
• Parking
o Free parking at the garage for construction
o Designated shuttle with tools
o Give place to park outside City
Intercept lot (too far)
o Increase the carpool parking within the City limits
o Shuttle brush creek every hour
o Contractor needs to know expectation of parking up
front
o Most subs need what is in their truck
o Designate parking at the construction site and site
pays for spaces
P24
I.
o Designate areas for certain subs and their laydown
o
P25
I.
From:Rick Stevens
To:Trish Aragon ; Tyler Christoff ; Tony Kornasiewicz; Scott Miller
Subject:RE: Thanks for your Construction Mitigation Input
Date:Thursday, November 06, 2014 4:02:37 PM
Thanks you for your time –we do a lot of “estimating” for projects that are designed by out of town
consultants – on both public and private work- do you think they have a handle on the “regs”. As
they are the front door to the owner –maybe there is an opportunity there. Do they have to have
business licenses? Just asking – we appreciate your efforts-Rick
Rick Stevens
President
Aspen Earthmoving
The Clear Choice in Excavation Services
970 963 0377 phone | 970 963 2247 fax | 970 379-2752 mobile
818 Industry Place | P.O. Box 1090 | Carbondale, CO 81623
From: Trish Aragon [mailto:Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:09 AM
To: Trish Aragon; Tyler Christoff; Tony Kornasiewicz; Scott Miller
Subject: RE: Thanks for your Construction Mitigation Input
Thank you for taking the time to attend our Mayor Chats meeting on Construction
Mitigation. As I mentioned in the meeting, the next steps include a citizen input meeting on
November 12 th (4pm @ Sister Cities) after that we will be presenting recommendations to
Council at the November 25 th worksession.
If you would like to give us more input, please go ahead and email me directly or you can
provide your input on our Open City Hall site. Here’s the link:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Relations/Open-City-Hall/
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
P26
I.
From:John Silich
To:Trish Aragon
Cc:Tyler Christoff ; Tony Kornasiewicz; Scott Miller ; Shaun Rourke
Subject:Re: Thanks for your Construction Mitigation Input
Date:Thursday, November 06, 2014 9:56:51 AM
Hi Trish,
Thanks - I will be at Citizen's meeting also given that I am one of a few GC's whoactually live in Aspen.
Yesterday's meeting was good but could have been much better in terms ofactionable solutions to some of the issues outlined by the City.
My suggestion is that a contractor/community panel be formed to provide a
quantitative and qualitative analysis of how the City might be more receptive tocreative solutions by project teams to reduce durations, neighborhood/site impactsand mitigate other flash points related to construction.
I do applaud the City for their outreach but feel there is a giant opportunity for
improvement in this area that will benefit all stakeholders if there is ample time to
study the issues in more detail. There is no "one size fits all" solution.
Best - John Silich
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 6, 2014, at 9:13 AM, "Trish Aragon" <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to attend our Mayor Chats meeting on
Construction Mitigation. As I mentioned in the meeting, the next steps include a
citizen input meeting on November 12 th (4pm @ Sister Cities) after that we will
be presenting recommendations to Council at the November 25 th worksession.
If you would like to give us more input, please go ahead and email me directly
or you can provide your input on our Open City Hall site. Here’s the link:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Relations/Open-City-
Hall/
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P27
I.
From:Steve Goldenberg
To:Trish Aragon
Subject:Re: Thanks for your Construction Mitigation Input
Date:Thursday, November 06, 2014 10:18:21 AM
Trish: nice see you again. 1. I would require a CMP neighbor outreach meeting for every project withneighbors.
2. Could you send me the link to the synagogue CMP. Never heard of it until
yesterday.
3. I would limit "big" projects to one at a time per block.
4. On the synagogue project, I would say that when complaining, I was always100% in the right. They would say that I was always 100% wrong.
4. On the Boomerang, I will be all over their CMP before it gets approved.
Steve@Goldenberg.com
97 0-379-9778 mobile
On Nov 6, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com> wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to attend our Mayor Chats meeting on Construction
Mitigation. As I mentioned in the meeting, the next steps include a citizen input meeting on
November 12 th (4pm @ Sister Cities) after that we will be presenting recommendations to
Council at the November 25 th worksession.
If you would like to give us more input, please go ahead and email me directly or you can
provide your input on our Open City Hall site. Here’s the link:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-Relations/Open-City-Hall/
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 429-2785
P28
I.
From:captco@aol.com
To:Trish Aragon ; Steve Skadron; City Council; Stephen Kanipe
Subject:Re: 1409 Crystal Lake Road
Date:Thursday, November 06, 2014 7:35:23 AM
Attachments:LAWS_1,2_&3__-1.docx
This CMP degrades the Noise Suppression Plan by actually accepting a concrete blanket as adequate
acoustic material, with no supporting documentation that it does any good.
In the future I suggest that before the building department approves any project requiring earthwork of
over 5 days duration that mitigation plans be stamped by an acoustical engineer and an air quality
engineer. The City has dismally failed us and is not to be trusted in this regard.
Attached are the laws that I proposed that the City Council adapt and adopt at the Council meeting of
June 9 of this year.
In this age of accelerating global warming and accompanied threats to our future it is adamant that
wasteful and unnecessary projects be sent back to the architects. That school children and staff at the
campus in Woody Creek are daily exposed to diesel exhaust from a wastefully large excavation is an
example of the callous and insensitive new generation of architects and designers. That is a project
that could have been reorganized to use far less energy and cause far less damage to the environment
and human health - not to mention being much more economical.
Tim Murray
Aspen
-----Original Message-----
From: Trish Aragon <Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com>
To: captco <captco@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Nov 5, 2014 8:42 am
Subject: RE: 1409 Crystal Lake Road
Tim,
I apologize I didn’t know that you were coming in. I have the CMP at my desk. Anyhow I had it
scanned this morning for you and attached it to this email. Again, I do want to meet with you to go over
this plan. Can you tell me when you are available?
Also I did call the Forester, Ben Carlson and you can expect a call from him. I also copied Ben on this
email.
Lastly, we are looking for citizen input on our Construction Mitigation Program. The input meeting is
scheduled for November 12 th at 4 pm at Sister Cities. It would be great if you can make it or if you
would prefer to talk to me directly that would be goo too.
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P29
I.
June 9, 2014
Proposed New Laws:
1: Any excavation and or demolition that is
estimated to take more than 5 days requires special
environmental review and written permission from
all property owners within 200 yards. Large
projects requiring more than 10 truckloads of fill
or waste require special environmental review and
permission from all property owners within 200
yards of the municipally maintained routes.
2: All remodels and new construction are to be
designed and built to cause LEAST impact to
existing neighbors:
ALL building exhausts and vents to exit the
structure as far from neighbors as possible.
Driveways routed to cause least impact.
Building envelopes and rooflines to cause least
interruption in views. This to include views down
as well as up.
P30
I.
Courtyards that face neighboring properties
to be designed to have minimal "amphitheater
effect".
3: Professional sound absorption barriers to be
installed and maintained for the duration of all
residential projects that are estimated to last more
than 20 days. These barriers are to surround the
noise making machinery, not be simply be put
between the machinery and the neighbors.
Machinery includes but is not limited to: saws,
compressors, nailers, welders …….
P31
I.
Construction management ideas
LJ Erspamer
1. The city should have a construction coordinator position for all major projects as well as
any new home construction and large remodels.
2. This person shall coordinate the impact of construction on the neighborhood and
community.
3. They will work directly with the General Contractor and meet on a regular basis to help
the construction go smoothly and keep the impacts kept to a minimum.
4. Contractors shall keep the parking needs to a minimum by providing a transportation van
for those who don’t have equipment that is needed on the site. There should be no
private cars unless absolutely necessary.
5. Tools cannot be kept on the site due to theft so the equipment trucks need access to job
sites.
6. Efficiency of operation is imperative and supply trucks must be timed to be on the site in
less time with as little conflict of other suppliers as possible.
7. Time of operation shall be coordinated with all the immediate neighbors and commercial
shops that will be impacted. The City coordinator must speak directly to each neighbor
to advise what noise shall be expected and at what time.
8. If necessary and with the neighbors permission the work hours may be extended to
complete a job.
9. The GMQS should alleviate some problems with several construction sites right next to
each other if it is followed closely to what it was designed for.
10. Stop removing parking around town as this makes everyone compete for the few spaces
that are left. This increases traffic due to circulating for parking spaces. This is not
theory but reality as I had an office for years overlooking the Paradise Bakery and I was
shocked by the number of cars driving around the block waiting for someone to leave so
they can park. Remember form follows function.
I agree with Barry Crook who stated we need to work together on this. This is why one
person from the City needs to coordinate all parties with these busy impactful projects. They
must be available every day that work is happening on any project.
Thank you for looking into this.
LJ Erspamer
P32
I.
From:Steve Goldenberg
To:Tyler Christoff
Cc:Trish Aragon ; Tony Kornasiewicz; Steve Skadron
Subject:Re: jcc
Date:Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:54:40 AM
Tyler: Page 12 is a canned document. It only sets the stage.
In the case of the Chabad, there were a dozen very noisy phases
that each should have been covered in the CMP or the appendix.
By far the worst was the micro piling segment that went on for
months. Although the piling noise could not be avoided, the placement
of the two ultra loud gasoline or diesel powered compressors and the
two very loud gasoline gasoline powered cement mixers could have
been altered from “right outside” my office window to a different
location for all or part of the time. I surely would have caught that
if the CMP was really anything but a routine formality.
I believe, had we gone through the CMP in a manner similar to other
issues that we did discuss and negotiate, the project would have been
much more neighbor friendly, and the neighbors (me) would have
understood the issues that could not be mitigated.
There were about a dozen other such issues, discussed every 3-6 months
for several years, ALL of which were resolved before construction began,
non of which became anything approaching a problem. Even a few items
I left off the list, were fixed to my complete satisfaction, one as recently
as last month.
If you want to add “CMP Outreach” as an important part of CMP, I will
be happy to meet with you to create a hindsight list. Otherwise, I’m going
cross country.
Steve
From: Tyler Christoff
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 9:06 AM
To: Steve Goldenberg
Cc: Trish Aragon ; Tony Kornasiewicz
Subject: RE: jcc
Steve,
It’s not well labeled but Page 12 of the pdf relates to noise mitigation. The current Construction mitigation program requires sites to acknowledge
the City’s noise regulations and sign the Construction Noise Suppression Plan document. The site plans shown on pages 5 and 13 are then vetted in
an attempt to mitigate all impacts of the site to the extent possible.
As part of our Construction mitigation mayor’s chats and outreach we are certainly considering a more rigorous requirement for construction noise.
We are exploring the possibilities of continuous noise monitoring set up on large sites, an in depth plan requirement from an acoustical engineer as
part of the CMP, and more specific decibel regulation for both duration and peak. The sections referenced in the JCC’s construction mitigation
plan are related to the City’s Construction Mitigation Manual that can be found here:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/engineering/design_construction/2013%20Design%20Construction%20CMP/CMPmanual_2013.pdf
Tony Kornasiewicz our Construction Mitigation Officer would be able to provide more specifics about the CMP process in general. I’ve cc’ed him on
this email. Hope this helps.
Tyler A. Christoff, PE, CFM, PMP
Senior Project Manager
Engineering/Asset Management Department
City of Aspen
P33
I.
From:Steve Goldenberg
To:Tony Kornasiewicz
Cc:Trish Aragon ; Steve Skadron; Tyler Christoff
Subject:CMP Improvements
Date:Saturday, November 22, 2014 3:02:31 PM
1. I had my own list of a dozen “design”, not construction
issues, all which were discussed at least a half dozen times
over the years and were emailed repeatedly during the Chabad design
process. ALL of these issues were taken care of to my satisfaction.
One additional item that I did not have on my original list was
also promptly taken care of to my satisfaction when I later raised
that issue.
2. I had never heard of CMP until the outreach meeting
at City Hall a month ago.
3. I do not recall ever attending a CPM preconstruction
meeting or ever receiving the required notice.
Tony will get me a copy of the “notice” sent to me and I
will again look through my old folders for a match.
4. The instructions for the preparation of the CMP and the CMP
itself look and read like not much more than a boilerplate formality.
None of what turned out to be my five major issues were dealt with
in the boilerplate CMP. I gave Tony that list.
5. Changing the CMP system would be difficult and require a lot of work
by the staff and the contractor. It might not be worth the effort.
6. For contractors and owners that are serious about avoiding complaints from
neighbors, a better CMP and periodic CMP outreach could really help.
7. Had the Chabad held such meetings, I think many of the problems could
have been avoided and I would have been more understanding of those that
could not.
I was the most impacted neighbor and never was invited to anything like a
P34
I.
CMP meeting.
Most of my meetings were to deal with specific complaints of mine.
8. This will only work for contractors that really want to avoid problems and
who are willing to take the time to prepare and discuss the “Top Ten
Problems” with the neighbors in advance of the start of work.
9. One advantage may be that the neighbors, the contractor, the owners and
the B uilding Department might agree to allow certain exceptions that would
help the jobs get done faster.
10. I’m not sure what should be done next but will be available to assist in any
way you ask. My Chabad construction problems are pretty much behind me
and are gradually fading from my memory which I guess is good.
Thanks for your time Tony.
---
Steve Goldenberg .... steve@goldenberg.com
430 W. Hopkins Avenue ... 970-925-1294
Aspen, CO 81611 .... cell 970-379-9778
Call sign... W0SRG
P35
I.
From:Scott Sinta
To:Trish Aragon
Subject:FW: Construction Mitigation Citizens Meeting -- January 7th
Date:Monday, January 12, 2015 9:40:32 AM
Hi Trish,
I’m the across the street neighbor of Valerie MacDonald at 125 East Hyman. She mentioned that I should
email a few concerns to you regarding the upcoming excavation project in the White Victorian at 201 East
Hyman.
1. I haven’t been formally notified on the project, can you please make sure I’m on the distribution list?
Per the CMP 3.2 any neighbors within 300 are to be notified. We endured a long summer of excavation
last year with no notice from the Pace Residence behind us, and would prefer proper information this time
around.
2. Valerie is concerned that the CMP hours may be modified from the current 730-530 construction times.
We would be against any expanded hours. The excavation will already have a great impact on the
experience of my hotel guests.
Thanks for your time,
-S
Scott Sinta
General Manager
Hearthstone House
134 East Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611
W: 888.925.7632
M: 970.618.4850
www.hearthstonehouse.com
From: Scott Sinta <scottsinta@gmail.com >
Date: Monday, January 12, 2015 at 9:27 AM
To: Scott Sinta <scott@hearthstonehouse.com >
Subject: Fwd: Construction Mitigation Citizens Meeting -- January 7th
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Valerie MacDonald <valerie0701@hotmail.com >
Date: Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 1:40 PM
Subject: Fwd: Construction Mitigation Citizens Meeting -- January 7th
To: Mary Lynn Casper <mlcasperaspen@yahoo.com>, Scott Sinta <scottsinta@gmail.com>
P36
I.
1
Trish Aragon
From:Tom Marshall <tom@temarshall.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 07, 2015 12:06 PM
To:Trish Aragon
Subject:RE: Construction Mitigation Citizens Meeting -- January 7th
Trish cant make the meeting here are a few thoughts I see by the paper that about 75% of the parking fee s collected
are from construction companys & workers that funds rfta the aspen core needs lots of TLC WHAT WITH
deliverys garbage service vechicals retail so raising parking fees is not going to help and this will be added on to the
cost of doing work in the core area .also simplify the permit time &fee tor the use of cranes in the core it is too costly
&too time consuming thanks tom marshall[mailto:Trish.Aragon@cityofaspen.com]
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Trish Aragon
Cc: Trish Aragon; Tyler Christoff; Tony Kornasiewicz; Steve Barwick; Scott Miller
Subject: Construction Mitigation Citizens Meeting -- January 7th
Our next Citizen Meeting for Construction Mitigation is Scheduled for January 7th at 4pm at the Rio Grande
Meeting Room. The purpose of this meeting is to gain community input on the City’s Construction Mitigation
Program. This includes ideas on how to improve the program.
After that we will be presenting recommendations to Council at the February 24th worksession.
If you would like to give us written input, please go ahead and email me directly or you can provide your input
on our Open City Hall site. Here’s the link: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community‐
Relations/Open‐City‐Hall/
Trish Aragon, P.E.
City Engineer
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
(970) 429‐2785
P37
I.
Citizens Meeting
January 7, 2015
Holidays:
Contractor: Agree that exterior/ noisy construction should not be allow on holidays.
Contractor: Don’t understand why a week is needed
Construction Hours:
Citizen: Do not want to allow extended hours
Citizen: May consider 24hr construction but there must be restrictions
Contractor: Concerned about shorter construction hours we don’t have the workforce for this.
Citizen: Construction is always going to happen (so keep the hours the same)
General:
Contractor: Offer free/reduced rates in COA facilities such as the Parking Garage.
Contractor: Require tier 3 engines for sites to reduce emissions
Citizen: We would not be willing to consider a larger encroachment even if it meant the project would
be completed sooner
P38
I.
2/4/15 – CCLC Meeting (Construction Mitigation Discussion)
Terry Butler, Don Sheeley, Bill Dinsmoor, Fred Ayarza, Kiki, Riley
Development
o Construction Hours
Dry walling (inside hours encourage 24hr work)
Longer they go the more they cost
Being all things to all people
o Parking/Sidewalks
Not much parking on Galena, construction vehicles take up parking
Give construction parking 2 hours parking passes
Make them park in the garage
Moving parking vehicles will make project take more time, negative
Give construction vehicles a “sticker” for “tool trucks”
Project manager/principal benefit for them policing parking
Give out “x” amount of stickers per construction stickers
Gondola Plaza – bus stop vs parking
Impacts to adjacent businesses
o Business interruptions
o 7:30am next to a hotel is a big deal
o Adjust hours for the CORE. What is the best hours for the adjacent businesses to give
approvals
o Trucks picking up trash at 7am was a problem
o Big noise that shakes building adjacent business needs to be notices
o Approval for construction make a requirement to meet with the neighbors, maybe a
signoff
o Construction project in the commercial core needs a community liaison for the during of
the project.
o Signature from all adjacent properties before permit signoff
o Pacing to 2 projects in the commercial core
o Alley situation access and congestion point – vehicle deliveries to adjacent business
o Off season expansion of hours during mall – expand mall hours in off season
Appearance
o Appreciated that they put up flower boxes
o Small appearance things really change neighbors
Feb 18th CCLC minutes minutes will address recommendations for City staff.
P39
I.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of February 19, 2015,
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of February 19, 2015, 1:28 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2288
Construction Mitigation
What changes, if any, would you suggest the City make to its Construction Mitigation program?
P40
I.
As of February 19, 2015, 1:28 AM, this forum had:
Attendees:65
On Forum Statements: 8
All Statements:8
Minutes of Public Comment: 24
This topic started on November 5, 2014, 1:39 PM.
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of February 19, 2015, 1:28 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2288 Page 2 of 5
Construction Mitigation
What changes, if any, would you suggest the City make to its Construction Mitigation program?
P41
I.
Catherine Lutz inside Aspen February 15, 2015, 4:42 AM
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. The CMP in place covers a lot of ground and is a vast
improvement on the chaos of 2007 and prior. However, with residential construction continuing to become
bigger and more elaborate, the CMP should strive to be more forward thinking. While most of the regulations
address noise suppression, none (that I can see) address duration of activity. Live with a rock saw going nine
hours a day like I did and it doesn't matter much if it's a few decibels lower than it normally would be due to
noise suppression measures. I would suggest limiting the duration of use of some of the most annoying
construction tools (rock saws and jackhammers, for example) to something like two hours in the morning and
two in the afternoon, AND limit their use on a construction site to not more than one construction season. Let
developers figure out a less obtrusive way of building custom everything on site. Speaking of duration in
general, I think the more elaborate, larger, and more intensive homes to build or remodel should be subject to
some kind of "excess tax" — which recognizes that such projects, more than others, unnecessarily burden the
neighbors with noise and disruption, the environment both in the construction zone and the air above, our
roadways with construction traffic, and our values in general. Why people in these climate-changing times still
feel the need for 14,000sf or more of brand new living space for two weeks per year is beyond me.
OK, end of rant. The other suggestion I would add to the CMP is some kind of guidelines on average noise
levels of certain equipment. In addition, neighbors should be notified of those anticipated noise levels when
made aware of the project. Perhaps the average noise levels could be calculated for, say, 100, 200, and 300
feet from the source, since that is the distance vicinity to notify neighbors? Perhaps this would be complicated
but different tools make different levels of noise, and if I had known that a rock saw would be operating 9 hours
a day outside my window and if I'd known it's noise level in advance, I could have been more proactive about
addressing the impact of the project, instead of having to react to it several months in.
Thanks for listening, and thanks for keeping me posted.
Lee Mulcahy inside Aspen February 9, 2015, 8:46 AM
Since there are so many CLOSED topics and City Hall is kind of tone deaf (i.e. Bert Myrin et al.), I'll deal with
several issues: 1. I have dealt with the City in building my house. I have only wonderful things to say about the
building dept. in general---very helpful and professional. 2. In regards to construction and mitigation future
issues--- why does the City and Pitkin County need to spend $100 million plus for another taxiway and to
expand the airport? and why the 65,000 sq foot police station/city hall? Why are all the Pitkin County
commissioners giant cheerleaders for moving Owl Creek road and airport runways on steroids? 3. Another
example of being out of touch: None of them (except Patti) ever mention raising the minimum wage despite all
being Democrats. Skico comes in there and does there trick dog and pony show----bemoaning about how
much labor cost has gone up. Not one of them asks the Skico to break management salaries out or the fact
that lift tickets have skyrocked but wages for front line employees are stuck at the same rate as 20 years ago.
Instead, one commissioner asks about upgrades on United. Corruption is as old as time. 4. The police
station/city hall is proposed to be more than twice the size of that other monstrosity, the Aspen Art Museum?
Perhaps we shouldn't be giving away the Power Station when so much space is needed. 5. There's alotta
traffic on 82 from construction (and if you think it's bad now wait til a new police station/city hall at 65,000 sq.
Construction Mitigation
What changes, if any, would you suggest the City make to its Construction Mitigation program?
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of February 19, 2015, 1:28 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2288 Page 3 of 5
P42
I.
feet-----but alot of SUV's from all the hotels to and from the airport. What about an underground train like in
Europe or Chicago ORD that takes you from the airport to downtown in minutes? Instead of banning people
from say, the art museum, why not ban hotel SUV's from the airport---require them to pick up their passengers
in town at the train terminus (under Wagner Park...) 6. And since there is no topic for this subject (either), why
doesn't Aspen have free broadband with Aspen's 100,000,000.00 dollar budget? Comcast is a rotten
monopoly, just like the..... nevermind. :) 7. Lastly, I think the City should quit pulling up trees at Burlingame.
THere's not enough trees out here anyway. That is government gone wild, or more likely, an inflated Park
Director's ego.
Walt Madden inside Aspen December 3, 2014, 4:40 PM
Similar to Aspen's enforcement of parking regulations :) there should be *active* enforcement of construction
regulations regarding noise, hours, etc. A portion of the permit fees should fund a full-time "compliance officer"
who continually makes the rounds visiting construction sites verifying compliance – just as is done for parking
enforcement. The current "complaint based" mechanism unfairly puts the burden of enforcement on the
neighbors subjected to the violations. (And many may be "suffering in silence" as they are not even be aware
that something improper is occurring.)
Tim Murray inside Aspen November 20, 2014, 9:03 AM
The City has broken its own guidelines as expressed in the Ecological Bill of Rights and the Aspen Area
Community Plan. It has ignored its own Noise Suppression Plan. It has broken State Statutes regarding noise.
Now, it is asking for comment to make things better. This is a common tactic used by politicians and public
servants to whitewash their own complicity in illegal and immoral activity.
1 Supporter
Neil Principe inside Aspen November 19, 2014, 9:50 AM
I am not of the opinion that we should not allow development or redevelopment in the City of Aspen but
sometimes I wonder, " What are these builders/developers thinking !" The sites are a mess with "stuff " and
garbage in the streets and sites , cars and trucks blocking the rite of way of traffic and pedestrians, and, in
town, creating noise, air and esthetic pollution. Perhaps the contractors should be held more accountable to
abating these issues as much as possible via stiff fines or forced work stoppage until the problem(s) are
addressed.
People who come to Aspen and buy residential real estate come for various reasons mostly (myself and
friends) for the quaintness, beauty, peacefulness and athletic opportunities and not for the activities and
disruptions of excavation, earthmoving , and disruption of all construction modalities. Let it work but with
constraint and strict enforcement of existing guidelines and truly review all future projects so that they add to the
beauty and sustainability of our traditional mountain atmosphere .
Construction Mitigation
What changes, if any, would you suggest the City make to its Construction Mitigation program?
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of February 19, 2015, 1:28 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2288 Page 4 of 5
P43
I.
Regards, Neil Principe ( Five Trees)
2 Supporters
jaleh white inside Aspen November 19, 2014, 8:27 AM
Mr. Murray,
I am so sorry you are going through this. It seems no matter where you live in Aspen any more, it's not a livable
town due to the City's actions. We need change in the government of our town. This is off season and one can
not get around. What is it going to be like during the season? I have lived here for 30 years and have never
been this unhappy with our City Council or City employees. When are the voters going to get involved? We
have two City Council members who are developers, they are going to push for more development because it's
all about $$$...
2 Supporters
Will Rutledge inside Aspen November 19, 2014, 7:21 AM
I think the plan works well. With the intent of the plan obvious, it also causes some projects to go beyond the
scope of the requests. Evidence the flowers on the concrete barrier during the Gap building construction.
1 Supporter
Gideon Murray inside Aspen November 17, 2014, 1:04 PM
As I am a neighbor to the 1409 Crystal Lake Road residential renovation I have become acutely aware of the
need for stricter rules governing new building permits. Because the City has allowed this project to happen we
now have to live next to a construction project that is so far removed from reasonableness for a residential
project that it has ruined our ability to enjoy our own home for months if not years. This project consists of an
excavation of 40 feet into the earth which is below the level of the adjacent Roaring Fork River to allow for a
bowling alley.
Everyone who works for the City of Aspen should be embarrassed for having allowed a RESIDENTIAL project
of this magnitude. What's more is that the City and its citizens have to endure the environmental impact of this
project which includes hundreds of large dump trucks driving right down Main Street fumigating the whole
environment with diesel fumes.
So my suggestion is simple. If you cannot prohibit ridiculous projects like this one then make it so incredibly
expensive that the revenues generated from such stupidity could be used to actually improve our life in this City.
Tax every single truck that has to drive down Main Street and then use that money to clean up our air.
Progress should not be defined by growth, which in this case is a BOWLING ALLEY, and limiting growth in
Aspen will actually be something progressive.
4 Supporters
Construction Mitigation
What changes, if any, would you suggest the City make to its Construction Mitigation program?
All On Forum Statements sorted chronologically
As of February 19, 2015, 1:28 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2288 Page 5 of 5
P44
I.
Attachment B – Research
P45
I.
CMPs from Other Cities
1. City of Santa Barbara – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Community Development – Environmental Analyst established MMRP. California passed the
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and
to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. The MMRP is an additional layer that Santa Barbara uses
to limit disturbances.
Matrix Table establishes all work that may disturb the environment. Table describes mitigation
measure, responsible party, and verification of the measure. At the end of the project a final MMRP
must be submitted.
MMRP establishes project site, description, purpose, schedule, updated weekly schedule, pre‐
construction meeting, monitoring and reporting procedures.
Mitigation items include items such as: asbestos containing material, dust control, stormwater control,
exhaust emissions, energy use, carpool parking, tree and biological protection, and sound disturbance.
MMRP helps to mitigate or avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from a project.
Developer/Contractor hires a Project Environmental Coordinator (PEC) , a third‐party inspector to
ensure MMRP is being followed. City only shows up if continued complaints.
2. Town of Vail
Leonard Sandoval – Development Project Coordinator for Public Works Department runs mitigation
program. Complaints are typically fielded by the 4 or 5 Code Enforcement officers. City is on a 3 strike
system – 1. Warning 2. Written 3. Stop Work Order
Vail mainly regulates construction mitigation in their main commercial areas. The outlying areas (east,
west and golf course) are typically not closely overseen.
Construction Season April 15 – June 26th & September 8 – November 15, 7am‐7pm, seven days a week.
No right‐of‐way construction June 27 – September 7 including Holidays and special events.
Town Manager waived noise ordinance from 7am – 7pm for April 15‐ June 26 and Sept. 8 – Nov. 15.
Must have Approved Construction Staging and Traffic Control Plan
Noise Limits (High Density Multiple‐Family)
P46
I.
3. Boulder
Started website for West End Improvements that shows all the development projects in high traffic
areas and mitigating construction impacts.
Ashlee Herring with the City covers the Communications Perspective of the West End Improvements.
City sends out a weekly progress report for each of the projects. A monthly meeting is held that
contractors run and is open for businesses to discuss their projects. No standards that she is aware of for
enforcement, complaints are sent to the City Project Manager or Permitting Department to speak with
prime contractor. Boulder allowed some parking spots for staging the length of the project if possible.
No parking for construction. City prevents working more than 1 block at a time for ROW projects. Where
multiple projects are in the same area, city has traffic control companies work together to prevent least
amount of impact as possible.
Zoning District of the Property
on Which the Sound is
Received
Maximum Number of Decibels
Permitted from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. of
the Same Day
Maximum Number of Decibels
Permitted from 11 p.m. until 7 a.m. of
the Following Day
Residential 55 dBA 50 dBA
Mixed use and other 65 dBA 60 dBA
Industrial 80 dBA 75 dBA
Have a message into Boulder Permitting to ask about their mitigation process, if any.
P47
I.
4. City of New York
Noise Mitigation Plans
k Contractors must develop a noise mitigation plan prior to the start of work.
k Every construction site must have a noise mitigation plan on location.
k If noise complaints are received, an inspector will ensure the contractor has posted the plan and
that it is being followed. This will determine whether or not the plan needs modified
k When construction activity is planned near locations such as schools, hospitals and houses of
worship, the party responsible for construction is expected to design their noise mitigation plan
to be sensitive to its neighbors.
Containers and Construction Materials
k Noise that exceeds the ambient sounds level by more than 10 decibels as measured from 15
feet from the source as measured from inside any property or on a public street is prohibited.
k Sounds that occur abruptly for a short duration, called impulsive sounds, are restricted.
k A reduction of only five decibels usually makes a noticeable difference to most
complainants.
Construction Hours
k Construction may occur between 7:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays.
k Alterations or repairs to existing one- or two-family, owner- occupied dwellings, or convents or
rectories, may be performed on Saturdays and Sundays between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm if the
dwelling is located more than 300 feet from a house of worship.
k Work may take place after hours and on weekends only with express authorization from the
Departments of Buildings and Transportation. A noise mitigation plan must be in place before any
authorization is granted.
k Emergency work necessary for public safety, or work that cannot be performed during normal
work hours, may occur after hours or on weekends. For example, water main or gas line
repairs may require construction activity outside the normal hours of construction.
In order to enforce this objective, the New York City Department
of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the New York City Police Department (NYPD) share duties
based on the type of noise complaint. To report a noise complaint, call 311 and they will direct
your grievance to the appropriate agency.
Link to actual law
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/noise_constr_rule.pdf
Encroachments Chapter 32
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/pdf/cc_chapter32.pdf
P48
I.
Attachment C: Construction Mitigation Program Redline
Version
P49
I.
02/18/2015
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
REQUIREMENTS MANUAL
Construction projects that exceed 1000 SF of soil disturbance and/or 400 SF of building demolition,
improvement, or renovation (interior and/or exterior) must submit a construction management plan in
accordance with this manual.
Prepared by:
Engineering Department
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen CO 81611
970.920.5080
February
2015
DRAFT
Please provide:
2 Paper Documents – Engineering Department
1 Electronic Document –
EngineerCity@cityofaspen.com
Specifics: 8.5 x 11 or 11x17 sheets only & 2-hole punch
P50
I.
02/18/2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 PURPOSE
1.2 APPLICABILITY
1.3 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS
1.4 REFERENCES
2.0 PR OJECT INTRODUCTION
2.1 DISTURBANCE AREA
2.2 LOCATION
2.3 DESCRIPTION
3.0 PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
3.1 PERMITS / OTHER DOCUMENTS
3.2 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
3.3 PROJECT SIGN
3.4 CONTACT DESIGNATION
4.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENATION
4.1 DATES OF CONSTRUCTION
4.2 HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION
4.3 SEQUENCE (PHASING) OF CONSTRUCTION
4.4 ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS
4.5 PROJECT FENCING
4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
4.7 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
5.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT
5.1 PARKING MANGEMENT FORM
5.2 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND ORDINANCE 35
5.3 CONSTRUCTION PARKING DETAILS
5.4 STAGING AREAS
5.5 RIGHT OF WAY LIMITATIONS
5.56 CONSTRUCTION TRAILER, MATERIALS STORAGE, AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT
6.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL
6.1 GENERAL
6.2 HAUL ROUTES
6.3 ONSITE VEHICLE LIMITATIONS
6.4 DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS
6.5 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
7.0 PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION
7.1 GENERAL
7.2 LIMITATIONS
P51
I.
02/18/2015
8.0 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
8.1 REQUIREMENTS
8.2 SMUGGLER MOUNTIAN RESTRICTIONS
9.0 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
9.1 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN
9.2 REQUIREMENTS
10.0 EMISSIONS
10.1 GENERAL
10.2 EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL POWERED ENGINES
11.0 NOISE SUPRESSION
11.1 GENERAL
11.2 NOISE SUPPRESSION PLAN
11.3 REQUIREMENTS
11.4 SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO MANUFACTURING ON SITE
12.0 ENFORCEMENT
12.1 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION OFFICER
12.2 CORRECTIVE ACTION
12.3 INSPECTION REPORTS
13.0 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION COMMITTEE
APPENDICES
A – Required Project Sign
B – Parking Management Form
C – Haul Route Map
D – Noise Suppression Plan, Techniques and Equipment
E – Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site Map
F – Core and Central Resort Area Map
G- Encroachment Zone Map
H – Stormwater Pollution Plan Requirements
P52
I.
02/18/2015
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Construction Management Plan Manual is to provide a consistent
policy under which certain physical aspects of construction management will be
implemented. The elements contained in this document are related to the development
process. It is intended that they apply to both public and private work designated
herein.
These standards cannot anticipate all situations. They are intended to assist, but not to
substitute for competent work by design and construction professionals. The City of
Aspen does not intend to limit any innovative or creative efforts that could result in
better quality, greater cost savings, or both. Any proposed departure from the manual
will be judged on the likelihood that such variance will produce a comparable result,
adequate for the user and City resident over the duration of the improvement/project.
If the project changes ownership or contracting services change, the City Engineering
Department must be notified, and must agree to comply with an approved CMP in
writing. Any departure from the approved CMP must be submitted in writing and
approved by the City Engineer. The approved construction management plan must be
kept onsite.
1.2 APPLICABILITY
This manual shall govern the construction and development of all public and private
construction projects in the City of Aspen. These regulations shall apply to all
commercial, industrial, residential, and mixed use developments which disturb 1000 SF
or greater or require demolition, improvement, or renovation (interior and/or exterior)
of 400 SF or greater within any twelve-month period.
1.3 DEFINITIONS AND TERMS
Construction Management Plan – A Construction Management Plan is a combination of
diagrams, documents, drawings, and specifications that clearly define the steps that will
be taken to demonstrate how the impacts to the community will be minimized. How the
impacts associated with any construction project will be managed. Herein described as
“Plan” throughout the remainder of this policy.
Construction Mitigation Officer – An appointed employee of the City of Aspen whose
charge is to ensure that all aspects of a Construction Management Plan are followed,
and to further ensure that the impacts associated with construction activities within the
City of Aspen are effectively managed and impacts associated with those projects are
the least necessary to accomplish the project.
Disturbance Area – A portion of land where topsoil or native soils have been removed
for purposes of construction (development).
P53
I.
02/18/2015
Best Management Practices (BMP’s) – Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices,
maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the
pollution of waters of the state. BMP’s also include treatment requirements, operating
procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, waste disposal, or
drainage from material storage.
Tree Dripline and Protection Zone - Use the longest branch of the tree as a radius from
the center of the tree and make a circle. The circle is then defined as the dripline and
thus is the tree protection zone.
Final Stabilization – Uniform vegetative cover has been established with a density of at
least 70 percent of pre-disturbed levels.
Major Impact: Major projects as defined by the Urban Runoff Management Plan
(URMP).
Moderate Impact: Minor project as defined by the URMP and located in the CRA.
Minor Impact: Minor project as defined by the URMP and located outside of the CRA.
1.4 REFRENCES
A. City of Aspen Construction and Mitigation Standards for Work in the Public
Rights-of-Way
B. City of Aspen Municipal Code Titles 13, 21, 26, 28 and 29
C. City of Aspen Ordinance 35
D. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways – Most recent
edition
E. Colorado Department of Public Safety General Permit Part IB
F. Colorado Department of Transportation M&S construction standards
G. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment – Air Pollution Control
Division
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION
2.1 DISTURBANCE AREA
The Plan shall describe and compute the total project disturbance area. Soil disturbance
shall be kept to a minimum. Construction staging and phasing shall occur, where
applicable, to minimize soil disturbance time.
2.2 LOCATION
A project vicinity map shall be included in the Plan. The map should accurately depict
P54
I.
02/18/2015
general project location within the City of Aspen and also delineate project extents.
The map shall be a scaled drawing that includes a directional arrow and adjacent street
descriptions.
2.3 DESCRIPTION
The Plan shall include an overview of the construction project including background
information, proposed development type and general information. The proposed effect
on public utilities such as storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, etc. should also be
described.
3.0 PROJECT DOCUMENTATION
3.1 PERMITS / OTHER DOCUMENTS
The contractor shall maintain all applicable local, state and federal licenses and permits
that apply to the construction project. Applicable permits shall be listed, described and
copies of the documents shall be attached in Plan appendices. In addition to permits all
PUD’s, Subdivision Improvement Agreements, and Related City Ordinances must also
be attached in the Plan appendices.
3.2 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
A project update shall be provided to the public on a basis no less than monthly, via
website, newspaper, on-site notices, or other accepted means of notification (per request
of the City of Aspen). The first public notification shall occur no later than 10
days prior to construction. The update shall include a description of the current project
phase, list any traffic and/or pedestrian concerns, and describe hauling/staging
operations.
The above notification shall specifically be distributed to neighbors located within 300
feet of the project property.
The Plan shall designate a project representative, date, and time for a required
preconstruction meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the project and
summarize the project specific Construction Management Plan. The contractor and
subcontractors are required to attend the meeting. Utility personnel, applicable City
departments, the Roaring Fork Transit Authority, neighboring property owners, and the
Aspen School District shall also be notified.
3.3 PROJECT SIGN
A project sign shall be constructed and posted that includes the items shown in
Appendix A: Required Construction Sign.
P55
I.
02/18/2015
The sign shall be posted in a location where it is readable from the street or driveway
and shall meet criteria in City Municipal Code 26.510.030B4.
3.4 CONTACT DESIGNATION
The Plan shall have a contact list with associated phone numbers located at the front of
the document. The list will include: the owner, contractor appointed overall site
supervisor, a state certified safety officer, a state certified traffic control officer, and a
state certified erosion control representative.
Other information shall include city and county phone numbers, fire department, police
department, Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA), school district, and all applicable
utility company contact information. The contact list should include hospital contact
information and the Emergency 911 reminder.
4.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 DATES OF CONSTRUCTION
Dates of construction shall be specified in the Plan. Any work being performed
within City ROW shall be completed as per the City of Aspen Right of Way permit
requirements.
4.2 HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION
Construction hours shall be limited to 7:30am – 5:30pm Monday through Friday and 9am
– 5pm on Saturday. No construction is permitted on Sundays, 4th of July day and/or
weekend if it falls on a Friday or Monday, Memorial Day and Labor Day weekends,
Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Years Day.
During Presidents Day and during the Christmas week (12/26-12/31):
• projects located in the Central Resort Area (CRA) are not permitted to work on
any exterior elements, however interior work may be permitted with prior
approval.
• projects outside the CRA will be permitted to work.
During the Christmas week (12/26-12/31):
• projects located in the Central Resort Area (CRA) are not permitted to work on
any exterior elements, however interior work may be permitted with prior
approval.
• projects outside the CRA will be permitted to work.
During Holiday Season:
Holiday Season is defined as the days of the week leading up to Christmas until
New Year’s Day. For example if Christmas falls on a Wednesday, Holiday Season
P56
I.
02/18/2015
is defined as that Monday (the 23rd ) through the next Wednesday (the 1st). If
Christmas falls on a Thursday, Holiday Season is defined as two weeks the
Monday (the 21st ) Through the next Thursday (the 1st).
projects located in the Core are not permitted to work on any exterior elements,
however interior work will be permitted.
During the Food & Wine Festival in June (Friday thru Saturday):
• projects located in the Central Resort Area (CRA) are not permitted to
work projects outside the CRA will be permitted to work.
The CRA area and Core is defined in Appendix F.
Specific indoor activities during restricted periods may be permitted with approval
from the City of Aspen Engineering Department; specific conditions will be applied
to each project separately. During the off-season 24 hour a day interior work may be
permitted within the CRA, the applicant must present a work plan to the City of
Aspen Engineering Department and the plan must be approved prior to working
outside of the normal construction hours.
Additional restrictions on construction hours and encroachments will be applied for Aspen
Special Events. Examples of events that will require additional restrictions include the USA
Pro Cycling Challenge and the Farmer’s Market.
Additional restrictions on construction hours will also be applied based on the project’s
specific impacts on adjoining properties. this can include limiting work during sales events,
maintaining site lines to these businesses, adjusting work hours to accommodate adjacent
retail stores, lodges and restaurants. For example, if an adjoining business has an event
(such as a semi annual sale) the project will accommodate this adjoining business to ensure
the construction activities do no adversely affect that business’s event.
All activity that generates noise in excess of 80 decibels requires a noise
suppression plan and is restricted to operating between the hours of 9am and 5pm
Monday through Friday.
4.3 SEQUENCE (PHASING) OF CONSTRUCTION
A construction schedule including all project phasing, with item details, and
specific item completion dates or duration of phasing is required.
4.4 ADJOINING PROPERTIES
No person shall excavate on land close enough to a property line to endanger any adjacent
public street, sidewalk, and alley, other public or private property, or easement, without
supporting and protecting the property from any damage that might result from construction
operations.
P57
I.
02/18/2015
Additionally the project must identify which adjoining properties will be most affected by
the project and how the project intends on mitigating the impacts to those properties. This
includes identifying adjacent businesses and understanding what events (such as sale
events) and programs that business has scheduled throughout the year. The project will be
required to work with the adjoining properties to mitigate impacts to their events and
programs. This also includes maintaining sight lines to adjacent businesses.
Lastly the needs of adjoining construction projects must not be compromised.
4.5 PROJECT FENCING
All construction areas shall have a non-removable construction fence or other approved
device securely placed around the areas to be protected. The fence shall be six feet (6') in
height and constructed out of chain-link fence with mesh windscreens (visual barriers). The
type and look of fencing must be approved by the Engineering Department. Please see
Section 11 for fencing noise suppression techniques.
4.6 PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
All construction projects located within the City of Aspen shall uphold utmost respect
to public health and welfare and be reflected in prepared Plan.
4.7 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Project construction shall be oriented to minimize harm to all aspects of the City of
Aspen’s natural environment. All tree and natural resource protection measures must be
identified in the Plan and in place prior to the commencement of any construction or
demolition activities. Refer to section 13.20.020b of the Municipal Code for tree
protection and removal requirements and process.
The Plan must contain a site map showing exact tree protection fence location and
accurate tree driplines (refer to Section 1.3 for dripline definition).
Proposed projects should be consistent with the character of existing land use in the
surrounding area.
5.0 SITE AND RIGHT OF WAY PARKING MANAGEMENT
5.1 RIGHT OF WAYPARKING MANAGEMENT PLANFORM
A Parking Plan outlining the use the of the Right-of-way (ROW) must be submitted as part
of the CMP. requested, specified and submitted as part of the CMP. This plan will identify
P58
I.
02/18/2015
areas of encroachments including the use of parking spaces for the project. The use of the
ROW will be limited according to the requirements outlined in Section 5.6.
5.2 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AND ORDINANCE 35
The contractor shall maintain continuous emergency vehicle access, on and around site,
including but not limited to police, fire, and ambulance services. This includes projects
adjacent to roads and alleys.
All Plans shall include a copy and show compliance with Ordinance 35.
5.3 CONSTRUCTION PARKING DETAILS
Specific construction parking spaces/areas may be requested for use by craftsman,
subcontractors, and contractors involved in the site construction process. Prior to the City
allowing for construction parking spaces, the project must demonstrate that it has
minimized the amount of vehicles traveling to the site. This will be demonstrated through
Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Plan. A sites TDM plan must include the following:
Minor Impact – Select one or more of the following
Moderate Impact – Select two or more of the following
Major Impact – Select three or more of the following
Project-Sponsored Vanpool - Employer-sponsored vanpool programs entail an
employer purchasing or leasing vans for employee use, and subsidizing the cost of
program operations and administration. The driver usually receives personal use of
the van, often for a mileage fee. Scheduling is within the employer’s purview, and
rider charges are normally set on the basis of vehicle and operating cost. The
successful project will implement an employer-sponsored vanpool, thus reducing
the need for SOV trips to and from the worksite. Note: To receive credit, project
staff must park and be picked up no further up valley than the Brush Creek Intercept
Lot. Enforcement: A vanpool route and schedule should be submitted as part of the
CMP. Staff may audit the route to ensure its presence.
Project Shuttle - Offering employees a customized trip to work via private shuttle
reduces the need for SOV trips. The successful project will provide a convenient,
regularly scheduled employee shuttle from a Park & Ride, Intercept lot or other
identified pick up points to the worksite. To receive credit, project staff must park
and be picked up no further up valley than the Brush Creek Intercept Lot.
Enforcement: A shuttle route and schedule should be submitted as part of the CMP.
Staff may audit the route to ensure its presence.
P59
I.
02/18/2015
Carpool Program – The successful project will require employees to form carpool
groups of two or more adults to reach the worksite. To receive credit, carpools
should originate no further up valley than the Brush Creek Intercept Lot.
Enforcement: carpool passes should be kept may be requested.
Transit Fare Subsidy - The successful project will provide fully subsidized daily or
monthly public transit passes for the RFTA valley system. Enforcement: Records of
the purchase and subsidies must be kept and may be requested.
Parking Cash-out - The term cash-out is used to describe the provision of employee
choice of forgoing their current subsidized/free parking for a cash payment
equivalent to the cost of the parking space. The successful project will require
provide no free parking for workforce and will provide a cash subsidy to those who
in Aspen City limits via transit, vanpool, bicycle or walk modes. Enforcement:
records of the parking cash out must be kept and may be requested.
Customized Program – This option allows for the project to propose a measure not
listed above. If this option is chosen, a narrative should appear below and must
include the following information for staff review:
*description of measure
*justification of measure
*route and schedule if applicable
*enforcement options
After demonstrating that the project has minimized the amount of vehicles traveling to the
site, through the use of a TDM,T the City will allows minimal onsite parking with public
transportation as the preferred method of transportation. Transportation options may include,
but are not limited to carpool, vanpool, public transportation, paid shuttle for transporting
workers to the site, etc.
No construction parking will be permitted within the free two-hour residential parking areas
without a valid permit.
5.4 STAGING AREAS
The Plan shall specify construction staging area locations. Alleyways are preferred short
term staging locations without blocking access to neighboring properties. The number
of truckloads expected to and from the site should be estimated (including soil hauling
and materials transport). The timing and duration of the transport vehicles should also
be noted.
City of Aspen personnel can limit project staging locations, number of trucks, and
duration of operations depending on project location and site surroundings.
P60
I.
02/18/2015
Projects that require crane operations and have little or no setbacks are required to use a
tower crane. The City prefers electric type cranes to reduce noise and fumes.
Right-of-Way encroachments are used as a last resort in all cases. In the case where a
ROW encroachment occurs, a permit must be obtained from the City Engineering
Department. Refer to Section 5.6 for limitations on the use of the ROW.
5.5 RIGHT OF WAY LIMITATIONS
a. The following activities may require the use of the ROW:
Temporary construction of guardrail, pedestrian walkways, scaffolds, protective
canopies, etc..
Temporary storage of materials, merchandise, commodities, construction materials,
etc..
Park or stage and operate construction equipment, crane, bulldozer, skid steer, etc..
Temporary placement of a field office, dumpster, loose material container, or
construction fencing
Earth retention methods and associated removal
b. The requests for the use of the ROW (i.e. encroachments) are reviewed by the
Engineering Department. The follow factors are considered before granting any use of
the ROW:
Location: Depending on location, there will be limitations on the use of the ROW.
The core area in particular has on season restrictions. Refer to Section 5.6 (c).
Size: The encroachment must occupy as small a footprint as applicable and may not
affect safe lane widths or bus routes. Additionally the encroachment may not
interfere with City snow removal process. If lane closures are anticipated we
recommend that the applicant complete the work before 10am to lessen the impact.
Safety: The encroachment must accommodate pedestrians. Conflict between
pedestrians and construction traffic must be minimized. Additionally, all
encroachments shall ensure sight distances of 35 feet from the intersection. There
must be no overhead hazards (crane swing, etc...) and there must be adequate room
for Emergency Response.
Schedule: Aspen has many re-occurring special events scheduled throughout the
year. Some encroachments may be limited or not approved based on impacts to
these events. Holidays and special events that affect ROW closures in the core area
include, but may not be limited to: Food and Wine (mid June), USA Pro Cycling
Challenge (mid August), Saturday Farmer’s Market (mid June thru mid October),
Christmas Week and the July 4th Parade.
P61
I.
02/18/2015
Aesthetics: Consideration should be given to the aesthetics, public information, and
signage for adjacent businesses, site barricades, fencing, enclosed walkways etc. can
be more than barren plywood walls. Whether its artwork, information about the
project or for local businesses there is an opportunity to minimize the aesthetic
impact.
c. Limitations for Encroachment Zones: There are seasonal limitations for temporary
encroachments (refer to Attachment G for zone designations). These limitations include
the following:
i. Red Zone: Five foot encroachment allowed on the mall during the on
season. For areas abutting a street, a 15 foot encroachment will be
allowed during the on season. For corner lots, only one side of the
building will be permitted an encroachment during the on season. Sites
will be limited to one on season encroachment.
ii. Orange Zone: A fifteen foot encroachment will be allowed during the on
season. For corner lots, only one side of the building will be permitted an
encroachment during the on season. Sites will be limited to two on
season encroachments.
iii. Yellow Zone: A fifteen foot encroachment will be allowed during the on
season. For corner lots, only one side of the building will be permitted an
encroachment during the on season. Sites will be limited to three on
season encroachments.
iv. The City may allow for larger encroachments if the site can demonstrate
the benefits of doing so. For sites requesting larger encroachments they
must not only demonstrate the benefit to the City but also submit two
construction schedules one with the larger encroachment request and one
without.
d. On Season Time Frame: On seasons are defined as June 1st thru Labor Day and
November 15th thru March 31st.
5.6 CONSTRUCTION TRAILER, MATERIALS STORAGE, AND WASTE
MANAGEMENT
As specified in Section 5.1, construction trailer, job materials storage, portable
restrooms, waste management and recycling container locations shall be clearly
designated on the project site plan. Loose job material storage is not allowed in ROW
under any circumstance.
The City of Aspen Engineering Asset Management Department strongly recommends
job trailer, waste management containers, and portable restrooms be stored on private
property and not within City ROW.
P62
I.
02/18/2015
The City of Aspen requires recycling of construction materials. In instances where
recycling containers cannot be accommodated onsite, the City Engineering Department
will consider locating recycling containers within public ROW where feasible. The
encroachment permit fee will be waived if it pertains to recycling containers. If at any
time such a container is not being used for recycling operations, the property owner will
be responsible to pay at least three months calculated land lease fee.
The City of Aspen requires recycling of materials, both conventional and construction
related, according to this document and City of Aspen Municipal Code Title 12. A
waste management plan must be submitted to the City prior to beginning demolition or
construction. Recycling requirements included in this section do not supersede project
specific Efficient Building Program (EBP) requirements.
Project site conventional recycling of co-mingled materials (plastics #1-#7, tin,
aluminum, and glass), and cardboard must have an assigned space/area and be
separated on-site during the project. Sites must comply with Colorado and Aspen
landfill bans, i.e. no disposal of electronic waste, fluorescent light bulbs, hazardous
waste or yard waste. These materials may not be disposed of in the trash.
During the demolition phase of a project, deconstruction related activities are required
(recycling and/or salvaging of material such as wood products, drywall, flooring, etc.).
Concrete and scrap metals must be sorted and kept separate on-site and must have an
assigned space/area.
Field inspections will occur throughout the permit process. If sorting of materials is not
occurring onsite, other means of verification may be provided to City of Aspen as deemed
appropriate. Acceptable verifications include (but are not limited to) a receipt from the
recycling facility, an invoice from the company receiving the materials for
recycling/salvaging or other proof the materials are being repurposed or recycled.
Per municipal code (12.08.010), any dumpster or other trash receptacle that is used for
food refuse must be constructed in such a manner as to render it bear proof. All
containers shall be adequately covered at all times until transferred to the landfill. The
City of Aspen municipal code states it shall be unlawful to permit accumulated debris,
litter, or trash on any construction site to blow or scatter onto adjoining properties
(12.04.020).
An onsite hazardous material spill cleanup kit is required, as specified by the City
Engineer, that contains, at a minimum, a 25 pound bag of Floor-Dri (or equal),
absorbent pads, and other spill kit materials.
6.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL
6.1 GENERAL
P63
I.
02/18/2015
All traffic control operations shall be managed by the designated certified traffic
control supervisor.
6.2 HAUL ROUTES
The City of Aspen has designated specific project haul roads throughout the City
(Appendix C). The project must follow the designated routes and specify any
additional routes necessary to complete hauling operations. Project haul routes shall be
oriented to minimize traffic congestion and maximize pedestrian safety.
6.3 ONSITE VEHICLE LIMITATIONS
All construction related vehicle activities shall be defined. Maximum vehicle weights
and sizes shall be specified.
6.4 DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS
Traffic control required for deliveries must be fully coordinated with the City of Aspen
Engineering Department. Roads will not be closed under any circumstances, unless
granted permission from the City of Aspen Engineering Department.
The maximum number of delivery vehicles onsite must be specified, along with the
hours the deliveries will occur, and any exceptions to the delivery schedule.
Delivery and Heavy Duty Vehicles must have a visible sign on the vehicle that
specifies the project contractors name and phone number.
Delivery vehicles and all other onsite vehicles are not allowed to idle for more than five
(5) minutes, with the exception of generators or PTO type operations. The general
contractor must include an idling policy in the Plan that meets City requirements.
6.5 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
A preliminary Traffic Control Plan (TCP) shall be submitted as part of the Construction
Management Plan if necessary to be determined by City Engineer. The TCP shall be
completed by a State Certified Traffic Control Supervisor and must conform to the
most current edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways (MUTCD). The TCP shall contain all information specified in Section
6C.01 of the MUTCD.
A School Traffic Control Plan should be submitted in addition to the TCP in school
areas according to Chapter 7A of the MUTCD. If the project is not located in a school
area, but abuts a school bus stop or school walk route, extra traffic control personnel and
devices shall be implemented to ensure school pedestrian safety.
P64
I.
02/18/2015
7.0 PEDISTRIAN PROTECTION
7.1 GENERAL
The Plan shall comply with pedestrian safety per City code 21.04.060, MUTCD
Chapter 6D, the Americans with Disability Act, and IBC Chapter 33.
7.2 LIMITATIONS
Sidewalk closures in the core will not be permitted. Pedestrians must be accommodated
without having to cross the street. Short duration closures in the core may be considered
during the off season.
8.0 SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL
8.1 REQUIREMENTS
A Stormw Water Management PlanPollution Prevention Plan shall be completed as
outlined in Appendix H.along with the CMP, according to Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment Water Quality Control Division General Permit Part
IB.
The main objective of the storm water management plan shall be to identify Best
Management Practices, which will minimize erosion and sediment transport.
In addition to the Colorado Discharge Service Permit (the program) requirements, the
following apply:
1. Stock piles must be protected with erosion control devices.
2. Mud tracking ramps (rock construction entrances) are required and
implemented per the most current version of the Colorado Department
of Transportation M&S construction standards.
3. Onsite concrete and tire washout stations are required. Location and
operation procedures shall be described in Plan.
4. City inlets, gutters, swales and irrigation ditches shall be protected
with erosion control devices and such projection maintained for the
duration of the project.
5. A description of procedures used to protect and maintain in good and
effective operating condition the erosion/sediment control measures
until final stabilization is required.
Onsite sediment and erosion control operations shall be managed by a state certified
erosion control supervisor. Please visit:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/New%20EPSC%20Requirments%202012.pdf
for more details related to the Stormwater Management Plan requirements.
P65
I.
02/18/2015
8.2 SMUGGLER MOUNTAIN RESTRICTIONS
All projects located within the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Zone (Appendix E) are
required to meet additional standards for erosion control measures and are required to
file an additional soil removal permit. These requirements shall be instituted on all
projects disturbing (excavating or exposing) more than one cubic yard of soil. All
projects located in the superfund site will also be required to handle disturbed and
excavated soils with an additional level of care.
1. A Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site Soil Removal Permit must be
completed prior to any soil disturbance in this area. (Appendix E)
2. All contaminated soils must be disposed of at a duly licensed and
authorized facility, usually the Pitkin County Landfill, and the
receiving location must be made aware of the contaminated nature of
the soils.
3. Soils must be contained and covered at all times unless actively being
worked. Working will be defined as moving, compacting, backfilling,
exposing, or grading the soils at least once in a sixty minute period. If
any stockpile of soil is to be left for more than sixty minutes it must
be contained and covered.
4. Containment and Covering is required. This can be accomplished
through the use of a non-permeable tarp placed below the stockpile
and the same type of material shall be used to cover the stockpile.
5. After completion of the project an uncontaminated soil cap will be
required. This cap shall consist of twelve inches of clean fill or
gravel. This can also be accomplished by paving the area with asphalt
or concrete.
6. In order to obtain a “clean letter” from the City of Aspen, which, will
be required prior to the release of the Certificate of Occupancy, all of
the above conditions must be met.
9.0 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
9.1 FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL PLAN
All projects that result in fugitive dust emissions must submit a fugitive dust control
plan and file an application for a construction permit with the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.
The approval of a Dust Prevention and Control Plan does not relieve the owner or
contractors of the responsibility to implement whatever additional measures may be
P66
I.
02/18/2015
required by the City Engineer to properly prevent and control dust.
9.2 REQUIREMENTS
The plan shall demonstrate that the discharge of dust from the construction site will not
occur, or can be controlled to an acceptable level depending on the particular site
conditions and circumstances.
1. The plan shall address site conditions during construction operations,
after normal working hours, and during various phases of construction.
2. The plan shall include the name and the 24 hour phone number of a
responsible party.
3. If the importing or exporting of dirt is necessary, the plan shall also
include the procedures necessary to keep the public streets and private
properties along the haul route free of dirt, dust, and other debris.
4. When an entire project is to be graded and the subsequent construction
on the site is to be completed in phases, the portion of the site not under
construction shall be treated with dust preventive substance or plant
materials and an irrigation system.
5. All phased projects shall submit a plan demonstrating that dust will not
be generated from future phase areas.
For all construction within the site, the contractor shall have a water truck available for
dust control. Wetting shall be completed once three times a day under dry conditions or
as directed by the City Construction Mitigation Officer.
Vehicle speeds should not exceed 15 mph on construction access roads and
construction site.
10.0 EMISSIONS
10.1 GENERAL
All vehicles and equipment used on site will be properly maintained such that the
engines will function within manufacture’s standards or parameters.
City of Aspen
10.2 EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL POWERED ENGINES
Emissions from diesel engines operated within the City of Aspen shall be of a shade or
density no darker than 40% opacity, except for starting motion no longer than 10
seconds or for stationary operation not exceeding 10 seconds.
11.0 NOISE SUPRESSION
P67
I.
02/18/2015
11.1 GENERAL
The noise limit for construction is 80 decibels measured at the property line of the
construction site. All construction equipment shall be adequately muffled and maintained
to minimize project noise. The installation of noise barriers is the minimum technique to
suppress noise, especially when jack hammering of concrete occurs.
11.2 NOISE SUPPRESSION PLAN
All activity that generates noise in excess of 80 decibels at the property line requires a
plan and is restricted to operating hours identified below. The plan will include
information on noise blocking methods, techniques, and common equipment and
activities that require noise suppression (Refer to Appendix D).
Major impact projects that include earth retention or include lot line development, are
required to have a sound engineer/consultant model the site plans and insert noise
sources and specify noise mitigation measures to see how noise levels will be reduced.
The models should show the anticipated noise levels at various locations surrounding
the project and can take into account a variety of proposed mitigation measures.
11.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR ACTIVITIES EXCEEDING 80 DECIBELS
1. Any work producing noise levels over 80 decibels is not permitted to
commence until after 9:00 am and is not permitted on Saturdays. That
includes but not limited to the use of compressors, generators,
jackhammers, power equipment, nail guns, drilling machinery, earth
moving equipment and similar loud construction activities. This does
not restrict quiet work inside and outside that does not require a power
source, including a battery, on Saturday.
2. Notify neighbors within two hundred fifty (300) feet of the project
informing them of the kinds of equipment, expected noise levels and
durations of loud work. Including the variation of noise levels during a
typical construction days may be helpful. Such notification must be in
writing and be done seven (7) days prior to the starting time of the project.
Communication with neighbors can prevent complaints from arising, and
resolve concerns before there is a problem. Provide a phone number
where the foreman can be reached prior to the start of the job.
3. Operate equipment in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and
with all standard manufacturers’ mufflers and noise-reducing equipment in
use and in properly operating condition.
P68
I.
02/18/2015
4. Post notices to inform workers, including sub-contractors, about the
basic noise requirements, as well as specific noise restrictions, to the
project.
5. Install noise barriers around all equipment/activities specified in Table 1
of Appendix D Noise barriers not only significantly reduce construction
noise, but they also provide an extra benefit of “hiding” the noise
producing sources, thus increasing a neighbor’s tolerance.
6. Move portable loud equipment including generators, compressors, and
cement mixers to different sides of the property to reduce impacts on
individual neighbors.
7. The use of radios on the site before 8:00 am is not allowed.
11.4 Specific restrictions related to manufacturing on site.
Considering that some structures will require an increase in the level of manufacturing of
certain materials in order to complete the desired finish of the structure, additional
restrictions will be placed on those activities. The primary concern is that extending the
duration, for which neighbors are exposed to high levels of noise, could cause specific
unwanted responses. In order to reduce those risk factors to neighboring properties all
manufacturing efforts must be limited on site and when possible shall be conducted off
site, or in such a manner as to not contribute to any long term noise impacts off of the
property.
Manufacturing activities that are in excess of 80 decibels must be accompanied by an
Extended Impact Permit, this will require that the activity is enclosed completely and
limited to 90 days in duration. Air exchange / venting systems shall be installed or
otherwise supplied within the enclosure to provide a clean air source for laborers. The
enclosure must be constructed in a manner which prevents noise and dust from escaping.
This may be accomplished with the use of plastic sheeting to contain dust and a more
dense and rigid material (ply wood, foam insulation boards) erected to contain sound.
Noise levels will be measured at the property line, while facing the source of the sound,
and shall not exceed 65 decibels during working operations.
Activities will be considered manufacturing if alterations to a material that is readily
available on the market are made in order for the material to meet the needs of the
end user. An example of this would be masonry wall construction. If the all of the stone
was delivered as a rough cut product to the site, and each of the stones were to be cut
square and fit into place. In this example the stone cutting is considered the
manufacturing portion of the masonry wall, and should be conducted off site. This
would allow the stones to be cut square and to the appropriate dimensions and
additional work to fit the stones would be permitted on site.
All work which requires a limited amount of additional manufacturing to achieve the
P69
I.
02/18/2015
desired finish (including fitting) shall be conducted between 9am and 5pm, and shall have
an approved noise suppression plan on site, relating to the activity.
12.0 ENFORCEMENT
12.1 CITY CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION OFFICER
A City Construction Mitigation Officer shall be assigned to each construction project.
The City Construction Mitigation Officer will complete random site visits to determine
if the project is following approved Plan and City requirements. The officer is not
intended to take the place of a City of Aspen building inspector.
12.2 CORRECTIVE ACTION
The City of Aspen will enforce construction mitigation corrections as follows:
1. The first corrective action is a verbal warning and explanation of the
violation with a timeframe for completion.
2. The second corrective action is a written warning or correction notice
with timeframe for compliance.
3. Third and final notice is a “Stop Work Order” (red tag). If a stop work
order is issued, no more work can be completed until the violation is
corrected.
4. The City may forgo steps one and two as outlined above and go directly to
the “Stop Work Order” and or a summons and compliant may be issued
for violations under the following circumstances:
Work without a permit
Work that is endangering Public Safety
Work that is endangering Public Health including work that may affect
water quality.
Work on holidays or Sundays (unless the site received an exemption to
work during these times)
The owner and general contractor are responsible for assuring compliance and both will
be charged by summons and complaint in municipal court when necessary. This applies
even if a sub contractor violates the construction mitigation rules,
Failure to correct violations and/or any threat to public safety could subject the owner,
contractor or both to a maximum penalty of up to a year in jail and/or a fine of up to
$2,650 for each violation. Each day a violation continues is a separate offense fine of
$1000 a day as determined by the municipal court.
12.3 INSPECTION REPORTS
P70
I.
02/18/2015
The Construction Mitigation Officer will complete construction inspection reports. All
reports are public and will be kept in the City Engineering Asset Management
Department.
13.0 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION COMMITTEE
Projects seeking exemptions may seek an exemption from project durations, number of
encroachments and noise. These exemptions will be reviewed by the Construction
Mitigation Committee. The committee consists of representatives from the Engineering,
Parking and Building departments. If an exemption is granted then the project will be
subject to the exemption fees as outlined in Title 2.
Considerations for exemptions include impact of exemption on adjacent properties,
duration of exemption and season that exemption is being requested.
P71
I.
PROJECT
NAME
BUILDING PERMIT #
General Contractor Name
General Contractor Contact
Contact Phone#
Emergency Phone#
24 Hour Emergency Contact #
(SIGN NEEDS TO BE GREEN IN COLOR)
Appendix A
P72
I.
CITY OF ASPEN
APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION PARKING SPACES
BUILDING PERMIT#_____________________ PARKING PERMIT#___________________
Applicant to complete following information:
Project Address
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Owner’s Name Owner’s Mailing Address Zip Owner’s Phone
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Owner’s Authorized Agent Agent’s Mailing Address Zip Agent’s Phone
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contractor Contractor’s Address Zip Contractor’s Phone
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Architect / Engineer of Record Mailing Address Zip Phone
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
E-Mail Contact for Applicant Description of Work
____________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________
Number of Street Parking Spaces Begin Date End Date Number of Days
_____________________________ ___________________ ______________________ ____________________________
______________________________________ _____________________________________________ ______________
Owner / Agent’s Printed Name Owner / Agent’s Signature Date
For Office Use Only
Parking Fees ($10 Out-Core $25 In-Core/space/day)
No. of Spaces x No. of Days x rate
Total: $
Commercial Core Map Attached
Provide one copy of a job site plan showing the following information (where applicable):
1. Location for all job site related vehicles, including number and exact location of requested street parking
spaces.
2. Emergency access route allowing emergency vehicle access to the structure(s)
Construction related vehicles are excluded from the signed 2-Hour Free Parking areas in Aspen’s residential
parking zones. Construction related vehicles will only be considered in compliance if parked in the leased
construction parking spaces/area(s) or displaying a valid street permit. All other vehicles will be considered in
violation. All construction staging and construction parking shall be confined to the areas defined in an approved
plan for the job site. Workers shall be encouraged to carpool. Emergency access, as described in the approved plan
for the job site, shall at no time be blocked.
The construction project may be issued the use of specific parking areas for a portion/duration of the project for a
fee.
STAMP OF JUDGEMENT
City of Aspen - Engineering Department 970-920-5080 REVISED: 4/8/2009
P73
I.
E MAI
N
S
T
W MAI
N
S
T
E DUR
A
N
T
A
V
E
E HOP
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
GI
B
S
O
N
A
V
E
E COO
P
E
R
A
V
E
W HAL
L
A
M
S
T
W BLE
E
K
E
R
S
T
N T
H
I
R
D
S
T
S A
S
P
E
N
S
T
W FRA
N
C
I
S
S
T
N F
I
F
T
H
S
T
W HO
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
N M
I
L
L
S
T
NORTH
S
T
N S
I
X
T
H
S
T
W SM
U
G
G
L
E
R
S
T
N F
O
U
R
T
H
S
T
S M
O
N
A
R
C
H
S
T
P
A
R
K
A
V
E
S M
I
L
L
S
T
R
E
D
M
T
N
R
D
N F
I
R
S
T
S
T
S O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
S
T
LA
K
E
A
V
E
N S
E
C
O
N
D
S
T
S G
A
R
M
I
S
C
H
S
T
LO
N
E
P
I
N
E
R
D
O
A
K
L
N
S H
U
N
T
E
R
S
T
S W
E
S
T
E
N
D
S
T
E BLE
E
K
E
R
S
T
N S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
NEA
L
E
A
V
E
VINE ST
S F
I
R
S
T
S
T
S
H
A
D
Y
L
N
M
I
D
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
E HYM
A
N
A
V
E
S G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
GILLESPIE AVE
W HY
M
A
N
A
V
E
DEAN
S
T
KIN
G
S
T
RI
O
G
R
A
N
D
E
P
L
N
E
I
G
H
T
H
S
T
S
S
P
R
U
C
E
S
T
M
A
P
L
E
L
N
PAR
K
C
I
R
N G
A
R
M
I
S
C
H
S
T
RA
C
E
S
T
E HAL
L
A
M
S
T
WATE
R
S
A
V
E
N A
S
P
E
N
S
T
S T
H
I
R
D
S
T
N SPRUCE ST
T
E
A
L
C
T
A
J
A
X
A
V
E
N
I
C
H
O
L
A
S
L
N
W CO
O
P
E
R
A
V
E
JUAN S
T
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
W
Y
ASPEN MTN
R
D
P
U
P
P
Y
S
M
I
T
H
S
T
QUEEN ST
CL
E
V
E
L
A
N
D
S
T
L
A
C
E
T
L
N
FOUN
D
E
R
S
P
L
A
C
E
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
L
N
S R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
A
V
E
N S
E
V
E
N
T
H
S
T
PEARL CT
SOUTH AVE
SUMM
I
T
S
T
GILB
E
R
T
S
T
S F
I
F
T
H
S
T
S S
I
X
T
H
S
T
W NO
R
T
H
S
T
S F
O
U
R
T
H
S
T
S S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
N
R
I
V
E
R
S
I
D
E
A
V
E
S S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
DEAN S
T
S
G
A
L
E
N
A
S
T
N S
E
V
E
N
T
H
S
T
P
A
R
K
C
I
R
DEAN
S
T
S M
I
L
L
S
T
AS
P
E
N
M
T
N
R
D
Map prepared by Engineering and GIS Department
City of Aspen, CO 81611 May 4,2007
0 600300
Feet
Legend
Designated Heavy Haul Route
Roads
Parcels
City Boundary
OFFICIAL HEAVY HAUL ROUTE MAP
P
7
4
I
.
Revised 11/17/09
APPENDIX D
Noise Blocking Methods
Contractors shall require all subcontractors and vendors to use:
“Residential” grade combustion engine exhaust silencers
Electrical vs. pneumatic hand power tools
Hydraulic vs. air powered rock drills
“Silenced” pile drivers vs. Diesel pile drivers
Temporary Noise Barrier Materials:
Temporary barriers shall be constructed of 3/4-inch Medium Density Overlay (MDO) plywood
sheeting, or other material of equivalent utility and appearance having a surface weight of 2
pounds per square foot or greater. The temporary barriers shall be lined on one side with glass
fiber, mineral wool, or other similar noise curtain type noise-absorbing material at least 2-inches.
The materials used for temporary barriers shall be sufficient to last through the duration of the
construction project, and shall be maintained in good repair. Prefabricated acoustic barriers are
available from various vendors. An equivalent barrier design can be submitted in lieu of the
plywood barrier described above.
Noise Control:
Replace worn, loose, or unbalanced machine parts that cause vibration.
Keep machine parts well lubricated to reduce friction.
Acoustical enclosures and barriers around generators
Sound absorbing material and vibration isolation systems on hand tools
Shields, shrouds, or intake and exhaust mufflers.
Noise-deadening material to line hoppers, conveyor transfer points, storage bins, or
chutes.
Noise barriers using materials consistent with the Temporary Noise Barrier Materials
Section.
Noise curtains
Plywood with concrete blankets at the height of the equipment and that it surrounds
the activity such that it directs noise up more than out from the property.
Portable three sided enclosures made out of plywood to move with the activity such
as jack hammering.
Internal combustion engines are to be fitted with a suitable muffler in good repair.
Noisy equipment such as cement mixers should be placed on the site to maximize the
distance from neighboring houses and/or rotate location so as to not impact just one
neighbor. Noise levels drop quickly with distance from the source.
All equipment should be properly maintained, with special attention to mufflers and
other noise control devices.
P75
I.
Revised 11/17/09
Between work periods, builders are required by city ordinance to shut down machines
such as backhoes, bobcats, loaders and generators.
All vehicular movements to and from the site must only be made during the scheduled
normal working hours. This includes off-site noise that is associated with a specific
project such as staging of concrete trucks.
Equipment /
Activity
Noise Controls
Pile Driver Enclosure, muffler
Stone saw cutting Noise control pad with water
Handheld impact
drills
Reduction of reflected sound
Circular saw blades 15º tooth angle, new tooth configuration, slotted saw blades, viscoelastic
damping
Pneumatic tools Muffler
Pavement breaker/
Rock drill
Muffler, enclosure of cylinder case and front head, moil damping
Portable air
compressor
Muffler, acoustic enclosures
Bulldozer Bulldozer Cab-liner material, enclosure, sound absorption in canopy,
sealing of all openings
Wheeled loader Absorption of sound cooling air route
Vibratory roller Flexible mounting for pump compartment
Joint Cutter Anti-vibration mounting fixtures
Dropping From
Height (re-roofing)
When dropping materials from a height—for example, into or out of a
truck, or when loading or unloading scaffolding, noise suppression plans
require a chute or side baffles.
Genorators Acoustical enclosures and barriers surrounding equipment
Generators25 KVA:
The local power grid shall be used wherever feasible to limit generator
noise. No generators larger than 25 KVA shall be used and, where a
generator is necessary, it shall have maximum noise muffling capability.
Hand Tools Sound absorbing material and vibration isolation systems on hand tools
Dismantling
Formwork
use rubber mallets to erect and dismantle formwork
Backup Alarms
All equipment with backup alarms operated by the Contractor, vendors,
suppliers, and subcontractors on the construction site shall be equipped
with either audible self-adjusting ambient-sensitive backup alarms or
manually-adjustable alarms. The ambient-sensitive alarms shall
automatically adjust to a maximum of 5 dBA over the surrounding
P76
I.
Revised 11/17/09
background noise levels. The manually-adjustable alarms shall be set at
the lowest setting required to be audible above the surrounding noise.
Installation and use of the alarms shall be consistent with the performance
requirements of the current revisions of Society of Automotive
Engineering (SAE) J994, J1446, and OSHA regulations.
Compressors
The unit with the lowest noise rating which meets the requirements of the
job should be used where work is conducted in the City of Aspen,
installed with mufflers and/or enclosed in a noise barrier.
Jackhammer
All jackhammers and pavement breakers used on the construction site
shall have exhaust systems and mufflers that have been recommended by
the manufacturer as having the lowest associated noise and shall be
enclosed with shields or acoustical barrier enclosures.
Concrete crushers or
pavement saws
Pre-augur pile holes to reduce the duration of impact or vibratory pile
driving and tie to local power grid to reduce the use of generators and
shall be enclosed with shields or acoustical barrier enclosures.
Pneumatic hand
power tools
All pneumatic tools operated in the City of Aspen must be fitted with an
effective silencer on their air exhaust port.
P77
I.
Revised 11/17/09
TABLE 1
NOISE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT REQUIRING NOISE
SUPPRESSION PLANS
Equipment Category
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Chain Saw
Clam Shovel
Compressor (air)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Crane (mobile or stationary)
Dozer
Drill Rig
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator (more than 25 KVA)
Gradall
Grader
Horizontal Hydraulic Boring Jack
Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop)
Impact Wrench
Jackhammer*
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Rock Drill
Scraper
Scarifier
Slurry Machine
Vibratory Pile Driver
P78
I.
G
I
B
S
O
N
A
V
E
P
A
R
K
C
I
R
S
M
U
G
G
L
E
R
M
T
N
R
D
S
I
L
V
E
R
L
O
D
E
D
R
S
S
P
R
U
C
E
S
T
ALLEY
O
A
K
L
N
VINE ST
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
LON
E
P
I
N
E
R
D
KING
S
T
NEA
L
E
A
V
E
E MAIN S
T
M
A
P
L
E
L
N
R
A
C
E
S
T
SE
S
A
M
E
S
T
N SPRUCE ST
T
E
A
L
C
T
B
R
O
W
N
L
N
A
J
A
X
A
V
E
N
I
C
H
O
L
A
S
L
N
WIL
L
I
A
M
S
W
A
Y
W
A
L
N
U
T
S
T
QUEEN ST
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
L
N
W
I
L
L
I
A
M
S
R
A
N
C
H
D
R
SOUTH AVE
RIO
G
R
A
N
D
E
P
L
BAY ST
F
R
E
E
S
I
L
V
E
R
C
T
PARK
A
V
E
S
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
E FRANC
I
S
S
T
C
O
W
E
N
H
O
V
E
N
C
T
E BLEEK
E
R
S
T
MINER
S
T
R
A
I
L
R
D
MA
T
C
H
L
E
S
S
D
R
WI
L
L
I
A
M
S
R
A
N
C
H
C
T
OBERME
Y
E
R
P
L
A
C
E
D
R
RE
C
Y
C
L
E
C
I
R
B
R
E
N
D
A
N
C
T
N
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
T
ALLEY
2
1
2 4 6 8 97
1115
2327
87
4050
60
7080
10 121416 1820 22
15
13
11
100 709
725
800
202
600
900
500
700
400
300200
100
155
152150140134 130 124
120
112110106104102100
601501
601
515
210
208
540 566562
569565
532
536
546552
549 543
529
523 511
505
800
735733
729727
802
798
537
425
110
101
101
717
101102
100
101
625605
101
590
770
855
737727
730
720
735
925
500
414
131
200
100
401
450
774
632624119
631629
700
120 710
501
688
548555
541
530
520
512
509506707701
655
165
155
145 125 115
705
101
115
137
149
100110
120130
140
150160
420 410 400 390380 370360 340
320
300
280
260
240
220
200
427 415 395 387 373
355
337
313
295
277
253
235
217
201
210
110
424409
415
990
100
200
600
117
620
977973
932
932
114113
109111
115
117
119
905
920
930
925 935
936
981981
975
955
955 985988993 995
980
996998
950940
930
920
990980
935
931
927
910
925855
851 860
129
127125123121119117
115113111
109107105101
106108
110 112
114116118120122124126128130132 134
136
138
140
142
228
226224222220
218
216214212210208
206
204202
200
231229227225223221
219217215213211
209207205
303
328326
324
322320
318
316314
312310308306
305 307
309 311
313315317319
321 323
325
231
233
230
268
270
285
390375377
716 728433
445 470
606449
403 403
407
300
200
100
400
300
200
100
100
200
300
400
500
100
200
300
400
610
600
570560
548
534537
535 518
512533
511
155
155
155
155
1000
1300
559
1000
1040
1040
1400
1100
Smuggler Mountain Superfund SiteSoil Status - August 2008
0 175 35087.5 Feet
EPA Superfund Boundary
Structure
Soil Status
Cleaned or Remedied
Levels > 1000
For information regarding the Smuggler Mountain Superfund Site contact the City of Aspen (970-920-5039) orPitkin County Environmental Health andNatural Resources (970-920-5070).
P
7
9
I
.
Page 5 of 7
CRA and Core Map
P80
I.
P81
I.
Stormwater Management During Construction
The purpose of this chapter is to provide requirements and guidance for selecting and
implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will eliminate or reduce the discharge of
pollutants from construction and other land-disturbing activities to local waters. The City of
Aspen Engineering Department is the administrative authority for stormwater management and
erosion prevention and sediment control on construction sites within the City’s jurisdiction. By
policy, Aspen’s requirements for stormwater management during construction are consistent
with those of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s (CDPHE)
Construction General Permit. The CDPHE Construction General Permit requires a stormwater
management plan (SWMP) for development disturbing greater than one acre of land. However,
Aspen requires a Construction SWMP detailing pollution prevention and erosion prevention
and sediment control measures to be installed for projects that exceed 1000 square feet of
soil disturbance, not just those that disturb greater than one acre. Wherever the City of Aspen
and the CDHPE Construction General Permit requirements are in conflict, the more restrictive
requirements should be applied.
The regulations and guidelines stated in this chapter incorporate information from a variety of
sources including:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
State of Colorado/Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE),
Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD), and
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG).
It is important to understand that these regulations are subject to change and/or alterations. For
the most up to date copy please contact the City of Aspen Engineering Department.
1.1 PURPOSE
Some construction activities and materials have the potential to pollute our streams, rivers, and
lakes if transported during storms or snowmelt. When construction disturbs land, the soil is
more easily eroded during rainfall, snowmelt, and wind events. Eroded soil, referred to as
sediment, is the greatest pollutant to rivers in Colorado and Aspen. Sediment endangers water
resources by reducing water quality and causing the siltation of aquatic habitat for fish and other
desirable species. Other pollutants, such as petroleum products, metals, and nutrients, easily
attach to soil making sediment even more toxic. Eroded soil also necessitates the cleaning
and/or repair of sewers and ditches and the dredging of water bodies. Therefore clearing,
grading, and vehicle tracking during construction creates the need for erosion prevention and
sediment control on construction sites.
Pollutants other than sediment, such as concrete, solvents, oil, grease and metals, also cause
degradation of water quality in receiving streams, and therefore must also be prevented or
reduced through construction site stormwater management practices.
The City of Aspen requires compliance with the criteria in this chapter in order to
eliminate or reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff, and prohibits the
discharge of pollutants from construction sites to the City’s stormwater system. These
criteria should be followed from start of earth disturbance until final landscaping and stormwater
quality measures are effectively in place and accepted by the City. The goal of these
P82
I.
requirements is to decrease the amount of pollutants entering the stormwater system from
construction and other land disturbing activities.
The following erosion prevention, sediment control, and pollution prevention measures are
designed to safeguard persons, protect property, minimize water quality and other
environmental impacts, and promote the public welfare by guiding, regulating, and assisting the
design, construction, use, and maintenance of any development or activity which disturbs or
breaks the topsoil or results in the movement of earth on land greater than 1000 square
feet in the City of Aspen, Colorado.
1.11 General Requirements
A Construction Stormwater Management Plan (Construction SWMP) must be developed
before a project begins that identifies pollution prevention measures and erosion
prevention and sediment control (EPSC) measures that are appropriate for the actual site
conditions and construction plans for each site – generic plans will not be approved.
The Construction SWMP shall contain a narrative report as well as site plan maps for each
phase of the project. The appropriate schedule of implementation shall be identified as well as
detailed plans shown on plan sheets with appropriate contours for each phase of the project that
will minimize pollution, erosion, and sediment transport.
The Construction SWMP shall be submitted to the City of Aspen as part of the Construction
Mitigation Plan (CMP) and along with the grading and drainage plans in order to obtain a
building or landscape and grading permit. Plans for grading and erosion control should be
considered in the early stages of site planning and drainage design. The Construction SWMP
may have to be modified at the time a final site development plan is prepared in order to better
address the site conditions as the plan changes. This modified plan, the final Construction
SWMP, must be approved by the City of Aspen before ground-breaking activities can occur.
EPSC measures must be designed according to size, slope, and soil type of disturbed drainage
areas in order to prevent erosion and to capture sediment. Potential sources of pollution that
might affect quality of stormwater discharges from the site, and practices that will be
implemented to prevent that pollution, must be identified and described as part of the
Construction SWMP. In addition, sites discharging directly to waters of the state or the City’s
stormwater system might be required to meet stricter requirements as determined by the City
Engineer or City Stormwater Manager.
Implementation of the Construction SWMP (i.e., installation of measures) begins when
construction begins, before the initial clearing, grubbing, and grading operations, since these
activities can usually increase erosion potential on the site. Implementation and maintenance of
pollution prevention measures and EPSC measures are the responsibility of the permit holder
and the project/property owner. Because site conditions will affect the suitability and
effectiveness of pollution prevention and EPSC measures, the SWMP is a dynamic document
that should be referred to frequently, amended and updated as necessary, and kept on site
available for review by City of Aspen staff upon request . The City reserves the right to require
the permit holder and/or property owner to develop and implement additional measures to
prevent and control pollution as needed.
P83
I.
Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention for construction within the City of Aspen requires compliance with the
following criteria:
1. Develop Construction SWMP - The Construction SWMP must identify potential
sources of pollution that may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater
discharging from the site.
2. Practice Good Housekeeping - The Construction SWMP must describe standard
operating procedures and practices that will be implemented to prevent the release of
pollutants to the stormwater system from construction activities.
a. Perform activities in a manner to keep potential pollutants from coming into
contact with stormwater.
b. Prevent spills and leaks (i.e. hydraulic fluid from leaky vehicles or equipment)
c. Use phasing principals to limit areas of disturbance.
3. Contain Materials and Waste – Areas used for staging of construction activities and the
storage of soil, chemicals, petroleum-based products and waste materials, including
solid and liquid waste, shall be designed to prevent discharge of pollutants in the runoff
from the construction site.
a. Store construction, building, and waste materials in designated areas, protected
from rainfall and contact with stormwater run-on and runoff.
b. Dispose of all construction waste in designated areas (e.g. concrete may only be
disposed of in a designated concrete wash-out area), and keep stormwater from
flowing onto or off of these areas.
c. Properly clean and dispose of spilled materials.
4. Dewatering – If it is determined that site dewatering will be required, the permit holder /
and or property owner must obtain a Construction Dewatering Permit for the CDPHE
division of water resources.
Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control
Erosion prevention and sediment control for construction within the City of Aspen requires
compliance with the following criteria:
1. Develop Construction SWMP – The Construction SWMP plan must demonstrate how
stormwater, erosion, and sediment will be handled throughout construction.
2. Control Site Perimeter – Construction activities and their impacts must be controlled
within the limits of the site.
a. Delineate the site perimeter on the plans and in the field to prevent disturbing
areas outside of the project limits.
b. Divert upstream run-on safely around or through the construction project.
Diversions must not cause downstream property damage and cannot be diverted
into another watershed.
c. Construction vehicles and equipment may enter and exit the site at only one
designated access point. This exit must be stabilized with gravel or other
appropriate material throughout the duration of the project.
3. Minimize Disturbed Areas – Construction activities must be scheduled in correct
sequences to minimize the total amount of exposed soil at any given time.
a. Only clear land which will be actively under construction in the near term (e.g.
within the next 1-2 months).
b. Minimize new land disturbance during the spring runoff/snow melt season.
P84
I.
c. Avoid clearing or disturbing sensitive areas, such as steep slopes and natural
waterways, where site improvements will not be constructed or are not
necessary.
4. Stabilize Disturbed Areas – Disturbed areas must be permanently or temporarily
stabilized as soon as possible, but no later than 14 days after last worked, whenever
active construction is not occurring on that portion of the site. Disturbed areas must be
stabilized by November 15th of each year to minimize erosion and sediment transport
that occurs during spring snow melt.
5. Protect Slopes and Channels – Concentrated stormwater flows shall be avoided or the
conveyance system shall be protected sufficiently to prevent significant erosion.
a. Safely convey runoff from the top of the slope and stabilize disturbed slopes as
quickly as possible.
b. Avoid disturbing natural channels.
c. Ensure the runoff velocity caused by project does not erode channel bottoms.
6. Install and Maintain EPSC Measures – All sites must minimize pollution potential by
installing and maintaining erosion prevention and sediment control measures throughout
the duration of any project.
a. Erosion prevention measures are those BMPs used to limit erosion of soil from
disturbed areas on the site. Erosion prevention measures are required for all
disturbed areas. Examples include: Contour Tracking, Rolled Erosion Control
Products, Hydro Mulching and similar activities.
b. Sediment control measures are those BMPs the limit the transport of sediment
off-site or downstream of disturbed areas. Sediment control measures are
required for all disturbed areas. The most commonly used sediment containment
is silt fencing.
c. Use non-structural and structural best management practices (BMPs) described
in this chapter.
d. All sites must be inspected regularly by a representative from the project to
document the condition and effectiveness of BMPs.
7. Retain Sediment - Sediment control measures are required at all points where
stormwater leaves the site as concentrated flow and at any other points where sediment
has the potential to leave the site. Sediment-laden runoff will be considered a
violation of City of Aspen code and can receive fines up to $1000 per day that the
site is in violation.
Best Management Practices
Best Management Practices (BMPs) are activities or controls that are implemented to reduce
the potential of discharging pollutants to the stormwater system and include pollution prevention
measures and EPSC measures.
P85
I.
2.1 Permit and Construction Process
Step 1 – Develop Construction SWMP
The owner or the contractor should secure the services of a professional engineer
knowledgeable in construction management practices and the City of Aspen requirements for
stormwater management during construction to develop the Construction SWMP. The SWMP
must be submitted as a portion of the CMP along with the building permit application. The
Construction SWMP will be reviewed by the City and its comments will need to be addressed
before a building permit will be issued.
Projects that disturb greater than one acre of land will also need to apply for a Construction
General Permit with the CDPHE. This application also requires the submittal of a SWMP. The
Construction SWMP developed for the purposes of construction within the City of Aspen should
be adequate to submit with the Construction General Permit Application.
The Construction SWMP shall consist of a written narrative report and a site plan map
describing the erosion prevention and sediment control measures to be implemented at the site.
Narrative Report
The narrative report must contain, or refer to, the drainage report for the site and should contain,
at the minimum, the following:
1. Contact Information – The names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of
the project/property owner, the applicant or permit holder, the professional engineer
preparing the Construction SWMP, and the site person that will be responsible for
implementation of the Construction SWMP.
2. Project Description - A brief description of the nature and purpose of the land disturbing
activity, the total area of the site, the area of disturbance involved, and project location
including township, range, section, and quarter-section, or the latitude and longitude, of
the approximate center of the project.
3. Existing Site Conditions - A description of the existing topography, vegetation, and
drainage; and a description of any water bodies or conveyances on the site.
4. Downstream/Receiving Waters - Identification of the stormwater system downstream of
the site including the receiving water body (e.g. Roaring Fork River).
5. Adjacent Areas - A description of neighboring areas including streams, lakes, residential
areas, roads, etc., which might be affected by the land disturbance.
6. Soils - A brief description of the soils on the site including information on soil type and
character.
7. Historic Conditions – Areas of historic contamination (natural, mining, industrial or
agricultural) should be described.
8. Areas and Volumes - An estimate of the quantity (in cubic yards) of excavation and fill
involved, and the surface area (in square feet and acres) of the proposed disturbance.
9. Pollution Prevention Measures – A description of the potential sources of pollution from
construction activities and materials and the methods described in this chapter which will
be used to prevent pollution to the stormwater system. Descriptions
10. Timing of Construction Activity – A schedule indicating the anticipated starting and
completion time periods of the site grading and/or construction sequence, including the
installation and removal time periods of erosion and sediment control measures, and the
time of exposure of each area prior to the installation of temporary EPSC measures.
P86
I.
11. EPSC Measures - A description of the methods described in this chapter which will be
used to prevent erosion and control sediment on the site. Descriptions must be site
specific. Generic or general statements are not acceptable.
12. Permanent Stabilization - A brief description, including specifications and the
landscaping plan, of how the site will be stabilized after construction is completed.
13. Stormwater Management Considerations – A description of how stormwater runoff from
and through the site will be handled during construction. Provide a brief description of
the post-construction stormwater quality control measures to be included as a part of the
site development.
14. Inspection and Maintenance - A description of how each EPSC and pollution prevention
measure will be maintained and a statement that the site will be inspected at least once
every 14 calendar days and 24 hours before / after forecasted storm events to determine
SWMP accuracy and effectiveness; proper installation, location, and condition of EPSC
measures; and implementation of construction activity pollution prevention measures. An
alternative of inspecting every 7 calendar days regardless of precipitation events or
forecasts may also be used. Inspection and maintenance reports should be completed
and kept on site following each inspection and made available to City of Aspen staff
upon request. Any loss of sediment from the site should be noted and kept in file with
these reports, including date and estimated amount of sediment loss and what activities
were performed to ensure that sediment loss would not occur again.
15. Calculations - Any calculations made for the design of such items as sediment basins,
diversions, or waterways; and calculations for runoff and stormwater detention basin
design (if applicable).
16. Other information or data as may be reasonably required by the City of Aspen.
17. The following note - "This Construction Stormwater Management Plan has been placed
in the City of Aspen file for this project, and appears to fulfill the City of Aspen criteria for
the management of construction activities and associated erosion and sedimentation
controls. I understand that additional control measures may be needed if unforeseen
pollutant transport problems are determined by City of Aspen to occur during this project
or if the submitted plan does not function as intended. The requirements of this plan
shall run with the land and be the obligation of the owner until such time as the project
covered by this plan is properly completed, modified or voided."
18. Signature page for owner/developer acknowledging the review and acceptance of
responsibility, a statement by the Professional Engineer acknowledging responsibility for
the preparation of the SWMP, and a signature of the site representative that will be
responsible for implementation of the SWMP in the field acknowledging that they have
reviewed and agree to implement and maintain the proposed measures as designed or
altered as necessary while meeting the intent of the design.
Site Plan
A plan sheet(s) size 24”x36” that shows the location of erosion prevention and sediment control
measures with appropriate contours for each phase of the project must be submitted in addition
to the narrative report. The site plan(s) must show:
1. A general location map at a scale of 1-inch to 1,000-feet to 1-inch to 8,000-feet
indicating the general vicinity of the site location.
2. The property lines for the site on which the work will be performed.
3. The construction SWMP at a scale of 1-inch to 20-feet up to 1-inch to 200-feet with
separate sheets for each phase of site development construction.
4. Existing topography at one- or two-foot contour intervals. The map should extend a
minimum of 100-feet beyond the property line or beyond the project’s soil disturbance
limits, whichever is larger.
P87
I.
5. Proposed topography at one- or two-foot contour intervals. The map should show
elevations, dimensions, location, extent and the slope of all proposed grading, including
building site and driveway grades.
6. Delineation of the entire area draining to the site, drainage areas within the site,
and discharge points from each drainage area.
7. Location of all existing structures and hydrologic features on the site.
8. Location of all structures and natural features on the land adjacent to the site and within
a minimum of 100 feet of the site boundary line.
9. Delineation of trees and natural feature conservation areas such as steep slopes or
natural channels.
10. Location of the storm sewer, street gutter, channel or other waters receiving storm runoff
from the site.
11. Location of all proposed structures including drainage features, paved areas, retaining
walls, cribbing, plantings and development for the site.
12. Limits of clearing and grading.
13. Location of construction entrance/exit.
14. Location of soil stockpiles - Areas designated for topsoil and subsoil storage.
15. Location of storage equipment maintenance and temporary disposal areas - Areas
designated for equipment, fuel, lubricants, chemicals and all temporary construction
waste storage. All these areas shall be cleaned out and reclaimed at end of project and
waste disposed at legal disposal sites.
16. Location of designated concrete washout and a statement that concrete washout must
occur within this location or hauled back to the batch plant.
17. Location of temporary roads designated for use during the construction period.
18. Location of temporary and permanent soil erosion control measures and sediment
control measures. Depict all EPSC measures using the standard map symbols given in
Figure C1-1. If the project will experience several phases of construction, a plan sheet
must be submitted for each phase with the appropriate contours and EPSC measures
depicted on the plan for that phase.
19. Detail drawings and specifications - Design drawings and specifications for erosion and
sediment controls, temporary diversions and all other practices used for each phase of
site development.
20. Other information or data as may be reasonably required by the City.
21. The following note: "This Construction Stormwater Management Plan has been placed in
the City of Aspen file for this project and appears to fulfill applicable erosion control and
construction management criteria. I understand that additional measures may be
required of the owner due to unforeseen erosion, sediment or other pollutant transport
off the site or if the submitted plan does not function as intended. The requirements of
this plan shall run with the land and be the obligation of the owner until such time as the
project covered by this plan is properly completed, modified or voided".
19. Signature block for owner/developer acknowledging the review and acceptance of
responsibility, a signed and stamped statement by the Professional Engineer
acknowledging responsibility for the preparation of the SWMP, and a signature of the
site representative that will be responsible for implementation of the SWMP in the field.
Should the field representative change, this block should be updated with a signature of
the current site representative that will be responsible for implementation of the SWMP.
P88
I.
Step 2 – Approval of Construction SWMP
The Construction SWMP must be approved prior to issuance of a Building Permit by the City.
The final SWMP must be consistent with a Drainage Report accepted by the City of Aspen
Engineering Department. However, approval of the SWMP does not imply acceptance or
approval of Drainage Plans, Utility Plans, Street or Road Plans, Design of Retaining Walls or
any other aspect of site development.
2.2.1 Exemptions and Variances
These are generally processed according to the applicable municipal regulations and reviewed
on a case-by-case basis.
1. Exemptions from the erosion control planning process may be considered for any of the
following by the local jurisdiction if their MS4 permit so allows; however, exempting the owner
from the preparation and submittal of a SWMP and/or from applying for a grading permit does
not exempt the owner from controlling erosion and sediment movement off the construction site:
a. Agricultural use of land.
b. Grading or an excavation below finished grade for basements, footings, retaining walls, or
other structures on single family lots not a part of a larger development or redevelopment
project and disturbing a total land surface of less than one (1) acre in size unless required
otherwise by local jurisdiction.
c. A sidewalk or driveway authorized by a valid permit.
d. Land-disturbing activities involving less than a total of one (1) acre of disturbed area.
Individual lots involving less than one (1) acre of disturbed area in a larger land use change
project shall not be considered separate development projects, but rather as a part of the
subdivision development as a whole and are not eligible for an exemption. It will be the
responsibility of the homeowner or homebuilder to conform to all requirements of the locally-
approved SWMP for the development or redevelopment. As part of any Building Permit within a
larger development for which an individual erosion control plan is not required, it is
recommended the following statement be included: "We have reviewed the Construction Storm
Water Management Plan for (subdivision name) and agree to conform to all requirements
contained therein and all erosion control requirements of the (insert name of municipality) and
the State of Colorado. We further agree to construct and maintain all erosion and sediment
control measures required on the individual lot(s) subject to this Building Permit and/or in
accordance with the provisions of the Construction Best Management Practices chapter of the
Manual published by the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District."
e. Underground utility construction including the installation, maintenance and repair of all
utilities under hard-surfaced roads, streets or sidewalks provided such land-disturbing activity is
confined to the area which is hard-surfaced and provided that runoff and erosion from soil
stockpiles are confined and will not enter the drainage system.
f. Gravel, sand, dirt or topsoil removal as authorized pursuant to approval of the Colorado Mined
Land Reclamation Board, provided said approval includes a construction activities
management, erosion and sediment control plan that meets the minimums specified.
g. Projects having a period of exposure (from time of land disturbance until permanent erosion
control measures are installed) of less than 14 days.
h. Where the owner certifies in writing to the City of Aspen and the City of Aspen agrees in
writing that the planned work and the final structures or topographical changes will not result in,
or contribute to, soil erosion or sediment discharges to any waterway or irrigation ditch and will
not interfere with any existing drainage course or waterway in such a manner as to cause
damage to any adjacent property, or result in the deposition of debris or sediment on any public
right-of-way, will not present any hazard to any persons or property, and will have no
detrimental influence upon the public welfare, or upon other properties in the watershed.
P89
I.
2. Variances – The City of Aspen may consider waiving or modifying any of the criteria which
are deemed inappropriate or too restrictive for site conditions by granting a variance, provided
such variance does not violate the laws of the State of Colorado or the Federal government.
Variances may be granted at the time of plan submission or request for plan revision. Variances
must be requested in accordance with the subdivision regulations and must define:
a. The criteria from which the applicant seeks a variance.
b. The justification for not complying with the criteria.
c. Alternate criteria or standard measures to be used in lieu of these criteria. The criteria and
practices specified within this section of the Manual relate to the application of specific erosion
and sediment control practices. Other practices or modifications to specified practices may be
used if approved by the municipality prior to installation. Such practices must be thoroughly
described and detailed to the satisfaction of the local municipality reviewing and approving the
erosion control plan. To expedite the review and decisions on variance requests, it is suggested
that a variance request be included with, or submitted prior to, the initial SWMP submittal.
Step 3 – Project Construction – Installation, Maintenance, and Inspections
During the construction phase, the following sequence is recommended for the implementation
of the project and the SWMP:
1. During preparation of the Construction SWMP, the contractor designated a manager for the
implementation of the SWMP. This person will be responsible for implementing all permit
conditions and will communicate with City inspectors and inspectors from other agencies.
2. Install all BMPs shown on the SWMP that need to be installed in advance of proceeding with
construction, such as construction fencing and limits of disturbance, tree and other natural area
protections, construction exits, silt fences, inlet protection, etc.
3. Identify construction equipment and materials storage and maintenance areas and install
BMPs to prevent pollutant migration from them.
4. Notify the City that the site is ready for initial inspection.
5. Install any additional BMPs that are called for in the SWMP before grading begins.
a. Strip off and stockpile topsoil for reuse. Insure that soil stockpile is not located in a
drainage path, downhill of a significant drainage area, is protected from erosion and dust
migration, and that a sediment control measure is located downstream.
b. Mulch areas that will remain undisturbed for more than two weeks during the April
through September rainstorm season (e.g., stockpiles and overlot graded areas that will
remain dormant for extended period of time), or for more than a month during the
October through March period.
c. Insure that BMPs that need to be installed at different times during the project are
installed when called for in the SWMP or by the City’s inspector and are in full operation
before construction activities begin in areas served by them.
P90
I.
d. Inspections by site Supervisor / Professional Engineer
e. Inspections by City will occur regularly to inspect for general compliance with the
approved plan.
f. Maintenance by the permit holder / and or property owner is required for all BMP’s
regardless of the stage of construction.
g. Maintenance time frame from City
h. Enforcement from City will occur at any time when a permit holder / and or property
owner is in violation of the SWWP. Enforcement will escalate from verbal notices of
corrective actions to stop work orders based on the number of violations or the severity
of any one single violation.
Step 4 – Project Completion – Stabilization, Re-vegetation, and CO
Re-vegetate the site as called for in the SWMP.
1. After all work has been completed in an area
a. including stabilization and re-vegetation,
b. clean out and restore any post construction BMPs that may have been used for
construction sediment controls.
After all work has been completed on site, prepare the site for a CO inspection by the City and
arrange for this inspection by calling (970)920-5448. Correct all deficiencies and call for follow-
up inspection.
The owner or contractor needs to arrange for inspection by the local jurisdiction when the
vegetation has reached acceptable level of coverage and maturity. This could take months. In
the meantime, the owner or contractor need to inspect the site on a regular basis to determine if
there are deficiencies or damage that need to be addressed. The owner is responsible for the
performance of all erosion and sedimentation control installations until such time the site’s re-
vegetation is deemed acceptable and a written notice is provided to the owner by the local
jurisdiction.
Once re-vegetation has been accepted, request release of any surety, letters of credit or other
financial guarantees the local jurisdiction may have required the permit holder provide at the
time the permit is issued. A closure of the construction activities permit from the State should
also be pursued at this time.
P91
I.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : Garrett Sabourin, PE, Project Manager
THRU: Tyler Christoff, PE, Senior Project Manager
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
DATE OF MEMO: February 20, 2015
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2015
RE: Park and Brown Pedestrian Improvements: Refined Conceptual Design
____
SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding the Park and Brown Pedestrian Improvements
Project conceptual design. Staff recommends proceeding to construction of the improvements depicted
in the refined conceptual design. (See Attachment A)
BACKGROUND: The Park and Brown Pedestrian Improvements Project area is located along
Park Circle in the general vicinity of the intersection with Brown Lane. The project area was
previously identified on March 19, 2013 in the “City Wide 20 MPH” memo to city council as a street
having an 85th percentile speed of 31 MPH, and in need of an engineering study to identify
recommended traffic calming measures.
The City of Aspen contracted with DHM Design Corporation and SGM to provide engineering,
landscape architecture, and planning services for the Park Circle Improvement area. The design team
inventoried existing facilities, surveyed the corridor, completed a traffic analysis, developed project
objectives, and solicited input from the community to produce a refined conceptual design.
The project team used the project objectives and base data as guidance in developing three conceptual
alternatives. These concepts include pedestrian crossings, streetscape elements, traffic calming
measures, RFTA bus stop upgrades, and improved connectivity. The three alternatives were presented
during the public outreach phase to solicit feedback.
Significant alterations were made prior to the second public meeting due to a collective community
response to accomplish the project objectives with a low impact approach. The refined conceptual
design proposes an incremental approach comprised of two phases. The proposed two phase
implementation is designed to analyze the effectiveness of phase one in reducing speeds and
improving pedestrian safety before proposing additional infrastructure improvements. The conceptual
is representative of the project objectives, major stakeholder input, and the collective community
feedback received during the public process.
Staff’s public outreach has included:
P92
II.
Open house meetings on June 26th, 2014, and August 26th, 2014. Both meetings took
place at the NE corner of Park Circle and Brown Lane.
Conceptual exhibit, requesting input, mounted adjacent the RFTA bus stop at the
intersection of Park Circle and Brown Lane.
Online feedback using “Open City Hall” run by a third party administrator Peak
Democracy: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/community-Relations/Open-
City-Hall/
Solicited feedback from Owners Representative of the Centennial Development, and
Smuggler Run HOA. Smuggler Run HOA has not issued a formal response to date.
DISCUSSION:
Within the context of this project the following project objectives have been identified: (See
Attachment B)
1) Traffic Calming – Improve safety and comfort of pedestrians and cyclists by reducing vehicular
speeds while maintaining street function.
2) Pedestrian Safety – Improve safety for pedestrians by updating the roadway crossing
infrastructure and raising driver awareness for pedestrians.
3) Roadway – Improve pedestrian safety by directing pedestrians to the crossing infrastructure,
updating signage, and clearing visual obstructions for pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
4) Bicycles – Improve bicyclists’ safety by integrating Park Circle into the City of Aspen bicycle
network.
5) Community Priorities - Accomplish project objectives with a low impact approach. (See
Attachment E for a summary of public input).
The design team divided the corridor into five areas of distinct character which are in need of
improvements to meet the project objectives. Each zone was matched with a design solution to
address the specific needs of the area while maintaining a cohesive treatment for the entire corridor.
The following are areas within the corridor identified to meet the project’s goals. (See Attachment C
& D)
1) INTERSECTION/CROSSINGS
Opportunities: Develop a cohesive intersection to increase awareness and safety for pedestrians
through the implementation of traffic calming devices, pedestrian infrastructure, and removal of visual
obstructions.
Design Improvements: Improve pedestrian safety and visibility with the inclusion of a pedestrian
crossing on the west side of the intersection, clear sight lines on the NW and NE corner, pedestrian
crossing signage, and crosswalk striping. (Traffic Calming, Pedestrian Safety)
Discussion: The refined conceptual design proposes an incremental approach to accomplish the
project objectives associated with pedestrian safety and traffic calming. After completing Phase I of
P93
II.
construction the Engineering Department will complete a traffic analysis and additional public
outreach to determine if the project objectives have been attained. If the objectives have not been
attained, staff will return to council to request approval to complete Phase II improvements. Phase II
improvements include the addition of a raised crossing at Park Circle with storm sewer disturbance
implications.
2) SMUGGLER PARK
Opportunities: Clear sight lines for vehicular traffic and improve existing screening for tenants of
Smuggler Park. Improve pedestrian safety for users of Smuggler Park cut-through trail.
Design Improvements: Improve pedestrian safety by including landscape timber stairs at top, steep,
grade to connect to bus stop pad. Remove and replace 3” diameter tree to clear sight lines and area for
construction of sidewalk extension, while improving screening for Smuggler Park tenants. (Pedestrian
Safety, Roadway)
Discussion: Proposed improvements are representative of the project objectives, major stakeholder
input, and the collective community feedback received during the public process.
3) BUS STOP AND SHELTER
Opportunities: RFTA bus stop improvements shall address aging infrastructure, pedestrian mobility
and connectivity, and winter condition impediments.
Design Improvements: Replace and shift bus shelter east to clear the bus from the crosswalk area and
storm drain inlet, install a non-reflective shelter, and increase capacity of shelter area. Extend the
pedestrian infrastructure to the west side of the intersection to provide a direct crossing location for
pedestrians travelling down Brown Lane to the bus stop location. (Traffic Calming, Pedestrian Safety,
Roadway)
Discussion: Proposed improvements are representative of the project objectives, major stakeholder
input, and the collective community feedback received during the public process.
4) PARK CIRCLE
Opportunities: Implement traffic calming features, reduce lane widths to promote traffic calming,
increase visual awareness of pedestrian crossing, reduce pedestrian crossing distance, clear visual
obstructions, remove bus stop from travel lane, and incorporate bicyclists into roadway.
Design Improvements: Pedestrian crossing signage, crosswalk striping, clear sight lines, tubular
markers, and advanced warning signage to improve driver awareness and reduce traffic speeds. The
inclusion of bike lane markings will be determined once updates to the City of Aspen Bicycle Master
Plan are complete. (Traffic Calming, Pedestrian Safety, Roadway, Bicycles)
Discussion: Proposed improvements are representative of the project objectives, major stakeholder
input, and the collective community feedback received during the public process.
P94
II.
5) BROWN LANE
Opportunities: Improve aging pedestrian infrastructure and connectivity along Brown Lane.
Design Improvements: No design improvements are proposed for this area.
Discussion: The identified area is located with the Centennial Subdivision property boundary. Staff
has had several conversations with the owner’s representative. The representative has been adamant
that improvements be limited to the Park Circle corridor, which the design team has depicted on the
refined conceptual design. The representative has reviewed the refined conceptual design and
communicated support for the proposed improvements and process.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Design Funding Allocated
Park and Brown Pedestrian Improvements (Acct# 000.15.95104) $ 25,000.00
Total $ 25,000.00
Construction Funding Allocated
Park and Brown Pedestrian Improvements (Acct# 000.15.95104) $180,000.00
Total $180,000.00
Total Funding Allocated $205,000.00
Current Expenditures
Park and Brown Pedestrian Improvements Project
Total (As of 02/20/15) $ 15,880.86
Future Construction Expenditures (20% contingency)
Engineers Estimate (Phase I) $ 65,000.00
Engineers Estimate (Phase II) $ 42,000.00
Total $107,000.00
Total Proposed Expenditures (Phase I) $ 90,000.00
Total Proposed Expenditures (Phase I + II) $132,000.00
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A: Refined Conceptual Design
Attachment B: Existing Conditions Images
Attachment C: Site Analysis Opportunities
Attachment D: Project Area and Goals
Attachment E: Public Input Summary
P95
II.
P
9
6
I
I
.
P
9
7
I
I
.
P
9
8
I
I
.
P
9
9
I
I
.
Park and Brown Public Open House Summary
The Park and Brown Improvements Project team has solicited public comment from an open
house on August 26th, 2014, in the open space on the northeast corner of the Park and Brown
intersection. Analysis and concept graphic boards were available for citizen review and
comment. The following documentation provides a summary of opinions and comments.
08/26/14 open house #2 public comment summary:
Public comment trends including open house 6/26/14 and 8/26/14
Trends The following list indicates staff and consultant perception of majority opinions:
- Traffic speeds on Park Circle are high.
- Existing location of bus stop is problematic as relates to pedestrian circulation/street
crossing.
- Existing location of bus stop is problematic as relates to bus
queuing/loading/unloading.
- Existing location of bus stop is problematic as relates to infrastructure (drain inlet
icing).
- Existing bus shelter functions poorly and leaks.
- Icing is a problem at the intersection and at the bus stop.
- Reflectivity of shelter creates nighttime perception of westbound traffic in eastbound
lane.
- Eastbound vehicles blindly passing standing bus is common.
- Pedestrian crossing / speed limit signage in the vicinity of the intersection is lacking
but additional signage should be done judiciously.
- Pedestrian crossing bollards (on centerline of road) were effective during the time
they were in place.
- Support raised crossing/speed table.
- Support contrast paving crosswalks at intersection on Park Circle and striping on
Brown Lane.
- Support moving bus stop west of current location.
- Support 1/2 –width bus pullout apron.
- Support eastbound bike lane and westbound sharrow on Park Circle.
- No strong advocacy for improvements to trail from Ajax Ave.
- Strong advocacy from Smuggler Park residents to maintain existing berm as sound
barrier/visual screen.
Jason Jaynes notes
- Ruth Harrison: Likes opt. 2 or 3, 1 is a non-starter, either 2 or 3- whichever RFTA
likes.
P100
II.
- Susan Barber: against “all of it” it’s ridiculous; spend money on centennial owner’s
units. But likes bus stop across intersection.
- Pat- Not in support of improvements at all (angry)
- Jackie- does not have a problem with intersection (Centennial).
- Jag: 4 yrs bus rider, does not support any improvements. Would move bus stop into
Berm. Would place speed bumps above and below
o After reviewing concepts w/ JJ, says, “These make some sense,” but “good
luck with smuggler on the ½ apron”
o Glad East side brown lane sidewalk is has been removed from plans.
o Votes for #2
- Carol- She didn’t like the bollards but agreed that they slowed traffic
o There is currently no signage turning from Park on to Brown showing speed
is reduced; that may help.
- Jerry- Liked the bollards … His friend said it was so much safer.
o Moving bus is a no-brainer… loves it… do it tomorrow.
- Kurt- vehicles sliding through intersection
o Lee: traction paving or other solutions?
- Anthony_ Reflective Bus stop is a problem – looks like a car is oncoming.
- Kurt: liked bollards in street
o Does not like moving bus stop: sliding cars into bus stop (he’s really worried
about cars sliding through).
- Jamie: smuggler: Berm is a huge sound barrier.
- Helen: would love to see smuggler path re-graded w/ a handrail.
- Dorian + 3 others:
o Yes, cars go way too fast
o Yes, people cross at all angles
o Yes, whiparound of bus is a problem
o Yes, ice at the bus stop is dangerous
o Likes ½ apron
- Michael (drive by) “it’s so damn cool you are doing this”.
- One recommendation for 3-way stop
- Ryan C + Jane- need a place to stack skis / snowboards- snow days 15 people
queue
o Jane Prefers ½ apron solution
- Beige house in Smuggler (did not get name) – supportive of adjusting bus stop
location
- 327 Teal court says “no” to everything (drive by)
- Jane Taylor- smuggler
o Keep trail as is
o Likes 3-way stop (not proposed but discussed by others)
o Likes pull-out to clean-up whiparound (drivers passing stopped bus)
- Correct Street names ( opt. 2 +3 ) at smuggler (internal note to correct board naming
error)
Tyler Christoff notes
- Move the bus stop west, it will help pedestrians from Centennial
- ADA ramps are very icy during winter months
P101
II.
- There is no need for improvements, pedestrians have functioned well here for 30 years
- The tubular markers were great, we were disappointed when they were taken down
- Please keep the newspaper stands
- Cars parking and grabbing newspapers are problematic for peds and vehicles moving up
and down the corridor
- Diagonal crosswalk striping (as proposed by Nick DeWolf) are appreciated and we
should keep this treatment in Aspen
- Unloading of pedestrians behind RFTA buses is ideal
- Bollards worked well
- Bollards created additional conflict for turning movements and bus passing
- Rectangular rapid flash beacons would be helpful to add
- The reflective nature of the current bus stop is problematic
- Existing berm acts as a sound barrier, please don’t alter or move the bus stop east
- If Smuggler trailer park trail changes please make it simple and minor
- Smuggler trail could use a handrail
- RFTA bus shelter needs to be bigger and have a non-leaking roof
- Make Park and Brown a 3way stop
- Proposed Nicholas Lane crosswalk; striping needs to move south to match preferred
path of pedestrians
- Striping and bus stops moving west work well
- We just need striping not speed bumps or alternative materials
- A bus pullout would be desirable for traffic and sight triangle issues
Garrett Sabourin notes
- Opposed to relocating bus stop due to concerns of vehicles sliding through
intersection during winter conditions and colliding with bus.
- Reflectivity of bus shelter is deceiving
In favor of increased striping and signs as an improvement
- Dangerous intersection during winter months
Would propose a 3 way stop
- Add ski rack to bus stop and increase size of shelter
- Would rather see alternative material crossing vs. raised crossing
- In support of a pullover for the bus
- Newspaper stands creates hazard due to people stopping at bus stop to pick up
paper
- New buses are less noisy than older ones
- Not in favor of any improvements
- Proposes a yellow flasher and additional speed limit signs
- Newspaper stands at bus stop should be relocated
- Drivers are cutting corners at intersection
- In support of relocating bus stop
- Perceived tubular markers as an eye sore
- Thought tubular markers were effective
- Newspaper stand is good where it is
- Proposes a 3-way stop
- Proposes add’l signage and striping
- In support of relocating bus stop
P102
II.
- Shelter size should be increased
- In support of striping improvements
- Should install a light for bus stop (note to Jason, I just saw some solar lights
which were installed along the mail trail which we should consider for this
location)
- Vehicles are speeding along Park Circle
- Reflectivity of shelter is deceiving
- Slippery conditions at bus stop
- In support of narrowing corridor and a raised crosswalk
- Retain existing bus stop location or shift east
P103
II.
Park and Brown Public Open House Summary
The Park and Brown Improvements Project team has solicited public comment from an open
house on June 26th, 2014, in the open space on the northeast corner of the Park and Brown
intersection. Analysis and concept graphic boards were available for citizen review and
comment. The following documentation provides a summary of opinions and comments.
06/26/14 open house #1 public comment summary:
From team notes:
In attendance – Kyle, resident in ownership units
- Traffic is fast.
- Would like striping on Brown.
- Would like a sidewalk on east side of Brown.
- Doesn’t think the design should be too elaborate.
In attendance – Jim, resident at Centennial
- Initially did not think there was anything wrong.
- After talking about options thought that east sidewalk on brown, slowing vehicles, improving
pedestrian crossing for safety, and reducing car/pedestrian conflicts do not need major
improvements.
- Agrees about excessive speeds and cars swinging by the bus.
- Option 1 is minimal; it does not address the intersection quagmire when a bus is stopped.
- Challenged Option 2: people are still going to want to cross on the east side but “maybe it’s ok
because that's how they currently cross.”
- Really likes the additional sidewalk on the east side of Brown.
- Likes the raised crossing or at least a change in materials for heightened awareness pause.
- Most important to him would be pulling the bus stop off of the road.
- Likes Option 2 bus location and raised/contrast crossing.
- Supportive of traffic calming and concerned about speed.
In attendance – Wayne, just behind bus stop at Smuggler Park
- Alternate suggestion: move bus stop west 150 feet.
- Realign road to provide stop on south side of street.
- Noisy at current bus stop location.
- Is worried about anything that causes trees to be removed at Smuggler Park; the noise barrier
is important.
- Existing intersection remains.
In attendance – Anthony, Free Silver sheriff ’s office
- There is glare on the bus stop at night.
- School buses (Aspen School District and Aspen Country Day) stop at the intersection.
P104
II.
In attendance – Micah
- Likes Option 2.
- No need for super-big improvements like gondola plaza.
- Likes what moving shelter does for movement of pedestrian visibility, the bus apron for the
frequent bus, and the bike lane a lot for commuter’s recreation.
- Likes bike lane to tie into we-cycle station.
- Icing is an issue at the current bus stop.
- There is lots of build-up in winter; he sees people fall and the bus driver doesn't like to pull into
the curb.
In attendance – Ruth
- Most vehicles don’t stop and most cars speed but she believes it’s an enforcement issue.
-Doesn’t think any infrastructure improvements matter.
In attendance – Kim, property manager
- Agrees that most vehicles don't stop.
In attendance – Tiffany
- Agrees with addition of sidewalk but thinks people do cross to west sidewalk.
- Doesn't think traffic or pedestrian problems are huge so doesn't think response should be
over-the-top.
- Doesn't think speed tables are good.
- Wonders if Option 3 will impact Smuggler Park least.
- Echoed headlight glare comment.
- Thinks an apron for the bus is a great idea.
In attendance – Steve
- Not supportive of any improvements; he does not think there is a need.
- Would be supportive of ADA improvements at Smuggler Park.
- Was impacted by constructed improvements last year.
In attendance – Helen, Lower William's Ranch
- Has always taken the bus.
- Is glad that the new striping has been installed.
- Appreciates the ADA ramps.
- Thinks the bus pullout should be moved to eliminate conflicts with the crosswalk.
- Finds the drain inlet at the bus stop dangerous, particularly in the winter, and would like that to
be addressed: "It's like the pit of hell."
- At least move away from drain inlet.
- Icing is bad at the current bus stop and the roof leaks melt water.
- Really likes the east brown sidewalk and would love for it to go up the hill.
- Prefers painted striping to contrast paving.
-Thinks visibility is certainly an issue.
- Sign pollution is an issue but believes RRFB is effective and would be supportive of their use if
that's what it takes.
- Would want to see a sign connecting the RRFB to the pedestrian crossing and bus stop use.
- It’s not worth it to do half measures. The current state of the bus stop makes people not want
to ride.
In attendance – Steve, president of Smuggler HOA (on the near side)
P105
II.
- Recommends looking at speed bumps on Gibson as an effective traffic calming solution.
- Presumably looked at potential impact and limiting the impacts.
In attendance – Sheldon, Williams Ranch
- Doesn't understand why we are doing anything; has been here a long time and has not seen
issues.
- When approaching bus stop he waits until he feels safe passing the bus.
- Has used flashing beacon and believes that they work.
- Recognizes that there's not an apron for the bus.
- Believes it is more of a "people" issue and a common sense issue.
- Is not supportive of any treatment except raised crosswalk and beacons.
- Still doesn't see it as a big issue; if you don't have to do it, don't do it.
Submitted Via Email – Amy Simon
I have been meaning to email you general comments about the Park Avenue/Centennial bus
stop project. I missed the meeting and looked quickly at the drawing that was sent out. I live
right below the bus stop, on Ajax Avenue.
If there is a platform and retaining wall built to allow a bus to pull off the street, I hope that there
can be some trees, etc. planted on the downhill side for screening. That hillside doesn't look so
hot right now, but there are enough trees that it does help shield the commotion around the bus
stop a bit. Any overall improvement to the planting on the hillside would be great. It is a bit of a
thistle patch.
I don't know how much of the hillside you are able to do work on since it belongs to Centennial I
think, but if there is an opportunity to improve the pathway from Ajax Avenue up to the stop, that
would be great.
Submitted Via Email – Karen Bromka
I have to wonder why so much money has been spent on renderings, data compilation, and
effort into putting some ideas forth to solve an issue that the City partially created by lowering
the speed limit, and which could simply be solved without public input by proper signage about
crosswalks, tickets issued by police for jaywalking, running a stop sign, speeding, and failing to
yield to cyclists? A few tickets goes a long way in promoting awareness and curbing behavior,
and a free public awareness article in the newspaper would help.
The speed humps and crosswalk for the music festival students who cross Castle Creek Road
near the hospital to catch the bus are very appropriate for installing on Park Circle on both sides
of the Brown Lane intersection near Centennial. It would not require widening Park Circle for a
bus stop, and the city police would not have to enforce speeding. Maybe an additional speed
hump on Brown Lane before the stop sign would make cars pay attention to the stop sign. Has
a three-way stop sign been considered for that intersection?
P106
II.
All On Forum Positions grouped by position
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The positions in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All On Forum Positions grouped by position
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2114
Park Circle and Brown Lane Intersection
Which conceptual design do you prefer for the intersection and why? What ideas would you like to see
incorporated into a design solution for the intersection of Park Circle and Brown Lane?
P107
II.
Introduction
The Park and Brown Pedestrians Improvement Project serves as a thoroughfare for vehicular traffic,
pedestrians and bicyclists travelling along and across Park Circle. This area has been identified by adjacent
property owners and city staff as an area in need of traffic calming and additional pedestrian crossing
infrastructure to improve safety. The project area serves as a thoroughfare for RFTA bus users, outdoor
recreationalist, residential development tenants, and vehicular traffic.
The design team identified the following five areas of distinct character within the corridor:
1. Intersection and Bus Stop, 2. Brown Lane, 3. Park Circle, 4. Smuggler Park. These areas are in need of
improvement to meet the project goals and the principals of a complete street, which means streets that are
designed for everyone. Each zone has been matched with a design solution which addresses the specific
safety concerns of the area while creating a uniform and logical treatment for the entire corridor.
At the bottom of this page you will find three (3) different conceptual designs. The City of Aspen would like to
gain widespread public feedback on the conceptual alternatives, design considerations, and anecdotal
information prior to proceeding.
Considerations
Within the context of this project there are opportunities for:
1) Traffic Calming – Reduce vehicular speeds and improve comfort for pedestrians and cyclists, while
maintaining street function.
2) Pedestrian Safety – Provide a positive pedestrian and traffic interface at the Park/Brown intersection.
3) Visibility – Identify visual obstructions for all users and identify roadway signage enhancements.
4) Bicycles – Integrate bicycles into the street system by extending the City of Aspen Bikeway Plan.
Options
City staff have developed several options to consider for improving the intersection. Please select the option
that you prefer. You will have the opportunity to leave comments along with your selection.
All On Forum Positions grouped by position
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2114 Page 2 of 5
Park Circle and Brown Lane Intersection
Which conceptual design do you prefer for the intersection and why? What ideas would you like to see
incorporated into a design solution for the intersection of Park Circle and Brown Lane?
P108
II.
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM, this forum had:
Attendees:87
On Forum Positions:6
All Positions:11
Minutes of Public Comment:33
This topic started on August 30, 2014, 8:21 AM.
Option 1 0
Option 2 0
Option 3 3
Do nothing 3
Total:6
As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The positions in this record are not necessarily
representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
All On Forum Positions grouped by position
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2114 Page 3 of 5
Park Circle and Brown Lane Intersection
Which conceptual design do you prefer for the intersection and why? What ideas would you like to see
incorporated into a design solution for the intersection of Park Circle and Brown Lane?
P109
II.
All Participants who selected 'Do nothing'
Felicity Kerr inside Aspen January 19, 2015, 1:46 PM
Do nothing
There is a bus shelter, a crosswalk, and a sidewalk already. Why spend additional funds in this area when other
nearby areas lack these basics?
John Rushing inside Aspen November 27, 2014, 8:17 PM
Do nothing
Speeds are slow enough, I don't see a problem. The one improvement I would recommend is to remove or
block the glass on the west side of the bus stop because it reflects the headlights of eastbound traffic at night.
Katherine Schultz inside Aspen November 10, 2014, 8:25 AM
Do nothing
How about a simple and inexpensive 3-way stop allowing pedestrians to safely exit the bus and cross the
street? This would also allow vehicles to safely turn left on to Brown Lane, where it is very difficult to see
oncoming traffic at night due to headlights reflecting off the side of the glass bus shelter.
Park Circle and Brown Lane Intersection
Which conceptual design do you prefer for the intersection and why? What ideas would you like to see incorporated into a design solution for the intersection of Park Circle and Brown
Lane?
All On Forum Positions grouped by position
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2114 Page 4 of 5
P110
II.
All Participants who selected 'Option 3'
Patrick Rawley outside Aspen September 2, 2014, 9:50 AM
Option 3
A bus turn-out is a must! Too often traffic is stopped for the bus which sometimes seems to wait there.
Wendle Whiting inside Aspen August 31, 2014, 11:54 PM
Option 3
The crosswalk stripes should be canted to match the others in the neighborhood and town.
Will Rutledge inside Aspen August 30, 2014, 1:40 PM
Option 3
Removing the stop from the flow of traffic is key.
Park Circle and Brown Lane Intersection
Which conceptual design do you prefer for the intersection and why? What ideas would you like to see incorporated into a design solution for the intersection of Park Circle and Brown
Lane?
All On Forum Positions grouped by position
As of February 17, 2015, 9:11 AM http://peakdemocracy.com/2114 Page 5 of 5
P111
II.
Page 1 of 10
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Small Lodge Programs Work Session
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2015
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff requests direction from City Council on the priorities for code amendments related to small lodges.
In December 2014, Council directed staff to pursue code amendments that focus on the benefits the city
could provide to better enable small lodges to remain in operation. Many of the proposed small lodge
benefits have little to do with the Land Use Code, but are instead administrative processes and fees.
Because none of the proposed benefits are related to increased dimensions, such as height or floor area, all
of the proposed benefits will have financial implications to the City. When taken together, the cost of the
programs is large. Staff requests Council identify which of the programs outlined below are a priority for
the City.
BACKGROUND:
In 2012 and 2013, City Council adopted “top ten” goals regarding updating and bolstering the short term
bed base. In August 2014 City Council passed a lodge incentive ordinance that provided incentives for
both lodges and condominiums that are available for short-term rentals to upgrade and expand. A number
of community members expressed concerns about aspects of the ordinance, particularly portions related to
affordable housing mitigation reductions and increased heights, and they circulated a referendum petition
to overturn the ordinance. Two weeks after the ordinance was adopted, City Council voted to rescind the
ordinance. City Council directed staff to conduct additional public outreach to determine if there are
general areas of agreement related to the bed base. Following that outreach, City Council passed a Policy
Resolution directing staff to process code changes to support Small Lodges. A copy of the Policy
Resolution is attached as Exhibit B.
There are a number of small lodges in Aspen, many of which have been operated by the same family for
generations and that often provide economy/moderate accommodations for Aspen’s visitors. Throughout
the previous public outreach, there was overwhelming support for these lodges. The individual feedback
from the lodges supports a role for the City to assist them, particularly through reduced time and fees
related to the building permit process, as well as free or reduced cost street parking passes.
SMALL LODGE DEFINITION : Establishing a system for “small lodges” requires defining what constitutes
a “small lodge.” Staff has used a number of criteria to establish a list of Aspen’s small lodges, including
the Assessor’s categorization, how the lodge self-identified in terms of price point in the City’s 2012
lodging study, their zoning, and the number of units. The commonality is the lodge is generally located in
the Lodge or Lodge Preservation Zones, and is commonly known as an economy or moderate lodge. This
categorization enabled staff to narrow the list to a total of twelve (12). The following is staff’s proposed
list of small lodges:
P112
III.
Page 2 of 10
Hotel Address
Number
of Units
Assessor
category
Underlying
Zone
District Overlay
2012 Self-
Identified
Category
Annabelle Inn 232 W Main St 35 Aspen Moderate
Lodge MU LP, PD Moderate
Aspen Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St 38 Aspen Condos MU LP Moderate
Chalet Lisl 100 E Hyman 9 Aspen Economy
Lodge RMF None N/A
Hearthstone House 134 E Hyman Ave 16 Aspen Moderate
Lodge RMF LP Moderate
Hotel Durant 122 E Durant Ave 20 Aspen Moderate
Lodge L None Moderate
Molly Gibson 101 W Main St 53 Aspen Economy
Lodge MU & R-6 LP, PD Moderate
Hotel Aspen 110 W Main St 45 Aspen Condos MU & R-6 LP, PD Moderate
Mountain House
905 E Hopkins
Ave 27 Aspen Economy
Lodge RMF LP Moderate
Mountain Chalet 333 E Durant Ave 58 Aspen Moderate
Lodge L LP, PD Moderate
Snow Queen Lodge
124 E Cooper
Ave 8 Aspen Economy
Lodge RMF LP Economy
St. Moritz Lodge
334 W Hyman
Ave 37 Aspen Economy
Lodge R-6 LP, PD Economy
Tyrolean Lodge 200 W Main St 16 Aspen Economy
Lodge MU LP Economy
When staff met with the Planning & Zoning Commission, they suggested that the Boomerang Lodge be
added to the list, in the event it is redeveloped into a lodge again. The current approvals are for forty-
seven (47) lodge rooms. The property is zoned R-6 with a Lodge Preservation and Planned Development
overlay, and the Assessor has it listed as “Aspen Moderate Lodge.” The lodge has not been in operation
for nearly eight (8) years, so the programs outlined below may or may not be of assistance to them. Staff
has not included the Boomerang Lodge in any of the cost estimates listed below.
The Planning & Zoning Commission also suggested that new lodges be considered for the program,
suggesting that a unit cap of fifty (50) might make sense. They also felt that new lodges that participate
should enter into an agreement with the City stating they would pay back any benefits should the lodge
convert to another use.
PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS:
The proposed code amendment focuses on the benefits the city can provide to better enable small lodges
to remain in operation. Many of the proposed small lodge benefits have little to do with the Land Use
Code, but are instead administrative processes and fees. Because none of the proposed benefits are
related to increased dimensions, such as height or floor area, all of the proposed benefits will have
financial implications to the City. The proposed benefit areas are outlined below, including an estimated
financial impact to the City. If Council desires to move forward with any of the items below, staff
suggests funding for all the proposed items be included in the Supplemental Budget requests that will be
before City Council later this spring.
P113
III.
Page 3 of 10
Staff recommends the programs and benefits outlined below sunset after five (5) years, with the option to
extend the program at that time. The Planning and Zoning Commission suggested a seven to ten (7-10)
year timeframe to align with typical lodge industry “fluff and fold” timelines.
In addition, staff recommends a provision requiring the costs of all benefits be paid back to the City
should the lodge change use within 10-20 years (depending on the level of incentive received from the
City).
LODGE OMBUDSMAN : The Lodge Ombudsman would be available on an as-needed basis to assist small
lodges who may be exploring a remodel, expansion, or redevelopment. At this time, existing staff
cannot take on this role due to workloads, so a consultant would need to be hired. The Lodge
Ombudsman would serve a number of roles for the small lodges, including:
1. Understand the City’s Land Use, Building, Engineering, and other codes to provide accurate
information to the lodge as they determine if they wish to move forward with any changes.
2. Assist the lodge in identifying a private project team (planner, architect, engineer, etc) to
prepare all the necessary documentation for City review and approval of the proposal.
3. Work with the lodge and the city to help shepherd the lodge project through the relevant
processes.
4. Work with City Departments and other community organizations to identify existing
incentives available to small lodges, such as CORE grants.
Financial Implications: Because it is unknown how many lodges are interested in pursuing changes,
it is difficult to estimate the costs associated with this position. At this time, staff estimates that this
person would cost $2,500 per lodge for basic investigation, and $5,000 for more extensive work
associated with major remodels or redevelopments. If three to four (3-4) lodges used this person, the
cost could between $10,000 and $20,000 a year.
“E XPRESS LANE ” FOR LAND USE REVIEWS : This proposal would create an expedited or “express”
process for any small lodge that is required to go through a planning review. The creation of an
“express lane” requires either (1) additional staff to process the small lodge land use cases and
additional meetings by the review boards, or (2) placing other land use cases on hold while the small
lodge land use requests are expedited.
Staff recommends option 2, placing other land use cases on hold. AspenModern designations and
Appeals are currently the only land use case types that are eligible for an expedited review. These
cases are limited, so staff believes this would be an effective way to process small lodge requests. In
addition, the review boards are already quite busy, and in staff’s experience there is often not a
quorum to accommodate additional meetings.
Financial Implications: No financial impacts are anticipated if the expedited review process is used.
This would result in an increase in wait times for some existing land use requests, particularly those
requests that require HPC review where the wait time is currently 4-5 months.
“E XPRESS LANE ” FOR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEWS : This proposal would create an expedited or
“express” process for any small lodge that is required to get a building permit. The creation of an
“express lane” requires either (1) additional staff to process the permits, or (2) placing other permits
on hold while the small lodge permits are expedited.
P114
III.
Page 4 of 10
Staff recommends option 1, hiring building and engineering subcontractors or part-time staff to
review the expedited permits, on an as needed basis. Many projects already receive an expedited
permit review (i.e. affordable housing, phased permits, historic buildings), and adding yet another
category to this list is likely to render the expedited process meaningless. And, both the Building and
Engineering departments already use subcontractors and part-time staff for permit reviews.
Financial Implications: Hiring additional subcontractors to complete these reviews is estimated to
cost $1,250 for each relatively small permit, up to $38,000 for each permit for a complete
redevelopment. In staff’s conversations with lodges, most are only interested in minor upgrades, with
a few contemplating major interior improvements, expansion or redevelopment. Based on this
information, if every lodge came in for some kind of upgrade, staff anticipates the financial impact to
the City over the course of the program would be between $130,000 and $200,000 for the building
permit review. If every lodge came in for a complete redevelopment, the estimated cost is $330,000.
Staff estimates that two to four (2-4) lodges would come in during a single year, with an estimated
yearly cost of $32,500.
FREE BUILDING CODE ASSESSMENT : This proposal would establish a free building code compliance
review by a certified building code consultant. This person would do a walk-through of the building
and examine everything from egress and ADA access to compliance with modern plumbing and
mechanical codes. Following the assessment, the lodge would receive a detailed report outlining areas
that should be upgraded to meet life safety and other requirements.
Financial Implications: Staff estimates that a high quality assessment would cost $0.50 per square
foot. Using the square footage on file with the Assessor, the cost to each small lodge is listed below,
for a total of $ 77,229.
Hotel Address
Existing Building
sq ft (Assessor)
Building Code
Assessment Cost
Annabelle Inn 232 W Main St 15,243 $ 7,621.50
Aspen Mountain
Lodge 311 W Main St 11,715 $ 5,857.50
Chalet Lisl 100 E Hyman 3,810 $ 1,905.00
Hearthstone House 134 E Hyman Ave 8,857 $ 4,428.50
Hotel Durant 122 E Durant Ave 7,392 $ 3,696.00
Molly Gibson 101 W Main St 19,843 $ 9,921.50
Hotel Aspen 110 W Main St 16,218 $ 8,109.00
Mountain House 905 E Hopkins Ave 17,181 $ 8,590.50
Mountain Chalet 333 E Durant Ave 31,052 $ 15,526.00
Snow Queen Lodge 124 E Cooper Ave 3,088 $ 1,544.00
St. Moritz Lodge 334 W Hyman Ave 13,534 $ 6,767.00
Tyrolean Lodge 200 W Main St 6,525 $ 3,262.50
TOTAL $ 77,229.00
P115
III.
Page 5 of 10
ENERGY EFFICIENCY UPGRADES : This proposal would bolster the community’s existing efforts around
energy efficiency by creating further discounts and programs for small lodges to receive an energy
assessment and implement the findings in the assessment.
Existing Programs: Currently, the City of Aspen and CORE (Community Office for Resource
Efficiency) offer rebates for energy efficiency projects. All lodge properties are eligible for a rebate
of 25% of the project cost, up to $2,500 from CORE. In addition, properties on the Aspen Electric
Utility are eligible for an additional rebate of 25% of the project cost, up to $2,500 from the City. 1
The City and CORE also provide rebates for energy assessments, tune-ups, solar PV panels, and
ground source heat pumps. These rebates can be combined. Rebates are also available from Source
Gas and Holy Cross energy.
The City, CORE, and Holy Cross will provide basic energy advice to a lodge for free. This includes a
site visit to review some energy basics, such as lighting, door seals, and windows. A formal energy
audit is available, and cost is based on the size of the building and the complexity of the existing
mechanical system. The City and CORE provide a rebate for these detailed assessments of 50% of the
cost, up to $1,000. CORE estimates that assessments cost between $500 and $2,000, meaning the
City and CORE’s rebate to a lodge is currently between $250 and $1,000. Two (2) of the small lodges
have completed an energy assessment.
In 2012, the City held an energy efficiency challenge for lodges, which included a Utility Bill
Analysis (UBA) and Site Evaluation. Five (5) of the small lodges participated in this, and received a
detailed list of energy efficiency upgrades. 2 The Hotel Durant succeeded at making the most
innovative improvement by undertaking major air sealing, insulation and window upgrades that
resulted in a 28% reduction in its monthly gas bills. Each of the participating lodges have additional
improvements that should be made, including improving insulation, upgrading lighting, improving
bathroom ventilation, conducting general maintenance on heating and DHW systems, and upgrading
windows.
Proposed Programs: This proposal would create additional subsidies for small lodges that complete
an energy assessment. This program would enable free energy assessments for small lodges, and
provide greater financial support for lodges looking to implement energy efficiency upgrades. Staff
proposes a tiered program for lodges:
1. Use Existing Resources. Staff (or the Lodge Ombudsman) would conduct outreach to each
lodge to schedule a time for the existing free City and CORE energy walk through. These
identify the main improvements that a lodge could make, including lighting upgrades, major
boiler replacement needs, and insulation improvements.
2. Free Full Energy Audit. If the walk through shows that a full energy audit would be useful,
the lodge would receive one for free. These audits are more detailed than the walk-through,
and can identify more complex needs, such as major air sealing. In order to make the program
free to the small lodges, the City would provide a matching grant of between $250 and $1,000
to cover the portion of the audit that is currently not eligible for City and CORE rebates.
1 All of the small lodges are on the Aspen Electric Utility.
2 The participating lodges were: Hearthstone House, Hotel Durant, Snow Queen Lodge, St. Moritz, and Tyrolean Lodge.
P116
III.
Page 6 of 10
3. Implementation of Energy Improvements. This program would provide additional monies for
the small lodges looking to implement energy improvements identified in the walk-through or
Energy Audit. Improvements range from updating lighting to LEDs to improving insulation
and air sealing to replacing out of date boilers. Because of the range of improvements that
could be made, the cost varies quite a bit. Lighting improvements can cost between $500 and
$5000, depending on the amount of lights being changes, while boiler replacements can cost
between $9,000 and $15,000 for a small lodge of 3,000 sq ft, up to $60,000 and $75,000 for a
small lodge of 15,000 sq ft. Some existing subsidies exist for these improvements, so this
program would provide an additional subsidy to make it even more affordable for small lodges
to implement energy saving improvements. Many of the energy improvements (air sealing,
insulation, lighting, etc) are also “comfort improvements” for guests that can make their stay
in the small lodge more enjoyable. In addition, increasing energy savings by lodges benefits
the Aspen Energy Challenge, Aspen’s effort in a national energy efficiency competition that
runs through 2016 and touts a $5 million prize for the community that saves the most energy.
Financial Implications: At this time, staff recommends the City budget $100,000 a year for small
lodges to undergo a free energy assessment and implement energy efficiency measures. Staff
recommends this amount to start, and recognizes that it may be low, depending on how many lodges
need major energy improvements. Staff estimates that this initial amount would help subsidize a
handful of energy audits, as well as energy improvements to insulation and air sealing, programmable
thermostats, boiler upgrades, and solar panels.
Staff recommends improvements be subsidized at 100% up to $20,000, which would enable smaller
energy improvements such as lighting replacements, minor air sealing, low flow fixtures, or
programmable thermostats. Staff recommends that larger energy improvements, such as boiler
replacements, major air sealing and insulation, or solar arrays, be subsidized up to 50% of the project
cost.
Staff also recommends that a condition of receiving this additional money for specific energy
improvements, the lodge agree that if it is converted to another use within 5 years that the money will
be paid back to the City.
BUILDING PERMIT FEE REDUCTIONS : The area of most agreement in all the public feedback was the
importance of providing some fee discounts on permit fees for small lodges. Currently, the
Community Development Department has more revenue from various permit and review fees than
expenses associated with development services. Staff anticipates that some changes to the overall
permit structure to reduce fees may be necessary to balance long-term revenue and expenditure trends,
and suggests that reductions in fees for lodging may be appropriate. This is an item staff would like
some initial feedback on from Council, so it can be incorporated, as necessary into this Small Lodge
Program.
Staff ran a number of scenarios from a minor remodel to a full redevelopment to get a general estimate
on fees associated with building permits. The costs of building permit fees are based on the square
footage of the project and the valuation.
Staff recommends a sliding scale of fee reductions for building permit fees, with smaller scale projects
receiving a higher fee reduction, and more significant remodels receiving a lower reduction. If all
twelve small lodges came forward for some kind of improvement, the estimated building permit fees
P117
III.
Page 7 of 10
would range from $150,000 for minor interior upgrades, up to $5 million for full redevelopment and
expansions.
In determining fees associated with various remodels and expansions, staff used the following
scenarios:
1. Minor interior upgrade (paint, carpet, light fixtures)
2. Minor exterior upgrade (new windows, new paint/exterior materials)
3. Major interior upgrade A (remodel units, including bathrooms)
4. Major interior upgrade B (remodel common areas and any kitchen/food service facilities)
5. Redevelopment (complete scrape and replace)
Financial Implications: Staff proposes a sliding scale of fee reductions, with 75% fee reductions for
the smaller projects (Scenarios 1-2), 50% fee reductions for major interior remodels (Scenarios 3 and
4), and 25% fee reductions for the major redevelopments (Scenario 5). If this sliding scale is used, the
total cost to the city in subsidized permit fees would be $115,000 up to $1.2 million. The table below
outlines the estimated financial impact if every small lodge requested to go through each scenario.
Cost i f all lodges
participated in
specific scenario
Proposed
fee
reduction
Total fee reduction
(subsidized by City)
Total fees paid
by lodges
Scenario 1, Minor interior
upgrade (paint, carpet, light
fixtures)
$ 152,693.90 75% $ 114,520.43 $ 38,173.48
Scenario 2, Minor exterior
upgrade (new windows, new
paint/exterior materials)
$ 182,698.21 75% $ 137,023.66 $ 45,674.55
Scenario 3, Major interior
upgrade A (remodel units,
including bathrooms)
$ 337,510.88 50% $ 168,755.44 $ 168,755.44
Scenario 4, Major interior
upgrade B (remodel common
areas and any kitchen/food
service facilities)
$ 917,449.04 50% $ 458,724.52 $ 458,724.52
Scenario 5, Redevelopment
(complete scrape and replace) $ 4,937,507.88 25% $ 1,234,376.97 $ 3,703,130.91
In staff’s conversations with lodges, most are only interested in minor upgrades, with a few contemplating
major interior improvements, expansion or redevelopment. Based on this information, if every lodge
came in for some kind of upgrade, staff anticipates the total financial impact to the City would be between
$250,000 and $750,000.
Due to the large dollar amount associated with this benefit, staff recommends adopting a “claw back”
provision for lodges that receive a fee reduction and then cease operating as a lodge. This would require
the lodge enter into an agreement with the City that states the lodge would pay back all building permit
fee reductions if the lodge converted to another use. Staff proposes timeframes for the claw back be
based on the scope of work. Relatively minor work (such as scenarios 1 and 2) would be subject to a five
(5) year provision, while more major projects would be subject to a fifteen to twenty (15-20) year
provision. Extended claw-back provisions may have a chilling effect on this incentive. Staff requests
some direction from City Council on the proposed timeframes.
P118
III.
Page 8 of 10
WATER AND SEWER TAP FEE REDUCTIONS : Water tap fees are based on the net new fixtures on the
property (i.e. the lodge has 5 sinks, and is adding 10 new sinks, they will pay for the 10 new sinks), as
well as past utility billing. If a lodge was undergoing a full redevelopment (scrape and replace), their
credits are based on past payment for fixtures (i.e. if the lodge paid $20,000 in 1990 for their current
fixtures, that is their credit for the new project’s tap fees). Sewer tap fees are based on the increase in
fixtures from existing Aspen Consolidated Sewer District (ACSD) records (i.e. the lodge has 5 sinks
and is adding 10 sinks, but if ACSD records don’t show any existing sinks, the lodge will pay for 15
sinks). Staff has done some initial research on sewer and water tap fees, which can cost six-figures
each for a full lodge redevelopment. At this time staff has not included them in the proposal below,
but can if Council desires.
COMPLETION OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS : When properties redevelop, the city requires a
number of improvements to infrastructure around the property, including to sidewalks and
landscaping. Because most of the small lodges have not undergone significant upgrades for a number
of years, the infrastructure around their property is in need of upgrades.
Financial Implications: The Engineering Department has estimated the costs associated with the
improvements that would be required if each property redeveloped or expanded. If every small lodge
went through a redevelopment, this is estimated at approximately $600,000. Based on staff’s
conversations with some of the small lodges regarding their short-term development plans, staff
anticipates the total financial impact to the city would be between $275,000 and $375,000.
SMALL LODGE GRANTS : This program would provide grant money for lodges to complete various
upgrades. They would need to demonstrate need, and the loan requests would be reviewed by the City
much like the non-profit grants are reviewed. Staff recommends the grants be available for basic
infrastructure upgrades that promote long-term use of the property as a lodge, such as the cost of new
carpeting, new windows, energy efficient appliances, etc, as well as upgrades to amenities such as
kitchen areas, and pool/hot tubs.
Financial Implications: Staff recommends Council grant expenditures on an as-needed basis
through the supplemental budget process. Alternatively, Council could set an annual top set of
$100,000 per year.
SMALL LODGE LOANS : This program would provide zero interest loans for lodges seeking to implement
upgrades. The loan would be for a ten year period, and the lodge would agree to a temporary use
restriction on the property for the term of the loan to ensure the property continues to operate as a
lodge. If the lodge sought to convert to a different use during the term of the loan, they would be
required to pay the loan back with 5% interest. Staff recommends the loans be granted at the sole
discretion of City Council. Staff recommends the loans be limited to infrastructure upgrades that
promote long-term use of the property as a lodge, such as roofing, siding, and significant remodels.
Financial Implications: Staff recommends Council grant expenditures on an as-needed basis
through the supplemental budget process. Alternatively, Council could set an annual top set of
$250,000 per year.
PARKING PASSES : This program would provide reduced cost parking passes for small lodges. This was the
item of most interest to the small lodges. Parking passes currently cost $3 each for lodges and are valid
for 7 days from the date of issue. The Parking Department estimates that four (4) of the twelve (12) small
P119
III.
Page 9 of 10
lodges purchase around fifty (50) parking passes each year. Their records indicate the other small lodges
rarely, if ever, purchase parking passes. 3 Because there are inherent costs with providing parking (road
maintenance, snow plowing, etc), as well as environmental costs related to car emissions, staff
recommends some fee for street parking, and would suggest the parking passes be offered at half-cost for
the small lodges.
Financial Implications: Assuming each of the twelve (12) small lodges requested fifty (50) parking
passes each year, the current cost would be $1,800. If these were offered at half-price the cost to the City
would be $900.
OVERALL FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Using the estimates above, if all the proposed programs are implemented the cost is estimated at $1.2
million to $3.8 million dollars over the course of 5 years. Staff does not believe that every lodge will take
advantage of all the proposed programs, so it’s not likely all of the money would need to be budgeted. A
complete breakdown of costs is included as Exhibit A.
Staff recommends these financial benefits be available for a period of at least five (5) years. This will
allow property owners to make long-term decisions. “Stretching” this budget impact over a five-year
period will also lessen the financial impact to the City. Staff also recommends that any Enterprise Funds
that are impacted be “made whole” from the General Fund.
Staff recommends Council consider moving forward on the larger incentives rather than the smaller ones.
Smaller incentives, such as an “express lane” for land use and building permit review or reduced cost
parking passes, are unlikely to really encourage the City’s ultimate goal of maintaining these properties as
lodges. Significant incentives that are matched with long term agreements that the lodge remain operating
as such provide a greater value to the City commensurate with the public investment.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
In terms of programmatic options, Council can select all of the proposed programs or a few programs to
move forward with. From a financial perspective, Council could create a maximum dollar amount
available for the programs in any one year, or could budget based on a percentage of the overall
investment a lodge is making.
Staff requests direction from Council on which programs are the highest priority, so we can return
with a refined cost estimate as part of the code amendment.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Cost breakdown
3 Most of the parking passes sold to the lodge sector are for larger lodges, like the Limelight, as well as to property
management companies.
P120
III.
Pa
g
e
10
o
f
10
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
A
:
C
o
s
t
B
r
e
a
k
d
o
w
n
An
n
u
a
l
C
o
s
t
To
t
a
l
5
y
e
a
r
c
o
s
t
lo
w
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
If
e
v
e
r
y
l
o
d
g
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
l
o
w
h
i
g
h
If
e
v
e
r
y
l
o
d
g
e
pa
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
Om
b
u
d
s
m
a
n
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
E
x
p
r
e
s
s
L
a
n
e
*
$
3
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
3
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
*
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
7
,
2
2
9
.
0
0
$
7
7
,
2
2
9
.
0
0
$
7
7
,
2
2
9
.
0
0
$
7
7
,
2
2
9
.
0
0
En
e
r
g
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
*
$
6
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
8
7
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
In
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
$
1
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
4
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
7
5
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Gr
a
n
t
s
$
-
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Lo
a
n
s
$
-
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
$
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
TO
T
A
L
$
3
4
1
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
9
8
0
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
,
4
7
9
,
0
2
9
.
0
0
$
1
,
2
8
6
,
7
2
9
.
0
0
$
3
,
7
5
6
,
7
2
9
.
0
0
$
8
,
3
6
6
,
2
2
9
.
0
0
*A
n
n
u
a
l
c
o
s
t
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
2
-
4
l
o
d
g
e
s
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
i
n
e
a
c
h
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
P121
III.