HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.202004281
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
April 28, 2020
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.CALL TO ORDER
II.ROLL CALL
III.SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
IV.CITIZENS COMMENTS & PETITIONS
(Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT scheduled for a public hearing. Please
limit your comments to 3 minutes)
Notice Regarding Public Participation at City Council Regular Meeting – Tuesday, April 28 at
4 p.m.
Attendance at the Council meetings will be via internet only. Individual members of the public
wishing to participate remotely may submit a request to comment via telephone by providing
notice to the Clerk’s Office for the City of Aspen by phone or email, 970-920-5001 or
citizencalls@cityofaspen.com at least 15 minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Such individuals will then be provided a link to participate by video conference, which shall
include a call-in telephone number, if video conferencing is unavailable.
V.SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Amendments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI.CONSENT CALENDAR
(These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
VI.A.Resolution #028, Series of 2020 - Change Order for CRW Inc. - Truscott Phase II
Roofing Project
Please approve Resolution #028, 2020
VI.B.Resolution #035, Series of 2020 - 12 inch Tiehack Waterline and Altitude Vault
Inspection: Professional Services Contract Approval.
1
2
VI.C.Resolution #037, Series of 2020 - As-Needed Three-Phase Transformer
Procurement Contract
VI.D.Resolution #039, Series of 2020 - 12 inch Tiehack Waterline ad Altitude Vault
Construction Contract
VI.E.Draft Minutes of April 9th & April 14th
VII.NOTICE OF CALL-UP
VII.A.Notice of Call Up, HPC approval for 227 E. Main Street - Conceptual Major
Development Review, Relocation, Setback Variations
VIII.FIRST READING OF ORDINANCES
IX.PUBLIC HEARINGS
IX.A.Ordinance #03, Series of 2020 - Wireless Communication Facilities Design
Guidelines and related Amendment to Section 26.505 of the Land Use Code
Second Reading
X.ACTION ITEMS
XI.ADJOURNMENT
2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Evan Pletcher, Capital Asset Project Manager
THROUGH:Jeff Pendarvis, Interim Capital Asset Manager
Cindy Christensen, APCHA Deputy Director
MEMO DATE:April 23, 2020
MEETING DATE:April 28, 2020
RE:Resolution #028, Series of 2020 - Change Order for CRW Inc. -
Truscott Phase II Roofing Project
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff requests approval of resolution #028, 2020 for a change order between CRW Inc.
and the City of Aspen to fund Phase II of the Truscott Roof Replacement Project. Staff
also requests approval to utilize funds from project #51296-Truscott Painting Buildings
10-70 in the amount of $372,104 to complete the roofing replacement project in 2020.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
On August 12th, 2019 Council approved Resolution #086, 2019, a contract between CRW
Inc. and the City of Aspen in the amount of $516,023 for Phase I (Truscott buildings 400-
1000) of the roof replacement project. A Phase I project budget of $657,427 was also
approved at that meeting.
SUMMARY:
The roofs of Truscott buildings 10-70 have reached the end of their useful lifespan and
require replacement.
BACKGROUND:
The construction of Truscott Buildings 400-1000 was completed in 1998. Truscott
buildings 10-70 were completed in 2002. The roofing assembly is original to the buildings
and has reached the end of its useful lifespan. Staff hired a roofing consultant to assemble
a drawing and specification package for Phase I of the project and to clearly define the
project scope to prospective bidders. CRW Inc. was the successful bidder for Phase I.
DISCUSSION:
The inspections of roofs for Truscott buildings 10-70, have indicated that the roofs have
reached their end of life. CRW Inc. has performed well throughout Phase I of this project
and the City can experience significant cost savings by utilizing the onsite contractor this
year. Staff anticipate that the delay of painting for one additional year will have no negative
impact to the buildings.
3
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Change orders 1-4 are associated with Phase I of this project and total $30,950. These
changes covered the costs to repair under-roof structures and fascia board, remove
snow, and add snow fencing. These were funded using Phase I project contingency.
Change Order 5 for $293,104, is for Phase II of the roof replacement project. This brings
the total change order amount for Phases I & II to date to $324,054. The total contract
amount is now $840,077. This is summarized in the table below.
A Phase II contingency of $58,000 is requested to cover unforeseen conditions. Roofing
consulting fees, in the amount of $21,000, will pay for Phase II design services and ensure
that a qualified third-party inspector approves the final roofing assembly.
Project #51296, in the amount of $400,000 for painting of Truscott buildings 10-70, was
approved and funded in 2020, but has been postponed until 2021. Staff would like to
utilize $372,104 from project #51296 to complete the roofing replacement project in 2020.
This is summarized in the table below.
Phase II Roofing Costs
Item Cost
Phase II Roof Replacements (Truscott buildings 10-70)$293,104
Phase II Contingency $58,000
Phase II Design & Consulting Fees $21,000
Additional Funding Request $372,104
Funding Available in Project #51296 $400,000
Staff plans to request re-funding of the painting project as part of the standard 2021
budget cycle. The current Truscott II fund balance is sufficient to accomplish the roof and
painting work over 2020 and 2021.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Staff and CRW Inc. will continue to monitor the construction restrictions set forth by Pitkin
County and the State of Colorado in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CRW Inc. Contract Summary
Item Cost
Original Contract Total $516,023
Phase I Change Orders $30,950
Phase II Roof Replacements (Truscott buildings 10-70)$293,104
Phase I & II Change Order Total $324,054
New Contract Total $840,077
4
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval Resolution #028, Series of 2020
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A-CRW Inc. Change Order #5
5
RESOLUTION #028
(Series of 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR ASSITANT CITY MANAGER TO TAKE
SUCH ACTION NECESSARY TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER.
WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution #028, Series of 2020, City Council approved
the Contract Change Order in the amount of $324,053.70 a true and accurate copy attached
as Exhibit A,between CRW, Inc and the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the
City of Aspen to approve the Contract pursuant to the terms thereof.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby directs the City Manager or Assistant
City Manager to take any and all action necessary to approve the Contract Change Order,
pursuant to the terms thereof.
INTRODUCED,READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on
the 14th, day of April 2020.
Torre,Mayor
I,Nicole Henning,duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of
Aspen,Colorado,at a meeting held,April 14,2020.
Nicole Henning,City Clerk
6
7
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Andy Rossello, Project Manager III
THRU:Ryan Loebach, Sr. Project Manager
Tyler Christoff, Director of Utilities
DATE OF MEMO:April 15th, 2020
MEETING DATE:April 28th, 2020
RE:12 Inch Tiehack Waterline and Altitude Vault Inspection:
Professional Services Contract Approval
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff requests a contract award to Merrick & Company in the
amount of $88,498 for the inspection of water distribution infrastructure on Tiehack Road.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has reviewed funding for this project through the
2020 budget approval process. A contract for the design of the 12-inch Tiehack waterline was
awarded to Merrick and Company on March 26
th, 2018.
BACKGROUND:Currently City of Aspen water customers west of Maroon Creek are served
by a single pipeline feed. This infrastructure conveys water from the water treatment plant
through a network of pipes to customers in the Buttermilk, Tiehack, Burlingame, Airport
Business Center and West Buttermilk Metropolitan District neighborhoods. Currently this
pipeline provides the only route for potable water to be delivered to these areas.
The city’s 2013 long-range asset management plan identified the need to have an alternate and
redundant pipeline to convey water to these neighborhoods. Staff hired professional engineers
Merrick and Company in 2018 to provide construction documents for the 12-inch Tiehack
Waterline Project. When constructed, the 12-inch pipeline shall become this recommended
redundant waterline, spanning from Maroon Creek pedestrian bridge to the Tiehack tank.
DISCUSSION: Construction projects that deal with the public health, like potable waterline
construction require extra diligence and require dedicated inspection services. Staff is requesting
sole-source approval and award of the inspection services contract for this project to Merrick and
Company. As the design engineer Merrick and Company has an intimate understanding of
project plans, specifications, and specific site concerns. Retaining Merrick and Company for
project inspection services will promote consistency and continuity through the project to help
ensure seamless project delivery.
8
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: City Staff anticipated utilizing Merrick and Company for
construction inspection on this project in order to ensure public health, safety, and adherence to
the proposed plans. Staff reviewed proposal for estimated hours and deemed to be sufficient for
the proposed construction schedule. Merrick and Company currently have an as-needed service
contract with the City of Aspen for inspection services. The rates proposed are consistent with
the as-needed service contract.
Total Project Expenditures
Merrick and Company 2020 anticipated work scope $ 88,498.00
Contract for Construction with Gould $1,447,700.00
Contingency $183,300.00
Total $ 1,719,498.00
Funding Budgeted
Utilities 2020 Funding Remaining
Project 50571-12” Line to Tiehack Tank Feed $1,719,667.00
Total $1,719,667.00
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:Maintaining and improving the City’s water distribution
system creates a more efficient and resilient water system for customers. These improvements
ultimately assist the community in their use and access to this important but finite resource.
Infrastructure reinvestment allows the utility to minimize losses and continue to provide a high
level of customer service to the community.
ALTERNATIVES:Resiliency and redundancy are fundamental goals in planning and
implementing a public water system. Staff believe this project is an important step in addressing
system deficiencies. Council can elect to forgo this contract and use existing infrastructure to
serve customers west of Maroon creek on a single non-redundant feed. This action does not
address current lack of redundancy within the system
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff request the council approve the contract with Merrick and
Company for $88,498 for the inspection of the 12-inch Tiehack waterline and altitude vault
construction project.
PROPOSED MOTION:I move to approve Resolution #35 of 2020.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Contract with Merrick and Company
B. Resolution # 35 of 2020
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
RESOLUTION # 35
(Series of 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND MERRICK AND COMPANY AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for the
inspection services of a Tiehack Road Waterline and Altitude Vault, between the
City of Aspen and Merrick and Company, a true and accurate copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit “ A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for inspection services of a Tiehack Road Waterline and Altitude Vault between
the City of Aspen and Merrick and Company, a copy of which is annexed hereto
and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute
said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 28
th day of April, 2020.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 28, 2020.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
23
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ron Christian, Electric Superintendent of Utilities
Justin Forman, P.E., Operations Manager of Utilities
THROUGH: Tyler Christoff, P.E., Director of Utilities
MEMO DATE: April 20th, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 28th, 2020
RE: As-Needed Three-Phase Padmount Transformer –Consent for
Supply Procurement Contract with WEG Transformers USA,
Resolution #037, Series of 2020
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff recommends Council approve the as-needed three-
phase padmount transformer supply contract with WEG Transformers USA.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The operation of the City’s electric distribution system requires periodic maintenance and
replacement of transformers to reliably deliver electricity to our customer base. Electric
staff currently replace transformers based on development needs, end of service life, and
equipment failure. The City’s Electrical Utility staff retain an inventory of replacement
transformers allowing for rapid replacement and minimal customer disruption. When a
given transformer is replaced, this current inventory is utilized. The attached supply
procurement contract allows the City’s Electrical Utility staff to replace the inventory it
uses throughout the year, at the negotiated prices specified in Attachment A.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Aspen advertised and solicited proposals through a competitive bid process.
Six bids for three-phase transformer supply procurement were received, reviewed, and
evaluated by staff. There was a total of ten different styles of three-phase padmount
transformers to provide price and delivery time for. The WEG Transformers USA
contained transformers with the lowest overall price. WEG had the lowest transformer
price listed for at least 8 of 10 styles when compared to any of the other manufacturers.
Finally, their delivery times were in the top tier of availability. WEG has been awarded this
project in the past, the delivery and performance met staff’s satisfaction.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
The bid amount for each transformer type is shown in Attachment A. Staff intends to use
the contract services as-needed. Staff have budgeted the following funding based on
procuring those transformers.
24
Funding
Electrical System Replacement Account Budget $ 150,000
(431.323.81200.57210.51125)
Total Funding $ 150,000
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The City of Aspen currently owns and operates a 100% renewably powered utility,
transformers are a critical component to the distribution of this electricity to customers.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council could forgo this contract and use the transformers that are currently in inventory,
however when this supply is exhausted there would be at least a 12-week lead time for
manufacture and delivery. This may create extreme extended customer outages.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends Council approve the as-needed three-phase
transformer supply procurement contract with WEG Transformers USA.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A – Supply Procurement Contract – WEG Transformers USA
Attachment B – Resolution #037, WEG Transformers USA
25
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT
City of Aspen Project No.: _2020-034_.
AGREEMENT made as of _13th___ day of _April_______, in the year __2020______.
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o _Utilities – Justin Forman
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5055
And the Vendor:
WEG Transformers USA
c/o
One Pauwels Drive
Washington, Missouri 63090
Phone: 636-239-9300
Summary Description of Items to be Purchased:
Various three-phase padmount transformers on an as-needed basis.
Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement:
If this Agreement requires the City to pay
an amount of money in excess of
$50,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
City Council Approval:
Date: April 28, 2020
Resolution No.:___________________
Exhibit A: Cost and list of supplies, equipment, technical specifications, or materials to be
purchased.
Total: $_150,000.00_
26
The City and Vendor agree as set forth below.
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A
appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum
set forth hereinabove.
2. Delivery. (FOB 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Colorado) [Delivery Address]
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the
same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of
this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. Warranty included is included in Exhibit A.
5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure
to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents,
representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the
Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder
without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to
confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may
assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim
damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor
because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or
conditions herein contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein
contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to
be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney’s fees.
10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the
parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
27
11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary
Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is
presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily
excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It
further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification
in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event
that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation
was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit
or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,
percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide
established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of
securing business.
(B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the
content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation,
auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for
ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this
Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
(C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been
disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
(D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or
subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of
anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this
Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason
and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and
convenience.
28
14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal
year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise
made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of
money in excess of $50,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap,
or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement.
Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City’s municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining
to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the
spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and
federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any
prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City
official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council
meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on
behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing
and be executed by the parties hereto.
18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full
and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified
herein.
19. Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records This Agreement and any
amendments hereto may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on the Parties,
notwithstanding the possible event that all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart.
Furthermore, each Party consents to the use of electronic signatures by either Party. The Scope
of Work, and any other documents requiring a signature hereunder, may be signed electronically
in the manner agreed to by the Parties. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or
enforceability of the Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic
record was used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the
Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic documents, or a
paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic
record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original.
29
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement
to be duly executed the day and year first herein, of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be
considered as the original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: Attest:
By: __ _________________________ ______________________________
Aspen City Manager Nicole Henning, City Clerk
_______________________________
Date
SUPPLIER:
WEG TRANSFORMERS USA
By:________________________________
___________________________________
Title
___________________________________
Date
30
&RQWUDFWRU¶V,QLWLDOV
%,'352326$/)250
%,''(5
%,''(5¶6%,'352326$/
72 7KH*RYHUQLQJ%RG\RIWKH&LW\RI$VSHQ&RORUDGR
7KHXQGHUVLJQHGUHVSRQVLEOHELGGHUGHFODUHVDQGVWLSXODWHVWKDWWKLVSURSRVDOLVPDGHLQJRRGIDLWK
ZLWKRXWFROOXVLRQRUFRQQHFWLRQZLWKDQ\RWKHUSHUVRQRUSHUVRQVELGGLQJIRUWKHVDPHLWHPDQGWKDW
LWLVPDGHLQSXUVXDQFHRIDQGVXEMHFWWRDOOWKHWHUPVDQGFRQGLWLRQVRIWKHDGYHUWLVHPHQWIRUELGWKH
LQYLWDWLRQ WR ELG DQG UHTXHVW IRU ELG DOO WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RIWKH ELG GRFXPHQWV LQFOXGLQJ WKH
VSHFLILFDWLRQVIRUWKLVELGDOORIZKLFKKDYHEHHQUHDGDQGH[DPLQHGSULRUWRVLJQDWXUH7KHELGGHU
DJUHHVWRNHHSWKLVELGRSHQIRU6L[W\ FRQVHFXWLYHFDOHQGDUGD\VIURPWKHGDWHRIELG
RSHQLQJ
7KH &LW\ RI $VSHQ UHVHUYHV WKH ULJKW WR PDNH WKH DZDUG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH ELG GHHPHG PRVW
IDYRUDEOHWRWKH&LW\WRZDLYHDQ\LQIRUPDOLWLHVRUWRUHMHFWDQ\RUDOOELGV
%\VLJQLQJWKLVGRFXPHQW%LGGHUFHUWLILHVDQGUHSUHVHQWVWKDWDWWKLVWLPH
L 3URIHVVLRQDOVKDOOFRQILUPWKHHPSOR\PHQWHOLJLELOLW\RIDOOHPSOR\HHVZKRDUH
QHZO\KLUHGIRUHPSOR\PHQWLQWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV DQG
LL 3URIHVVLRQDOKDVSDUWLFLSDWHGRUDWWHPSWHGWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQWKH%DVLF3LORW3URJUDP
LQRUGHUWRYHULI\WKDWLWGRHVQRWHPSOR\LOOHJDODOLHQV
352-(&712
%,''$7( SP$SULOQG
352-(&7 7KUHH3KDVH7UDQVIRUPHUVIRU&LW\(OHFWULF
352326$/68%0,77('%<
,KHUHE\DFNQRZOHGJHUHFHLSWRI$''(1'80 V QXPEHUHG WKURXJKBBBBBBBBBBBBB
%3 GRF
%3 3DJH
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
WEG Transformers USA
11
AH
31
%3 GRF
%3 3DJH
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
&RQWUDFWRU¶V,QLWLDOV
'HVFULSWLRQRI,WHP V WR%H3XUFKDVHG
7KUHH3KDVH8QGHUJURXQG7UDQVIRUPHUV
ZĂƚĞĚŬs>Žǁ^ŝĚĞ ĞůŝǀĞƌLJͬ^ŚŝƉƉŝŶŐ
ŽƐƚƐ
ĞůŝǀĞƌLJdŝŵĞŝŶ
ĂLJƐ
dŽƚĂůŽƐƚƉĞƌ
dƌĂŶƐĨŽƌŵĞƌ
ϳϱŬs ϭϮϬͬϮϬϴs
ϳϱŬs ϮϳϳͬϰϴϬs
ϭϱϬŬs ϭϮϬͬϮϬϴs
ϮϮϱŬs ϭϮϬͬϮϬϴs
ϯϬϬŬs ϭϮϬͬϮϬϴs
ϱϬϬŬs ϭϮϬͬϮϬϴs
ϱϬϬŬs ϮϳϳͬϰϴϬs
ϳϱϬŬs ϭϮϬͬϮϬϴs
ϳϱϬŬs ϮϳϳͬϰϴϬs
ϯϬϬŬs ϮϳϳͬϰϴϬs
ŽƐƚƉĞƌ ĂĐŚsŽůƚĂŐĞ
,DFNQRZOHGJHWKDWLQVXEPLWWLQJWKLVELGLWLVXQGHUVWRRGWKDWWKHULJKWWRUHMHFWDQ\DQGDOOELGVKDVEHHQ
UHVHUYHGE\WKHRZQHU
$XWKRUL]HG2IILFHU 7LWOH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
)XOOQDPHVLJQDWXUH
&RPSDQ\DGGUHVV
7HOHSKRQHQXPEHU BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(PDLO$GGUHVV BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
$WWHVWHGE\
Alexa Hoffman
$6,342.00
$6,416.00
$7,578.00
$8,569.00
$9,790.00
$14,611.00
$11,194.00
$20,380.00
$14,118.00
$9,061.00
$300.00
$305.00
$358.00
$397.00
$452.00
$583.00
$521.00
$819.00
$654.00
$429.00
15 - 17
Weeks
$6,642.00
$6,721.00
$7,935.00
$8,966.00
$10,242.00
$15,193.00
$11,715.00
$21,199.00
$14,772.00
$9,490.00
WEG #
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Alexa Hoffman Account Specialist
1 Pauwels Drive
Washington, Missouri USA
636 - 239 - 9337
ahoffman@weg.net
AH
Marc Schillebeeckx
32
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington Missouri 63090, USA
T: +1 (636) 239-9300 F: +1 (636) 239-9395 www.weg.net/us
COMMERCIAL TERMS: WEG Transformers USA LLC is an ISO
certified company. Our standard Terms and Conditions of Sale apply
unless otherwise indicated. WEG assumes no obligations or liabilities
beyond those specified in the WEG document entitled “Terms &
Conditions of Sale”. Unless otherwise indicated in this proposal, standard
delivery terms are F.O.B. WEG Factory, freight prepaid and allowed.
Freight is included in the proposed equipment price with Purchaser
assuming all risk of loss and damage in transit and liable for cost, such as
demurrage or detention, after the purchased equipment has left our
loading docks or facility.
COMMERCIAL NOTES: This Proposal is based on our interpretation
of any Specifications, Drawings, and/or other information provided to
WEG. Accuracy and completeness is the sole responsibility of the
Distributor, Contractor, and End User. If any item or service is not listed
it is not included nor implied to be. All items or services not shown or
listed will be the responsibility of the Distributor, Contractor, and End
User to furnish or provide.
Upon order entry by WEG, the transformer will be acknowledged to ship
at the quoted lead time or the best available lead time. Lead times quoted
are based on accurate and complete information from the customer. If
additional information or clarifications are required, a delayed response
from the customer may affect the ship date(s) of the unit(s). WEG cannot
be held accountable for such delays.
TECHNICAL NOTES: Our proposal is valid for the equipment
specifically described in the attached WEG Technical Specs. Adding of
any required design features not included in our Technical Specs at time
of proposal may result in revisions to the proposed price, delivery time,
or any other particulars related to the herewith submitted proposal.
All Transformers are shipped with our standard Operations and
Maintenance manual, unless otherwise indicated.
Impedance (%IZ nominal) and/or losses quoted are subject to the
applicable ANSI tolerances. Average sound level shall not exceed NEMA
standards. Rubber Goods such as primary elbow connectors, portable
insulated standoff bushings, dead-end caps/plugs, as well as items such as
hot sticks, hook sticks, padlocks, and special tools unless specified in the
BOM, are Purchaser supplied. For Delta configured transformers, core
design shall be 3-legged stacked and not 5-legged wound type. Annealing
for our stacked designs is “not required”.
SHIPPING NOTES: Shipment will be made according to the quoted
lead times after complete order information is received by the factory,
inclusive of approval/record type drawings when requested at time of
order. Should standard approval drawings be required, they can be
emailed 2-3 weeks ARO.
All prices are for shipments arriving by truck at Purchaser’s site, Mon-
Fri, 8AM-5PM. If alternative delivery is required, freight price adders
may apply. Purchaser should advise at or before time of order of any
special requirements.
TESTING:This proposal includes standard factory testing. These tests
are standard routine test as defined by the latest IEEE C57.12.00 and
C57.12.90 standards. Pricing includes WEG “standard” factory tests
below:
x Winding Resistance Measurements
x Ratio Test and phase relation
x No-Load Loss and Excitation Current
x Load Losses and Impedance Voltage
x Low Frequency Test
x Applied Voltage on Secondary
x Applied Voltage on Primary (Delta connected only)
x Induced Voltage
x Phase Relation
x Lightning Impulse Testing
x Auxiliary Wiring Dielectric
x Bushing Current Transformer
x Standard Lead Test of Fully Assembled Transformer
x Mechanical Inspection
Accuracy of test equipment is within +/- 3% traceable to national Bureau
of Standards and calibrated annually. Additional testing beyond those
listed will incur fees per schedule.
Certified test reports can be provided at no additional charge upon
indication at time of purchase order placement. Price adders will be
incurred per schedule for items such as witness testing, special tests,
inspections, etc.
CANCELLATION SCHEDULE:If an order cancellation occurs after
award, penalties will apply per WEG Cancellation Schedule.
STATUS SALES PRICE
Order Acknowledged 5%
Order Scheduled 10%
Engineering
- Drawings issued 15%
Production Control
- Final material ordered 30%
- Schedules issued to the
Transformer Production
- Tank started 50%
- Core started 65%
- Coil started 75%
- Core & Coil assembly 100%
-Unit in the oven 100%
- Unit tanked 100%
- Unit tested 100%
- Unit in final assembly 100%
-Unitdock 100%
Unit Shipped 100%
PROPOSAL NOTES
40%
plant
The proposed equipment is based on application at an altitude of ft.
and below
7,908
.
33
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington Missouri 63090, USA
T: +1 (636) 239-9300 F: +1 (636) 239-9395 www.weg.net/us
GENERAL: Unless otherwise specifically stated on the front side of the Quotation, Order
Acknowledgement of invoice forms of the WEG Transformers USA LLC, (hereinafter called
“Company”), or unless otherwise expressly agreed to by Company in writing, the following
terms and conditions shall govern and control all sales by the Company. Any terms in a
Purchaser’s inquiries, purchase orders, other forms, letters or elsewhere, irrespective of their
materiality, which are either different from or in addition to Company’s conditions of sale
recited herein (or Company’s special conditions of sale set forth in the applicable product-line
price sheet) are objected to and are excluded unless the Company expressly agrees in writing
to such terms. Acceptance of the goods shipped shall constitute assent to Company’s conditions
of sale. No other terms or conditions in contradiction hereof shall be applicable, whether
contained in Purchaser’s inquiries, purchase orders, other forms, letters or elsewhere
QUOTATIONS, ORDERS, PRICES: Unless otherwise stated in writing, Company’s
quotations are subject to acceptance by the Purchaser within thirty (30) days. Orders will be
billed at prices in effect at time of shipment, unless otherwise so stated in the quotation.
Published prices and discounts are subject to change without notice. Possession of price or
discount sheets in no way obligates Company to sell to the Purchaser possessing such price or
discount sheets. Orders are subject to final approval and acceptance at Company’s factory.
Unless otherwise stated in writing, Company reserves the right to ship plus or minus ten (10%)
per cent of specified quantity of items not cataloged. Unless otherwise stated on front side of
Company’s Quotation. Order Acknowledgement or Invoice, method of sh ipment by Company
shall in all cases be F.O.B. Factories. For sales to clients outside the United States of America
sale shall be concluded following the INCOTERMS named in the contract or, if it is not
mentioned, according to EX WORKS (INCOTERMS).
SALES AND SIMILAR TAXES: The Company’s prices do not include Federal, State or
municipal sales, use, excise or similar taxes, consequently, in addition to the price specified
herein, the amount of any present or future sales, use, excise or other similar tax applicable to
the sale or use of the equipment hereunder, shall be paid by the Purchaser, or in lieu thereof
the Purchaser shall provide the Company with a tax exemption acceptable to the taxing
authorities.
TERMS: Net thirty (30) days from date of Company’s invoice. Invoice subject to SERVICE
CHARGE if not paid within terms.
METHOD OF DELIVERY: For all sales within the United States of America, all prices on
WEG Transformers USA price sheets are F.O.B. Factories with freight allowed via cheapest
way to any domestic common carrier points (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) on shipments of
net invoice value of $2,000.00 or more. On less than $2,000.00 net invoice value, the shipment
will be made freight collect or prepaid and added to the invoice. When method of shipment is
specified by purchaser, any additional expense will be borne by the purchaser. On F.O.B.
Factory shipments and shipments less than $2,000.00 net invoice value, the Company reserves
the right to make partial shipments against orders which do not meet Company’s freight
allowance terms.
MINIMUM CHARGE: On orders for less than $250.00, the amount billed will be $250.00.
Exceptions are for parts, which are not subject to the $250.00 minimum order charge.
CANCELLATION OR DELAY BY PURCHASER: No order or contract may be cancelled
or delayed by Purchaser except upon payment by Purchaser of cancellation or delay charges,
based upon expenses already incurred and commitments made by Company. All cancellations
are subject to acceptance by WEG Transformers USA.
RETURNED GOODS: Specific written request and arrangements must be made in advance
in order for Purchaser to obtain credit or replacement on material returned. Request for return
of material must be made within one year of original shipping date. If the material being
returned is currently priced in a WEG Transformers USA price sheet, it can be replaced
in like dollar amount of other priced items based on the list price of the items returned as well
as those items replacing the returned items subject to the following adjustments. Purchaser
must reimburse the Company for outgoing shipping costs, prepay return shipment and pay a
minimum handling charge of 10% or $20.00, whichever is more, plus any charges necessary
to rework and/or repackage to resalable condition.
All other Items approved for return, purchaser must reimburse Company for outgoing
shipping costs, prepay return shipment and pay a minimum restocking charge of 20% or
$20.00, whichever is more, plus any charges necessary to rework and/or repackage goods to
resalable condition.
DELAYS, DAMAGE OR LOSS: Notwithstanding any conditions contained in Purchaser’s
purchase order (or other forms) to the contrary, Company is not and shall not be liable for
details in shipment or delivery of materials, goods or equipment, detention thereof, loss or
damage thereto, when due to acts of God, acts of the Purchaser, acts of civil or military
authority, priorities, U.S. governmental restrictions or embargoes, war, riot, fires, strikes,
flood, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, default or delay by supplier, breakdown in
manufacturing facilities, machinery or equipment, delays in transportation or difficulties
obtaining necessary materials, labor or manufacturing facilities due to such causes or any other
cause beyond its reasonable control.
WARRANTY: Company warrants to Purchaser that the equipment to be delivered to
Purchaser will be free from defects in material and workmanship when used under proper and
normal use for a period of 12 months after the equipment is put into service. Not to exceed 18
months from the date the equipment is delivered (whether by sale, lease or rental). Organic
insulation materials are sold with the express understanding that their life and fitness for
purpose are indeterminate and largely depend on application and operating circumstances and
continuing maintenance. Should any failure to conform to the above (or to any additional
warranty contained in the special conditions of sale set forth in the applicable product-line price
sheet) appear with within one (1) year after the date of shipment by Company, the Company
agrees, upon prompt notification thereof and conformation that the equipment has been stored,
installed, operated and maintained in accordance with recommendations of the Company and
standard industry practice, to correct the nonconformity at Company’s option either by
repairing any defective part or parts or by making available at Company’s plant a repaired or
replacement part. The liability of Company to Purchaser arising out of the supplying of said
equipment or its use, whether on warranty, contract or negligence, shall not in any event exceed
the cost of correcting defects in the equipment as herein provided, and upon the expiration of
said one (1) year, all such liability shall terminate. The foregoing shall constitute the sole
remedy of the Purchaser and the sole liability of Company. The Warranty does not and
shall not include reimbursement for the expenses which may be incurred by Purchaser. Before
any material is returned, Purchaser must contact Company, as outlined under Returned Goods.
No warranty is made with respect to equipment not manufactured by Company, such being
subject only to warranties made by their respective manufacturers. Company shall in no event
be responsible or liable for modifications, alterations, misapplication or repairs made to its
products or equipment by Purchaser or others, or for damage caused thereto by negligence,
accident, overloading or improper use by Purchaser or others.
THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS EXCLUSIVE AND IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER
WARRANTIES WHETHER WRITTEN, ORAL OR IMPLIED (INCLUDING ANY
WARRANTY ON MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE). THE ONLY
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR PURPOSE ARE
THOSE EXPRESSED ABOVE AND THERE ARE NO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Buyer expressly agrees that, notwithstanding any other
provision of this contract, under no circumstances shall Seller’s total aggregate liability
resulting from:
(1) The performance, failure to perform or breach of Seller’s obligations herein,
and
(2) Any activity undertaken by Seller with regard to equipment and services
covered by this contract, and
(3) All actions based on negligence of any kind, strict liability or tort on the part of
Seller or its suppliers, and
(4) Otherwise exceed the price paid by Buyer for the product.
BUYER EXPRESSLY AGREES THAT SELLER WILL NOT BE LIABLE UNDER ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY FOR ANY PENALTY OR FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT
LIMITATION,THE LOSS OF USE, INCOME, PROFITS OR PRODUCTION, OR
INCREASED COST OF OPERATION, OR DAMAGE TO MATERIAL, OR DOWN-TIME
COSTS, OR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVAL OF EQUIPMENT OR
PRODUCTS FROM SERVICE OR REINSTALLATION, DISASEMBLY OR
REASSEMBLY, OR CALIMS OF THIRD PARTIES AGAINST BUYER, ARISING IN
CONNECTION WITH THE SALE, INSTALLATION, USE OF, INABILITY TO USE, OR
THE REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT OF SELLER’S PRODUCTS. Buyer shall indemnify
and hold Seller harmless for any liability to Buyer’s employees, workers, contractors or any
other persons beyond the limitation provided in this Section.
LIMITATION ON CLAIMS AND ACTIONS: Any claim by Buyer for breach of the
foregoing warranty shall be deemed waived by Buyer unless submitted to Seller in writing
within thirty days from the date Buyer discovered, or by reasonable inspection should have
discovered the alleged breach. Any cause of action for breach of the foregoing warranty shall
be brought within one year after the cause of action has accrued.
OSHA: Seller warrants that at time of shipment the equipment will conform to the applicable
occupational safety and health standards promulgated pursuant to the Federal Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970, and which are in effect on the date that Seller enters its
acknowledgement of Buyer’s order. The Buyer’s exclusive remedy and Seller’s liability for
breach of this warranty is limited to replacement of nonconforming equipment.
MISCELLANEOUS: Company will comply with all applicable Federal, State and local laws,
and specifically represents that any goods to be delivered hereunder will be produced in
compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
TERMS & CONDITIONS OF SALE
34
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 10
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $6,642.00 Extended Price: $13,284.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 75 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 208Y/120 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 201 Watts Load Loss: 731 Watts Total Loss: 932 Watts
Impedance: 2.66 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
35
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 20
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $6,721.00 Extended Price: $13,442.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 75 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 480Y/277 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 208 Watts Load Loss: 694 Watts Total Loss: 902 Watts
Impedance: 2.66 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
36
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 30
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $7,935.00 Extended Price: $15,870.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 150 kVA Model #: M0166406-01
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 208Y/120 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 339 Watts Load Loss: 1307 Watts Total Loss: 1646 Watts
Impedance: 2.63 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum H Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
37
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 40
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $8,966.00 Extended Price: $17,932.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 225 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 208Y/120 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 442 Watts Load Loss: 1881 Watts Total Loss: 2323 Watts
Impedance: 2.58 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
38
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 50
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $10,242.00 Extended Price: $20,484.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 300 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 208Y/120 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
Impedance: 2.64 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
39
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 60
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $15,193.00 Extended Price: $30,386.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 500 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 208Y/120 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Copper
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 788 Watts Load Loss: 3689 Watts Total Loss: 4477 Watts
Impedance: 2.59 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 6 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
40
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 70
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $11,715.00 Extended Price: $23,430.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 500 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 480Y/277 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 836 Watts Load Loss: 3497 Watts Total Loss: 4333 Watts
Impedance: 2.55 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, 25 KV, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain valve w/Sampler
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
41
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 80
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $21,199.00 Extended Price: $42,398.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 750 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 208Y/120 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 863 Watts Load Loss: 5986 Watts Total Loss: 6849 Watts
Impedance: 5.73 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, 25 KV, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Non-removable 10 Hole Copper Spades, Spade Support
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain valve w/Sampler
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
42
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 90
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $14,772.00 Extended Price: $29,544.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 750 kVA Model #: M0172931-01
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 480Y/277 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 907 Watts Load Loss: 5890 Watts Total Loss: 6797 Watts
Impedance: 5.78 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, 25 KV, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 6 Hole Aluminum J Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (358C12/A06), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain valve w/Sampler
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
43
TECHNICAL SPECS
Date: 4/9/2020
Quotation Number: 95930285
Item Number: 100
Printed by Alexa R Hoffman on 4/9/2020
WEG Transformers USA
One Pauwels Drive, Washington, MO 63090, USA
www.weg.net T: 1-636-239-9300 F: 1-636-239-9395
Customer Line No.: Quantity: 2
Unit Price: $9,490.00 Extended Price: $18,980.00
Three Phase Pad-Mount Transformer(s)
kVA Rating: 300 kVA Model #:
Mineral Oil Immersed Cooling Class: ONAN
High-Altitude considerations
@ 7908 Feet
Frequency: 60 Hz
Avg. Winding Temp. 65 °C
Primary Voltage: 24940 GrdY/14400 volts Secondary Voltage: 480Y/277 volts
Primary BIL Rating: 125 kV Secondary BIL Rating: 30 kV
HV Winding Matl: Aluminum LV Winding Matl: Aluminum
High Voltage Taps: B Taps - Two 2.5% Taps below Nominal and Two 2.5% Taps above Nominal
No Load Loss: 585 Watts Load Loss: 2260 Watts Total Loss: 2845 Watts
Impedance: 2.69 %
Tank Enclosure:
Welded Cover
Cabinet Depth: 19 Inches, Pentahead Security Bolts
Steel HV-LV Barrier
Bushings:
Loop Feed ANSI Minimum Dimensions
Dead Front Primary Terminations: Wells 200 Amp, (6) Inserts
Secondary Terminations: Epoxy Bushings w/Thread-on 4 Hole Aluminum Spades
Protection:
Dual Sensing Bayonet Fusing (), w/Flapper valve bayonet fuse holder, Plastic Dripshield (3)
Accessories:
Pressure Relief Valve Viat 302-060-01N, Drain plug
Liquid Level (Sight Gauge)
1" Fill Plug with Schrader Valve
Switching:
H0X0 Grounding Switch, Two 2-Position Line Switches (300 Amps)
Paint Color:
GREEN (Munsell 7.0GY3.29/1.5),
Standards:
Quoted in compliance with the latest applicable ANSI standards unless otherwise specified by the customer.
Shipment: 15 to 17 weeks
44
RESOLUTION # 037
(Series of 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN,
AND WEG TRANSFORMERS USA AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for
Electrical Three Phase Transformer Procurement, between the City of Aspen and
WEG Transformers USA a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract for
Electrical Three Phase Transformer Procurement, between the City of Aspen and
WEG Transformers USA, copies of which are annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said agreements on
behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 28th day of April 2020.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 28, 2020.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
45
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Andy Rossello, Project Manager III
THRU: Ryan Loebach, Sr. Project Manager
Tyler Christoff, Director of Utilities
DATE OF MEMO: April 15th, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 28th, 2020
RE: 12 Inch Tiehack Waterline and Altitude Vault Construction
Contract
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests a contract award to Gould Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $1,447,700.00 for the construction of water distribution infrastructure on Tiehack
Road.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has reviewed funding for this project through the
2020 budget approval process.
BACKGROUND: Currently City of Aspen water customers west of Maroon Creek are served
by a single pipeline located within the right of way on Highway 82. This infrastructure conveys
water from the water treatment plant to customers in the Buttermilk, Tiehack, Burlingame,
Airport Business Center and West Buttermilk Metropolitan District neighborhoods. Currently
this pipeline provides the only route for potable water to be delivered to these areas.
The city’s 2013 Long-Range Asset Management Plan identified the need to have an alternate and
redundant pipeline to convey water to these neighborhoods. Staff hired professional engineers
Merrick and Company in 2018 to provide construction documents for the 12-inch Tiehack
Waterline Project. When constructed, the 12-inch pipeline shall become this recommended
redundant waterline, spanning from Maroon Creek pedestrian bridge to the Tiehack tank. See
Figure 1 (attached).
DISCUSSION: City staff solicited bids from qualified construction teams to construct this
critical water infrastructure. All construction activities for this project will meet current city
Water Distribution Standards and Engineering Standards.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Bids received from all bidders are summarized below:
Gould Construction, Inc. $1,447,700.00
Stutsman-Gerbaz $1,770,918.89
Phoenix Industries $1,788,131.90
46
Page 2 of 2
Heyl Construction $2,399,983.75
Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to Gould Construction, Inc.’s based on
their qualifications and responsiveness to the Invitation to Bid. The proposed project funding and
expenditures are outlined below:
Total Project Expenditures
Gould Construction, Inc. $1,447,700.00
Contingency $183,300.00
Merrick and Company 2020 anticipated work scope $ 88,498.00
Total $1,719,498.00
Funding Budgeted
Utilities 2020 Funding Remaining
Project 50571-12” Line to Tiehack Tank Feed $1,719,667.00
Total $1,719,667.00
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Maintaining and improving the City’s water distribution
system creates a more efficient and resilient water system for customers. These improvements
ultimately assist the community in their use and access to this important but finite resource.
Infrastructure reinvestment allows the utility to minimize losses and continue to provide a high
level of customer service to the community.
ALTERNATIVES: Resiliency and redundancy are fundamental goals in planning and
implementing a public water system. Staff believe this project is an important step in addressing
system deficiencies. Council can elect to forgo this contract and use existing infrastructure to
serve customers west of Maroon creek on a single non-redundant feed. This action does not
address current lack of redundancy within the system
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff request the council approve the contract with Gould
Construction, Inc. for $1,447,700.00 for the construction of water distribution infrastructure on
Tiehack Road.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution #39 of 2020.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Contract with Gould Construction, Inc.
B.Resolution # 39 of 2020
47
Figure 1: 12-Inch Tiehack Waterline
The red line depicts the new waterline alignment 48
RESOLUTION # 39
(Series of 2020)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN
AND GOULD CONSTRUCTION, INC. AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract for the
Construction of a Tiehack Road Waterline and Altitude Vault, between the City of
Aspen and Gould Construction, Inc., a true and accurate copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that Contract
for construction of a Tiehack Road Waterline and Altitude Vault between the City
of Aspen and Gould Construction, Inc., a copy of which is annexed hereto and
incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute said
agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 28
th day of April, 2020.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, April 28th, 2020.
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
1
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 9TH, 2020
At 4:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the special virtual meeting to order with Councilmembers Richards,
Mullins, Hauenstein and Mesirow.
Councilwoman Mullins gave an update on the RFTA regularly scheduled meeting. She said rider
numbers have stayed consistent and increased slightly. They have made some improvements. They are
not charging fares and the rows behind the driver are roped off and only 9 people can sit at a time. As
of Monday, you’ll have to wear face covering and this will be required. RFTA has put forth $380,000 to
make the buses safe and respond to Covid-19.
Mayor Torre said there is a request for an executive session. Jim True suggested that council go into
executive session regarding receiving legal advice for entities of negotiation.
Councilwoman Mullins motioned to move into executive session and Councilwoman Richards seconded.
Roll call vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Torre, yes; Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes.
The special meeting reconvened at 4:58 p.m.
Mayor Torre said the special meeting is being held for consideration of Resolutions #033 and #034, as
well as Ordinance #05. Mr. True said the ordinance needs to be read today and adopted next Tuesday
at the regular meeting.
Mayor Torre asked Sara Ott about the relationship between the resolutions and the ordinance. Ms. Ott
said #033 provides the five outcomes council would like to accomplish for relief efforts and economic
stimulus. The current appropriations are not sufficient enough to meet so it allows staff to start working
on these items. Ordinance #05 is not the only opportunity for council to make appropriations.
Councilman Hauenstein asked if additional funding would again be in the form of an emergency
ordinance and Ms. Ott said all appropriations should happen via ordinance.
RESOLUTION #033, SERIES OF 2020 – A resolution adopting five outcome statements and related
objectives.
Mayor Torre went through each outcome with discussion on each with Ms. Ott providing clarity.
Councilwoman Mullins said she is supportive of all outcomes and will let staff take the lead.
All council members support outcomes #1 and #2.
All council members said they are supportive of outcome #3.
Ms. Ott said we need to have another conversation on this, but the gaps are closing quickly. There is aid
in the valley that is already going out and the federal funds are flowing down into our community now.
Mayor Torre said we don’t want to rush this and want to get this right the first time.
Councilwoman Richards said she would like a work session on Monday night to continue the discussion.
She suggested adding landlords into this conversation. She said we need to identify and respond to
gaps.
Councilman Hauenstein agreed that the landlords should share in the sacrifice and be a part of the
conversation.
64
2
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 9TH, 2020
Councilman Mesirow suggested working “swiftly”, and Councilwoman Mullins supported that.
Councilwoman Mullins said she understands that all council members want to provide support to the
entire valley, not just those in Pitkin County. Councilman Mesirow agreed.
Councilwoman Richards really likes outcome #5, but said it’s needs some elaboration at a later date.
Councilwoman Mullins supports outcome #5. She would make a motion with the amendments they
spoke about.
Regarding outcome #6, Ms. Ott said they need to do some homework on the staff side as she does not
want this to get too prescriptive.
Mayor Torre asked Mr. True if they should take a motion on resolution #033 at this time or wait and do
all of them together. Mr. True said that they can take care of them separately. He said that resolution
#033 is ready to be passed.
Councilwoman Mullins motioned to pass Resolution #033; Councilwoman Richards seconded. Roll call
vote: Richards, yes; Mullins, yes; Mesirow, yes.
Ms. Ott recommended a break as two of the councilmembers went offline.
The roll call vote continued after the technical break.
Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Torre, yes; Mullins, yes; Mesirow, yes. 5-0, motion
carried.
ORDINANCE #05, SERIES OF 2020 – Adopting Emergency Appropriations to the Municipal Code
Councilman Hauenstein motioned to read Ordinance #05, Councilwoman Mullins seconded. Roll call
vote: Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Torre, yes; Mesirow, yes.
Mayor Torre said to make sure you’ve read through the “whereas’” and they can move on to the “now
therefore”.
Councilwoman Richards asked for clarification on who terminates this. Mr. True said city council will
make that determination.
Ms. Ott said council does not want to prematurely end our emergency declaration so as not to receive
help on a federal level.
Councilwoman Richards said she thinks the 2 million listed is too low. She suggested increasing it to 3
million.
Councilwoman Mullins thinks it’s a good first step and she’s happy to pass as written tonight.
Councilman Hauenstein said he’s comfortable with the 2 million as Ann is and said it’s a good starting
point.
Councilman Mesirow supports Rachel’sidea of an extra million if need be. He would prefer not to take
money from the housing fund, but the general fund. He would make those two amendments.
65
3
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 9TH, 2020
Councilwoman Mullins said that we have to be fiscally responsible to the taxpayers. She’s in favor of a
measured response.
Councilman Hauenstein said we have a whole list of unknowns here and he would leave the money in
the housing fund as well.
Mayor Torre said he is supportive of the amount being raised by 1 million.
Councilman Mesirow said staff’s rationalization for the housing fund is in line with Ward’s idea. Pete
Strecker clarified that they are using general fund dollars and not really Wheeler fund dollars. Whatever
you take from the Wheeler fund does have to be paid back. We do have options to borrow when going
out to build new affordable housing. You cannot borrow for rent relief. This is a good source of
resources which goes towards affordable housing.
Mr. True reminded Mayor Torre that he never had Ms. Henning read the ordinance. Mayor Torre asked
her to read.
Councilwoman Mullins motioned to approve Ordinance #05, Series of 2020 as amended by Jim True,
seconded by Councilman Hauenstein.
Councilwoman Richards made a substitute motion to approve Ordinance #05, Series of 2020 as
amended by Jim True, and amended by council in section #2 to increase the amount from 2 to 3 million
and added verbiage to section #2, item A; “and/or governmental partners”.
Councilman Mesirow seconded Rachel’s motion to amend. Roll call vote: Torre, yes; Mesirow, yes;
Hauenstein, no; Mullins, no; Richards, yes. 3-2, motion carried.
Roll call vote for Councilwoman Mullins’ motion as amended: Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Mesirow,
yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
RESOLUTION #034, SERIES OF 2020 – Mr. True said you can pass this tonight or wait until Tuesday.
Councilman Hauenstein motioned to continue resolution #034 to next Tuesday night to have an exact
amount reflected, Councilwoman Richards seconded. Roll call vote: Mesirow, yes; Richards, yes;
Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
Mayor Torre said they will discuss having a work session on Monday night.
Councilman Hauenstein motioned to adjourn, Councilman Mesirow seconded. Roll call vote: Mesirow,
yes; Hauenstein, yes; Torre, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
66
4
SPECIAL MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 9TH, 2020
67
1
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Torre called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Richards, Mesirow,
Mullins and Hauenstein joining via video conference.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Elizabeth Milias – Ms. Milias said that she doesn’t want them to approve the consent in a single motion
tonight. She can tell that many of these contracts were put forward in a very different time. She
mentioned the aerial photography, the traffic light and the various as needed contracts in an extensive
packet. We are facing a very different world at this point.
Lee Mulcahy – Mr. Mulcahy said he is grateful for many things and for Mayor Torre. He seconded
everything Elizabeth said. He read from a 2019 APCHA meeting from public comment of Tom Coggins,
who owns High Mountain Taxi, who spoke in Lee’s favor. He spoke about a balanced community.
Councilman Hauenstein said it’s nice to see some normal items on the agenda tonight besides COVID
related issues. He extends his best wishes to everyone and he said that now is the time to do all we are
told to do regarding maintaining distance and washing hands and staying home. He thanked everyone
for their vigilance.
Councilwoman Mullins said she wishes everyone the best. She said she waves at people going past her
house who are out making the best of it and getting exercise. She said she hopes everyone gets on
board with wearing face masks. She said the stage 1 fire ban right now is to preserve emergency
resources and she warned everyone to be careful in the mountains right now due to avalanches. She
reminded all to fill out the census forms.
Councilwoman Richards said the neighboring counties have been hit harder than we have here. As Anne
said, the census is critically important for long term recovery and issues going forward. Tomorrow is
April 15th, taxes are due if you have not filed already. She wished everyone well.
Councilman Mesirow said he has seen all four council members working all hours and stepping forward
to help. He gave a shout out to city staff as well. He said little kids and elders are stepping up. He took a
moment to offer gratitude. He said it’s a good time to ask what more we can do to support the
community. It’s up to each of us each day and it is a pivotal week. Let’s invest in each other and choose
the future we want.
Councilwoman Mullins verified the tax deadline was extended to July 15
th.
Mayor Torre offered his thoughts and prayers to our community. Now is a time for togetherness and
support. He thanked Skippy for his positive messages. He said it’s very important to be looking on the
brightest side. He thanked the IMT for their work, the city, county, and all essential workers. We have
the on-going testing effort and the public healthorders issued are ways to contain. He said it’s up to
folks to see out relief for themselves through the resources available. He confirmed the extension for
tax filing to July 15th.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Ms. Ott said that city staff are working closely with municipal partners and county partners to lobby our
congressional delegation regarding the CARES Act. They are still working on the stimulus funding for
smaller communities. She said Governor Polis agrees with our concerns. The Board of Health will be
68
2
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
having a meeting on Thursday at 1:00 p.m. They will hear data that is affecting Pitkin county and the
valley on re-opening, etc. On April 20
th, there will be a change to the public bus route. They are
combining the Burlingame and Mountain Valley routes for an interim time frame. She has appointed
Nancy Lesley as interim director of the Wheeler Opera House and will take that on starting next week.
BOARD REPORTS:
Mayor Torre said APCHA is meeting tomorrow. Councilman Hauenstein said there is a CORE meeting on
Thursday.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Councilwoman Richards asked for an overview of all the consent calendar items. Councilwoman Mullins
asked for the same.
Ms. Ott explained that each consent calendar item has been vetted by finance, city attorney, as well as
herself, before they go on the agenda. She described and gave details on each resolution and council
asked her questions.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to approve the consent calendar as a whole, Councilwoman Mullins
seconded.
Councilwoman Richards said as needed service contracts is the way to go to already have these
contractors vetted and ready to go in case of any emergencies, etc.
Mayor Torre said he went over the consent calendar prior to the meeting and sent his questions and
comments into staff earlier this week. He commends them regarding resolution #030 where they were
able to scale back. The as needed contracts are a must for having contractors vetted ahead of time.
Regarding the Wheeler audio console, that money is allocated for that purpose and would still be there
regardless. He’s supportive of all of this including the minutes.
Roll call vote: Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Torre, yes; Richards, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
NOTICE OF CALL UP: 125 W. Main Street
Amy Simon
Ms. Simon said HPC granted approval on March 11
th with unanimous approval. This is a historic Queen
Anne. The applicant plans to dig a basement under the house and will excavate with the house in place.
HPC had a number of conditions of approval and staff recommends that council uphold HPC’s approval.
Councilwoman Mullins asked about an addition and Ms. Simon said no addition is being added.
Councilwoman Mullins does not support calling up.
Councilwoman Richards said she is also not interested in calling up. She asked if they could come back
for an addition later. Ms. Simon said they added in a condition that the bonus for floor area would have
to be revisited if they ever decided to come back for an addition. Councilwoman Richards congratulated
HPC on a good project.
69
3
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
PUBLIC HEARING: 949 W. Smuggler Historic Lot Split
Phillip Supino
Mr. Supino said they will continue this item to May 26
th.
Mayor Torre opened the public hearing.
No public comment.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to continue to May 26th, Councilwoman Mullins seconded. Roll call
vote: Hauenstein, yes; Torre, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
Resolution #026, Series of 2020 – Lacet Subdivision – Amendment to Resolution #058, Series of 1994.
Garrett Larimer
Mr. Larimer said this subdivision is located east of the Roaring Fork river off of Highway 82. It is zoned
affordable housing with a planned development overlay. The subdivision and planned development
approval occurred in 1993. The approval branded 7 single family lots, and lot 8 contains 13 deed
restricted town homes. The development and allowances were not clearly stated. City council approved
a 25-foot buffer at the time, which is reflected on the plat. He said in the approval documents, the
allowances and limitations were not explicitly stated for this area. In 1994, an applicant sought
clarification and then approved Resolution #58, 1994 to clarify the types of development allowed. Since
then, there have been permitted and unpermitted improvements. The applicant wants to amend reso
58. Seeks to replace language with treating this buffer as setbacks. He provided a list of the approved
types of development allowed in the setbacks. All of the owners support the requested amendment and
it has garnered significant public interest. The neighborhood was concerned about this amendment
affecting the currently existing easements and he said it does not. Staff believes that a 25-foot setback
does provide a significant buffer. Staff supports the request and recommends that city council approve
this, striking section 1 and replacing with language that all areas outside of the building envelope are
subject to the allowances and limitations established by the land use code.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Sarah Oates
There are still two of the four original owners here. The neighbors and the adjacent neighbors all
support this change along with the owners. There have been improvements to lot 1 and 7 that are
consistent with the setbacks. The walkway is used by a lot of the neighbors to get into town. In terms of
changes to the development, there are platted building envelopes. This is just addressing improvements
basically on grade. There is one neighbor that has objected and is not an immediate adjacent neighbor.
Mayor Torre said it sounds like there are improvements in the buffer currently and it’s easier to do away
with the buffer than remedy what is non-conforming. Ms. Oates said there are significant
improvements that were permitted by the city. Mayor Torre asked if she has any idea how far those
improvements encroach into the buffer and if the Riverside Drive properties have a 10 ft setback and if
there is a middle ground.
Ms. Oates said on Lot 7, the improvements go all the way to the lot line and on Lot 1, there’s probably
10 feet.
70
4
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
Councilman Mesirow asked Mr. Larimer about the history of what happened. Mr. Larimer said the
buffer was passed through a separate resolution and this one was missed. Councilman Mesirow
clarified that it was a mistake or oversight on staff’s part and Mr. Larimer confirmed.
Phillip Supino mentioned that what’s being proposed in this change would prevent this mistake from
happening again in the future.
Mayor Torre opened the public hearing.
Mr. Larimer said there were three letters submitted after the packet was put out; one against and two in
support.
Maryanne Sefton – Ms. Sefton said she lives on Lacet Lane and has done most of the improvements on
the house and most were permitted. It would be most disappointing if we had to pull all of these out.
All improvements that have been done are not intrusive. We hope this will be looked at as favorable.
We do think 25 ft is excessive. There is one concern, that we are two lots over from the public access.
Safety is a concern because people walk through all hours of the night and leave trash. There is a
concern for privacy.
Mr. True asked about the platted easement being dedicated to the public. Ms. Oates said it is a 7 1/2 ft
pedestrian easement on the plat. It is not retained as a private easement. Mr. True asked if she has
issues clarifying the language as requested by Rachel about expanding the limitations. He asked if there
is language we can put in and if she has an objection. Ms. Oates said she doesn’t have concerns with
stating that it will remain open. Given the nature of the easement to have signage is excessive. We are
not barricading it off and not doing restoration work so it isn’t a path.
Councilwoman Richards said Mr. True is right on target with this. She doesn’t want to see a demolition
by neglect. She agrees that we don’t need signage. It can be used by people coming to visit neighbors as
well and she wants to make sure it’s preserved in perpetuity.
Mr. Larimer submitted a comment in the chat feature of WebEx and Mr. True read the comment to the
council. Mr. True added the word “public” before the word “pedestrian”. Councilwoman Richards said
she’s ok with that language.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve with Garrett’s additional language and Jim’s edit, Rachel
seconded.
Councilman Mesirow said he doesn’t want to reward bad behavior. He’s leaning towards voting no.
Councilwoman Richards said she can get where Skippy is coming from on this. It’s challenging that some
of these improvements were permitted and those folks have a right to have reliance on the permit
issued and the money spent. She doesn’t see trying to enforce removal at this point would be fair. She
asked if it would be helpful to do a site visit and continue this as she was comfortable before because it
doesn’t increase FAR.
Mayor Torre said he keeps seeing things like this slip away from a good intention. He doesn’t think he is
going to be supportive of this tonight.
Mr. Supino said, in order to split the baby, they could amend the original plat or take no action tonight.
71
5
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
Councilwoman Mullins said we need to pass this to be fair to the neighbors. We need to have
consistency and fairness and we need to have support for this.
Councilman Hauenstein said he’s coming down to supporting this resolution.
Roll call vote: Torre, no; Mullins, yes; Richards, no; Mesirow, no; Hauenstein, yes. 3 no, 2 yes.
Mr. Supino said that staff will work to find a compromise and the applicant will work with their client to
find a solution. Ms. Ott read off some dates. Mr. Supino suggested a June date instead to provide ample
time and they ended on June 9
th.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to continue to June 9
th, Councilwoman Mullins seconded. Roll call
vote: Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Torre, yes; Hauenstein, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
Council break – 25 minutes. Reconvened at 8:20 p.m.
RESOLUTION #032, SERIES OF 2020 – Appeal of Denial of Variation at 835 E. Durant
Kevin Rayes
Mr. Rayes said that the applicant, Kim Raymond is on the line as well as Tori Thomas, the representative
from the HOA. The hearing is not intended to focus on the original request that went to Planning and
Zoning, but the process in which the board made the denial. This is a residential multifamily complex.
The photo on screen shows the property looking north. There are three criteria for city council to
consider: 1. Denial of due process 2. The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction or 3. the
administrative body abused its discretion. The applicant is claiming 1 and 3 took place.
Mr. Rayes said that the applicant claims she tried to make move towards continuance in the meeting but
was not seen or heard by staff. There is no evidence in the recording or in the meeting minutes that any
such request for a continuance took place. There is also no evidence that continuance would have
changed the outcome. Staff recommends that council uphold planning and zoning’s decision. Staff
provided three options: to uphold, to reverse P&Z’s decision or to remand back to P&Z. Staff is going off
of the minutes, audio and written.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION:
Kim Raymond
Ms. Raymond says she asked Mike Kramer and he ignored herrequest. She said she raised her hand
which wouldn’t have been reflected in the minutes. She says the board based their decision on whether
it was a street or alley. She read the abuse of discretion definition. She said that Kevin said in the
meeting that “many other properties” in town have similar situations, but when she asked him, he could
not come up with any properties as examples. She feels like this is an abuse of discretion.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is tough because Mike Kramer isn’t here to speak to it. We should take
this seriously and maybe remand back to P&Z so they can revisit it.
Councilman Hauensteinsaid he’d prefer it go back to P&Z with all evidence presented.
72
6
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
Councilwoman Richards mentioned if there a fairness question about whether everyone is entitled to a
covered parking place. If the code won’t allow it because it was built prior to design standards, is it a
fairness issue or not.
Councilman Mesirow said he doesn’t know that she will get a different result by remanding it back since
it was a unanimous vote and after spending years on P&Z, decisions usually remain the same. If she
wants to do that though, ok.
Councilman Hauenstein said by remanding it, the process will be complete and true.
Tori Thomas said only four people were present on the night of the hearing.
Mayor Torre asked Jim True if this is done via motion to remand it back to P&Z. Mr. True said they can
modify one of the resolutions to remand it instead of accepting or denying. You could make a motion to
approve resolution #032 to remand back it back to P&Z, that would work.
Councilwoman Mullins motioned to approve Resolution #032, Series of 2020, that it be remanded back
to P&Z on due process, Councilman Hauenstein seconded.
Councilwoman Richards is supportive of the motion and has great respect for staff. She anticipates a full
and complete hearing and encourages the applicant to look at code changes, etc.
Roll call vote: Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Torre, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
Mr. True said that Resolution #034 was in the packet and was continued in the last meeting and was
combined with Ordinance #05 as an action item and is not listed on the agenda.
Councilwoman Richards said she’s a little confused by the numbers. Resolution #034 still has 2.5 million
listed. Mr. True said Ordinance #05 now says 3 million and that change was made.
Mayor Torre summarized the ordinance for the council.
Councilman Mesirow asked when they can start distributing these funds. Ms. Ott said council does not
make the decisions on actual awards. We received feedback regarding rent relief, and she has another
meeting with stakeholders tomorrow on how to release these funds.
Councilman Mesirow said he’s comfortable moving forward. Let’s make sure as we move forward, we
commit to making sure council isn’t a bottleneck.
Councilman Hauenstein said he is in support of moving forward and also doesn’t want a bottleneck at
the council table.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to approve Ordinance #05, Series of 2020, Councilwoman Mullins
seconded. Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Torre, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes. 5-0,
motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to approve Resolution #034, Series of 2020, with the amendment to
increase the dollar amount to 3.5 million, Councilman Mesirow seconded.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
73
7
REGULAR MEETING ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14TH, 2020
Elizabeth Milias – Ms. Milias said the devil is in the details. She said that Breckenridge and Longmont are
providing small business loans. Last week you were being Robin Hoods, just giving money away, but
loans are appropriate. It’s important to keep in mind that these are public dollars paying back the
general fund so loans are appropriate. We really need landlord participation but should not be
mandatory. A tenant cannot control what his landlord does. You’ve done a nice job here and there is a
huge segment of the population that is getting caught in the middle. We do need to take care of people,
but people should be getting loans. We shouldn’t just be giving money away to everyone.
Mayor Torre encouraged her to share her thoughts via email, but said she was heard clearly here.
Councilwoman Richards said it’s time to move forward. These are up to amounts and not mandatory
spending. She thanked those in the community who have stood up as private donors. It’s meant a lot to
people. There’s no way that government has the resources to take care of all of this. We’re all going to
feel the pain. We would like to see the landlords participate in a fair and equitable way. We can’t
continue to support the rental rates that we saw in 2019.
Roll call vote: Torre, yes; Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
Councilwoman Richards motioned to adjourn with thanks to city staff, Councilwoman Mullins seconded.
Roll call vote: Richards, yes; Mesirow, yes; Mullins, yes; Torre, yes; Hauenstein, yes. 5-0, motion carried.
______________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
74
Page 1 of 2
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
MEMO DATE: April 20, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2020
RE: Notice of Call Up, HPC approval for 227 E. Main Street- Conceptual Major
Development Review, Relocation, Setback Variations
APPLICANT/OWNER:
227 East Main LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Kim Raymond Architecture +
Interiors
LOCATION:
Street Address:
227 E. Main Street
Legal Description:
Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite
of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-073-28-003
CURRENT ZONING AND USE:
MU, Mixed Use. Currently in
Commercial Use
PROPOSED ZONING AND USE:
MU, Mixed Use. Converting to a
Single-family home
PROCESS SUMMARY: Certain land use approvals granted by
HPC or P&Z require that Council be notified of the decision through
a brief staff summary. The notification is not a public hearing and
no applicant presentation or public comment has been accepted in
the past. During the Call Up Notice, City Council may uphold the
HPC or P&Z decision. Alternatively, Council may request more
detailed information be provided through a presentation by staff
and the applicant at a future meeting. After hearing the additional
project description, Council may uphold the boards’ decision or
may remand it to require reconsideration of specific issues at a new
public hearing. HPC’s or P&Z’s decision on remand shall be final.
BACKGROUND: On April 8th, by a 7-0 vote, HPC approved a
proposal to restore and expand the miner’s cottage at 227 E. Main
Street. The approval included setback variations to accommodate
the original position of the historic house, and to allow appropriate
placement of the addition on this 3,000 square foot lot.
Site Locator Map – 227 E. Main Street
227
75
Page 2 of 2
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
HPC conducted two hearings on the project,
initially continuing the review for a restudy of the
location and roof form of the addition. Staff and
HPC supported approval of the redesign that the
architects produced, with a condition to re-
evaluate windows on the new construction as
part of the upcoming Final review application.
The historic resource is in a very deteriorated
condition, a circumstance that will be corrected
by this project. Staff recommends Council
uphold HPC’s decision.
Recommended Motion
“I move to uphold HPC’s approval for 227 E. Main Street- Conceptual Major Development Review,
Relocation, and Setback Variations.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________.
EXHIBITS:
A – Staff memo to HPC
B – Approved Plans
C – Draft HPC meeting minutes, April 8, 2020
D – Draft HPC Resolution
76
Page 1 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Memorandum
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
MEETING DATE: April 8, 2020
RE: 227 E. Main Street – Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation,
Setback Variations, PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM MARCH 18TH
APPLICANT /OWNER:
227 East Main LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Kim Raymond Architecture +
Interiors
LOCATION:
Street Address:
227 E. Main Street
Legal Description:
Lot F, Block 74, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado
Parcel Identification Number:
PID# 2737-073-28-003
CURRENT ZONING & USE
MU (Mixed Use)
Currently in Commercial Use
PROPOSED USE:
Residential
SUMMARY: The applicant requests approval for Conceptual
Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations to
restore and expand
this Victorian era
home. HPC
reviewed the
project on February
12th and continued
for restudy of the
addition and
setback variations.
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has provided a restudy which staff finds meets the
review criteria. Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Site Locator Map – 227 E. Main Street
227
77
Page 2 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
BACKGROUND: 227 E. Main Street was built in 1886, making it one of the older surviving miner’s
cottages in Aspen. The property has recently sold, after being in the long-term ownership of the Moore
family, who retains the lots to the east. Sporadically used as a retail shop, 227 E. Main is in a deteriorated
condition. Asbestos shingle siding has been installed and original porch and window details have been
removed. The pictures below will assist with the restoration planned by the applicant.
A very small non-historic addition that does not appear on the Sanborn map is in place at the back of
the house. This addition is proposed to be demolished. The outbuilding shown on the map was
demolished some time ago.
Top left- Sanborn Map, 1904
Top right- Photo of 227 E.
Main, 1975
Left- View of the Moore
Building and 227 E. Main,
date unknown
78
Page 3 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
REQUEST OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals:
• Major Development (Section 26.415.070.D) for demolition of non-historic additions and
construction of a new addition towards the rear of the historic building.
• Relocation (Section 26.415.090.C) to move the historic home forward 7 feet and westward 2 feet.
• Setback Variations (Section 26.415.110.C) for
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is the final review authority, however this project is subject
to Call-up Notice to City Council.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Following is a summary of staff findings. Please see Exhibits A, B and C for more detail.
Site Planning, Demolition, Relocation: Since the last meeting, the applicant has made a number of
adjustments to their plan. Notably, the single stall garage is now pulled in from the alley and attached
to the addition, so that a 5’ rear yard setback for the garage is provided as required. The proposal has
also been shifted laterally so that there are 3’ sideyards on each side of the addition, rather than 1’ on
the west and 5 ‘ on the east as seen in February.
The resource remains in its historic location, separated from the addition with a 10’ connector. Only one
of the two required parking spaces is garaged, allowing for a small amount of open space on the ground
plane. This provides some relief along the alley and may become important if the applicant should need
to accommodate a transformer on the site. The applicant is also using the open area on the site to
provide rain gardens which, along with a green roof on the garage, will contribute towards their
stormwater mitigation requirements.
There are a number of trees on the property. Parks has preliminarily agreed to remove them all. There
is a concern with the driplines of trees on adjacent properties. The applicant must investigate this
further and may have to adjust the extent of their basement excavation below the historic resource.
This will have no above grade impact and can be clarified at Final Review.
At the previous hearing, staff expressed concern with the constructability and future maintenance of
the project given the 3,000 square foot lot size and tight setback conditions. The architect has
explained the preliminary approach, which will be to move the historic resource to the back of the site,
allowing shoring and bracing for the foundation at the front of the site to proceed. One sided pours
will be implemented due to the proximity to the side lot lines. While the house is at the back of the lot,
the applicant will complete building repairs and painting of the side walls before setting the resource
back in place. Once the miner’s cottage is set on the new foundation, the rear of the site will be
excavated. Construction staging will take place from the southwest corner of the lot, where the surface
parking space for the project is proposed.
79
Page 4 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
Staff finds the guidelines on these topics have been met.
Historic Landmark Alterations and New Addition: The property is currently in commercial use.
Converting it to residential is subject to a 20% floor area penalty that applies to all new single-family
homes in the Mixed Use Zone district. The maximum floor area is 1,920 square feet. The applicant has
not requested a bonus.
Regarding the addition, staff and HPC raised concerns with roof form in particular at the last hearing.
The applicant has increased the pitch of the roof on the two story additon to be more similar to the
historic resource, and has modified the roof over the interior stair in this part of the house to a shed that
hangs off the east side of the gable. This shed roof is slightly recessed from the gable end, as suggested
at the last meeting. Staff finds that the applicant has successfully restudied the project and recommends
approval.
The restoration/rehabilitation plan for the historic resource must be further detailed at Final.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
The application was referred out to other City departments who have requirements that will significantly
affect the permit review. The following is a summary of comments received.
ENGINEERING
Improvement Survey – A COA compliant survey is required with all HPC submittals, please address the
following items on the survey.
1. Tie survey to two City (City of Aspen, GPS Control Monumentation, dated 12-2-2009 on the
Engineering website) monuments.
2. Provide one foot contours.
3. Location, species, and trunk diameter of trees at four and a half feet from the ground, as well as
the current extent of drip lines. Include neighboring trees whose dripline extend onto subject
property.
4. Show location of all utilities.
5. State that the error of closure is less than 1:15,000
6. Call out natural hazards or lack thereof.
7. Show edge of pavement on Main St.
Proposed Plan:
8. The proposed project leaves limited available space for stormwater BMPs and treatment. For
this conceptual Design phase of the landuse process, the applicant needs to show stormwater
treatment has been considered and there exist opportunities for stormwater treatment. Keep in
mind drywells are not permitted within 10' of property lines or structures. Greenroofs, raingarden
planter boxes, and pervious pavers should all be considered. Before the project moves forward
please submit a general idea of possibilities for stormwater treatment.
80
Page 5 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
At HPC Detail review a conceptual drainage plan and report needs to be submitted. Please refer
to the conceptual drainage plan and report in the appendices of the URMP.
9. Is there an existing transformer that provides sufficient power for the proposed project? Will a
new transformer be needed? Please coordinate with the Electrical Department to determine
electrical loads and available sources. If a new transformer is needed, it must be placed within
the property and have a dedicated easement. The approved plan from HPC should consider any
necessary space for a transformer.
10. The proposed landscaping extends onto the neighbors property. Is there an agreement?
11. A 6' sidewalk and 5' landscape buffer will be required. Please show dimensions at Detail Review.
12. At Detail Review please show a possible proposed water service line location and tree location.
Installing a new water service without disturbing the street trees will be a challenge on this
property.
ZONING
1. Floor area calculations must be verified during building permit.
2. A trellis on the west side of the connector has a deep enough overhang that the area below it
counts as “deck.” Please account for this in floor area calculations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Historic Preservation Commission grant Conceptual Major Development,
Relocation and Variations with the following conditions:
1. Continue to investigate whether a transformer will be needed on the site.
2. Continue to review the impact of trees on the adjacent properties relative to the planned
basement excavation.
3. At final, during permit review, and once the property is under construction, additional study and
documentation of the historic resource will be necessary in order to identify and respond to
historic conditions that are currently not visible.
4. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be required to provide
a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation. The financial security
is to be provided with the building permit application, along with a detailed description of the
house relocation approach.
5. The following setbacks are approved:
• A 5’10” setback is approved in the front, above and below grade to retain the historic
house in its existing location.
• A 0’ setback is approved on the east and west sides, above and below grade to retain the
historic house in its existing location and to allow basement excavation.
• A 3’ setback is approved on the east and west sides of the addition, above and below
grade.
• A 5’ setback is approved at the rear yard, above and below grade.
81
Page 6 of 6
130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 | P: 970.920.5197 | cityofaspen.com
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1) year
of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an application
within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development
Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown,
grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval
for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty
(30) days prior to the expiration date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution #____, Series of 2020
Exhibit A – Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria /Staff Findings
Exhibit B – Relocation Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Setback Variations Criteria/Staff Findings
Exhibit D – Application
82
Page 1 of 12
Exhibit A
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines Criteria
Staff Findings
Note: Staff findings on the guidelines begins on page 11 of this exhibit.
26.415.070.D Major Development. No building, structure or landscape shall be erected, constructed,
enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or a property
located within a Historic District until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the
Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for
their review. An application for a building permit cannot be submitted without a development order.
3. Conceptual Development Plan Review
b) The procedures for the review of conceptual development plans for major development
projects are as follows:
1) The Community Development Director shall review the application materials submitted for
conceptual or final development plan approval. If they are determined to be complete, the
applicant will be notified in writing of this and a public hearing before the HPC shall be
scheduled. Notice of the hearing shall be provided pursuant to Section 26.304.060.E.3
Paragraphs a, b and c.
2) Staff shall review the submittal material and prepare a report that analyzes the project's
conformance with the design guidelines and other applicable Land Use Code sections. This
report will be transmitted to the HPC with relevant information on the proposed project and a
recommendation to continue, approve, disapprove or approve with conditions and the reasons
for the recommendation. The HPC will review the application, the staff analysis report and the
evidence presented at the hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines.
3) The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain
additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny.
4) A resolution of the HPC action shall be forwarded to the City Council in accordance with Section
26.415.120 - Appeals, notice to City Council, and call-up. No applications for Final Development
Plan shall be accepted by the City and no associated permits shall be issued until the City Council
takes action as described in said section.
83
Page 2 of 12
84
Page 3 of 12
Relevant Historic Preservation Design Guidelines:
1.1 All projects shall respect the historic development pattern or context of the block,
neighborhood or district.
• Building footprint and location should reinforce the traditional patterns of the neighborhood.
• Allow for some porosity on a site. In a residential project, setback to setback development is
typically uncharacteristic of the historic context. Do not design a project which leaves no useful
open space visible from the street.
1.5 Maintain the historic hierarchy of spaces.
• Reflect the established progression of public to private spaces from the public sidewalk to a
semi-public walkway, to a semi private entry feature, to private spaces.
1.6 Provide a simple walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry on
residential projects.
• Meandering walkways are not allowed, except where it is needed to avoid a tree or is typical of
the period of significance.
85
Page 4 of 12
• Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style and install
them in the manner that they would have been used historically. For example on an Aspen
Victorian landmark set flagstone pavers in sand, rather than in concrete. Light grey concrete,
brick or red sandstone are appropriate private walkway materials for most landmarks.
• The width of a new entry sidewalk should generally be three feet or less for residential
properties. A wider sidewalk may be appropriate for an AspenModern property.
1.7 Provide positive open space within a project site.
• Ensure that open space on site is meaningful and consolidated into a few large spaces rather
than many small unusable areas.
• Open space should be designed to support and complement the historic building.
1.8 Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process.
• When included in the initial planning for a project, stormwater quality facilities can be better
integrated into the proposal. All landscape plans presented for HPC review must include at
least a preliminary representation of the stormwater design. A more detailed design must be
reviewed and approved by Planning and Engineering prior to building permit submittal.
• Site designs and stormwater management should provide positive drainage away from the
historic landmark, preserve the use of natural drainage and treatment systems of the site,
reduce the generation of additional stormwater runoff, and increase infiltration into the ground.
Stormwater facilities and conveyances located in front of a landmark should have minimal visual
impact when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance and requirements.
1.11 Preserve and maintain historically significant landscaping on site, particularly landmark trees
and shrubs.
• Retaining historic planting beds and landscape features is encouraged.
• Protect historically significant vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Removal of
damaged, aged, or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
• If a significant tree must be removed, replace it with the same or similar species in coordination
with the Parks Department.
• The removal of non-historic planting schemes is encouraged.
• Consider restoring the original landscape if information is available, including original plant
materials.
1.27 Preserve and maintain significant landscaping on site.
• Protect established vegetation during any construction.
• If any tree or shrub needs to be removed, replace it with the same or similar species.
• New planting should be of a species used historically or a similar species.
• Maintain and preserve any gardens and/or ornamental planting on the site.
86
Page 5 of 12
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape elements.
2.1 Preserve original building materials.
• Do not remove siding that is in good condition or that can be repaired in place.
• Masonry features that define the overall historic character, such as walls, cornices, pediments,
steps and foundations, should be preserved.
• Avoid rebuilding a major portion of an exterior wall that could be repaired in place.
Reconstruction may result in a building which no longer retains its historic integrity.
• Original AspenModern materials may be replaced in kind if it has been determined that the
weathering detracts from the original design intent or philosophy.
2.3 Match the original material in composition, scale and finish when replacing materials on
primary surfaces.
• If the original material is wood clapboard for example, then the replacement material must be
wood as well. It should match the original in size, and the amount of exposed lap and finish.
• Replace only the amount required. If a few boards are damaged beyond repair, then only those
should be replaced, not the entire wall. For AspenModern buildings, sometimes the
replacement of a larger area is required to preserve the integrity of the design intent.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair the original, underlying material.
3.1 Preserve the functional and decorative features of a historic window.
• Features important to the character of a window include its frame, sash, muntins/mullions, sills,
heads, jambs, moldings, operations, and groupings of windows.
• Repair frames and sashes rather than replacing them.
• Preserve the original glass. If original Victorian era glass is broken, consider using restoration
glass for the repair.
3.2 Preserve the position, number, and arrangement of historic windows in a building wall.
• Enclosing a historic window is inappropriate.
• Do not change the size of an original window opening.
3.5 Preserve the size and proportion of a historic window opening.
• Changing the window opening is not permitted.
• Consider restoring an original window opening that was enclosed in the past.
3.7 Adding new openings on a historic structure is generally not allowed.
• Greater flexibility in installing new windows may be considered on rear or secondary walls.
• New windows should be similar in scale to the historic openings on the building, but should in
some way be distinguishable as new, through the use of somewhat different detailing, etc.
87
Page 6 of 12
• Preserve the historic ratio of window openings to solid wall on a façade.
• Significantly increasing the amount of glass on a character defining façade will negatively affect
the integrity of a structure.
4.1 Preserve historically significant doors.
• Maintain features important to the character of a historic doorway. These include the door, door
frame, screen door, threshold, glass panes, paneling, hardware, detailing, transoms and flanking
sidelights.
• Do not change the position and function of original front doors and primary entrances.
• If a secondary entrance must be sealed shut, any work that is done must be reversible so that
the door can be used at a later time, if necessary. Also, keep the door in place, in its historic
position.
• Previously enclosed original doors should be reopened when possible.
4.2 Maintain the original size of a door and its opening.
• Altering its size and shape is inappropriate. It should not be widened or raised in height.
4.5 Adding new doors on a historic building is generally not allowed.
• Place new doors in any proposed addition rather than altering the historic resource.
• Greater flexibility in installing a door in a new location may be considered on rear or secondary
walls.
• A new door in a new location should be similar in scale and style to historic openings on the
building and should be a product of its own time.
• Preserve the historic ratio of openings to solid wall on a façade. Significantly increasing the
openings on a character defining façade negatively affects the integrity of a structure.
5.1 Preserve an original porch or balcony.
• Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions, material and
spacing of balusters.
• Expanding the size of a historic porch or balcony is inappropriate.
6.1 Preserve significant architectural features.
• Repair only those features that are deteriorated.
• Patch, piece-in, splice, or consolidate to repair the existing materials, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible.
• On AspenModern properties, repair is preferred, however, it may be more important to
preserve the integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp edges, rather than to retain
heavily deteriorated material.
7.1 Preserve the original form of a roof.
• Do not alter the angle of a historic roof. Preserve the orientation and slope of the roof as seen
from the street. 88
Page 7 of 12
• Retain and repair original and decorative roof detailing.
• Where the original roof form has been altered, consider restoration.
7.2 Preserve the original eave depth.
• Overhangs contribute to the scale and detailing of a historic resource.
• AspenModern properties typically have very deep or extremely minimal overhangs that are key
character defining features of the architectural style.
9.1 Developing a basement by underpinning and excavating while the historic structure remains
in place may help to preserve the historic fabric.
• This activity will require the same level of documentation, structural assessment, and posting of
financial assurances as a building relocation.
9.3 Site a relocated structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
• It must face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback. In general, a forward
movement, rather than a lateral movement is preferred. HPC will consider setback variations
where appropriate.
• A primary structure may not be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new building in
front of it.
• Be aware of potential restrictions against locating buildings too close to mature trees. Consult with
the City Forester early in the design process. Do not relocate a building so that it becomes
obscured by trees.
9.4 Position a relocated structure at its historic elevation above grade.
• Raising the finished floor of the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable if needed
to address drainage issues. A substantial change in position relative to grade is inappropriate.
• Avoid making design decisions that require code related alterations which could have been
avoided. In particular, consider how the relationship to grade could result in non-historic
guardrails, etc.
9.5 A new foundation shall appear similar in design and materials to the historic foundation.
• On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone foundation on
a miner’s cottage where there is no evidence that one existed historically is out of character and
is not allowed.
• Exposed concrete or painted metal flashing are generally appropriate.
• Where a stone or brick foundation existed historically, it must be replicated, ideally using stone
salvaged from the original foundation as a veneer. The replacement must be similar in the cut
of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
• New AspenModern foundations shall be handled on a case by case basis to ensure preservation
of the design intent.
9.6 Minimize the visual impact of lightwells.
89
Page 8 of 12
• The size of any lightwell that faces a street should be minimized.
• Lightwells must be placed so that they are not immediately adjacent to character defining
features, such as front porches.
• Lightwells must be protected with a flat grate, rather than a railing or may not be visible from a
street.
• Lightwells that face a street must abut the building foundation and generally may not “float” in
the landscape except where they are screened, or on an AspenModern site.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
• For Aspen Victorian properties, HPC generally relies on the 1904 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps to
determine which portions of a building are historically significant and must be preserved.
• HPC may insist on the removal of non-historic construction that is considered to be detrimental to
the historic resource in any case when preservation benefits or variations are being approved.
10.3 Design a new addition such that one’s ability to interpret the historic character of the primary
building is maintained.
• A new addition must be compatible with the historic character of the primary building.
• An addition must be subordinate, deferential, modest, and secondary in comparison to the
architectural character of the primary building.
• An addition that imitates the primary building’s historic style is not allowed. For example, a new
faux Victorian detailed addition is inappropriate on an Aspen Victorian home.
• An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
• Proposals on corner lots require particular attention to creating compatibility.
10.4 The historic resource is to be the focus of the property, the entry point, and the predominant
structure as viewed from the street.
• The historic resource must be visually dominant on the site and must be distinguishable against
the addition.
• The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade
floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be
completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following
are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic
resource and the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of
the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is
considered to have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
90
Page 9 of 12
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors
as existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the
street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as
trees that must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.6 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
• An addition shall be distinguishable from the historic building and still be visually compatible
with historic features.
• A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in material, or a
modern interpretation of a historic style are all techniques that may be considered to help
define a change from historic construction to new construction.
• Do not reference historic styles that have no basis in Aspen.
• Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition
must relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from
the historic resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• Note that on a corner lot, departing from the form of the historic resource may not be allowed.
• There is a spectrum of appropriate solutions to distinguishing new from old portions of a
development. Some resources of particularly high significance or integrity may not be the right
instance for a contrasting addition.
10.7 When planning an addition to a building in a historic district, preserve historic alignments on
the street.
• Some roof lines and porch eaves on historic buildings may align at approximately the same
height. An addition can not be placed in a location where these relationships would be altered
or obscured.
10.8 Design an addition to be compatible in size and scale with the main building.
• An addition that is lower than, or similar to the height of the primary building, is preferred.
10.9 If the addition is taller than a historic building, set it back from significant façades and use a
“connector” to link it to the historic building.
• Only a one-story connector is allowed.
• Usable space, including decks, is not allowed on top of connectors unless the connector has
limited visibility and the deck is shielded with a solid parapet wall.
91
Page 10 of 12
• In all cases, the connector must attach to the historic resource underneath the eave.
• The connector shall be a minimum of 10 feet long between the addition and the primary building.
• Minimize the width of the connector. Ideally, it is no more than a passage between the historic
resource and addition. The connector must reveal the original building corners. The connector
may not be as wide as the historic resource.
• Any street-facing doors installed in the connector must be minimized in height and width and
accessed by a secondary pathway. See guideline 4.1 for further information.
10.10 Place an addition at the rear of a primary building or set it back substantially from the front
to minimize the visual impact on the historic structure and to allow the original proportions and
character to remain prominent.
• Locating an addition at the front of a primary building is inappropriate.
• Additions to the side of a primary building are handled on a case-by-case basis and are approved
based on site specific constraints that restrict rear additions.
• Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will not alter
the exterior mass of a building.
10.11 Roof forms shall be compatible with the historic building.
• A simple roof form that does not compete with the historic building is appropriate.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, a flat roof may only be used on an addition to a gable roofed
structure if the addition is entirely one story in height, or if the flat roofed areas are limited, but
the addition is primarily a pitched roof.
10.12 Design an addition to a historic structure that does not destroy or obscure historically
important architectural features.
• Loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices, and eavelines must be avoided.
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian areas, such as mechanical equipment and trash
storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be appropriate to provide screening with
materials that are compatible with those of the building itself. Use the smallest, low profile units
available for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to minimize their appearance by blending with
their backgrounds 92
Page 11 of 12
• In general, mechanical equipment should be vented through the roof, rather than a wall, in a
manner that has the least visual impact possible.
• Avoid surface mounted conduit on historic structures.
Staff Finding: The applicable chapters of the design guidelines are as follows: site planning,
rehabilitation, relocation, building additions, and service areas.
Staff finds that the guidelines are met, or can be met with conditions.
Regarding the site plan, since the last hearing the applicant has restudied their proposal to reduce
setback variance requests. Additional detail has been provided on the excavation plan and the methods
for stormwater mitigation. The plan is adequately developed for Conceptual review.
All relevant Design Guidelines in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 related to the restoration and rehabilitation
efforts need to be reviewed in detail as part of the Final review, permit submittal and/or in the field to
ensure no historic fabric is being removed. A number of historic conditions are concealed at this time
due to the asbestos shingles and the overframed front porch roof, which should be restored. Further
investigation of the building will be a condition of Final approval.
Regarding the addition, in February staff encouraged discussion on guideline 10.4, which indicates that
the addition can’t be larger than the historic resource. The above grade floor area of the historic
resource is approximately 724 square feet and the addition is approximately 1,076 square feet. An
exception is allowable if certain criteria are met, which staff finds is the case as follows:
The total above grade floor area of an addition may be no more than 100% of the above grade
floor area of the original historic resource. All other above grade development must be
completely detached. HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or more of the following
are met:
o The proposed addition is all one story
o The footprint of the new addition is closely related to the footprint of the historic resource and
the proposed design is particularly sensitive to the scale and proportions of the historic resource
o The project involves the demolition and replacement of an older addition that is considered to
have been particularly detrimental to the historic resource
o The interior of the resource is fully utilized, containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
o The project is on a large lot, allowing the addition to have a significant setback from the street
o There are no variance requests in the application other than those related to historic conditions
that aren’t being changed
o The project is proposed as part of a voluntary AspenModern designation, or
93
Page 12 of 12
o The property is affected by non-preservation related site specific constraints such as trees that
must be preserved, Environmentally Sensitive Areas review, etc.
Guideline 10.6 has to do with architectural compatibility between the resource and addition:
o Consider these three aspects of an addition; form, materials, and fenestration. An addition must
relate strongly to the historic resource in at least two of these elements. Departing from the historic
resource in one of these categories allows for creativity and a contemporary design response.
The materials concept is related to the resource, and staff finds that the restudy of the addition provided
for this meeting successfully addresses the roof forms of that structure as well, particularly as viewed
from Main Street. The proposal varies from the fenestration on the historic house.
Staff finds that the design guidelines are met.
94
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit B
Relocation Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.090.C. Standards for the relocation of designated properties. Relocation for a building,
structure or object will be approved if it is determined that it meets any one of the following standards:
1. It is considered a noncontributing element of a historic district and its relocation will not affect
the character of the historic district; or
2. It does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district or parcel on which it is
located and its relocation will not have an adverse impact on the Historic District or property; or
3. The owner has obtained a certificate of economic hardship; or
4. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be an acceptable preservation method given the
character and integrity of the building, structure or object and its move will not adversely affect 95
Page 2 of 2
the integrity of the Historic District in which it was originally located or diminish the historic,
architectural or aesthetic relationships of adjacent designated properties; and
Additionally, for approval to relocate all of the following criteria must be met:
1. It has been determined that the building, structure or object is capable of withstanding the
physical impacts of relocation;
2. An appropriate receiving site has been identified; and
3. An acceptable plan has been submitted providing for the safe relocation, repair and preservation
of the building, structure or object including the provision of the necessary financial security.
Staff Finding: The applicant proposes temporary relocation of the historic resource in order to dig a
basement and put the home back in place. It is currently slightly crooked on the lot, which will be
corrected.
A preliminary plan for how the construction will be phased on this small lot has been presented by the
architect. Additional detail will be needed at building permit review.
The house has settled so that the front porch deck is essentially flush with grade. As part of the
Relocation, the architect intends to raise the finished floor elevation so that there is one step in front of
the porch. Staff’s supports this modest adjustment. Many of the miner’s cottages have this condition.
Staff finds that relocation of the resource onto a new basement will improve the condition of the building
and recommends HPC find that the review criteria are met.
96
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit C
Setback Variations Criteria
Staff Findings
26.415.110.C: Variances:
Dimensional variations are allowed for projects involving designated properties to create development
that is more consistent with the character of the historic property or district than what would be required
by the underlying zoning's dimensional standards.
1. The HPC may grant variances of the Land Use Code for designated properties to allow:
a) Development in the side, rear and front setbacks;
b) Development that does not meet the minimum distance requirements between buildings;
c) Up to five percent (5%) additional site coverage;
d) Less public amenity than required for the on-site relocation of commercial historic properties.
2. In granting a variance, the HPC must make a finding that such a variance:
a) Is similar to the pattern, features and character of the historic property or district; and/or
b) Enhances or mitigates an adverse impact to the historic significance or architectural
character of the historic property, an adjoining designated historic property or historic
district.
Staff Finding: The historic house sits within the front and side setbacks. The applicant proposes to
maintain these conditions above grade and to extend the encroachment to the basement below the
resource. Setback variations are required if this development is to proceed. The front yard setback
requirement is 10’, and the sideyard requirement is 5’.
97
Page 2 of 2
The new addition has been restudied by the applicant so that it is centered on the lot and at its widest
part, is 3’ from the east and west property lines. Again, the sideyard requirement is 5’.
The proposed rear setback is 5’ for the garage, which is conforming.
The proposed setbacks are:
• 5’10” in the front, where 10’ is required.
• 0’ on the east and west sides of the resource and the basement below it where 5’ is required
• 3’ on the east and west sides of the addition, at its widest part, where 5’ is required.
• 5’ at the rear of the site, in conformance with the setback requirement.
Staff supports the variations in order to allow the historic resource to remain where it is and to be fully utilized.
The project will need certain accommodations to meet Fire Code given the close proximity of the miner’s cottage
to the lot lines. This may include the installation of fireproof materials on the underside of the eaves, and/or an
additional layer of drywall on interiors.
Staff finds that the applicant has addressed concerns with the location of the addition related to side lot lines,
centering the development on the lot to allow easy maintenance of this property and to avoid negative impacts
on the adjacent sites.
Staff recommends approval of the variation requests.
98
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
G.0.01
3/4/20
GENERAL
INFORMATION
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020
227 EAST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
99
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.00
3/4/20
EXISTING
SITE PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/20205'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
5 1/4" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)MAIN STREETALLEYEXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING LOT
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALKSETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
100
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.01
3/4/20
PROPOSED
SITE PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/20205'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
4'-2"
VARIANCE
5'-10"
PROPOSEDSETBACK3'-0"SETBACKSHED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
FLAT ROOF
GREEN ROOF
ON LINK BELOW
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
PARKING SPACE
PATIO AT GROUND LEVEL
WINDOW WELL
WITH GRATE
SLOPED ROOF STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
SLOPE5 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
5 1/4" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE
1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
GREEN ROOF DECK BELOW
MAIN STREETALLEYEXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING LOT
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALKUP
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
101
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.02
3/4/20
PROPOSED
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/20205'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
4'-2"
VARIANCE
5'-10"
PROPOSEDSETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
PROPOSED ADDITION PROPOSED HISTORIC BUILDINGPROPOSED LINKPROPOSED ATTACHED GARAGE
WOOD DECKINGCONCRETE
WALKWAY
CONCRETE
SIDEWALK
TILE PATIO
METAL GRATE OVER
WINDOW WELL
UP
UP
EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK
MAIN STREETALLEYROCK XERISCAPING
ELEVATED RAIN GARDEN WITH ANNUAL FLOWERS
ANNUAL FLOWER GARDENANNUAL FLOWER GARDENANNUAL FLOWER GARDEN
ROCK XERISCAPING (ROCK GARDEN)
GRASS
TILE (PAVERS, OR PATIO)
PERMEABLE PARKING PAVERS
CONCRETE WALKWAYS/SIDEWALK
METAL GRATE (WINDOW WELL)
PROPOSED BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
ELEVATED RAIN GARDEN
SHED
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
PERMEABLE PAVERS
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
102
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.03
3/4/20
PROPOSED
STORMWATE
R PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/20205'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
4'-2"
VARIANCE
5'-10"
PROPOSEDSETBACK3'-0"SETBACKSHED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
FLAT ROOF
GREEN ROOF
ON LINK BELOW
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
PARKING SPACE
PATIO AT GROUND LEVEL
WINDOW WELL
WITH GRATE
79067906
7905
7905
7904
79047903RAIN/FLOWER GARDEN AT GRADEELEVATED RAIN GARDEN
ELEVATED RAIN GARDEN
SUM PUMP
BELOW GRADE
ROOF DRAINS W/ HISTORIC
DRAINAGE PATTERN
RAIN/FLOWER GARDEN AT GRADESLOPED ROOF STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
SLOPE5 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
5 1/4" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE
1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER
WATER DRAINS DOWN
INTO PIPE
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
PUMP PUSHES WATER UNDER
HOUSE TO PIPE ON EAST SIDE
WATER GOES INTO
FRONT RAIN GARDEN
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
GREEN ROOF DECK BELOW
MAIN STREETALLEYEXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING LOT
EXISTING SIDEWALK
EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING SIDEWALKUP
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
103
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.04
3/4/20
EXISTING FAR
CALCULATIONS
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/20205'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
724 sq ft
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
EXISTING FLOOR AREA SUMMARY
LOWER LEVEL FLOOR AREA: 0 sq ft
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR AREA: 724 sq ft
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR AREA: 0 sq ft
__________________________________________
TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 724 sq ft
104
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.1.05
3/4/20
PROPOSED FAR
CALCULATIONS
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020
292 sq ft
60 sq ft
109 sq ft
43 sq ft 538 sq ft
261 sq ft 521 sq ft
151 sq ft 110 sq ft
126 sq ft
93 sq ft
29 sq ft 75 sq ft
342 sq ft
33 sq ft
42 sq ft 241 sq ft
26'-8"5'-6"
10'-0"44'-5"
22'-4"44'-5"12'-6"10'-1"11'-9"8'-7 1/2"
31'-3 1/8"
3'-7"
3'-10"21'-11 5/8"
1 3
4 5 6
7 8 10 11 12 13
2
14 15W06W05
W04
W03 W02UP
2,013 sq ft
W27W32W26W29W30W31W43W44 W26W38D24D25
W37W36 D23
D22W34W35 W33
W39
W21W22D21W23
W24 D26W258'-6"18'-0"
DN
UP
UP
83 sq ft
EXEMPT
1,296 sq ft300 sq ft
(- 250 & / 2)25 sq ft
101 sq ftPATIO EXEMPT(WITHIN 6" OFF GRADE)
W32 W29W30W31 W43W44W45W46
W53W52W52W53
W49W48W51W50W51W48W49W47D32 D34D33D31W42DN W40W41504 sq ft
DECK
287 sq ft
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"4 FAR ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL FAR
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED UPPER LEVEL FAR
105
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.01
3/4/20
EXISTING
PLANS
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/20205'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
5 1/4" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING ROOF PLAN
106
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.02
3/4/20
PROPOSED
LOWER
LEVEL PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/2020DOUBLESTACKEDWASHER/DRYERBENCHSHOWER
WCBENCHSHOWER
WC
W06W05
W04
W03 D01D04W02D05
D06D01D01D06
D03
D03
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
1
4
66
E
E
F
F
G
G
J
J
3
2
5528'-0"14'-0"14'-0"14'-7"11'-0"25'-7"20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"32'-7 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"
88'-5 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"32'-4"32'-7 1/8"
88'-5 1/8"5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
5'-10"PROPOSED
SETBACK3'-0"SETBACKUP
FAMILY
ROOM
GUEST MASTER
WINDOW WELL
MECHANICAL ROOMLAUNDRY
BEDROOM 1 GUEST
MASTER
BATH
GUEST MASTER CLOSET
WET BAR
BATH 1
POWDER
CLOSET
5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK CREDENZAART WALLHANGINGHANGING
DRAWERS BELOW
TV ABOVE
TV ABOVE
FIREPLACE BELOW
HANGINGHANGING
CREDENZA
PING PONG TABLE
DESK/STUDY
3
A.3.03
1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.031A.3.033
A.3.02
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE (PROPOSED)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
107
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.03
3/4/20
PROPOSED
MAIN LEVEL
PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/2020
DW TRASHW27W32W26W29W30W31W43W44 W26W38D24D25
W37W36 D23
D22W34W35 W33
W39
W21W22D21W23
W24 D26D27 D28W25
D26
D22A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
1
4
66
E
E
F
F
G
G
J
J
3
2
55
45'-10"10'-0"32'-7 1/8"
23'-6"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"
88'-5 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"
20'-6"3'-0"32'-4"32'-7 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"32'-7 1/8"28'-0"14'-0"14'-0"25'-7"1'-11"12'-8"11'-0"5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
4'-2"
VARIANCE
5'-10"
PROPOSEDSETBACK8'-6"18'-0"3'-0"SETBACKREF.
FRZ.
STORAGE
KITCHEN
FP /TV
ENTRY CLOSETDINING
BEDROOM 2
KING BED
DRAWERSHANGING
POWDER
MUDROOM
DN
UP
STAIRWELL
GARAGE
LIVING ROOM
UP
HANGING
BENCHES +
CUBBIES ABOVE
PARKING SPACE
HANGING
PATIO
WINDOW WELL
5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
PARKING SPACE
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
3
A.3.03
1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.031A.3.033
A.3.02
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
108
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.03
3/4/20
PROPOSED
UPPER LEVEL
PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/2020
W32 W29W30W31 W43W44W45W46
W53W52W52W53
W49W48W51W50W51W48W49W47D32 D34D33D31W42A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
1
4
66
E
E
F
F
G
G
J
J
3
2
55
88'-5 1/8"
45'-10"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"23'-3 5/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"
88'-5 1/8"
45'-10"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"23'-3 5/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"25'-7"1'-11"12'-8"11'-0"28'-0"1'-11"12'-1"14'-0"5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
4'-2"
VARIANCE
5'-10"
PROPOSEDSETBACK3'-0"SETBACKDN
MASTER
BEDROOM
MASTER BATH
MASTER CLOSET
GREEN ROOF DECK
BENCHGREEN ROOF ON LINKW40W41
5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
ALL WALLS & WINDOWS WITHIN 5'-0"
MUST BE FIRE RATED & NOT OPERABLE
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
GUTTER
GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT
STAIRWELL
SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
5 1/4" : 12"
3
A.3.03
1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.031A.3.033
A.3.02
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
109
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816111" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.2.04
3/4/20
PROPOSED
ROOF PLAN
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-22523/4/2020
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
1
4
66
E
E
F
F
G
G
J
J
3
2
55
88'-5 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"32'-4"32'-7 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"25'-7"1'-11"12'-8"11'-0"88'-5 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"32'-4"32'-7 1/8"
20'-6"3'-0"22'-4"10'-0"9'-3 1/2"17'-4 7/8"5'-10 3/4"28'-0"1'-11"12'-1"14'-0"5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"
ORIGINALSETBACK
4'-2"
VARIANCE
5'-10"
PROPOSEDSETBACK3'-0"SETBACKSLOPED ROOF
SLOPED ROOF
GREEN ROOF DECK BELOW
GREEN ROOF
ON LINK BELOWSHED ROOF
5'-0"SETBACK3'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK
GUTTER &
DOWNSPOUT
SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"FLAT ROOF
SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE8" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE9 1/4" : 12"SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
7" : 12"
SLOPE
5 1/4" : 12"SLOPE5 1/4" : 12"SLOPE
1/4" : 12"
3
A.3.03
1A.3.022A.3.022A.3.031A.3.033
A.3.02
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINESETBACK LINE (EXISTING)SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(EXISTING)
SETBACK LINE
(PROPOSED)
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
110
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.01
3/4/20
EXISTING
ELEVATIONS
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION
111
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.02
3/4/20
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS:
NORTH &
EAST
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020
6
6
4
4
1
1
3
3
2
2
5
5
W21D21W22
W40
W41W42
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
W23
W24W25W27W26W29W30W31W32
W43W44W45W46
W33W34W35
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
D
D
C
C
B
B
A
A
J
J
G
G
F
F
E
E
T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE
115'-9 3/4"
T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE
114'-9"
TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT
108'-0"
T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK
111'-4"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF
120'-2 1/4"
T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE
126'-5 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
111'-6"
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
101'-9 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
101'-2"
6
6
3
3
2
2
5
5
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF
119'-11"
T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE
126'-5 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
110'-0"
TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT
108'-0"
T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE
126'-5 1/2"
TOP PLATE @ GABLE ROOF
119'-6 1/2"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 2
112
Scale: AS NOTED
ISSUE
HPC SET
HPC SET # 2
1" ACTUAL
IF THE ABOVE DIMENSION DOES
NOT MEASURE ONE INCH (1")
EXACTLY, THIS DRAWING WILL
HAVE BEEN ENLARGED OR
REDUCED, AFFECTING ALL
LABELED SCALES.
ALL DESIGNS, IDEAS ARRANGEMENTS
AND PLANS INDICATED BY THESE
DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE
THE PROPERTY AND COPYRIGHT OF KIM
RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC. AND
SHALL NEITHER BE USED ON ANY OTHER
WORK NOR BE USED BY ANY OTHER
PERSON FOR ANY USE WHATSOEVER
WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION.
WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE
P R E C E D E N C E O V E R S C A L E D
DIMENSIONS AND SHALL BE VERIFIED AT
THE SITE . ANY DIMENSIONAL
DISCREPANCY SHALL BE BROUGHT TO
THE ATTENTION OF THE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
A.3.03
3/4/20
PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS:
SOUTH &
WEST
DATE
1/31/2020 KIM RAYMOND ARCHITECTS, INC.418 E. COOPER AVENUE, SUITE 201www.kimraymondarchitects.com970-925-2252227 E. MAINHISTORIC RENOVATION227 EAST MAIN STREETASPEN, COLORADO 816113/4/2020
A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
F
F
G
G
J
J
W36W37
W52W53
W39 D23D25
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. EAST GABLE RIDGE
112'-8 3/4"
T.O. WEST GABLE ROOF RIDGE
114'-9"
TOP PLATE @ LINKING ELEMENT
108'-0"
T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK
111'-4"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF
120'-2 1/4"
T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE
126'-5 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
111'-6"
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
101'-9 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
101'-2"
4
4
6
6
1
1
5
5
2
2
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
T.O. MAIN LEVEL PLY @ HISTORIC
100'-0"
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
6
6
5
5
W50
W49W51 W48 W47D31
W38
D22
T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK
111'-4"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF
120'-2 1/4"
T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE
126'-5 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
111'-6"
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
101'-9 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
101'-2"
T.O. PLY @ GARAGE ROOF DECK
111'-4"
T.O. BASEMENT SLAB
88'-0"
TOP PLATE @ STAIR FLAT ROOF
120'-2 1/4"
T.O. ADDITION ROOF RIDGE
126'-5 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
111'-6"
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
101'-9 1/2"
T.O. UPPER LEVEL PLY
101'-2"
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 2
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 1
113
227 E. MAIN - GYPSY WOMAN (1975)
114
LOOKING WEST DOWN MAIN STREET AT 227, (1960s)
115
LOOKING SOUTHWEST ACROSS MAIN STREET (2020)
116
LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS MAIN STREET (2020)
117
RENDERING - VIEW FROM SIDEWALK
118
RENDERING - VIEW FROM MAIN STREET
119
RENDERING - VIEW FROM EAST NEIGHBOR PARKING LOT
120
RENDERING - VIEW FROM EAST NEIGHBOR PARKING LOT
121
RENDERING - VIEW FROM NORTH-EAST CORNER
122
RENDERING - VIEW FROM MAIN STREET
123
RENDERING - VIEW FROM BACK ALLEY
124
RENDERING - VIEW FROM BACK ALLEY
125
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 8 2020
Chairperson Greenwood opened the meeting at 4:35 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance: Gretchen Greenwood, Kara Thompson, Bob Blaich,
Roger Moyer, Jeffrey Halferty, Scott Kendrick, Sheri Sanzone
Commissioners not in attendance: Nora Berko
Staff present:
Amy Simon, Interim Planning Director/Historic Preservation Officer
Sarah Yoon, Historic Preservation Planner
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Wes Graham, City Deputy Clerk
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve the minutes of March 11th,
Ms. Thompson second. All in Favor, Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Mr. Halferty stated that is was lovely to see everyone
exceptionally under the circumstances.
PROJECT MONITORING: Ms. Simon stated that the only project monitoring is 533 W
Hallam.
Ms. Yoon asked Mr. Halferty if they could set up a meeting to discuss site changes about
fenestration and drainage.
Ms. Greenwood stated that HPC has an electronic meeting resolution that needs to be passed.
Ms. Bryan explained that city staff looked at other similar municipalities that passed a resolution
for virtual meetings to comply with their health order and came up with one that fits HPC needs.
Ms. Bryan stated that HPC should adopt the police for virtual meetings.
Ms. Greenwood asked if everyone saw this resolution in their packet.
Mr. Moyer Motioned to adopt Resolution #8, Mr. Halferty Seconded. All in favor. Motion
carried.
Ms. Greenwood asked Ms. Bryan if all public notices where in order.
Ms. Bryan stated that they were.
CERTIFICATES OF NO NEGATIVE EFFECT: Ms. Simon stated that there was one on
W. Bleeker for an addition of a window on a historic resource.
CALL UPS: None.
OLD BUSINESS: 227 E. Main- Conceptual Major Development, Relocation, Setback
Variations, the public hearing continued from March 18th.
Kim Raymond and Milo Stark, Kim Raymond Architecture + Interiors
Ms. Raymond stated that at the last meeting some of the concerns that were brought up were
about the setbacks on the east side, primarily the new structure sitting all on one side of the
property. Ms. Raymond explained her team moved the structure to the middle of the lot in
126
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 8 2020
alignment with the historical resource and now there is a 3-foot setback on both sides. Ms.
Raymond stated that now she and her team are asking for a 2-foot variance on each side. Ms.
Raymond spoke about the concern HPC had about the garage being only 1-foot from the
property line. Ms. Raymond explained that they moved the garage back to connect to the other
structure and now has a 5-foot setback. Ms. Raymond stated that the only thing they are asking
for is for both side yards to have the 2-foot variance. Ms. Raymond showed visuals of the new
location of the structure aligning with the historic resource. Ms. Raymond stated another concern
was the new roof. Ms. Raymond showed a rendering of the newly designed roof and how it
matches aesthetically with the historical resource. She pointed out that the roof pitch of the new
addition matches the historic gable pitch. Ms. Raymond stated that they took off the sloping roof
in the top stairwell landing and replaced it with a flat shed roof for headspace. Ms. Raymond
stated that there was a concern with the windows on the new addition. She stated that the new
plan reflects what is on the historic resource, smaller windows and symmetrical placement in the
gable. Ms. Raymond stated that on the east side of the new addition they wanted to bring in light
into the stairwell and basement and chose larger windows and felt that since this was not a heavy
public traffic area that this was appropriate. Ms. Raymond stated that they have been in
communications with the owners of the property where Main Street Bakery sits and that they
have worked out a deal to set the transformer there. Ms. Raymond talked about the drainage
issues and pointed out that the green roof and raised gardens will meet the drainage needs.
Ms. Sanzone asked if a civil engineer has been involved with the new set of plans.
Mr. Stark replied yes. However, he has not given the stormwater plan yet.
Ms. Sanzone asked if the comments on the survey have been resolved.
Ms. Simon replied that they will be addressed in the final review.
STAFF COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that the applicants covered the major topics from the
last presentations. Ms. Simon reminded HPC that this is conceptual approval and not final. Ms.
Simon stated staff supports the new design of realignment. Ms. Simon stated staff is in support of
the new roof pitch and stairwell redesign. Ms. Simon listed the recommended conditions for
approval. Ms. Simon wants to see a continuance of investigation whether a transformer will be
needed on the site. Ms. Simon stated that the applicant has tried to reach out to Explore
Booksellers to discuss the impact of trees on the properties relative to the planned basement
excavation. Ms. Simon stated at the final review additional study and documentation of the
historic resource will be necessary in order to identify and respond to historic conditions that are
currently not visible. Ms. Simon stated that as part of the approval to relocate the house on the
site, the applicant will be required to provide financial security of $30,000 until the house is set
on the new foundation. Ms. Simon recommended that the applicant comes back within one year
for a final review.
Ms. Greenwood asked if during final review that the applicant could come in with roof and wall
penetrations and any exterior adds like downspouts and gutters.
Ms. Simon responded that would be expected and doesn’t need to be listed as a condition.
Ms. Sanzone asked if parks had any comments about the trees.
Ms. Simon responded that the Parks Dept has agreed to the tree removal.
Ms. Thompson asked how does the green roof link to the historic resource.
127
Regular Meeting Historic Preservation Commission April 8 2020
Ms. Simon asked Ms. Thompson if she was concerned about the vegetation spreading to the
historic part.
Ms. Thompson replied yes.
Ms. Simon stated that the connector would be shown at the final review.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Ms. Simon stated that she reached out to Ruth Carver who showed
concern at the last meeting. Ms. Simon continued that Ms. Carver is satisfied with the new plan.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS: Ms. Greenwood thanked the applicants for listening to their
concerns. Ms. Greenwood stated that she is in favor of this project moving forward.
Mr. Blaich stated that he is in favor of this moving forward.
Mr. Halferty stated he would like a staff monitoring on the east elevation on the new addition.
Mr. Halferty pointed out the window to wall ratio is off. Mr. Halferty stated he would like to see
a restudy of this before final. Mr. Halferty stated that the CMP is very important to this project.
Ms. Thompson stated that she agrees with Mr. Halferty's statements. Ms. Thompson asked to see
more information on the linking element for the green roof. Ms. Thompson stated that she is on
board with moving this to the final review.
Mr. Moyer stated he agrees with the staff moving this forward and Mr. Halferty.
Mr. Kendrick stated he agrees with moving this forward. Mr. Kendrick agrees with Mr. Halferty
and breaking up the east side glass wall.
Ms. Sanzone stated she agrees with the staff and moving this forward.
Ms. Greenwood stated that she agrees with Mr. Halferty about the east side glass wall and that it
needs to be broken up. Ms. Greenwood stated that the restudy on the east side windows needs to
be added as a condition.
MOTION: Mr. Halferty motioned to approve resolution #9 with conditions attached, Mr. Blaich
seconded. Roll Call Vote. Ms., Thompson YES, Mr. Blaich, YES, Mr. Kendrick, YES, Ms.
Greenwood, YES, Mr. Moyer, YES, Mr. Halferty, YES, Ms. Sanzone, YES. All in favor. Motion
Passes.
NEW BUSINESS: 620 Gillespie Avenue and 845 Meadows Road, Aspen Institute- Final
Commercial Design, Final Major Development, Planned Development
REPRESENTATIVE: Curtis and Associates, Jeffrey Berkus Architects, Rowland + Broughton
Architects, Dan Porterfield CEO of the Aspen Institute
Mr. Porterfield thanked HPC and staff for holding this meeting. Mr. Porterfield stated that this
project would be a wonderful new resource to the community, city, and valley. Mr. Porterfield
said that it’s the growing relationship between the Aspen Institute and community that makes the
renovation of the Boettcher Building so exciting. Mr. Porterfield stated that he sees the new
building as a focal point in the community. Mr. Porterfield stated since January the applicant
team has met with neighbors and gathered their feedback.
Mr. Berkus showcased their last design and proposal. Mr. Berkus stated the old plan had a large
round, elaborate walkway to enter Boettcher on the east side, a relocated spruce tree to the
southeast corner, a sculpture in the center lawn, and an Aspen grove that surrounded the project.
Mr. Berkus stated at that time they were proposing a southeast entrance on Gillespie. Mr. Berkus
showed visuals of the new design and proposal. Mr. Berkus stated that he was asked to simplify
128
HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2020
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION #9, SERIES OF 2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, RELOCATION AND
SETBACK VARIATIONS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 EAST MAIN STREET,
LOT F, BLOCK 74, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-28-003
WHEREAS, the applicant, 227 East Main LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architecture +
Interiors, has requested HPC approval for Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and
Setback Variations for the property located at 227 East Main Street, Lot F, Block 74, City and
Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. As a historic landmark, the site is exempt from Residential
Design Standards review; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that “no building or structure
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been
submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the
procedures established for their review;” and
WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the
application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the
project’s conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per
Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections.
The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to
obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Relocation, the application shall meet the requirements of Aspen
Municipal Code Section 26.415.090.C, Relocation of a Designated Property; and
WHEREAS, for approval of Setback Variations, the application shall meet the requirements of
Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.110.C, Setback Variations; and
WHEREAS, Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for
compliance with applicable review standards and recommends approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, HPC reviewed the project on February 12, 2020 and continued the hearing for
restudy. On April 8th, 2020 HPC considered the application, the staff memo and public
comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval
with conditions by a vote of 7 to 0.
129
HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2020
Page 2 of 3
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Conceptual Major Development, Relocation and Setback Variations
for 227 East Main Street, Lot F, Block 74, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO as follows:
Section 1: Conceptual Major Development Review, Relocation and Setback Variations
The approval is subject to these conditions:
1. Restudy the windows on the east façade of the addition for Final review.
2. Continue to investigate whether a transformer will be needed on the site.
3. Continue to review the impact of trees on the adjacent properties relative to the
planned basement excavation.
4. At final, during permit review, and once the property is under construction, additional
study and documentation of the historic resource will be necessary in order to identify
and respond to historic conditions that are currently not visible.
5. As part of the approval to relocate the house on the site, the applicant will be required
to provide a financial security of $30,000 until the house is set on the new foundation.
The financial security is to be provided with the building permit application, along with
a detailed description of the house relocation approach.
6. The following setbacks are approved:
• A 5’10” setback is approved in the front, above and below grade to retain the
historic house in its existing location.
• A 0’ setback is approved on the east and west sides, above and below grade to
retain the historic house in its existing location and to allow basement
excavation.
• A 3’ setback is approved on the east and west sides of the addition, above and
below grade.
• A 5’ setback is approved at the rear yard, above and below grade.
7. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one
(1) year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such
an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the
Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole
discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration
date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a
written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the
expiration date.
Section 2: Material Representations
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the
development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or
documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Historic
Preservation Commission, or the Aspen City Council are hereby incorporated in such plan
130
HPC Resolution #9, Series of 2020
Page 3 of 3
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Section 3: Existing Litigation
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such
prior ordinances.
Section 4: Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions thereof.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at a special meeting on the 8th day of April, 2020.
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
_________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney Gretchen Greenwood, Chair
ATTEST:
_________________________________________________________________
Wes Graham, Deputy City Clerk
131
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Justin Forman, P.E., Operations Manager, Utilities;
Ben Anderson, AICP, Principal Planner, Community Development
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
Tyler Christoff, P.E., Director of Utilities
Paul Schultz, Director of Information Technology
Phillip Supino, AICP, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: April 20, 2020
MEETING DATE: April 28, 2020 (continued from March 24, 2020 meeting)
RE: Wireless Facility Design Guidelines and Related Land Use Code
Amendment; Second Hearing – Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020 ______________________________________________________________________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Council is requested to review Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020 at Second Reading. The
Ordinance would approve the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines and
a related Amendment to Land Use Code Chapter 26.505, Wireless Communications
Facilities and Equipment.
UPDATE FROM FIRST READING:
Council had further discussion at First Reading related to height, distance between
facilities, and the design of the luminaire, but was generally supportive of the draft Design
Guidelines and Code Amendment. One topic related to designated historic properties,
on which staff requested specific direction from Council, produced a proposed change to
the Design Guidelines document. The proposed, added language reads as follows:
Relationship to Other Designated Historic Properties - All properties that are designated
by ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures are
considered significant to the City’s historic and aesthetic character and require additional
sensitivity. Applicants are encouraged to work with City staff to identify locations for small
cell facilities in the right-of-way that do not detract from the contribution of these
designated properties to Aspen’s architectural heritage. An updated map, identifying
Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, is available from City of Aspen GIS.
132
Page 2 of 9
Additionally, staff proposes two, minor changes to the draft guidelines since First
Reading:
1) Previous drafts have included language requiring a “NIER” report to identify site
specific radio frequency emissions from a given wireless facility. Since First
Reading, staff has come to understand that for small cell facilities – the more
common report is called an EME, or electromagnetic emissions report. Staff has
included EME as an acceptable alternative to the NIER report. This is a technicality
– but will provide clarity for staff and applicants.
2) Additional language has been included in the design guidelines related to the
application process. This new language gives emphasis to applicants to engage
in preapplication discussion with staff and provides direction to the requirements
of the application process in relationship to the review shot clock. Staff included
this language to provide further definition to requirements that were previously
expressed more broadly.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
• Passing of Ordinance No.5, Series of 2019 – Amending City of Aspen Land Use
Code Related to Wireless Infrastructure Regulation
• Passing of Resolution No. 92, Series of 2019 – Professional Services Contract
with HRGreen, Inc. for Design Guidelines for Small Cell Infrastructure
• Passing of Resolution No.133, Series of 2019 – Approval of a Master License
Agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (AT&T)
• Passing of Resolution No. 135, Series of 2019 – Approval of a contract with Crown
Castle for Distributed Antenna System Facility Lease Agreement (Neutral Host)
• Work Session – January 21, 2020 – initial discussion of draft Design Guidelines
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In 2017 and 2018, rule changes from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and
a new Colorado State Statute fundamentally changed the ability of local jurisdictions to
regulate a particular type of wireless communications facilities called small cell facilities.
The changes were implemented to facilitate wireless providers in the deployment of new
wireless technology. Specifically, these rule changes:
• Preempt local authority over the use of the public right-of-way for these facilities
(FCC)
• Shorten times for local reviews (FCC)
• Limit local fees (FCC)
• Limit local review to aesthetic and location preferences (FCC)
• Allow small cell facilities as a use by right in all zone districts (Colorado)
Like many other communities, these rule changes created challenges for City staff as
there were no regulations, standards, or processes in place to evaluate these facilities in
the public right-of-way. In fall of 2018, COA staff began responding to this new paradigm.
133
Page 3 of 9
Work Completed to Date
To date, a multi-department team has implemented the following:
• A fully new section of the land use code to define new review processes,
definitions, and basic design guidelines.
• A new land use application specific to wireless telecommunications facilities.
• New processes that coordinate reviews by Community Development (planning and
building), Engineering, and Utilities for facilities in the right-of-way. This was
necessary to ensure compliance with new “shot clock” review timelines.
Much of the initial work on this was completed as a stop-gap measure, as the City needed
to get rules and processes in place to respond to what was feared to be imminent
applications for these facilities. When these changes were adopted in March of 2019,
Council directed staff to update the City’s Design Guidelines on new wireless
deployments.
In August of 2019, City Council approved a contract for professional services with
HRGreen, an engineering firm, to assist staff in the creation of a more robust set of design
guidelines giving specific definition to small cell facilities that are in the public right-of-
way.
Design Guidelines and related Amendment to Land Use Code
The completed design guidelines will give definitive and detailed direction to the wireless
carriers, neutral host provider and their representatives as they design wireless facilities
for the Aspen market. Additionally, the guidelines will give clear direction to City staff in
the processes with criteria for review of new facilities and upgrades to existing facilities.
While the guidelines address all wireless facilities, the document gives focus to small cell
facilities in the public right-of-way.
Related to the adoption of the Design Guidelines, staff has drafted an amendment to the
Land Use Code (LUC) that gives direction to applicability, process, and the use of the
design guidelines within the review of wireless facilities. Once this amendment is adopted,
the design guidelines can be amended and evolve in response to new technology and
federal and state regulations, without having to further amend the Land Use Code. The
relationship of the Wireless Design Guidelines to the LUC will be similar to Aspen’s
Commercial Design, and Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines.
Public Engagement
In the drafting of the design guidelines, it was essential that staff engage the public on
this topic as the implementation of small cell facilities raised interest over visual impacts
to the community and a global conversation about potential health concerns of 5G
wireless technology. Developed by City Communications Department staff, a
comprehensive engagement strategy was successfully deployed. We had direct
interactions and received input from 200+ residents and stakeholders. See Exhibit C for
a summary of Public Outreach efforts.
134
Page 4 of 9
DISCUSSION:
Key Elements of Design Guidelines (Full version is attached to Ordinance No. 3)
1) Replacement of existing streetlights – staff recommends that the first choice for
small cell facilities in the right-of-way be in the location of an existing streetlight. The
streetlight would be replaced with a small cell pole that would be fully paid for by the
wireless or neutral host provider. Additionally, standalone “monopoles” without a
luminaire could be installed in the right-of-way in locations not associated with existing
streetlights.
Staff Comments: The use of existing streetlight locations for new wireless
facilities is at the heart of staff’s proposed response. While the existing poles
cannot house the wireless facilities, residents are familiar with vertical poles in
these locations, are located in proximity to existing utility connections, and the
locations of the streetlights are already in locations desirous for wireless
connectivity.
During HPC discussion, commission members were very interested in alleyways
becoming a preferred location for small cell facilities. Because of the extensive
use of alleys for other purposes, staff cannot recommend the universal use of
alleys as a location for small cell facilities. However, the draft design guidelines
include language that alley locations could be considered on a case by case basis.
2) Height – staff recommends that small cell facilities in the right-of-way be limited to 25
feet in height. Federal rules allow these facilities to be up to 50 feet in height. Staff based
Aspen’s recommended height on the maximum height of structure allowed in our
residential zone districts.
3) Minimum distance between facilities – staff recommends that we limit the minimum
distance between facilities that contain the same wireless provider’s equipment to 600
feet. This includes both small cell facilities – and larger facilities that may be on rooftops
of private or public buildings.
Staff Comments: The Height and Distance Between Facilities guidelines are very
important in regulating the aesthetic impact of these facilities in Aspen. Aspen has
worked hard to regulate the height of all structures within the City – in both
residential and commercial contexts. Additionally, over the years, Aspen and our
utility partners have spent significant resources undergrounding electric and
communications lines. These guidelines acknowledge the aesthetic purposes
behind these previous efforts while providing for the ability of the wireless industry
to establish new facilities in Aspen’s right-of-way. Staff identified the 25 feet height
limit early on in the process – as it relates to the maximum height of structures in
Aspen’s residential zone districts.
135
Page 5 of 9
In the work session discussion with Council on 1/21/20, the topic of height was
extensively discussed. Since then staff has learned that: 1) 20 feet tall poles are
not being used in any community that we can identify in the United States, and 2)
25 feet is likely the minimum that should be considered – particularly if co-location
of two carriers on a single pole is to be a possibility.
4) Pole design features – staff recommends the following:
a) The pole will have a fluted pattern to reference our existing streetlights
b) The pole diameter is limited to 18” at the pole’s base
c) The pole and antenna structure will be painted to match the color of our existing
streetlights
d) A luminaire (streetlight fixture) will be mounted to the small cell pole in replacement
of the existing streetlight:
• The fixture will be mounted at a height consistent with best practices
and requirements in streetlight design
• The style of the fixture is “hockey puck” design, approximately 18
inches in diameter.
• The fixture will be flush mounted to the pole (little or no armature)
• The fixture will be downlit
• The fixture will meet City of Aspen B.U.G. (backlight, uplight, glare)
standards – defined in a policy adopted in 2013.
Staff Comments: If these facilities are to replace Aspen’s existing streetlights,
staff recommends that the new facilities reference, but not replicate our existing
streetlight design. In this way, the poles are recommended to be fluted and painted
the same color as our existing streetlights.
The design of the luminaire that would be attached to a new wireless facility has
been a major topic of discussion with Council, HPC, P&Z and the public. Staff has
recommended a fixture that is low profile, will replicate the light quality (color and
intensity) of Aspen’s existing streetlights, and will direct light downward – reducing
light trespass and improving safety outcomes. See Exhibit A for a description of
the recommended fixture.
Staff acknowledges that this is a departure from the existing streetlight design –
and that it will introduce a new style into the existing system. Staff’s intention in
this recommendation is that the luminaire will not draw visual attention during the
daylight hours and will deliver a similar, but improved light quality at night.
5) Concealment of related equipment – staff recommends that all equipment related to
small cell facilities shall be located within the pole structure or in an underground
vault.
Staff Comments: Aspen’s right-of-way is typically a crowded space – both above
and below ground. Staff’s recommendation on this topic – and one that adds a
136
Page 6 of 9
degree of difficulty to the installation of these facilities – has two primary purposes.
First, above grade cabinetry to contain related equipment, or equipment that is
attached to the exterior of poles is aesthetically inconsistent with the expectations
of Aspen’s residents and visitors and contrary to the efforts made to locate similar
equipment on private property (example: transformers). Second, above grade
cabinets or equipment attached to poles reduces areas in the right-of-way for
access and mobility to all users. Staff strongly recommends this guideline.
6) Prohibited Locations – Staff recommends the following areas be prohibited in the
location of small cell facilities:
Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any street facing
façade of these iconic Aspen buildings:
+Wheeler Opera House +Elks’ Building +Independence Building
+Wheeler/Stallard Museum +Hotel Jerome +City Hall (Armory Bldg.)
+Pitkin County Courthouse +Sardy House +St. Mary’s Church
+Aspen Community Church +Yellow Brick +Red Brick
+Aspen Mountain Rescue +Anderson Park +Brand Building
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way of the Aspen Pedestrian
Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and Cooper Avenues between Mill
and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and Hyman Avenues.
Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No small cell facilities are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain
View Plane. See Aspen Land Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these
areas.
Relationship to designated Open Space
No small cell facilities are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated
Open Space parcels.
Staff Comments: The relationship of wireless facilities to designated properties
has been extensively discussed by Council, P&Z, HPC and the public. Staff’s
recommendation of identifying “iconic” buildings was intended to acknowledge the
importance of these specific buildings to Aspen’s historic character and aesthetic.
There was consideration of including all designated properties within this
prohibition, but staff’s initial thinking was that this was too extensive, and that in
certain parts of town would be overly restrictive to the location of new wireless
facilities in the right-of-way. Following discussion with P&Z, HPC, and Council at
First Reading, all designated properties should be given special consideration to
reduce negative aesthetic impacts of wireless facilities – including identifying
alternative locations.
137
Page 7 of 9
In discussion with Council, it was suggested that locations in the right-of-way, adjacent to
City Parks should be a “Special Review” – meaning that it would be reviewed by a board.
Staff has considered proximity to Parks carefully, and while perhaps not an ideal location,
right-of-way adjacent to Parks may be preferred to locations in closer proximity to
residential development. Staff recommends that flexibility be allowed within an
administrative review – to consider locations adjacent to City Parks.
7) Notice Requirements – If a small cell facility meets the design guidelines, they
would be considered as an administrative review – and no public notice would be
required until after an approval was granted. Therefore, staff recommends that within
15 days of an application being deemed complete, the applicant shall complete the
following:
a) A poster being placed on site that includes
• A photo simulation of the proposed facility
• A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal
• Contact information for the carrier/neutral host provider and
city staff
b) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the facility.
c) Newspaper notice in the form of a box advertisement
d) Updates to City of Aspen GIS and Map Aspen showing the location of
the proposed facility.
Staff Comments: This requirement would be a departure from other
administrative reviews in the land use code – and the timing of the notice would be
different from cases that do require notice. However, staff believes that due to the
nature of these facilities and the potential proximity to residences and businesses,
it is good policy to inform neighbors of the application for a wireless facility. The
notice would provide information – but it is important to note that a facility that
meets the design guidelines will be approved administratively – and no public
hearing will occur.
Response to Public Concerns
The most significant and consistent comments that staff received related to small cell
facilities came from citizens concerned about potential health effects of emerging 5G
technology. While Federal Law prohibits local communities from regulating these facilities
based on environmental or health concerns, staff recommends the following requirements
as part of the application and approval of wireless facilities:
8) NIER Reporting – this is a technical description of the specific radio frequencies that
are expected from a specific small cell facility – related to the FCC rules regarding
maximum permissible exposure (MPE). This report, which Aspen has not required in the
past, will provide detailed information about the radio frequency emissions specific to a
given facility. It will be required in the establishment of a new facility and any time a facility
is upgraded. It is proposed that an additional fee be included in the application for
wireless facilities to allow for expert, third party consultants to evaluate the NIER report.
138
Page 8 of 9
9) Required testing and reporting of the actual frequencies and strength of frequencies
being emitted following the installation or upgrade of a wireless facility within 90 days of
completion of work. Additionally, annual audits of radio frequency signals from all facilities
will be required. It is proposed that Aspen will build a fee into the application costs for the
facilities – that will cover expenses related to COA staff or a third party conducting the
proposed testing.
Staff Comments: These reporting and testing requirements do not in any way
change FCC requirements or safety thresholds for wireless facilities. Instead, they
simply provide evidence that the facilities meet FCC rules both as designed and
as they are functioning following installation and annually thereafter.
Key Elements of the Land Use Code Amendment
(Full version is attached to Ordinance No. 3.
The proposed amendment to Chapter 26.505 would make relatively minor changes to the
chapter to respond to the new design guidelines and to changes in review processes.
Highlights of the proposed amendment:
1) All design requirements have been removed from the land use code chapter and placed
into the design guidelines document. The design guidelines, once adopted, are
technically part of the land use code, but having them as a distinct document makes it
easier to make modifications in response to future changes in the technology or new
community desires related to the facilities. This is a relationship of the code to standalone
documents that is shared with the Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design
Standards and Guidelines and The Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.
2) For wireless facilities, the land use application and any necessary building permits or
right-of-way permits are required to be submitted concurrently. This is a departure from
other development processes but will allow staff to better respond to the “shot clock”
requirements for review of wireless facilities.
3) If a wireless facility – either on private property or in the public right-of-way – meets the
design guidelines, review will be administrative. Board Review (P&Z and HPC) will be
initiated for facilities of a particular scale on private property, located on a designated
property (HPC), or for any facility that is requesting a variance from the design guidelines.
The review criteria for granting a variance are limited to situations where adhering to the
design guidelines would make a facility technically or practically infeasible.
139
Page 9 of 9
CONCLUSION: Staff, in working closely with our consultants at HR Green and in gaining
valuable feedback from the public, propose this update to design requirements for
wireless facilities in Aspen. The document (and the related chapter in the Land Use Code)
provides direction in meeting Aspen’s expectations for these facilities, particularly small
cell facilities in the public-right-of-way, while finding balance with wireless providers’
efforts to serve their customers. As presented, the guidelines pursue a middle ground
between Aspen’s longstanding values – and compliance with federal and state law
regarding emerging wireless technologies.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve Ordinance No. 3, Series 2020, on Second
Reading.
Recommended Motion:
“I move to approve Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020, approving the adoption of the
Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines and a related Land Use Code
Amendment to 26.505; on Second Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: Renderings of small cell facilities that would meet the proposed
design guidelines and recommended luminaire specifications.
EXHIBIT B: Redline draft of proposed changes to 26.505
EXHIBIT C: Summary of Public Outreach
EXHIBIT D: Public Notice Affidavit
140
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 1 of 64
ORDINANCE NO. 3
SERIES OF 2020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CODE
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO LAND USE CODE CHAPTER 26.505, WIRELESS
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
WHEREAS,in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land
Use Code, and following the adoption of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2019, the City Council of
the City of Aspen directed the Community Development Department to draft necessary code
amendments and create comprehensive design guidelines related to small cell wireless facilities;
and,
WHEREAS,the Community Development Department, in cooperation with multiple city
departments and HRGreen, an engineering consultant firm, conducted research related to existing
conditions, best practices in the wireless and engineering fields, and federal and state rules and
statute; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.310.020(B)(1), the Community Development
Department conducted extensive public outreach with community members, the Planning &
Zoning Commission, the Historic Preservation Commission, and City Council regarding the
drafting of the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, in November and December2019, Citystaffconductedeight (8)small group,
public workshops, two (2) feedback forums at the Limelight lodge on December 4
th, and initiated
a social media campaign and print and radio stories, held two(2) public meetings with the Planning
and Zoning Commission, two (2) public meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission, and
two (2) work sessions with the City Council; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council met in work sessions on August 5, 2019 and January
21, 2020, and provided general direction on the code amendment and the design guidelines; and,
WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 26.505.020(A), future amendments to Chapter 26.505
are exempt from the requirements of 26.310.020(B)(2), and may proceed directly to First and
Second Reading pursuant to 26.310.020(B)(3); and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director, with the cooperation of multiple City
departments, has recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the City of Aspen Land
Use Code and adoption of the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines; and
WHEREAS,at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 10, 2020, City Council considered
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020 and by a vote of five to zero (5 – 0) approved the ordinance on
First Reading; and,
141
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 2 of 64
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2020, City Council voted in
support of a continuation of the public hearing for the Second Reading Ordinance No. 3, Series of
2020 to a date certain, April 28, 2020; and,
WHEREAS,at a regularly scheduled meeting on April 28, 2020, City Council considered
Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2020 in a properly noticed public hearing, and by a vote of X to X
(X – X) approved the ordinance on Second Reading; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the amendments meet or exceed all
applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN COLORADO THAT:
Section 1:Chapter 26.505 shall be rescinded and readopted as follows:
Chapter 26.505
Wireless Communication Facilities and Equipment
Sec. 26.505.010 Purpose
Sec. 26.505.020 Adoption of Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
Sec. 26.505.030 Applicability
Sec. 26.505.040 Wireless Definitions
Sec. 26.505.050 Operational Standards
Sec. 26.505.060 Procedures for Review
Sec. 26.505.070 Application Contents
Sec. 26.505.080 Conditions and limitations
26.505.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers
and wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
public, provide for managed development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal
of wireless communications infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town
character, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a
competitive wireless communications marketplace in the city.
26.505.020 Adoption of Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
The City Council hereby adopts design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines (“Design Guidelines”), which are incorporated into
the City of Aspen Land Use Code. The Design Guidelines set forth the design parameters to ensure
safe and secure installation and minimize negative aesthetic impacts of wireless communications
facilities installed on private property or in the public right-of-way. The Design Guidelines may
be amended, updated, and expanded from time to time by City Council Resolution. At least (1)
142
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 3 of 64
copy shall be available for public inspection at the Community Development and Engineering
Departments and on the City of Aspen’s webpage.
26.505.030 Applicability
All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment must receive land
use approval, building permits, and/or right-of-way permits, as applicable, prior to installation.
Concurrent with the issuance of appropriate building and right-of-way permits, WCFs and/or
equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Community Development Director (and when
applicable, the City Engineer) in conformance with the provisions and criteria of this Chapter.
WCFs and equipment subject to the provisions and criteria of this Chapter include without
limitation, WCFs within the Public Rights of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication services (PCS), commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial telecommunication devices and all
associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas, monopoles, towers, masts
and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms. These provisions and criteria do not apply
to noncommercial satellite dish antennae, radio and television transmitters and antennae incidental
to residential use. All references made throughout this Chapter, to any of the devices to which this
Chapter is applicable, shall be construed to include all other devices to which this Chapter is
applicable
A. Future Amendments to Chapter 26.505.
All future amendments to this Chapter shall be exempt from the requirement of Policy
Resolution for code amendments (Section 26.310.020.B.1-2). Future amendments may
proceed directly to a First and Second Reading, pursuant to Section 26.310.020.B.3.
26.505.040 Wireless Definitions.
All words used in this Chapter or in the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines,
except where specifically defined herein, shall carry their customary meanings when not
inconsistent with the context. Definitions contained elsewhere in this Code shall apply to this
Section unless modified herein.
Accessory Wireless Equipment. Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction
with a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF), including, but not limited to, utility or
transmission equipment, power supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment
buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or other structures.
Alternative Tower Structure. Man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light poles,
traffic signals, buildings, and similar alternative design mounting structures that are
intended to be compatible with the natural setting and surrounding structures, and
camouflage or concealment design techniques so as to make the presence of antennas or
towers compatible with the surrounding area pursuant to this Chapter. This term also
includes any antenna or antenna array attached to an Alternative Tower Structure and a
Replacement Pole. A stand-alone Monopole in the Public Right-of-Way that
accommodates Small Cell Wireless Facilities is considered an Alternative Tower Structure
to the extent it meets the camouflage and concealment standards of this Chapter.
143
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 4 of 64
Antenna. Any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves such
as, but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes, whip antennas,
directional and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more elements, multiple
antenna configurations, or other similar devices and configurations. Any exterior
apparatus designed for telephone, radio, or television communications through the sending
and/or receiving of wireless communications signals.
Base Station.A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") licensed or authorized wireless communications
between user equipment and a communications network. The definition of base station
does not include or encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with
a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
(1) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private
broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed
wireless services such as microwave backhaul that, at the time the relevant application
is filed with the city pursuant to this chapter has been reviewed and approved under
the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory
review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of
providing such support; and
(2) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup
power supplied, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks) that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the city pursuant to title 26 of the Code has been
reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another
state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole
or primary purpose of providing such support.
The definition of base station does not include any structure that, at the time the
application is filed with the city under this chapter, does not support or house
equipment described herein in sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this definition.
Camouflage, Concealment, Or Camouflage Design Techniques. A Wireless
Communication Facility (“WCF”) is camouflaged or utilizes Camouflage Design
Techniques when any measures are used in the design and siting of Wireless
Communication Facilities with the intent to minimize or eliminate the visual impact of
such facilities to surrounding uses. A WCF site utilizes Camouflage Design Techniques
when it (i) is integrated in an outdoor fixture such as a flagpole, or (ii) uses a design which
mimics and is consistent with the nearby natural, or architectural features (such as an
artificial tree) or is incorporated into (including, without limitation, being attached to the
exterior of such facilities and painted to match it) or is integral within, incorporated on or
replaces existing permitted facilities or vertical infrastructure located in the right-of-way
(including without limitation, stop signs or other traffic signs or freestanding light
standards) so that the presence of the WCF is not readily apparent.
144
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 5 of 64
Collocation. (1) mounting or installing a WCF on a pre-existing structure, and/or (2)
modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that structure.
Provided that, for purposes of Eligible Facilities Requests, “Collocation” means the
mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for
the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes.
Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an Eligible Support Structure
that does not Substantially Change the physical dimensions of such Eligible Support
Structure involving: (i) collocation of new Transmission Equipment, (ii) removal of
Transmission Equipment, or (iii) replacementand/or addition of Transmission Equipment.
Eligible Support Structure. Any Tower or Base Station as defined in this Section,
provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under
this Section.
Existing Tower or Base Station. A constructed Tower or Base Station is existing for
purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning
or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that
a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when
it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.
Micro Cell Facility.A small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15
inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no
more than eleven inches in length.
Monopole. A single, freestanding pole-type structure supporting one or more Antennas.
Public right-of way.Any public way or public thoroughfare dedicated or devoted to public
use, including street, highway, road, alley, lane, court, boulevard, sidewalk, public square, mall
or like designation.
Replacement Pole. An Alternative Tower structure that is a newly constructed and
permitted traffic signal, utility pole, street light, flagpole, electric distribution, or street
light poles or other similar structure of proportions and of equal height to a pre-existing
pole or structure in order to support a WCF or Small Cell Facility or to accommodate
collocation and remove the pre-existing pole or structure.
Small Cell Facility.A WCF where each Antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more
than three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an Antenna that has exposed elements,
the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no
more than three cubic feet; and primary equipment enclosures are no larger than seventeen
cubic feet in volume. The following associated equipment may be located outside of the
primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not included in the calculation of
equipment volume: electric meter, concealment, telecommunications demarcation box,
ground-based enclosure, back-up power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer
145
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 6 of 64
switch and cut-off switch. Small cells may be attached to Alternate Tower Structures,
Replacement Pole, and Base Stations.
Substantial Change to a WCF. A modification substantially changes the physical
dimensions of an Eligible Support Structure if after the modification, the structure meets
any of the following criteria:
(1) For Towers, other than Alternative Tower Structures or Towers in the Right-of-
Way, it increases the height of the Tower by more than ten percent (10%) or by the
height of one (1) additional antenna array, with separation from the nearest existing
antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other Eligible Support
Structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than ten percent (10%) or
more than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater;
(2) For Towers, other than Towers in the Right-of-Way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the Tower that would protrude from the Tower more than
twenty (20) feet, or more than the width of the Tower Structure at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater; for Eligible Support Structures, it involves adding
an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the side of the
structure by more than six (6) feet;
(3) For any Eligible Support Structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or
(4) For Towers in the Right-of-Way and Base Stations, it involves installation of any
new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets
associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are
more than ten percent (10%) larger in height or overall volume than any other existing,
individual ground cabinets associated with the structure;
(5) For any Eligible Support Structure, it entails any excavation or deployment outside
the current Site;
(6) For any Eligible Support Structure, it would defeat the concealment elements of the
Eligible Support Structure. For purposes of this definition, any change that undermines
concealment elements of an eligible support structure shall be interpreted as defeating
the concealment elements of that structure; or
(7) For any Eligible Support Structure, it does not comply with conditions associated
with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the Eligible Support
Structure equipment, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase
in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that would not exceed the thresholds
identified in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this Definition. For purposes of
determining whether a Substantial Change exists, changes in height are measured from
the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated
146
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 7 of 64
horizontally, such as on buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height
are measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally
approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to February
22, 2012.
Tower. Any structure that is designed and constructed for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting one or more any FCC-licensed or authorized Antennas and their associated
facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and
the associated site. The term includes self-supporting lattice towers, guyed towers,
monopole towers, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common
carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, Alternative Tower Structures and the like.
Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC licensed
or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio
transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply.
The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
Wireless Communications Facility Or WCF. A facility used to provide personal
wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(C); or wireless information
services provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available
directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or Smart City, Internet of
Things, wireless utility monitoring and control services. A WCF does not include a
facility entirely enclosed within a permitted building where the installation does not
require a modification of the exterior of the building; nor does it include a device attached
to a building, used for serving that building only and that is otherwise permitted under
other provisions of the Code. A WCF includes an Antenna or Antennas, including
without limitation, direction, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, support
equipment, Alternative Tower Structures, and Towers. It does not include the support
structure to which the WCF or its components are attached if the use of such structures
for WCFs is not the primary use. The term does not include mobile transmitting devices
used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or hand-held radios/telephones and
their associated transmitting Antennas, nor does it include other facilities specifically
excluded from the coverage of this Chapter.
26.505.050 Operational Standards.
A.Federal Requirements. All WCFs shall meet the current standards and
regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the federal government with the
authority to regulate WCFs, including, without limitation, the requirement that WCFs shall
not present a hazard to air navigation under Part 77, Federal Aviation, Federal Aviation
Regulations. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the WCF
shall bring such facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within the time period mandated by the controlling federal agency. Failure to meet such
147
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 8 of 64
revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the WCF at
the WCF owner’s expense.
B.Radio Frequency Standards. All WCFs shall comply with federal standards for
radio frequency emissions. Applicants for WCFs shall submit a letter certifying that all
WCFs that are the subject of the application shall comply with federal standards for radio
frequency emissions. The owner or operator of an approved WCF shall also provide the
City with the FCC license for the WCF at the time the license is issued for the facility.
C.Signal Interference. All WCFs shall be designed and sited, consistent with
applicable federal regulations, so as not to cause interference with the normal operation of
radio, television, telephone and other communication services utilized by adjacent
residential and non-residential properties; nor shall any such facilities interfere with any
public safety communications. The Applicant shall provide a written statement from a
qualified radio frequency engineer, certifying that a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed facilities indicates no potential interference problems and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during this process.
Additionally, the Applicant shall notify the City at least ten calendar days prior to the
introduction of new service or changes in existing service and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during the testing process.
D.License to Use. The Applicant may execute a license agreement with the City,
granting a non-exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way. Attachment of WCFs
on an existing traffic signal, streetlight pole, or similar structure shall require written
evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
E.Operation and Maintenance. To ensure the structural integrity of WCFs, the
owner of a WCF shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with the standards
contained in applicable local building, safety, and engineering codes. If upon inspection,
the City concludes that a WCF fails to comply with such codes and constitutes a danger to
persons or property, then, upon written notice being provided to the owner of the WCF,
the owner shall have 30 days from the date of notice to bring such WCF into compliance.
Upon good cause shown by the owner, the City’s Chief Building Official may extend such
compliance period not to exceed 90 days from the date of said notice. If the owner fails
to bring such WCF into compliance within said time period, the City may remove such
WCF at the owner’s expense.
F.Abandonment and Removal. If a WCF has not been in use for a period of three
months, the owner of the WCF shall notify the City of the non-use and shall indicate
whether re-use is expected within the ensuing three months. Any WCF that is not operated
for a continuous period of six months shall be considered abandoned. The City, in its sole
discretion, may require an abandoned WCF to be removed. The owner of such WCF shall
commence removal of the same within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the City.
If such WCF is not removed within said 30 days, the City may remove it at the owner’s
expense and any approved permits for the WCF shall be deemed to have expired.
148
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 9 of 64
Additionally, the City, in its sole discretion, shall not approve any new WCF application
until the Applicant who is also the owner or operator of any such abandoned WCF has
removed such WCF or payment for such removal has been made to the City.
G.Hazardous Materials. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in association
with WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF and only in accordance
with all applicable laws governing such materials.
H.Collocation. No WCF owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a
telecommunications competitor from using the same facility or location. Upon request by
the Community Development Department, the owner or operator shall provide evidence
explaining why Collocation is not possible at a particular facility or site.
I.Compliance with Applicable Law.
Notwithstanding the approval of an application for new WCFs or Eligible Facilities
Request as described herein, all work done pursuant to WCF applications must be
completed in accordance with all applicable building, structural, engineering, electrical,
and safety requirements as set forth in the Aspen Municipal Code and any other applicable
laws or regulations. In addition, all WCF applications shall comply with the following:
1.Comply with any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal agency
with jurisdiction of the WCF;
2.Comply with easements, covenants, conditions and/or restrictions on or
applicable to the underlying real property;
3.Be maintained in good working condition and to the standards established
at the time of application approval; and
4.Remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism.
Any damage shall be repaired as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than
ten calendar days from the time of notification by the City or after discovery by the
owner or operator of the Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any graffiti on WCFs
located in the Public Rights-of-Way or on Public Property may be removed by the
City at its discretion, and the owner and/or operator of the WCF shall pay all costs
of such removal within 30 days after receipt of an invoice from the City.
26.505.060 Procedures for Review.
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur
except after a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance
with this Chapter.
A.Review Procedures for certain WCFs, including Base Stations, Alternative Tower
Structures, and Alternative Tower Structures within Public Rights-of-Way, but excepting
Eligible Facilities Requests, and Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way.
In all zone districts, applications for these WCF facilities shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for conformance to this Section and using the Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.For WCFs in the rights-of-way, except for Small
149
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 10 of 64
Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way, that are found to have a significant visual impact (e.g.
proximity to historical sites, obstructing views), be incompatible with the structure or surrounding
area, or not meet the intent of these provisions, the Community Development Department may
refer the application to Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission,
as applicable, for a Special Review determination.
B.Review Procedures for Towers.
In all zone districts, Towers, other than those defined or excepted in (A) above, must apply for
Special Review approval. These WCFs shall be reviewed for conformance using the procedures
set forth in Section 26.505.050.L. All applications for Towers shall demonstrate that other
alternative design options, such as using Base Stations or Alternative Tower Structures, are not
viable options as determined by the City.
C.Review Procedures for Eligible Facilities Requests.
1. In all zone districts, Eligible Facilities Requests shall be considered a permitted use,
subject to administrative review. The City shall prepare, and from time to time revise,
and make publicly available, an application form which shall require submittal of
information necessary for the City to consider whether an application is an Eligible
Facilities Request. Such required information may include,without limitation, whether
the project:
a. Constitutes a Substantial Change; or
b. Violates a generally applicable law, regulation, or other rule codifying objective
standards reasonably related to public health and safety.
The application shall not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case
for the proposed modification or Collocation.
2. Upon receipt of an application for an Eligible Facilities Request pursuant to this
Section, the Community Development Department shall review such application to
determine whether the application so qualifies.
3. Timeframe for Review. Subject to the tolling provisions of subparagraph 4 below,
within 60 calendar days of the date on which an applicant submits a complete
application seeking approval under this Section, the City shall approve the application
unless it determines that the application is not covered by this Subsection, or otherwise
in non-conformance with applicable codes.
4. Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day review period begins to run when
the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement of the City and the
applicant, or in cases where the Community Development Department determines that
the application is incomplete:
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written notice
to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application;
150
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 11 of 64
b. The timeframe for review begins running again the following business day after
the applicant makes a supplemental written submission in response to the City’s
notice of incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the applicant within
ten (10) days that if the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to
the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case of a
second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original notice
of incompleteness.
5. Failure to Act. In the event the City fails to act on a request seeking approval for an
Eligible Facilities Request under this Section within the timeframe for review
(accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The request becomes
effective when the applicant notifies the City in writing after the review period has
expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.
6. Interaction with Telecommunications Act Section 332(c)(7). If the City determines
that the applicant’s request is not an Eligible Facilities Request as delineated in this
Chapter, the presumptively reasonable timeframe under Section 332(c)(7) of the
Telecommunication Act, as prescribed by the FCC’s Shot Clock order, will begin to
run from the issuance of the City’s decision that the application is not a covered request.
To the extent such information is necessary, the City may request additional
information from the applicant to evaluate the application under Section 332(c)(7)
reviews.
D.Review Procedures for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way.
1. Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way may be approved pursuant to a
Master License Agreement or similar form of authorization or individually in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
2. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, the Director shall provide written
comments to the applicant determiningcompleteness of the application and setting
forth any modifications required to complete the application to bring the proposal
into full compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
3. The Director shall review the completed application for conformance with the
provisions in this Chapter and may approve or deny an application within 90 days of
the date the application is submitted for new stand-alone facilities or 60 days for
facilities collocated on city infrastructure.
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written
notice to the Applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of the application,
specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the
application;
151
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 12 of 64
b. The timeframe for review resets to zero (0) when the Applicant makes a
supplemental written submission in response to the City’s notice of
incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the Applicant
within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant
to the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case
of a second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original
notice of incompleteness.
4.Consolidated applications. The City shall allow a wireless provider to file a
consolidated application for up to six (6) small cell facilities and receive a single
approval for the consolidated application. The City’s denial of any individual small
cell facility is not a basis to deny the application as a whole or any other small cell
facility incorporated within the consolidated application.
E.General.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the
applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the Community Development
Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre-application summary describing the submission
requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the reviews and
the review process in general. A pre-application conference is not required, but is recommended,
for Eligible Facility Requests or Small Cells in the Right-of-Way.
F.Administrative review.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, after the pre-application summary is
received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by
staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In order to proceed with additional
land use reviews or obtain a development order, the Community Development Director shall find
the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards
of this Chapter and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
G.Decision.
Any decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a WCF, shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The applicant shall receive a
copy of the decision.
H.Appeal of Director's determination.
The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as
deemed necessary to ensure conformance with applicable review criteria in the Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines If the Community Development Director
determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do not comply with the review criteria and
152
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 13 of 64
denies the application or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of approval determined by
the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for special review (Chapter
26.430) by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, by the Historic Preservation
Commission, and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar days of the day on
which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All appeals shall require
public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with Paragraphs
26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
I.Historic Preservation Commission review.
With the exception of Eligible Facilities Requests and Small Cell Facilities in the ROW, proposals
for the location of WCFs or equipment on any historic site or structure, shall be reviewed by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for WCFs and/or equipment
by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise,
if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do
not comply with the review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to
the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant
may appeal the decision to the City Council, and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered.
All appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
J.Building Permit.
A Building Permit, shall be submitted concurrently with the Land Use Application. Depending
on the nature of project, a full Building Permit may be necessary, or, as would be the case for
most Eligible Facilities Requests, an Electrical Permit. A contractor for the proposed work must
be identified with the submitted application. A Building or Electrical Permit without an identified
contractor will be deemed incomplete – and the application will be tolled until the contractor is
identified.
K.Right of Way Permit.
For all facilities located in the public right-of-way, a Right of Way Permit shall be submitted
concurrently with the Land Use Application. For WCFs in the right-of-way, Applicants should
review the checklist included in the Appendix of the Design Guidelines – that describes in detail
the submittal requirements. A contractor for the proposed work must be identified with the
submitted application. A Right-of-Way permit without an identified contractor will be deemed
incomplete – and the application will be tolled until the contractor is identified. Additionally, an
Electrical Permit shall be required for any installation that involves line voltage.
L.Special review.
An application requesting a variance from the review standards as set forth in this chapter and
the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines (except for Eligible Facilities
Requests) or an appeal of a determination made by the Community Development Director, shall
be processed as a special review in accordance with the common development review procedures
set forth in Chapter 26.304, and the Special Review Chapter, 26.430. The special review shall be
153
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 14 of 64
considered at a public hearing for which notice has been posted and mailed, pursuant to
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.b and c.
1.Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is listed on the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or within a Historic Overlay District and
the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Chapter 26.304, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the special review. Such special review
may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the
following criteria:
a. Conformance with the applicable review standards of Wireless Communications
Facilities Design Guidelines.
b. If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen inventory of
historic landmark sites and structures or within any historic district, then the
applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development involving the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or development in an "H,"
Historic Overlay District) shall apply.
c. If the facility or equipment is located on property that is subject to the Commercial
Design Standards of Chapter 26.412, those applicable standards shall apply.
d. The applicant, in making the case for the variance, shall provide evidence that strict
adherence to the standard(s) or guideline(s), shall render the proposed facility
technically or practically infeasible.
e. The applicant in making the case for the variance shall provide evidence that there
are no feasible alternatives to the location and/or design of the proposed facility.
26.505.070 Application Contents
An application for approval of new WCFs and modified or additional WCFs, Eligible Facilities
Requests, and Small Cell Facilities Requests shall comply with the submittal requirements
applicable to all Land Use Reviews pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common development review.
WCFs and equipment applications shall also, depending on their nature contain required materials
as described in the checklist contained within the City of Aspen Wireless Development
Application Packet and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.Additionally,
depending on their nature, required Building, Electrical, and/or Right-of-Way permits shall be
submitted concurrent to the Land Use Application.
26.505.080 Conditions and limitations. The City shall reserve the right to add, modify or
delete conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest
related to health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the owner
and operator in advance and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the affected party
of a substantial revenue source in the exercising of such right.
154
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 15 of 64
Approval by the Community Development Director for a WCF and/or equipment application shall
not be construed to waive any applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise
specified, all other requirements of this Code shall apply, including Title 21(Street, Sidewalks, and
other public places, and Title 29 (Engineering Design Standards). All requests for modifications
of existing facilities or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for
review under all provisions and requirements of this Section. If other than minor changes are
proposed, a new, complete application containing all proposed revisions shall be required.
______________________________________________________________________________
Section 2: Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines shall be adopted as follows:
Included as Exhibit A to the Ordinance
Section 3: Any scrivener’s errors contained in the code amendments herein, including but not
limited to mislabeled subsections or titles, may be corrected administratively following adoption
of the Ordinance.
Section 4: Effect Upon Existing Litigation.
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 5: Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held
invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 6: Effective Date.
In accordance with Section 4.9 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter, this ordinance shall become
effective thirty (30) days following final passage.
Section 7:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the ____ day of _____, 2020, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen,
Colorado, a minimum of fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
155
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 16 of 64
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the _____ day of _____, 2020.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
FINALLY,adopted, passed and approved this _____th day of _____, 2020.
Attest:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
Approved as to form:
_____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
EXHIBIT A – Adopted Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
156
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 17 of 64
Wireless
Communications
Facilities Design
Guidelines
April 28, 2020
157
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 18 of 64
Table of Contents
1.Executive Summary..............................................................................................20
1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................20
1.2 Regulatory Matters..........................................................................................................................20
1.3 Overview of Key Design Guidelines..............................................................................................21
1.4 Statement of Purpose.....................................................................................................................23
2.General Information..............................................................................................24
2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................24
2.2 Definitions........................................................................................................................................24
2.3 Application and Review Procedures.............................................................................................26
2.4 Additional Review Procedures ......................................................................................................26
2.5 Conditions and Limitations............................................................................................................27
3.SCF Pole Design Guidelines................................................................................29
3.1 General Pole Design Standards ....................................................................................................29
3.2 Utility Distribution Poles ................................................................................................................30
3.3 Streetlight Poles..............................................................................................................................30
3.4 Traffic Signal Poles.........................................................................................................................31
3.5 New Poles ........................................................................................................................................32
4.SCF Pole Siting Requirements............................................................................34
4.1 Location ...........................................................................................................................................34
4.1.1 Site selection............................................................................................................................34
4.1.2 Prohibited Locations ...............................................................................................................35
4.1.3 Relationship to Other Designated Historic Properties.........................................................36
4.1.4 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way ....................................................................36
4.2 Height Requirements......................................................................................................................36
4.3 Noise.................................................................................................................................................36
4.4 Related Accessory Equipment. .....................................................................................................36
4.5 Lighting............................................................................................................................................36
4.6 Signage ............................................................................................................................................37
5.Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements for Other WCFs..........................38
5.1 Prohibitions .....................................................................................................................................38
5.2 Site Selection...................................................................................................................................38
5.3 Historic sites and structures .........................................................................................................38
5.4 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way ...........................................................................38
5.5 Design Guidelines for all WCFs that are not SCFs in the ROW.................................................39
5.5.1 Camouflage/Concealment.......................................................................................................39
158
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 19 of 64
5.5.2 Collocation................................................................................................................................39
5.5.3 Setbacks ...................................................................................................................................40
5.5.4 Height........................................................................................................................................40
5.5.5 Architectural compatibility......................................................................................................41
5.5.6 Compatibility with the natural environment..........................................................................41
5.5.7 Screening..................................................................................................................................41
5.5.8 Lighting and Signage...............................................................................................................42
5.5.9 Noise..........................................................................................................................................42
5.6 Additional design requirements....................................................................................................42
5.6.1 Base Stations ...........................................................................................................................44
5.6.2 Alternative Tower Structures not in the Public Right-of-Way.............................................44
5.6.3 Towers.......................................................................................................................................44
5.7 Related Accessory Equipment. .....................................................................................................44
5.8 Access ways....................................................................................................................................45
6.Safety Requirements............................................................................................46
Appendix A: Design Concepts...................................................................................47
A.1 SCF pole without an attached light fixture ..................................................................................47
A.2 SCF pole with a hockey puck light fixture...................................................................................48
Appendix B: Lighting Fixture Specifications............................................................49
B.1 Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED......................................................................................49
Appendix C: SCF Construction Plan Review Checklist...........................................54
Appendix D: Small Cell / 5G Background Information.............................................59
D.1 Small Cell Definition.......................................................................................................................59
D.2 5G Definition ...................................................................................................................................60
D.3 Sources ...........................................................................................................................................64
159
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 20 of 64
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Background
The City of Aspen (City), as with communities across the country and around the world, is facing the next
wave of communications technology. It has the potential to impact the safety, aesthetic values, and
enjoyment of our community in a manner and to a degree that is far more extensive than cellular phones
and other types of recent technology.
While most carriers closely hold their deployment schedules, Aspen due to its clientele and market potential
will rank among the top 10-20% on the carriers’ lists and can expect to see a significant increase in
applications from most of the major carriers
Small cell communications can also include what is now known as 5G technology. 5G technology can
sometimes utilize higher frequencies, or shorter, “millimeter wave” with the capability to accommodate
significantly higher data needs than current 4G/LTE technologies. The physical limits of some of the higher
frequencies require that the transmitters be installed at a much reduced spacing, and may ultimately be
roughly 300 feet, which is similar to the spacing of streetlights or fire hydrants rather than 2+/- mile or
greater distances that 4G/LTE technologies accommodate. The result of this physical need is that the public
rights-of-way are often the optimal location to install the required equipment.
In September of 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted the Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order, known as FCC 18-133. The Order outlines the extent to which local agencies
may or may not regulate the installation of small cell facilities within the public rights-of-way and the use of
existing public infrastructure.
In July of 2017, more than a year before the adoption of the FCC Order, House Bill 17-1193, the State of
Colorado, Small Cell Facilities Permitting and Installation Act (the Act), became effective. In general, the
Act specifies how local authorities throughout Colorado, may regulate the attachment of small cell facilities.
Similar to the advent of the telephone which required extensive wires, switch boxes, poles and other
structures to provide these services, small cell communications technology will ultimately require a structure
to mount a transmitter approximately every 300 to 600 feet most often with fiber optic cable and power
conductor cable connections to each one.
Absent the adoption of standards to assure that installations are context sensitive, service providers would
be free to install equipment with no concern for the visual impact that they create. This document seeks to
accommodate the implementation of the new technology while assuring that the new infrastructure is
installed using context sensitive solutions.
In addition, the equipment needs to be located where it will not interfere with visibility for drivers, interference
with sidewalks, or other common amenities found in public rights-of-way.
Other issues such as safety, aesthetics, noise and accommodating multiple providers at each location are
also addressed within these Guidelines. For more information on small cell background, please see
Appendix D.
1.2 Regulatory Matters
The Order establishes fees, “shot clocks,” and provides limits on local governments’ control of small cell
infrastructure.
The Act became effective July 1, 2017. In a similar manner to the FCC Order, the Act establishes “shot
clocks” and provides limits on local governments’ control of small cell infrastructure in public rights-of-way.
Various provisions of the Colorado and FCC actions provide similar but sometimes conflicting direction on
issues such as fees, shot clocks, aesthetics and other considerations. The City has established the
governing structures in Chapter 26.505 of its City Code, and all references to these items are governed by
(a) Chapter 26.505 of the City Code and subsequently (b) by definition in this Design Guidelines manual.
160
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 21 of 64
The purpose of Chapter 26.505 is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers and
wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, provide
for managed development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal of wireless
communications infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town character, while at the
same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a competitive wireless communications
marketplace in the City.
All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment must receive building permits
and/or right-of-way permits, as applicable, prior to installation. Prior to the issuance of appropriate building
permits, WCFs and/or equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Community Development Director
and City Engineer to verify conformance with the provisions and criteria of Chapter 26.505 as well as other
applicable sections of City of Aspen Code including Title 21 –Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places,
Title 25 –Utilities, and Title 29 –Engineering Standards. WCFs and equipment subject to the provisions
and criteria of Chapter 26.505 include without limitation, small cell facilities (SCF) within the Public Rights
of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication
services (PCS), commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial
telecommunication devices and all associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas,
monopoles, towers, masts and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms.
1.3 Overview of Key Design Guidelines
The following is an overview of key elements of these design guidelines.
1)Replacement of existing street lights – the preferred location for small cell facilities in the right-of-
way shall be in the location of an existing street light. The street light would be replaced with a
small cell pole that would be fully paid for by the wireless provider.
2)Height – small cell facilities in the right-of-way shall be limited to 25 feet in height. This is based
on Aspen’s recommended maximum height of structures allowed in residential zone districts.
3)Minimum distance between facilities – the minimum distance between facilities that contain the
same wireless provider’s equipment is 600 feet. This includes both small cell facilities – and larger
facilities that may be on rooftops of private or public buildings.
4)Pole design features:
a. The pole will have a fluted pattern to reference our existing street lights
b. The pole base diameter is limited to 18”
c.The pole and antenna structure will be painted to match the color of our existing street
lights
d. A luminaire (street light fixture) will be mounted to the small cell pole in replacement of the
existing street light fixture:
i.The fixture will be mounted at a height consistent with best practices and
requirements in street light design
ii.The style of the fixture is “hockey puck” design, approximately 18 inches in
diameter.
iii.The fixture will be flush mounted to the pole (little or no armature)
iv.The fixture will be downlit
v.The fixture will meet City of Aspen B.U.G. (backlight, uplight, glare) standards –
defined in a policy adopted in 2013.
5)Concealment of related equipment – all equipment related to small cell facilities shall be located
within the pole structure or in an underground vault.
6)Prohibited Locations
a. Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
161
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 22 of 64
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way along the property frontage adjacent to any street
facing façade of these iconic Aspen buildings:
Wheeler Opera House (320 E Hyman Ave)
Wheeler/Stallard Museum (620 W Bleeker St)
Elks’ Building (510 E Hyman Ave)
Independence Building (404 S Galena St)
Pitkin County Courthouse (506 E Main St)
Hotel Jerome (330 E Main St)
City Hall (Armory Building) (130 S Galena St)
St. Mary’s Church (533 E Main St)
Sardy House (128 E Main St)
Red Brick School (110 E Hallam St)
Yellow Brick School (215 N Garmisch St)
Aspen Mountain Rescue (630 W Main St)
Aspen Community Church (200 E. Bleeker St)
Brand Building (205 S Galena St)
Anderson Park (1101 E Cooper Ave)
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way of the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. However, they may
be placed on private property along the Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and
Cooper Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and
Hyman Avenues.
b. Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No SCFs are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain View Plane. See Aspen
Land Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these areas.
c.Relationship to designated Open Space
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated Open Space parcels.
7) Relationship to Other Designated Historic Properties - All properties that are designated by
ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures are considered
significant to the City’s historic and aesthetic character and require additional sensitivity. Applicants
are encouraged to work with City staff to identify locations for small cell facilities in the right-of-way
that do not detract from the contribution of these designated properties to Aspen’s architectural
heritage. An updated map, identifying Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, is available from
City of Aspen GIS.
8) NIER/EME Reporting – this is a technical description of the specific radio frequencies that are
expected as designed from a specific small cell facility – related to the FCC rules regarding
maximum permissible exposure (MPE). This report will provide detailed, site specific information
about the radio frequency emissions for a given facility. It will be required in the establishment of
a new facility and any time a facility is upgraded.
9) Testing - testing and reporting of the actual frequencies and strength of frequencies being emitted
following the installation or upgrade of a wireless facility is required. Additionally, annual audits of
radio frequency signals from all facilities will be required. This will be the responsibility of the City
or its representative with the assistance of the applicant.
162
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 23 of 64
1.4 Statement of Purpose
The City of Aspen Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines which provide objective,
technically feasible criteria applied in a non-discriminatory manner are hereby established with the goal of
accommodating the installation of wireless communications facilities including small cells (4G, LTE, 5G,
and other systems currently under development) technology within the City of Aspen, provided that the
installations meet the following standards:
Aesthetics
Location
Spacing of facilities
Accommodation of multiple providers at each location
Safety
Noise
163
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 24 of 64
2. General Information
2.1 Introduction
These Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines are intended to supplement the requirements
of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505, Wireless communications facilities and equipment as well as
Title 21 –Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places, Title 25 – Utilities,and Title 29 –Engineering
Standards. They provide objective, technically feasible criteria consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town
character, applied in a non-discriminatory manner that reasonably match the aesthetics and character of
the immediate area regarding all of the following, which the City shall consider in reviewing an application:
(a) The location of any wireless communications facilities (WCF) including their relationship to other
existing or planned WCF sites regardless of provider
(b) The location of a WCF on a wireless support structure
(c) The appearance and concealment of WCFs, including those relating to materials used for
arranging, screening, and landscaping
(d) The design and appearance of a wireless support structure including any height requirements
adopted in accordance with these Guidelines
It is the goal of the City to allow the installation of a wireless communications infrastructure with a minimum
foot print. This shall be accomplished by WCF siting and the use of multi-cell poles that can accommodate
multiple service providers.
The City may revise, develop new, update, or amend these Guidelines as necessary to meet the goals of
the City. The provisions of these Guidelines shall not limit or prohibit the City's discretion to promulgate
and make publicly available other information, materials or requirements in addition to, and separate from
these Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines that do not conflict with state or federal law.
2.2 Definitions
The definitions in Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505 shall apply to this document unless defined
differently here. If a word is not defined here or in City Code, it shall have the usual and customary meaning
as defined in a standard dictionary. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this document,
shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
Administrative Review means ministerial review of an Application by the City relating to the review and
issuance of a Permit, including review by the designated staff to determine whether the issuance of a Permit
is in conformity with the applicable provisions of these Guidelines and all City Codes.
Applicable Codes means any Code drafted and adopted by the City, including Title 21 –Streets, Sidewalks
and Other Public Places, Title 25 –Utilities, and Title 29 –Engineering Standards, as well as uniform
building, fire, safety, electrical, plumbing, Uniform Traffic Control or mechanical codes adopted by a
recognized national code organization to the extent such codes have been adopted by the City, including
any amendments adopted by the City, or otherwise are applicable in the jurisdiction.
Applicant means the person submitting an application that is proposing an action requiring review and
approval by one or more of the sections in Chapter 26.505, as well as Title 21 –Streets, Sidewalks and
Other Public Places, Title 25 –Utilities, and Title 29 –Engineering Standards. An applicant may
subsequently become the developer once approval is granted, and in this case the terms shall be
interchangeable.
Attached Wireless Facilities are those affixed to a structure except optical fiber, wires, coaxial cable and
the mounting hardware used to attach optical fiber, wires, and coaxial cable. Examples of attached facilities
include but are not limited to antennas, telephone boxes, power boxes, and other equipment boxes and
cabinets on structures located.
164
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 25 of 64
Base Cabinet means a cabinet at the base of a SCF that houses the Base Station.
CDOT means the Colorado Department of Transportation.
City means the City of Aspen.
City Council means the Aspen City Council.
City Manager means the Aspen City Manager or designee.
Code means the Aspen City Code.
Development Code means Chapter 26 of the City Code, as amended.
Director means the City’s Community Development Director or designee.
Facilities means any and all equipment, structures, materials or tangible components located in the rights-
of-way and used to provide a service, including without limitation: all plants, whether inside or outside, fiber
strands or optic lines, electronic equipment, amplification equipment, optic equipment, transmission and
distribution structures, antennas of any type, lines, termination equipment, pipes, poles, ducts, mains,
conduits, inner ducts, regenerators, repeaters, underground lines, vaults, manholes, pull boxes, splice
closures, wires and cables, and all other like equipment, fixtures and appurtenances used in connection
with transmitting, receiving, distributing, offering, and/or providing such service. Facilities shall include, as
the context dictates, wireless communications facilities, as defined herein.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission of the United States.
FCC Order means the FCC’s Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79, WC
Docket No. 17-84, FCC-18-133, released September 27, 2018, which is incorporated herein by this
reference.
Height means maximum height of the WCF, including antenna, above established grade measured at the
base of the structure.
House Bill 17-1193 or Act means Colorado’s Small Cell Facilities Permitting and Installation Act, which
became effective on July 1, 2017 and is incorporated herein by this reference.
Macro Wireless Telecom Facility or Macrocell means a cell in a mobile phone network that provides
radio coverage served by a power cellular base station (tower). The antennas for macrocells are mounted
on ground-based masts, rooftops and other existing structures, at a height that provides a clear view over
the surrounding buildings and terrain. The term macrocell is used to describe the widest range of cell sizes.
Multi-User Facility means a facility that is designed to accommodate two or more service providers.
Ordinance means Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.505, Wireless communications facilities and
equipment, as amended, which is incorporated herein by this reference.
Ordinary Maintenance and Repair means inspections, testing and/or repair that maintain functional
capacity, aesthetic and structural integrity of a Communications Facility and/or the associated Support
Structure, Pole or Tower, that does not require blocking, damaging or disturbing any portion of the Public
ROW.
Structure means anything constructed or erected with a fixed location below, on, or above grade, including,
without limitation, service cabinets, junction boxes, foundations, fences, retaining walls, awnings, balconies,
and canopies.
Telecommunications means the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of
information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and
received.
Telecommunication service(s)means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public,
or to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities
used.
165
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 26 of 64
Telecommunication service provider or telecommunications applicant means any provider of
telecommunications services, except that such term does not include aggregators of telecommunications
services (as defined in 47 U.S.C. Section 226).
Telecommunication system means the offering of telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or
to such classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the public, regardless of the facilities used.
A system that provides both cable and telecommunications or information services may be considered both
as a cable system and a telecommunications system pursuant to this Code.
Toll – a pause in the progression of the shot clock due to an incomplete application.
Unreasonable Interference means any use of the Right-of-Way that disrupts or interferes with its use by
the City, the general public, or other person authorized to use or be present upon the Right-of-way, when
there exists an alternative that would result in less disruption or interference. Unreasonable interference
includes any use of the Right-of-way that disrupts vehicular, bike, or pedestrian traffic, any interference with
public utilities, and any other activity that will present a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare. This shall
also apply to any violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2.3 Application and Review Procedures
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur except after
a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance with Section
26.505.050 and Section 26.505.060 in City Code.
Voluntary Preliminary Review:Because shot clocks greatly reduce staff’s ability to help a submitted
project through the process, the City strongly encourages applicants to submit voluntary preliminary review
applications for any WCF project. Preliminary reviews are not a project and are not subject to any shot
clock. Staff can then work with an applicant to address issues prior to submittal.
Shot Clock Processing Standards:To meet shot clock requirements, the City requires the concurrent
submittal of Land use approval, Building/Electrical permit and ROW permits at the same time. If the
applicant does not want this, they must toll the shot clock. Tolling applies to the whole project, including
any ministerial construction permits. Tolled projects will still be processed diligently.
After acceptance of a completed application, the City will issue one set of corrections; if corrections are all
not addressed by the second review, the applicant must toll the shot clock.
2.4 Additional Review Procedures
In addition to the applicable application and review procedures listed in the Section 26.505.050 and Section
26.505.060 in City Code, all applications shall be reviewed based on the following procedures:
A. All applicable requirements outlined in Title 21 –Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places, Title
25 –Utilities, and Title 29 –Engineering Standards.
B. Small cell facility applicants must execute a master license agreement with the City, granting a non-
exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way.
C. Attachment of SCFs on an existing traffic signal, streetlight pole, or similar structure shall require
written evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
D. The City of Aspen reserves the right to require an applicant to pay the fees and costs of any
consultant retained by the City to assist in the review of plans, applications, reports, inspections,
and/or testing.
E. Certification of compliance. The wireless provider shall certify that the WCF is in compliance with
applicable FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) regulations, by submitting a site specific
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) or electromagnetic energy (EME) report for the WCF
equipment type and model being installed at the site that is endorsed by a radiofrequency engineer
166
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 27 of 64
licensed in the State of Colorado, including a certification that the WCF complies with all radiation
and electromagnetic standards. The report shall specify approach distances to the general public
and occupational workers at the ground and antenna centerline levels. The report shall include
instructions regarding powering off the equipment or contact information for a person who can
power off the equipment. No significant changes to the power, location, RF emission patterns
and/or emitting frequencies may be made without prior notification and approval. However, non-
substantive changes, for example, in-kind replacements of transmitters of the same frequency,
radiation patterns and power are permitted. The City retains the right to independently verify the
RF patterns as installed.
F. Public Safety. The wireless provider shall comply with all applicable FCC, state, and local codes,
provisions, or regulations that concern public safety. WCFs must not result in human exposure to
radio frequency radiation in excess of applicable safety standards specified in 47 CFR Rule
1.1307(b). After transmitter and antenna system optimization, but prior to unattended operations of
the facility, the wireless provider or its representative must notify the City, so the City or its
representative can conduct on-site post-installation RF emissions testing to demonstrate actual
compliance with the FCC OET Bulletin 65 RF emissions safety rules for general
population/uncontrolled RF exposure in all sectors. For this testing, the wireless provider shall
ensure that the transmitter is operating at maximum operating power. The testing shall occur
outwards to a distance where the RF emissions no longer exceed the uncontrolled/general
population limit. The City or its representative, with the assistance of the wireless provider, shall
also conduct annual RF emissions testing.
G. Notice Requirements. At the issuance of a completeness letter for an application for a new SCF
installation, the following procedures for public notice will be followed by the applicant:
Within 15 days of the completeness letter being issued, the following notice materials are required:
1) A 24x36 poster will be placed at the location of the proposed facility. The poster will include
the following information:
A photo simulation of the proposed facility.
A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal that is emitting from the
facility.
Contact information for the applicant.
Contact information for City staff.
2) A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The mailed
notice will include the information required by the on-site poster – and shall additionally
include text that better explains what a SCF is.
3) Newspaper Notice – City of Aspen Community Development will facilitate.
4) Location information shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS can update the location
in a layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless facilities.
The City of Aspen Community Development Department will assist the applicant in the provision of
the notice. Any delays in the provision of necessary materials for public notice by the applicant will
result in a hard stop on the shot clock tolling. All costs associated with the issuance of public notice
shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
2.5 Conditions and Limitations
Except for Eligible Facility Requests or SCF applications, the City shall reserve the right to add, modify or
delete conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest related to
health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the owner and operator in advance
and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the affected party of a substantial revenue source in
the exercising of such right.
Approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer of a WCF application shall not be
construed to waive any applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise specified, all
other requirements of City Code shall apply, including Title 21 –Streets, Sidewalks and Other Public Places,
Title 25 –Utilities, and Title 29 –Engineering Standards. All requests for modifications of existing facilities
167
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 28 of 64
or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and City Engineer for review under
all provisions and requirements of these Guidelines. If other than minor changes are proposed, a new,
complete application containing all proposed revisions shall be required.
Any changes to approved plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City in accordance with the
process required above.
168
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 29 of 64
3. SCF Pole Design Guidelines
The following Design Guidelines are only for small cell facilities (SCF) in the public right-of-way. The Design
Guidelines for all other wireless communications facilities (WCF), including SCFs not in the public right-of-
way, can be found in other sections of this document.
3.1 General Pole Design Standards
Every small cell facility (SCF) in the public right-of-way shall comply with the following standards:
1. All SCF equipment and appurtenances shall be housed internally with regard to the pole or
alternative tower structure which hosts the SCF antennas.
2. Top-mounted antennas and their enclosures shall not extend the diameter of the utility pole or
wireless support structure at the level of the antenna attachment. SCFs shall be contained in a pole
with a base diameter of no more than 18 inches. The maximum diameter indicated shall extend no
more than five (5) feet from ground level. Above the base, the diameter of the pole shall be a
maximum of 12” and tapered to a diameter of 8” at the top.
3. Side-mounted SCF antennas are not allowed.
4. SCFs located on street light poles or traffic control devices shall not block light emanating from the
street light fixture or otherwise interfere with the purpose of the street light fixture or traffic control
device.
5. All WCFs shall be installed in accordance with all applicable City Codes. No wiring or cabling shall
interfere with any existing wiring or cabling installed by the City, a utility or a wireless services
provider.
6. No guy or other support wires will be used in connection with a SCF unless the SCF is to be
attached to an existing utility pole or wireless support structure that incorporates guy wires prior to
the date the applicant has applied for a permit.
7. The SCF, including the antenna, and all related equipment when attached to a new pole or wireless
support structure, must be designed to withstand a wind force and ice loads in accordance with the
applicable standards established in Chapter 25 of the National Electric Safety Code for utility poles,
Rule 250-B and 250-C standards governing wind, ice, and loading forces on utility poles, in the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in TIA/EIA Section 222-G established by the
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the Electronics Industry Association (EIA) for
steel wireless support structures and the applicable industry standard for other existing structures.
The evaluation must be prepared by a professional structural engineer licensed in the State of
Colorado.
8. The minimum distance between SCFs that contain the same wireless provider’s equipment is 600
feet.
9. Ground mounted enclosures, including backup power supply, and electric meters must be
concealed within existing above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground
equipment vault or within approved design standard treatments adopted by the City.
10. SCFs shall be located in a manner that meets the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and does
not obstruct, impede or hinder the usual bike, pedestrian or vehicular path of travel.
11. SCFs collocated on City-owned poles may not use the same power or communication source
providing power and/or communication for the existing infrastructure. The City may permit a new
SCF to use unused fibers within the same fiber cable if available. The wireless provider shall
coordinate, establish, maintain and pay for all power and communication connections with private
utilities.
12. SCF poles and associated equipment must meet minimum clearances from all utility infrastructure
169
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 30 of 64
as specified in Title 25 –Utilities and Title 29 –Engineering Standards.
13. If required by a utility provider, a related electric meter shall not be contained within or adjacent to
the SCF but will instead be located proximate to the transformer or underground with other related
equipment. This requirement may be wholly or partially waived by the City’s Electric
Superintendent.
14. All related cabling shall connect to the SCF underground. Above ground connections to the facility
are prohibited.
15. Concealment of all SCF equipment and appurtenances shall be required, pursuant to these
Guidelines.
16. Unless required by the FCC, signage is prohibited on all SCFs and wireless support structures,
except for a four (4) inch by six (6) inch plate with the wireless provider’s name, location identifying
information, and emergency telephone number shall be permanently fixed to the SCF equipment
enclosure or shroud. The provider is required to update this information whenever it changes.
3.2 Utility Distribution Poles
All attachments to utility distribution poles that provide aerial support for overhead utility lines with or without
a streetlight attached shall be approved by the City’s Electric Superintendent or Holy Cross Energy prior to
installation. All equipment shall meet the City’s Electric Superintendent or Holy Cross Energy requirements
and all of Aspen’s permit requirements.
Antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet.
Ground mounted enclosures, including backup power supply, and electric meters must be concealed within
an existing, previously approved above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground
equipment vault unless otherwise demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City to not be feasible.
All wiring shall be concealed within the pole or in conduit. The color of conduit shall be approved by the
City.
3.3 Streetlight Poles
No SCF shall be attached to any existing streetlight pole unless the existing streetlight pole was specifically
designed to support SCF equipment or is approved by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer. In all
other cases, the applicant shall have the existing streetlight pole removed. The applicant shall be
responsible for any and all costs for removal of the streetlight pole. The applicant shall place a new
combined SCF and streetlight pole in place of the removed streetlight pole or within 5 feet of the removed
streetlight pole.
1. The pole design in the City right-of-way shall match the aesthetics, spacing, and architectural
characteristics of existing streetlights installed adjacent to the pole.
2. The color of the pole shall be Federal color 16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book.
3. SCFs shall have a fluted pattern on the shaft of the pole – in reference to the existing street light
design.
4. The pole shall be designed and located in accordance with all City requirements as specified in
these Guidelines, and 2015 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, and approved by the City prior to submittal of the application. Designs will be in
accordance with the design concepts shown in Appendix A or as otherwise approved by the City.
5. Pole caissons should be circular in nature and designed to minimize impact of adjacent and future
utilities. Concrete must follow the latest Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Road &
Bridge Specification for applicable mix design. All designs must be stamped and signed by a
registered Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado.
170
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 31 of 64
6. Pole caissons must be flush-to-grade and must show the number of conduits and their locations.
7. Geotechnical boring may be used to install pole caissons. A geotechnical report from a registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado must be provided for the general area of the
proposed location. The report must detail soils observed, depths, soil strength and that the soil can
support the entire proposed facility.
8. The applicant must provide a service letter for both electric and fiber.
9. All new conduits (fiber, electric, etc.) and appropriate information must be shown in the complete
layout.
10. Location of existing electrical items must be shown on plans. The applicant shall coordinate with
the City of Aspen Electric Department to properly restore power to the existing street light circuit.
The applicant will be responsible for all new conduit, electric line, traffic rated vaults and associated
construction activities to get power to street light circuit in proper working order.
11. The applicant shall furnish and install a Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED streetlight
luminaire as shown in section B.1 of Appendix B. Refer to section 4.5 of this document for Gardco
Luminaire Model Number ordering information.
12. If required, the applicant shall wire the SCF equipment to its own meter, with recurring monthly
electric service and metering paid for by the applicant.
13. The applicant shall wire the LED streetlight luminaire to the previously existing power source, with
recurring monthly electric service and metering (if applicable) continuing to be paid for by the City.
14. The new pole shall have space for at least one internal bay to house SCF equipment. If the new
pole is capable of housing two collocated SCFs, the pole shall have space for two internal bays.
The second bay will be available to another applicant with City approval and upon demonstrating
no interference with the first occupant’s SCF.
15. Support facilities and enclosures, backup power supply, and electric meters must be concealed
within existing above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
16. Antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet. Post-top
“cantenna” style antennas shall be used.
17. All wiring shall be concealed inside the pole within a channel separate from municipal wiring within
the pole.
18. If the new pole results in the removal of an existing streetlight pole, any existing caisson shall be
completely removed. Landscaping, sidewalk or other surface treatment shall be restored above
the removed caisson to the satisfaction of the City.
19. Due to the related street light service, unless otherwise provided for in the MLA or similar
agreement, the City shall be the owner of all new poles in the right-of-way including streetlight
poles and luminaires upon completion of construction. The applicant shall retain ownership of
any SCF.
20. The new pole shall have secured safety shutoff controls within the pole base for the City to be able
to turn off the SCF equipment for streetlight maintenance purposes.
21. Removed streetlights and luminaires shall be salvaged and returned to the City of Aspen.
3.4 Traffic Signal Poles
SCFs may be installed on CDOT-owned and City-owned traffic signal poles. This assumes that the traffic
signal pole is not expected to be used for emergency communications or tolling equipment. No SCF shall
be attached to any existing traffic signal pole unless the existing traffic signal pole was specifically designed
to support SCF equipment or is approved by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer. In all other cases,
the traffic signal pole and mast arm shall be replaced with a traffic signal pole and mast arm designed to
171
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 32 of 64
accommodate the SCF equipment in addition to the required traffic signal and street light equipment. An
applicant may be limited to one traffic signal pole within 300 feet. For example, at a signalized intersection
there are generally 4 signal poles. A single applicant may be approved for only 1 of the 4 signal poles.
Other applicants may be approved for the other poles. Span wire designs are not permitted.
1. New traffic signal poles, mast arms, and luminaires shall meet the City of Aspen adopted standards
at the time the SCF application is made. The pole shall be designed and located in accordance
with all requirements as specified by the standards and specifications of CDOT, these guidelines,
and 2015 (as amended) American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) LRFD Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic
Signals, and approved by CDOT and the City prior to submittal of the application.
2. Foundations shall be designed to meet the structural requirements of the pole. Concrete must
follow the latest Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Road & Bridge Specification (as
amended) for applicable mix design. All designs must be stamped and signed by a registered
Professional Engineer in the State of Colorado and shall be submitted to CDOT and the City.
3. The applicants shall provide their own power and fiber (or other communications medium) to their
SCF attached to the traffic signal pole.
4. Support facilities and enclosures, backup power supply, and electric meters must be in existing
above-ground cabinets, or placed in a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
5. Antennas shall be located inside an enclosure of no more than three (3) cubic feet. Post-top
“cantenna” style antennas shall be used.
6. All wiring shall be concealed inside the signal pole within a channel separate from CDOT’s wiring
within the pole.
7. Due to the function of the pole as an official traffic control device, the new traffic signal pole, mast
arm, traffic signal equipment, and luminaire, upon completion of construction, shall be owned by
either the City or CDOT. The applicant shall retain ownership of any SCF equipment.
8. The new traffic signal pole shall have secured safety shutoff controls on the pole for CDOT and the
City to be able to turn off the SCF equipment for maintenance purposes.
9. Removed traffic signal poles, mast arms, luminaires, and equipment shall be salvaged and returned
to the City or CDOT.
3.5 New Poles
1. If a replacement pole design is not possible, then a new wireless support structure shall be
designed to minimize the visual and aesthetic impact of the new vertical element and associated
SCFs upon the surrounding area and shall blend in with the surrounding streetscape with minimal
visual impact. The City requires that new wireless support structures be constructed of a specific
material that will enhance the stealth and concealment of the structure. New poles shall be
designed as monopoles, consistent with the pole designs concepts detailed in Appendix A.
2. New wireless support structures shall match the design, type, and material of existing utility poles,
including street light poles, within the immediate area, except as otherwise approved by the City.
3. The color of the pole shall be Federal color 16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book.
4. New wireless support structures shall have a fluted pattern on the base and shaft of the pole.
5. On a case by case basis, applicants may be asked to provide brackets for the hanging of small
banners on new poles. The poles shall be designed to accommodate the additional forces
generated by the addition of these banners including wind loads.
6. New wireless support structures shall be equal distance from other utility poles based upon the
average distance between existing utility poles within the designated area. If a new wireless support
structure cannot be located the average distance from other utility poles, a new wireless support
172
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 33 of 64
structure may be approved if such wireless support structure is designed as a stealth pole.
7. The centerline of a new wireless support structure shall be in alignment with existing utility poles
where present, or with street or parkway trees along the same side of the right-of-way.
8. New wireless support structures shall not exceed the heights as authorized by City Code and these
Guidelines, which, unless otherwise specified by the City, is 25 feet above ground level.
9. New wireless support structures shall be context sensitive based on poles in the surrounding area
of the City, which could include poles that are round in shape with a fluted pole shaft unless
otherwise directed by the City.
10. New wireless support structures incorporating SCFs in an equipment enclosure within a base shall
utilize poles tapered in diameter.
11. All new wireless support structures must be supported with a reinforced concrete foundation
designed, stamped, sealed and signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado,
and subject to the City’s approval.
12. All anchor bolts must be concealed from public view, with an appropriate pole boot or cover powder-
coated to match the wireless support structure color, which shall be Federal color 16187 from the
Federal Standards 595C Colors book.
13. For all new pole installations, the City reserves the right to require a second applicant for the same
general space to install a new pole capable of collocating both applicants internally in the pole. The
first applicant is required to allow the subsequent applicant to replace the pole with a multi-cell pole.
14. The applicant shall be responsible for meeting Subsurface Utility Engineering (SUE) Requirements
and the City’s Construction Mitigation Plan (CMP) where applicable.
173
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 34 of 64
4. SCF Pole Siting Requirements
The following Siting Requirements are only for small cell facilities (SCF) in the public right-of-way. The
Siting Requirements for all other wireless communications facilities (WCF), including SCFs not in the public
right-of-way, can be found in other sections of this document.
4.1 Location
The City reserves the right to approve all proposed pole locations and to modify those locations as
necessary for future City needs, functional and/or aesthetic reasons. The City will work with the applicant
to find a suitable location for both the City and the applicant.
The City of Aspen encourages location of small cell facilities (SCF) outside of designated Historic Districts,
and on non-historically designated properties. SCFs shall not interfere with prominent vistas or significant
public view corridors.
Where ever possible the poles shall be sited to take advantage of existing screening.
Poles shall not be located:
Within 30 feet of a fire hydrant unless replacing an existing pole in the same location, reduced
distances can be approved by the City.
In any manner which would obstruct a public sidewalk or roadway including reducing vertical or
horizontal clearances required by the City and shall not result in a change in the slope of any
sidewalk adjacent to the SCF.
Within a sight triangle. For small cells, replacing traffic signals or streetlights refer to City of Aspen
Engineering Standards and AASHTO.
Within the drip line of a tree without a required Tree Permit, as well as a meeting with the City
Forester/Parks Department to determine feasibility of location. This will also include associated
equipment and conduit.
Within roadway medians due to non-breakaway design.
When located adjacent to a commercial establishment, such as a shop or restaurant, care should be taken
to locate the SCF such that it does not negatively impact the business. SCFs shall not be located in-front
of store front windows, primary walkways, primary entrances or exits, or in such a way that it would impede
a delivery to the building. SCFs should be located between properties as much as possible.
SCFs shall not impede existing and future facilities, including sidewalks, stormwater infrastructure, water
infrastructure, fiber optic infrastructure, and electric infrastructure, and other infrastructure included in
adopted City plans, inclusive of the Capital Asset Plan, Fiber Master Plan and Bike-Ped Master Plan.
In areas of the City identified as parks and open space or designated as a historical district, or within 500
feet of a landmark, the applicant shall conduct a consultation with the applicable departments, divisions, or
personnel of the City to discuss aesthetically significant structures, views, or community features and
options to minimize any adverse aesthetic impacts of attaching or installing SCFs in such areas.
Except for equipment mounted in the base cabinet, no equipment, shelters, or cabinets, and no electrical
distribution panels may be at ground level, except after all reasonable alternative pole locations have been
explored and found unavailable or lacking in some substantial way, and only with the prior written approval
of the City upon a good faith showing of necessity, and upon such conditions as the City deems appropriate
under the circumstances. The City shall weigh such requests against historic preservation policies,
aesthetic considerations, pedestrian, and disabled person access to sidewalks, public safety concerns,
technical installation conflicts, and compliance with all applicable laws.
4.1.1 Site selection
Wireless communication facilities, including SCFs shall be located in the following order of preference:
1. Co-located on the rooftop of private property
174
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 35 of 64
2. Co-located on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building
3. New facility on the rooftop of private property
4. New facility on the rooftop of a City of Aspen building
5. Co-located on an already established or future small cell facility in the right of way.
6. New small cell facility established on the site and in replacement of an existing City of Aspen street
light and including an attached luminaire or contained within the structure of existing or redesigned
traffic signals, with cooperation of CDOT.
7. New stand-alone facility in a new location – this may or may not include a luminaire.
8. Alley locations may be considered on a case-by-case basis.
4.1.2 Prohibited Locations
1. Relationship to Designated Historic Properties and Districts
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way along the property frontage adjacent to any street facing
façade of these iconic Aspen buildings:
Wheeler Opera House (320 E Hyman Ave)
Wheeler/Stallard Museum (620 W Bleeker St)
Elks’ Building (510 E Hyman Ave)
Independence Building (404 S Galena St)
Pitkin County Courthouse (506 E Main St)
Hotel Jerome (330 E Main St)
City Hall (Armory Building) (130 S Galena St)
St. Mary’s Church (533 E Main St)
Sardy House (128 E Main St)
Red Brick School (110 E Hallam St)
Yellow Brick School (215 N Garmisch St)
Aspen Mountain Rescue (630 W Main St)
Aspen Community Church (200 E. Bleeker St)
Brand Building (205 S Galena St)
Anderson Park (1101 E Cooper Ave)
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way of the Aspen Pedestrian Malls. However, they may be
placed on private property along the Malls. These areas are described as Hyman and Cooper
Avenues between Mill and Galena Streets, and Mill Street between Copper and Hyman Avenues.
2. Relationship to Designated Mountain View Planes
No SCFs are allowed in the foreground of a designated Mountain View Plane. See Aspen Land
Use Code 26.435 for the identification of these areas.
3. Relationship to designated Open Space
No SCFs are allowed in the right-of-way adjacent to any designated Open Space parcels.
175
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 36 of 64
4.1.3 Relationship to Other Designated Historic Properties
All properties that are designated by ordinance to the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures are considered significant to the City’s historic and aesthetic character and require additional
sensitivity. Applicants are encouraged to work with City staff to identify locations for small cell facilities in
the right-of-way that do not detract from the contribution of these designated properties to Aspen’s
architectural heritage. An updated map, identifying Historic Landmark Sites and Structures, is available
from City of Aspen GIS.
4.1.4 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way
Leasing of public buildings, publicly owned structures and/or public rights-of-way for the purposes of
locating SCFs and/or equipment is encouraged. In cases where a facility is proposed on City property that
is not in the Public Right-of-Way, specific locations and compensation to the City shall be negotiated in
lease agreements between the City and the provider on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to all
of the review criteria contained in this Section. Lease agreements shall be executed prior to location
approval under this Section. Such agreements shall not provide exclusive arrangements that could tie up
access to the negotiated sites or limit competition and must allow for the possibility of Collocation with other
providers as described in Section 26.505.080.B.
4.2 Height Requirements
SCFs within the City of Aspen’s right-of-way are limited to 25 feet in height.
4.3 Noise
Noise generated on the site must not exceed the levels permitted, pursuant to Title 18 -Noise Abatement,
of City Code, except that a SCF owner or operator shall be permitted to exceed Code noise standards for
a reasonable period of time during repairs, not to exceed two hours without prior authorization from the
City. Maintenance crews will not be allowed access between midnight and 6 AM unless emergency repairs
are required and the City is notified. Crews shall manage construction impacts including noise and lighting
to minimize impacts to residential land uses whenever they are working between dusk and dawn.
4.4 Related Accessory Equipment.
All equipment related to SCFs shall be located within the facility’s pole structure or in an underground vault.
Beyond the antenna, related shroud, and luminaire, no equipment may be attached to the exterior of the
pole.
4.5 Lighting
SCFs shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable governmental authority,
or the SCF is mounted on a light pole or other similar structure primarily used for lighting purposes. If lighting
is required, it shall conform to other applicable sections of the City Code regulating outdoor lighting.
Luminaires attached to SCFs shall have the following characteristics:
1. A LED, “hockey puck” design as shown in Section A.2 of Appendix A.
2. The fixture shall be the Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED as shown in Section B.1 of
Appendix B,and shall match the following Model.
Gardco Luminaire Model Number:
SFRA-140L-450-NW-G2-AR-3-UNV-FAWS-TLRD5-16187
The following are important notes for the applicant regarding this Gardco Model Number:
AR – Designates an arm mount to a 4 inch O.D. pole. Since the City requires an approximate 7 to
8-inch round fluted pole, the applicant will need to work with the pole manufacturer to create an
accommodation at the mounting height location.
FAWS – Designates a potentiometer device that will provide simple manual dimming adjustment
to be factory installed in the luminaire.
TRLD5 – Designates a 5-pin photocell socket without a photocell. The socket will accept a three-
pin photocell. The applicant shall purchase a photocell for the socket based on the City’s
176
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 37 of 64
recommendation, so that the photocell is the same as the ones used throughout the City. In
addition, the photocell shall be a long-life model with a universal voltage rating.
16187 – Designates Federal Color 16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book. This will
ensure that the fixture is the same color of the pole to which it is attached.
3. The fixture shall be mounted at a height of 15 to 16 feet as approved by the City.
4. The fixture shall be designed to be modular – in that it could be easily replaced with an alternative
fixture in the future.
5. The fixture shall comply with City of Aspen B.U.G. Standards.
6. The fixture shall be dark sky compliant.
7. All luminaires must be equipped with a dimmable driver regardless of output.
4.6 Signage
Signage is prohibited on all SCFs and wireless support structures, including stickers, logos, and other non-
essential graphics and information with the following exceptions. If signage is required, it shall conform to
other applicable sections of the City Code regulating signage.
1. Required by the FCC.
2. A required small placard identifying the service provider and providing a 24-hour contact number,
which shall be placed facing away from the public rights of way.
177
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 38 of 64
5. Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements for Other WCFs
The following Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements are for wireless communications facilities (WCF)
that are not small cell facilities (SCF) in the public right-of-way. WCFs and equipment subject to the
provisions and criteria of this section include without limitation, small cell facilities (SCF) not within the public
right-of-way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal
communication services (PCS), commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial
telecommunication devices and all associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas,
monopoles, towers, masts and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms.
The Design Guidelines and Siting Requirements for SCFs in the public right-of-way can be found in other
sections of this document.
The following provisions apply to all WCFs and equipment applications, sites and uses, except for Small
Cell Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way
5.1 Prohibitions
1. Lattice towers (a structure, with three or four steel support legs, used to support a variety of
antennae; these towers generally range in height from sixty (60) to two hundred (200) feet and are
constructed in areas where great height is needed, microwave antennas are required or where the
weather demands a more structurally sound design) are prohibited within the City.
2. Towers, excluding Alternative Tower Structures and Small Wireless Facilities attached to Towers,
shall be prohibited in the following Zone Districts: Medium-Density Residential (R-6); Moderate-
Density Residential (R-15, R-15A, R-15B); Low-Density Residential (R-30); Residential Multi-
Family (RMF, RMFA); and Affordable Housing/Planned Unit Development (AH-1/PUD);
Conservation (C); Agricultural (Ag); Park (P); Open Space (OS); Rural Residential (RR).
3. All WCFs and equipment not prohibited by the preceding statements shall be allowed in all other
zone districts subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director pursuant to
the provisions, requirements and standards of this Chapter, including consistency with the
dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district.
5.2 Site Selection
Except for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way, Wireless communication facilities shall be
located in the following order of preference:
First: Collocated on existing structures such as buildings, communication towers, flagpoles, church
steeples, cupolas, ball field lights, non-ornamental/antique street lights such as highway
lighting, etc.
Second: In locations where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other structures provide the
greatest amount of screening.
Least: On vacant ground or highly visible sites without significant visual mitigation and where
screening/buffering is difficult at best.
5.3 Historic sites and structures
In addition to the applicable standards of Chapter 26.415, all of the foregoing and following provisions and
standards of this Chapter shall apply when wireless telecommunication services, WCFs and equipment are
proposed on any historic site or structure or within any historic district.
5.4 Public buildings, structures and rights-of-way
Leasing of public buildings, publicly owned structures and/or public rights-of-way for the purposes of
locating WCFs and/or equipment is encouraged. In cases where a facility is proposed on City property that
is not in the Public Right-of-Way, specific locations and compensation to the City shall be negotiated in
178
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 39 of 64
lease agreements between the City and the provider on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to all
of the review criteria contained in this Section. Such agreements would not provide exclusive arrangements
that could tie up access to the negotiated sites or limit competition and must allow for the possibility of
Collocation with other providers.
5.5 Design Guidelines for all WCFs that are not SCFs in the ROW
5.5.1 Camouflage/Concealment
All WCFs and any Transmission Equipment shall, to the extent possible, use Camouflage Design
Techniques including, but not limited to the use of industry best practices materials, colors, textures,
screening, undergrounding, landscaping, or other design options that will blend the WCF into the
surrounding natural setting and built environment.
1. Camouflage design may be of heightened importance where findings of particular sensitivity are
made (e.g. proximity to historic, natural, or aesthetically significant structures or areas, views,
and/or community features or facilities). In such instances where WCFs are located in areas of
high visibility, they shall (where possible) be designed (e.g., placed underground, inside of existing
structure, depressed, or located behind earth berms) to minimize their profile.
2. The camouflage design may include the use of Alternative Tower Structures should the Community
Development Department determine that such design meets the intent of this Code and the
community is better served thereby.
3. All WCFs, such as Antennas, vaults, equipment rooms, equipment enclosures, and tower
structures shall be constructed out of non-reflective materials (visible exterior surfaces only).
Coloring of welds, bands, bolts, and the like, shall be of a similar color to the main WCF.
4. When located adjacent to a commercial establishment, such as a shop or restaurant, care should
be taken to locate the WCF such that it does not negatively impact the business. WCFs shall not
be located in-front of store front windows, primary walkways, primary entrances or exits, or in such
a way that it would impede a delivery to the building. WCFs should be located between properties
as much as possible.
5. When located within a City right-of-way, deployment shall not impede existing and future facilities,
including sidewalks, stormwater infrastructure, water infrastructure, and electric infrastructure, and
other infrastructure included in adopted City plans, inclusive of the Capital Asset Plan, and Bike-
Ped Master Plan.
5.5.2 Collocation
Collocation of facilities with other providers is encouraged. Collocation can be achieved as either building-
mounted, roof-mounted or ground-mounted facilities. In designing or retrofitting Towers, applicants are
strongly encouraged to consider the possibility of present or future co-location of other WCFs by structurally
overbuilding in order to handle the loading capacity of additional WCFs, for the use of the applicant and for
other wireless service providers to use as well. Applicants shall use good faith efforts to negotiate lease
rights to other users who desire to use an approved WCF site. Collocation on an existing support structure
shall be permitted as an accessory use. Projections of any type on the monopole, which are not antennas,
are strongly discouraged.
1. Multiple use facilities are encouraged as well. WCFs and equipment may be integrated into
existing, replacement of existing, or newly developed facilities that are functional for other
purposes, such as ball field lights, flagpoles, church steeples, highway lighting, etc. All multiple
use facilities shall be designed to make the appearance of the antennae relatively inconspicuous.
2. The collocation requirement may be waived by the Community Development Director upon a
showing that either federal or state regulations prohibit the use, the proposed use will interfere with
the current use, the proposed use will interfere with surrounding property or uses, the proposed
user will not agree to reasonable terms, such co-location is not in the best interest of the public
179
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 40 of 64
health, safety or welfare or collocation is not reasonably feasible from a technological, construction
or design perspective. Time needed to review a collocation request shall not greatly exceed that
for a single applicant.
5.5.3 Setbacks
All WCFs shall comply with setback requirements. At a minimum, except for WCFs in the Public Right-of-
Way all WCFs shall comply with the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zone district; if the
following requirements are more restrictive than those of the underlying zone district, the more restrictive
standard shall apply.
1. All WCFs (except for WCFs in the Public Right-of Way) shall be located at least fifty (50) feet from
any property lines, except when roof-mounted (above the eave line of a building) or wall mounted.
Flat-roof mounted facilities visible from ground level within one-hundred (100) feet of said property
shall be concealed to the extent possible within a compatible architectural element, such as a
chimney or ventilation pipe or behind architectural skirting of the type generally used to conceal
HVAC equipment, and shall comply with any applicable design requirements of Chapter 26.412,
Commercial Design Review, and 26.415, Historic Preservation. Pitched-roof-mounted facilities
shall always be concealed within a compatible architectural element, such as chimneys or
ventilation pipes.
2. Monopole towers (except for monopole towers in the Public Right-of-Way) shall be set back from
any residentially zoned properties a distance of at least three (3) times the monopole's height (i.e.,
a sixty (60) foot setback would be required for a twenty (20) foot monopole) and the setback from
any public road, as measured from the right-of-way line, shall be at least equal to the height of the
monopole.
3. No WCF may be established within one-hundred (100) feet of any existing, legally established WCF
except when located on the same building or structure.
4. No portion of any antenna array shall extend beyond the property lines or into any front yard area.
Guy wires shall not be anchored within any front yard area but may be attached to the building.
5. Any Alternative Tower Structure utilizing existing facilities shall meet all Right-of-Way design
guidelines, pursuant to adopted standards in Title 21 -Streets, Sidewalks, and Other Public Places,
Title 25 –Utilities, and Title 29 -Engineering Standards. Considerations should be given to the
general safety of the traveling public.
5.5.4 Height
The following restrictions shall apply:
1. WCFs not attached to a building shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height or the maximum
permissible height of the given Zone District, whichever is more restrictive.
2. Whenever a WCF antenna is attached to a building roof, the antenna and support system for panel
antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet above the highest portion of that roof, including parapet
walls and the antenna and support system for whip antennas shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height
as measured from the point of attachment.
3. The Community Development Director may approve a taller antenna height than stipulated in 2.
above if it is his or her determination that it is suitably camouflaged, in which case an administrative
approval may be granted.
4. If the Community Development Director determines that an antenna taller than stipulated in 2.
above cannot be suitably camouflaged, then the additional height of the antenna shall be reviewed
pursuant to the process and standards (in addition to the standards of this Section) of Chapter
26.430 (Special review).
5. Support and/or switching equipment shall be located inside a building, unless it can be fully
screened from view as provided in the "Screening" standards (26.475.130 and 26.505.080.F-G)
180
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 41 of 64
below or no building exists in which to locate the equipment.
5.5.5 Architectural compatibility
WCFs shall be consistent with the architectural style of the surrounding architectural environment (planned
or existing) considering exterior materials, roof form, scale, mass, color, texture and character. In addition:
1. If such WCF is accessory to an existing use, it shall be constructed out of materials that are equal
to or of better quality than the materials of the principal use and shall exhibit compatible architectural
characteristics to the principal use.
2. WCF equipment shall be of the same color as the building or structure to which or on which such
equipment is mounted, unless otherwise required by Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Review
or 26.415, Historic preservation, or as required by the appropriate decision-making authority
(Community Development Director, Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning
Commission or City Council, as applicable).
3. Whenever WCF equipment is mounted to the wall of a building or structure, the equipment shall be
mounted or a dark, neutral tone, whichever is found to provide better camouflage, in a configuration
designed to blend with and be architecturally integrated into a building or other concealing structure,
be as flush to the wall as technically possible and shall not project above the wall on which it is
mounted. Variations to this standard in order to meet applicable requirements of Chapter 26.412,
Commercial Design Review or 26.415, Historic Preservation, may be approved during the review.
4. Monopole support buildings, which house switching devices and/or other equipment related to the
use, operation or maintenance of the subject monopole, must be designed to match the architecture
of adjacent buildings. If no recent and/or reasonable architectural theme is present, the Community
Development Director may require a particular design that is deemed to be suitable to the subject
location.
5. All utilities associated with WCFs shall be underground (also see "Screening" below), unless the
applicant demonstrates that it is not reasonably feasible from a construction, design, and
engineering perspective.
5.5.6 Compatibility with the natural environment
WCFs shall be compatible with the surrounding natural environment considering land forms, topography
and other natural features and shall not dominate the landscape or present a dominant silhouette on a ridge
line. In addition:
1. If a location at or near a mountain ridge line is selected, the applicant shall provide computerized,
three-dimensional, visual simulations of the WCF and other appropriate graphics to demonstrate
the visual impact on the view of the affected ridges or ridge lines; an 8040 Greenline Review,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 26.435.030, may also be required.
2. Site disturbances shall be minimized and existing vegetation shall be preserved or improved to the
extent possible, unless it can be demonstrated that such disturbance to vegetation and topography
results in less visual impact to the surrounding area.
3. Surrounding view planes shall be preserved, as required in Section 26.435.050, Mountain View
Plane Review.
5.5.7 Screening
All WCF equipment, including accessory equipment, shall be screened from adjacent and nearby public
rights-of-way and public or private properties placing equipment internal to the structure, by paint color
selection, parapet walls, screen walls, fencing, landscaping and/or berming in a manner compatible with
the building's and/or surrounding environment's design, color, materials, texture, land forms and/or
topography, as appropriate or applicable in a given zone district. In addition:
1. Whenever possible, if monopoles are necessary for the support of antennas, they shall be located
181
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 42 of 64
near existing utility poles while maintaining National Electric Safety Code clearance and/or other
governing regulations, trees or other similar objects; consist of colors and materials that best blend
with their background; and, have no individual antennas or climbing spikes on the pole other than
those approved by the appropriate decision-making authority (Community Development Director,
Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, as
applicable).
2. For ground-mounted facilities, landscaping may be required to achieve a total screening effect at
the base of such facilities or equipment in order to screen the mechanical characteristics; a heavy
emphasis on coniferous plants for year-round screening may be required. Landscaping shall be of
a type and variety capable of growing within one (1) year to a landscape screen which satisfactorily
obscures the visibility of the facility. This requirement may be waived by the Community
Development Director if it is determined it is not necessary or reasonably feasible.
3. Unless otherwise expressly approved, all cables for a WCF shall be fully concealed from view
underground or inside of the screening or monopole structure supporting the antennas; any cables
that cannot be buried or otherwise hidden from view shall be painted to match the color of the
building or other existing structure.
4. All screening shall meet the requirements of applicable Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
and Commercial Design Guidelines. Additionally, all fence screening shall meet the requirements
of 26.575.050, Fence Materials.
5. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the WCF shall comply with all additional measures deemed
necessary to mitigate the visual impact of the facility. Also, in lieu of these screening standards,
the Community Development Director may allow use of an alternate detailed plan and
specifications for landscape and screening, including plantings, fences, walls, sign and structural
applications, manufactured devices and other features designed to screen, camouflage and buffer
antennas, poles and accessory uses. The plan should accomplish the same degree of screening
achieved by meeting the standards outlined above.
5.5.8 Lighting and Signage
WCFs shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable governmental authority,
or the WCF is mounted on a light pole or other similar structure primarily used for lighting purposes. If
lighting is required, it shall conform to other applicable sections of the code regulating signage or outdoor
lighting. The following standards shall apply to WCFs and equipment:
1. The light source for security lighting shall feature down-directional, sharp cut-off luminaries to direct,
control, screen or shade in such a manner as to ensure that there is no spillage of illumination off-
site.
2. Light fixtures, whether free standing or tower-mounted, shall not exceed twelve (12) feet in height
as measured from finished grade.
3. The display of any sign or advertising device other than public safety warnings, certifications or
other required seals on any wireless communication device or structure is prohibited.
4. The telephone numbers to contact in an emergency shall be posted on each facility in conformance
with the provisions of Chapter 26.510, Signs, of this Title.
5.5.9 Noise
Noise generated on the site must not exceed the levels permitted, pursuant to Title 18 -Noise Abatement,
except that a WCF owner or operator shall be permitted to exceed Code noise standards for a reasonable
period of time during repairs, not to exceed two hours without prior authorization from the City.
5.6 Additional design requirements
The following requirements shall be applicable to the various types of WCFs as specified below:
182
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 43 of 64
183
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 44 of 64
5.6.1 Base Stations
If an antenna is installed on a structure other than a Tower or Alternative Tower Structure, such as a Base
Station (including, but not limited to the antennas and accessory equipment) it shall be of a neutral, non-
reflective color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the supporting structure, or uses
other camouflage/concealment design techniques so as to make the antenna and related facilities as
visually unobtrusive as possible, including for example, without limitation, painting the Antennas and
accessory equipment to match the structure. Additionally, any ground mounted equipment shall be located
in a manner necessary to address both public safety and aesthetic concerns in the reasonable discretion
of the Manager, and may, where appropriate, and reasonable feasible from a technological, construction
or design perspective, require a flush-to-grade underground equipment vault.
5.6.2 Alternative Tower Structures not in the Public Right-of-Way
1. Alternative Tower Structures shall be designed and constructed to look like a building, facility, or
structure typically found in the area.
2. Be camouflaged/concealed consistent with other existing natural or manmade features near the
location where the Alternative Tower Structure will be located.
3. Such structures shall be architecturally compatible with the surrounding area;
4. Height or size of the proposed alternative tower structure should be minimized as much as possible;
5. WCFs shall be sited in a manner that evaluates the proximity of the facility to residential structures
and residential district boundaries;
6. WCFs should take into consideration the uses on adjacent and nearby properties and the
compatibility of the facility to these uses;
7. Compatibility with the surrounding topography;
8. Compatibility with the surrounding tree coverage and foliage;
9. Compatibility of the design of the site, with particular reference to design characteristics that have
the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness; and
10. Impact on the surrounding area of the proposed ingress and egress, if any.
5.6.3 Towers
1. Towers shall be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness as determined by the
City;
2. Tower structures should use existing land forms, vegetation, and structures to aid in screening the
facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built and natural environment;
3. Monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip;
4. All Towers, excluding Alternative Tower Structures in the Right-of-Way, shall be equipped with an
appropriate anti-climbing device.
5.7 Related Accessory Equipment.
Accessory equipment for all WCFs shall meet the following requirements:
1. All buildings, shelter, cabinets, and other accessory components shall be grouped as closely as
technically possible;
2. The total footprint coverage area of the WCF’s accessory equipment shall not exceed 350 square
feet per carrier;
3. No related accessory equipment or accessory structure shall exceed 12 feet in height;
184
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 45 of 64
4. Accessory equipment, including but not limited too remote radio units, shall be located out of sight
whenever possible by locating behind parapet walls or within equipment enclosures. Where such
alternate locations are not available, the accessory equipment shall be camouflaged or concealed.
5.8 Access ways
In addition to ingress and egress requirements of the Building Code, access to and from WCFs shall be
regulated as follows:
1. No WCF shall be located in a required parking, maneuvering or vehicle/pedestrian circulation area
such that it interferes with or in any way impairs, the intent or functionality of the original design.
2. The WCF, except for Small Wireless Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, must be secured from
access by the general public but access for emergency services must be ensured. Access roads
must be capable of supporting all potential emergency response vehicles and equipment.
3. The proposed easements for ingress and egress and for electrical and telecommunications shall
be recorded at the County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of building permits.
185
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 46 of 64
6. Safety Requirements
Prevention of failures and accidents.Any Person who owns and/or operates any Wireless
Communications Facility, including a small cell facility in the right-of-way, and/or Wireless Support Structure
shall at all times employ ordinary and reasonable care, and install and maintain using industry standard
technology for preventing failures and accidents, which are likely to cause damage, injury, or nuisance to
the public.
Compliance with fire safety.Wireless Communications Facilities, including small cell facilities in the right-
of-way, Wireless Support Structures, wires, cables, fixtures, and other equipment shall be installed and
maintained in substantial compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Code, all state and local
regulations, and in such manner that will not interfere with the use of other property.
Compliance with FCC regulations.The wireless provider shall comply with all applicable FCC, state, and
local codes, provisions, or regulations that concern public safety. All wireless communications facilities must
not result in human exposure to radio frequency radiation in excess of applicable safety standards specified
in 47 CFR Rule 1.1307(b).
Changes in state or federal standards and regulations.If state or federal standards and regulations are
amended, the owners of Wireless Communications Facilities, including small cell facilities in the right-of-
way, and/or Wireless Support Structures governed by this document shall bring any facilities and/or
structures into compliance with the revised standards and regulations within six months of the effective date
of the standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the regulating
agency. Failure to bring Wireless Communications Facilities, including small cell facilities in the right-of-
way, and/or Wireless Support Structures into compliance with any revised standards and regulations shall
constitute grounds for removal at the owner's expense.
186
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 47 of 64
Appendix A: Design Concepts
A.1 SCF pole without an attached light fixture
187
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 48 of 64
A.2 SCF pole with a hockey puck light fixture
188
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 49 of 64
Appendix B: Lighting Fixture Specifications
B.1 Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED
450 NW-G2 ARSFRA140L 3 UNV
FAWS TLRD5 16187
189
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 50 of 64
190
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 51 of 64
191
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 52 of 64
192
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 53 of 64
193
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 54 of 64
Appendix C: SCF Construction Plan Review Checklist
194
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 55 of 64
Small Cell Facility Construction Plan Review Checklist
___________________________________________________________________________________
SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE:
One set of plans shall be prepared per small cell facility and submitted electronically in accordance with the
following requirements:
11” x 17” minimum sized plans.
Site Plan drawn to scale 1”=10’ to 1”=40’.
Legend to define map signals, identify dimensions of original drawing.
Vicinity Map.
North arrow.
Location information in a latitude / longitude format shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS
can update the location in a layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless
facilities. Show all properties and buildings with addresses and parcel numbers adjacent to the
project site.
Identify location of any window or door openings facing the right-of-way adjacent to the project
site.
Proposed pole location with dimensions to surface infrastructure and nearest property line.
Electronic connection location.
Data cable connection.
Any Designated Historic Property or District within the area shown on the site plan.
Any Designated Mountain View Plane point of reference within the area shown on the site plan.
Any National Forest Property within the area shown on the site plan.
Identify right of way line, sidewalk, curb line, and street centerline.
Identify street names.
Identify all existing public and private improvements within the parkway area where excavation is
proposed, such as driveways, utility boxes, fire hydrants, trees, curb ramps, street signs, etc.
Identify the curb to property line distance and sidewalk width.
Show designated bike lanes.
When excavating in a bike lane, please add a note for contractor to grind and overlay full width of
bike lane.
Identify all existing utilities (wet and/or dry) within the street with dimensions to the nearest
proposed pole, conduit, meter, etc.
Identify the horizontal distances from edge of trench of proposed utility line to face of curb, water
lines, sewer lines, and any other dry utilities near the vicinity of the project.
Identify vertical clearance between proposed utility line(s) and existing utility line(s) at each
crossing location.
Identify all traffic visibility areas as described in the City of Aspen Engineering Standards.
Identify all existing traffic loops/sensors.
Identify separation distance (from edge to edge) between existing improvements and proposed
utility conduit/box.
Identify the separation between proposed trench and the face of curb.
Identify the minimum 4’ wide ADA Path of Travel between above ground structure(s) and the
edge of Path of Travel/sidewalk.
Handholes shall not be in the Path of Travel.
Identify the minimum required 24” clearance between the replacement/new pole and face of curb
in accordance with Standard Drawings.
195
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 56 of 64
Any above grade obstruction 3 ft or greater in height that are placed at intersections or driveway
shall evaluate sight distance requirements per AASHTO Standards and Land Development Code
Identify any existing pole or other structure to be removed.
Identify area to be disturbed and the proposed repairs and replacements including any
landscape, irrigation lines or other appurtenances being removed and replaced.
Survey in accordance with the requirements of the Survey City of Aspen Engineering Department
Survey Checklist in Appendix A of the City of Aspen Engineering Standards.
NON-IONIZING ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (NIER) REPORT SHALL INCLUDE:
One site specific NIER report is required for each Small Cell Facility (SCF).
Include: % Maximum Permissible Exposure Simulations at Antenna Face and Ground Level + 5
Feet.
Color Photo Simulation to scale for each configuration/pole location with dimensions.
Show simulation of antenna, beam, nearest structure(s), topography.
Show separate % MPE estimate for each transmitter.
Cover letter stamped and sealed by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.
Report drawings shall include:
Page numbers on every page of the NIER report.
Indicate Scale on every graphic of the NIER report.
Acronyms should be spelled out/defined for improved interpretation by the general public.
State the general purpose and type of transmitter(s) (i.e., “…Omni-directional cellular 4G
LTE, Point-to-multipoint backhaul microwave hop,” etc.)
Provide separate simulations noting limits and % of MPE:
At antenna level – Show plan and profile/elevation views.
At ground level – Show plan and profile/elevation views.
Calculate square feet of private property exceeding 100% MPE at antenna at any level.
Graphically illustrate MPE values considering the topography beyond the nearest
potentially affected residence. For example, if an antenna radiates a high-power beam
to the north from 20 feet above ground level at the horizon over irregular terrain, include
graphically the distance the beam(s) will pass from the nearest potentially affected
residence on the plan and profile.
LIGHTING PLAN SHALL INCLUDE:
Photometric footprint over the site plan demonstrating that the proposed fixture is consistent with
the City standards for maximum footcandles per square foot.
Sufficient documentation to document that the proposed lighting is in accordance with the City of
Aspen Lighting Standards for Small Cell Facilities which is:
A LED, “hockey puck” design as shown in Section A.2 of Appendix A of the City of
Aspen Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
The fixture shall be the Gardco SlenderForm Hockey Puck LED as shown in Section B.1
of Appendix B of the City of Aspen Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines,
and shall match the following Model.
Gardco Luminaire Model Number:
SFRA-140L-450-NW-G2-AR-3-UNV-FAWS-TLRD5-16187
The following are important notes for the applicant regarding this Gardco Model Number:
196
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 57 of 64
AR – Designates an arm mount to a 4 inch O.D. pole. Since the City requires an
approximate 7 to 8-inch round fluted pole, the applicant will need to work with the pole
manufacturer to create an accommodation at the mounting height location.
FAWS – Designates a potentiometer device that will provide simple manual dimming
adjustment to be factory installed in the luminaire.
TRLD5 – Designates a 5-pin photocell socket without a photocell. The socket will accept
a three-pin photocell. The applicant shall purchase a photocell for the socket based on the
City’s recommendation, so that the photocell is the same as the ones used throughout the
City. In addition, the photocell shall be a long-life model with a universal voltage rating.
16187 – Designates Federal Color 16187 from the Federal Standards 595C Colors book.
This will ensure that the fixture is the same color of the pole to which it is attached.
The fixture shall be mounted at a height of 15 to 16 feet as approved by the City.
The fixture shall be designed to be modular – in that it could be easily replaced with an
alternative fixture in the future.
The fixture shall comply with City of Aspen B.U.G. Standards.
The fixture shall be dark sky compliant.
All luminaires must be equipped with a dimmable driver regardless of output.
ELECTRICAL PERMIT SHALL INCLUDE:
Must be submitted by a City of Aspen licensed Electrical Contractor.
Contractor must be in possession of a valid City of Aspen business license.
THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY REPORT SHALL INCLUDE:
Geotechnical report.
Caisson design to support the proposed pole designed to accommodate a pole which will
accommodate two small cell transmitters.
Calculations supporting the proposed design.
Cover letter stamped and sealed by a structural engineer licensed in the State of Colorado.
CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION PLAN SHALL INCLUDE:
(Construction Mitigation Plan (CMP) information and requirements are available on the City’s website at
https://www.cityofaspen.com/906/Construction-Mitigation)
Apply for all associated permits:
Right-Of-Way Permit including:
Site plan.
Traffic Control Plan provided by a certified traffic controller.
Maintenance Bond.
CDOT Permit (if applicable).
Temporary Encroachment Permit.
Permanent Encroachment Permit.
Parking Permit.
Provide Narrative CMP with graphical representations of the work site that includes
acknowledgement of the following:
City of Aspen Work Hours (7:30-5:30 M-F / 9-5 Sat no loud work / Sun no work)
City of Aspen Noise Restrictions and Limitations (See CMP Manual)
197
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 58 of 64
Traffic Control Plan (Vehicle and Pedestrian) submitted by certified TCS.
Ensure the use of wet saws or drills when working with masonry or concrete.
Proper protection for passersby as well as adjacent structures.
Stormwater protection in the gutter if any excavation is to occur or if concrete / asphalt is
to be cut with a demo saw or similar.
Concrete washout if new concrete is to be placed.
Identify staging location.
Identify parking areas.
Identify trash and or recycling containers.
Identify any existing damage in the vicinity of the proposed SCF.
Identify area of disturbance including infrastructure, landscaping, and irrigation.
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS SHALL INCLUDE:
At the issuance of a completeness letter for an application for a new SCF installation, the applicant will
follow the following procedures for public notice:
Within 15 days of the completeness letter being issued, the following notice materials are
required:
A 24x36 poster will be placed at the location of the proposed facility. The poster will include
the following information:
A photo simulation of the proposed facility.
A brief description of the type of equipment and RF signal that is emitting from the
facility.
Contact information for the applicant.
Contact information for City staff.
A mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the proposed facility. The mailed
notice will include the information required by the on-site poster – and shall additionally
include text that better explains what a SCF is.
Newspaper Notice – City of Aspen Community Development will facilitate.
Location information shall be provided so that City of Aspen GIS can update the location in a
layer on Map Aspen identifying Existing and Pending Wireless facilities.
City of Aspen Community Development Department will assist the applicant in the provision of notice. Any
delays in the provision of necessary materials for public notice by the applicant will result in a hard stop on
the shot clock tolling. All costs associated with the issuance of public notice shall be the responsibility of
the applicant.
198
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 59 of 64
Appendix D: Small Cell / 5G Background Information
D.1 Small Cell Definition
Small cells are low-powered cellular radio access facilities that provide a small radio footprint, which can
range from 10 meters (approximately 30 feet) within urban locations to 2 km (approximately 6500 feet) for
rural locations depending upon the radio frequencies being used. They are "small" compared to a mobile
macrocells, primarily because they have a shorter range. They make the best use of available spectrum by
reusing the same frequencies over and over again within a geographical area. Fewer macrocell sites are
being built, with a larger number of small cells being built as an important method of increasing cellular
network capacity, quality and resilience. Small cells support both today’s 4G/LTE technologies and
tomorrow’s 5G technologies, as well as potentially supporting other technologies that might be developed
in the future.[3]
Small cells complement today’s macrocell network to improve coverage, add capacity, and support new
services and user experiences. There are various types of small cells, with varying ranges, power levels
and form factors. While the smallest units are for indoor residential use, the largest are for urban or rural
outdoor uses.[3]
On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) adopted a Declaratory Ruling
and Third Report and Order, titled “Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to
Infrastructure Investment” (the Order). The FCC Order defines Small Cell Facilities as facilities that meet
each of the following conditions [6]:
(1) The facilities—
i.are mounted on structures 50 feet or less in height including their antennas, or
ii.are mounted on structures no more than 10 percent taller than other adjacent structures, or
iii.do not extend existing structures on which they are located to a height of more than 50 feet or
by more than 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(2) Each antenna associated with the deployment, excluding associated antenna equipment, is no
more than three cubic feet in volume;
(3) All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including the wireless equipment
associated with the antenna and any pre-existing associated equipment on the structure, is no
more than 28 cubic feet in volume;
(4) The facilities do not require antenna structure registration under part 17 of the FCC Order;
(5) The facilities are not located on Tribal lands, as defined under 36 CFR 800.16(x); and
(6) The facilities do not result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the
applicable safety standards.
199
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 60 of 64
D.2 5G Definition
5G refers to the fifth generation of mobile phone networks. 5G will enable significantly greater mobile
speeds to enable real‐time connectivity for mission‐critical devices and applications. In the near future, 5G
networks will connect billions of IoT devices that will require a wide variety of speed and large volumes of
data.[2]
The industry continues looking to the future as the uses and demands for mobile data keep expanding. 5G,
which was rolled out in 2019 and will continue to grow for years to come, is being designed to provide
higher speeds, while offering improved capacity, scale, latency, and reliability.[2]
As was the case with earlier steps along the way to faster mobile data, 5G will require new hardware at the
network and device level that is compatible with the 5G New Radio (NR) standards. There are reportedly
just a handful of commercially available handheld mobile 5G devices in the US today, with new 5G devices
continuously being developed and released.[2]
Latency
Latency is the lag or delay between when data is sent and when it is received. Low latency becomes
essential for critical control in certain situations such as autonomous vehicles and remotely controlled
surgical procedures.[2]
Spectrum
An analogy that could be used to best describe spectrum is to think about it as a highway. The amount of
spectrum determines how many lanes a highway has. With more data (cars on the highway), the more
lanes (spectrum) the better.[2]
The bandwidth that is available within a spectrum determines how much network performance is available
to network users. In low‐band spectrum, bandwidth is typically limited, so data rates tend to be low. In mid‐
band and high band spectrum, the available bandwidth can be many times greater than what is available
in low‐band, which results in higher data rates.[2]
In some 5G solutions, high-band spectrum offers higher capacity and speed. However, the high‐band
spectrum has an extremely short range of just a few hundred meters. Due to its short range, this spectrum
requires massive network densification.[2]
Although mid-band and high-band spectrum have reduced range, the higher frequencies involved mean
that antennas can be smaller.[2]
Capacity
One of the best ways to describe capacity is to examine one of the more popular uses of wireless networks,
streaming a movie. When trying to stream a 4K movie over today’s 4G/LTE wireless network, people
probably encounter an on‐screen-spinning disk or other message indicating that the movie is buffering.
That is because existing wireless networks often do not have enough capacity to handle demands such as
streaming 4K movies due to lack of spectrum. In part, this lack of capacity stems from the relatively low
frequencies used by existing networks.[2]
On the other hand, 5G will use higher frequencies and a variety of technologies to allow, for example, users
to watch 4K high definition movies without being bothered by that annoying little spinning disk in the center
of their screen. [2]
Speed
Because 5G will use higher frequencies, it will provide much higher data speeds. 5G is designed to
incorporate a number of technologies that will enable users to do things like download an entire HD movie
in a couple of seconds. [2]
200
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 61 of 64
201
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 62 of 64
Coverage
In addition to capacity and speed, coverage is another very important factor in determining how usable any
wireless network may be. If a user cannot get a signal, the potential capacity and speed are meaningless.
[2]
5G wireless networks will use a much broader range of frequencies than were utilized in earlier networks.
While higher frequencies can deliver much higher bandwidth and data rates, higher frequency radio waves
can only be effective over much shorter distances, so small cells only supply a few hundred feet of
coverage.[2]
Densification
Densification is adding more cell sites to an area. Network densification is being implemented due to the
growing number of devices and increasing demand for data. When more cell sites exist in an area, users
will most likely be closer to one of those sites, which means that coverage and capacity become less of a
problem.[2]
Deploying a large number of low powered small cells is a solution for network densification. A network of
small cells can be deployed anywhere needed as a complement to the existing network of macro cells to
increase capacity and data rates.[2]
Network densification needs to be complemented by fiber optic backhaul.
Uses
Remote workers / off-site job locations
5G can be used to replace traditional wireline connections by increasing data bandwidth available to
devices and minimizing latency. For remote workers, this increases flexibility in work locations, allowing for
communication with the office, without being tied to a desk in a home office with a wireline connection. For
situations that involve frequently changing off-site job locations, the lower technical requirements for 5G
deployment allow for setting up a 5G connection to which existing devices can connect to a 5G router via
Wi-Fi.[1]
Internet of Things (IoT) devices
Improving network connectivity for IoT devices is one of the priorities for the design of 5G networks. For
some LTE capable IoT devices the limitations of battery sizes that can be included in these devices and
the comparatively high-power requirements of LTE limit the usefulness of mobile network connectivity in
these situations. 5G networks are focusing on reducing power requirements, making the use of IoT devices
more feasible.[1]
City centers, office buildings, arenas, and stadiums
5G technologies can also be used to improve the quality of service for situations in which a large number
of devices make use of the mobile network in densely populated areas. These benefits can be realized
easily in situations with variable traffic and in areas where large numbers of employees work during the
week. Densely populated city centers can also benefit from the ability of 5G networks to provide service to
more devices in physically smaller spaces.[1]
Future
As technology advances, older devices will inevitably reach end-of-life. Much in the same way that the
digital switchover occurred for over-the-air TV broadcasts, older mobile networks are actively being
dismantled to free spectrum for LTE and 5G networks.[1]
In the US, AT&T disabled its 2G network on January 1, 2017, rendering countless phones unusable.
Verizon planned to disable its legacy 2G and 3G networks by the end of 2019, which will render older
202
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 63 of 64
smartphones unusable, as well as IoT devices such as water meters. End-of-life plans for the 2G networks
of Sprint and T-Mobile have not been publicly disclosed.[1]
As 5G is used to deliver wireless broadband, wireline broadband providers will face competition as the two-
services approach feature parity. With many people using smartphones both as their primary computing
device and for tethering a traditional computer to the internet, the extra cost of a traditional wireline network
connection may become unnecessary for some people, and enable those outside the reach of traditional
wireline networks to have affordable access to high-speed broadband for the first time.[1]
5G’s low-power and low-latency attributes are expected to spark a revolution in IoT deployments. 5G will
enable the deployment of billions of IoT devices by 2020, leading to the creation of the "industrial internet,"
which will affect a number of industries. This will also make 5G well suited for applications that require
continuous response and data analysis, such as self-driving cars and traffic control.[1]
203
First Reading, Ordinance No.3, Series 2020
Wireless Communications Facilities
Page 64 of 64
D.3 Sources
1.“5G mobile networks: A cheat sheet”. Tech Republic. (14 November 2018). Retrieved March 13,
2019, from https://www.techrepublic.com/article/5g-mobile-networks-a-cheat-sheet/.
2.“5G For Dummies®, Sprint Business Special Edition”. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2018). Retrieved
March 13, 2019 from https://business.sprint.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2018/05/5G-For-
Dummies-Sprint-Business-Special-Edition.pdf .
3.“Small cell”. Definition from Wikipedia. (14 March 2019). Retrieved March 20, 2019 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_cell .
4.“Forging paths to 5G”. ITU News Magazine. (February 2017). Retrieved August 25, 2019 from
https://www.itu.int/en/itunews/Documents/2017/2017-02/2017_ITUNews02-en.pdf
5.“How Cell-phone Radiation Works - Potential Health Risks”. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved
November 26, 2019 from https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation2.htm
6.“Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment”. Federal Communications Commission: Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and
Order. (26 September 2018). Retrieved September 29, 2018 from
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-133A1.pdf
204
EXHIBIT A – Renderings of Small Cell Wireless Facilities that would comply with Design Guidelines
Preference #1 – Replacement of existing streetlight with small cell wireless facility
–with luminaire
205
Preference #2 – Standalone monopole with no attached luminaire – these could
be in locations where there is no existing streetlight
206
Proposed location near bus stop at Lone Tree and Gibson – depictions of
Preferences 1 and 2. In this location, there is an existing streetlight.
207
Proposed Fixture – “hockey puck” style with LED light source that has been
chosen for its ability to be similar in intensity and light quality to Aspen’s existing
streetlights. These fixtures will direct light downward.
208
Chapter 26.505
Wireless Communication Facilities and Equipment
Sec. 26.505.010 Purpose
Sec. 26.505.020 Applicability
Sec. 26.505.030 Definitions
Sec. 26.505.040 Operational Standards
Sec. 26.505.050 Procedures for Review
Sec. 26.505.060 Application Contents
Sec. 26.505.070 General Provisions and Requirements
Sec. 26.505.080 Design Standards
26.505.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers
and wireless communications facilities (WCFs) to protect the health, safety and welfare of the
public, provide for managed development, installation, maintenance, modification, and removal
of wireless communications infrastructure that is consistent with Aspen’s small mountain town
character, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of a
competitive wireless communications marketplace in the city.
Adoption of Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines
The City Council hereby adopts design guidelines, hereinafter referred to as the Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines, which are incorporated by reference and made part
of the Aspen Land Use Code. These Guidelines set forth the design parameters to ensure safe and
secure installation and minimize negative aesthetic impacts of wireless communications facilities
installed on private property or in the public right-of-way. The Wireless Communications Facilities
Design Guidelines may be amended, updated, and expanded from time to time by City Council
Resolution. At least (1) copy shall be available for public inspection at the Community
Development and Engineering Departments and on the City of Aspen’s webpage.
26.505.020 Applicability
All applications for the installation or development of WCFs and/or equipment must receive land
use approval, building permits, and/or right-of-way permits, as applicable, prior to installation.
Concurrent to the Prior to the issuance of appropriate building and right-of-way permits, WCFs
and/or equipment shall be reviewed for approval by the Community Development Director (and
when applicable, the City Engineer) in conformance with the provisions and criteria of this
Chapter. WCFs and equipment subject to the provisions and criteria of this Chapter include
without limitation, WCFs within the Public Rights of Way, cellular telephone, paging, enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR), personal communication services (PCS), commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) and other wireless commercial telecommunication devices and all
associated structures and equipment including transmitters, antennas, monopoles, towers, masts
and microwave dishes, cabinets and equipment rooms. These provisions and criteria do not apply
to noncommercial satellite dish antennae, radio and television transmitters and antennae incidental
to residential use. All references made throughout this Chapter, to any of the devices to which this
Chapter is applicable, shall be construed to include all other devices to which this Chapter is
applicable.
Formatted: Font: Italic
Exhibit B
209
A. Future Amendments to Chapter 26.505.
All future amendments to this Chapter shall be exempt from the requirement of Policy
Resolution for code amendments (Section 26.310.020.B.1-2). Future amendments may
proceed directly to a First and Second Reading, pursuant to Section 26.310.020.B.3.
.
26.505.0330 Wireless Definitions.
All words used in this Chapter or in the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines,
except where specifically defined herein, shall carry their customary meanings when not
inconsistent with the context. Definitions contained elsewhere in this Code shall apply to this
Section unless modified herein.
Accessory Wireless Equipment. Any equipment serving or being used in conjunction
with a Wireless Communications Facility (WCF), including, but not limited to, utility or
transmission equipment, power supplies, generators, batteries, cables, equipment
buildings, cabinets and storage sheds, shelters or other structures.
Alternative Tower Structure. Man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light poles,
traffic signals, buildings, and similar alternative design mounting structures that are
intended to be compatible with the natural setting and surrounding structures, and
camouflage or concealment design techniques so as to make the presence of antennas or
towers compatible with the surrounding area pursuant to this Chapter. This term also
includes any antenna or antenna array attached to an Alternative Tower Structure and a
Replacement Pole. A stand-alone Monopole in the Public Right-of-Way that
accommodates Small Cell Wireless Facilities is considered an Alternative Tower Structure
to the extent it meets the camouflage and concealment standards of this Chapter.
Antenna. Any device used to transmit and/or receive radio or electromagnetic waves such
as, but not limited to panel antennas, reflecting discs, microwave dishes, whip antennas,
directional and non-directional antennas consisting of one or more elements, multiple
antenna configurations, or other similar devices and configurations. Any exterior
apparatus designed for telephone, radio, or television communications through the sending
and/or receiving of wireless communications signals.
Base Station. A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") licensed or authorized wireless communications
between user equipment and a communications network. The definition of base station
does not include or encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with
a tower. Base station includes, without limitation:
(1) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private
broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed
wireless services such as microwave backhaul that, at the time the relevant application
is filed with the city pursuant to this chapter has been reviewed and approved under
the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another state or local regulatory
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Font: Italic
210
review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of
providing such support; and
(2) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup
power supplied, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration
(including distributed antenna systems and small-cell networks) that, at the time the
relevant application is filed with the city pursuant to title 26 of the Code has been
reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another
state or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole
or primary purpose of providing such support.
The definition of base station does not include any structure that, at the time the
application is filed with the city under this chapter, does not support or house
equipment described herein in sub-paragraphs 1 and 2 of this definition.
Camouflage, Concealment, Or Camouflage Design Techniques. A Wireless
Communication Facility (“WCF”) is camouflaged or utilizes Camouflage Design
Techniques when any measures are used in the design and siting of Wireless
Communication Facilities with the intent to minimize or eliminate the visual impact of
such facilities to surrounding uses. A WCF site utilizes Camouflage Design Techniques
when it (i) is integrated in an outdoor fixture such as a flagpole, or (ii) uses a design which
mimics and is consistent with the nearby natural, or architectural features (such as an
artificial tree) or is incorporated into (including, without limitation, being attached to the
exterior of such facilities and painted to match it) or is integral within, incorporated on or
replaces existing permitted facilities or vertical infrastructure located in the right-of-way
(including without limitation, stop signs or other traffic signs or freestanding light
standards) so that the presence of the WCF is not readily apparent.
Collocation. (1) mounting or installing a WCF on a pre-existing structure, and/or (2)
modifying a structure for the purpose of mounting or installing a WCF on that structure.
Provided that, for purposes of Eligible Facilities Requests, “Collocation” means the
mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an Eligible Support Structure for
the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications
purposes.
Eligible Facilities Request. Any request for modification of an Existing Tower existing
WCF that does not Substantially Change the physical dimensions of such WCF Tower
involving: (i) collocation of new Transmission Equipment, (ii) removal of Transmission
Equipment, or (iii) replacement and/or addition of Transmission Equipment.
Eligible Support Structure. Any Tower or Base Station as defined in this Section,
provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under
this Section.
Existing Tower or Base Station. A constructed Tower or Base Station is existing for
purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning
211
or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process, provided that
a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when
it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition.
Micro Cell Facility. A small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches in length, 15
inches in width, 12 inches in height, and that has an exterior antenna, if any, that is no
more than eleven inches in length.
Monopole. A single, freestanding pole-type structure supporting one or more Antennas.
Public right-of way. Any public way or public thoroughfare dedicated or devoted to public
use, including street, highway, road, alley, lane, court, boulevard, sidewalk, public square, mall
or like designation.
Replacement Pole. An Alternative Tower structure that is a newly constructed and
permitted traffic signal, utility pole, street light, flagpole, electric distribution, or street
light poles or other similar structure of proportions and of equal height to a pre-existing
pole or structure in order to support a WCF or Small Cell Facility or to accommodate
collocation and remove the pre-existing pole or structure.
Small Cell Facility. A WCF where each Antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more
than three cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an Antenna that has exposed elements,
the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no
more than three cubic feet; and primary equipment enclosures are no larger than seventeen
cubic feet in volume. The following associated equipment may be located outside of the
primary equipment enclosure and, if so located, is not included in the calculation of
equipment volume: electric meter, concealment, telecommunications demarcation box,
ground-based enclosure, back-up power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer
switch and cut-off switch. Small cells may be attached to Alternate Tower Structures,
Replacement Pole, and Base Stations.Small cell facilities may be located in the public
Right-of-Way.
Substantial Change to a WCF. A modification substantially changes the physical
dimensions of an Eligible Support Structure if after the modification, the structure meets
any of the following criteria:
(1) For Towers, other than Alternative Tower Structures or Towers in the Right-of-
Way, it increases the height of the Tower by more than ten percent (10%) or by the
height of one (1) additional antenna array, with separation from the nearest existing
antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater; for other Eligible Support
Structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than ten percent (10%) or
more than ten (10) feet, whichever is greater;
(2) For Towers, other than Towers in the Right-of-Way, it involves adding an
appurtenance to the body of the Tower that would protrude from the Tower more than
twenty (20) feet, or more than the width of the Tower Structure at the level of the
appurtenance, whichever is greater; for Eligible Support Structures, it involves adding
212
an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the side of the
structure by more than six (6) feet;
(3) For any Eligible Support Structure, it involves installation of more than the standard
number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four
cabinets; or
(4) For Towers in the Right-of-Way and Base Stations, it involves installation of any
new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets
associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are
more than ten percent (10%) larger in height or overall volume than any other existing,
individual ground cabinets associated with the structure;
(5) For any Eligible Support Structure, it entails any excavation or deployment outside
the current Site;
(6) For any Eligible Support Structure, it would defeat the concealment elements of the
Eligible Support Structure. For purposes of this definition, any change that undermines
concealment elements of an eligible support structure shall be interpreted as defeating
the concealment elements of that structure; or
(7) For any Eligible Support Structure, it does not comply with conditions associated
with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the Eligible Support
Structure equipment, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase
in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that would not exceed the thresholds
identified in paragraphs (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this Definition. For purposes of
determining whether a Substantial Change exists, changes in height are measured from
the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated
horizontally, such as on buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height
are measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally
approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved prior to February
22, 2012.
Tower. Any structure that is designed and constructed for the sole or primary purpose of
supporting one or more any FCC-licensed or authorized Antennas and their associated
facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and
the associated site. The term includes self-supporting lattice towers, guyed towers,
monopole towers, radio and television transmission towers, microwave towers, common
carrier towers, cellular telephone towers, Alternative Tower Structures and the like.
Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any FCC licensed
or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to, radio
transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply.
The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services
213
including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as
unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul.
Wireless Communications Facility Or WCF. A facility used to provide personal
wireless services as defined at 47 U.S.C. Section 332 (c)(7)(C); or wireless information
services provided to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available
directly to the public via licensed or unlicensed frequencies; or Smart City, Internet of
Things, wireless utility monitoring and control services. A WCF does not include a
facility entirely enclosed within a permitted building where the installation does not
require a modification of the exterior of the building; nor does it include a device attached
to a building, used for serving that building only and that is otherwise permitted under
other provisions of the Code. A WCF includes an Antenna or Antennas, including
without limitation, direction, omni-directional and parabolic antennas, support
equipment, Alternative Tower Structures, and Towers. It does not include the support
structure to which the WCF or its components are attached if the use of such structures
for WCFs is not the primary use. The term does not include mobile transmitting devices
used by wireless service subscribers, such as vehicle or hand-held radios/telephones and
their associated transmitting Antennas, nor does it include other facilities specifically
excluded from the coverage of this Chapter.
26.505.040 Operational Standards.
A. Federal Requirements. All WCFs shall meet the current standards and
regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the federal government with the
authority to regulate WCFs, including, without limitation, the requirement that WCFs shall
not present a hazard to air navigation under Part 77, Federal Aviation, Federal Aviation
Regulations. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the WCF
shall bring such facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations
within the time period mandated by the controlling federal agency. Failure to meet such
revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the WCF at
the WCF owner’s expense.
B. Radio Frequency Standards. All WCFs shall comply with federal standards for
radio frequency emissions. Applicants for WCFs shall submit a letter certifying that all
WCFs that are the subject of the application shall comply with federal standards for radio
frequency emissions. The owner or operator of an approved WCF shall also provide the
City with the FCC license for the WCF at the time the license is issued for the facility.
C. Signal Interference. All WCFs shall be designed and sited, consistent with
applicable federal regulations, so as not to cause interference with the normal operation of
radio, television, telephone and other communication services utilized by adjacent
residential and non-residential properties; nor shall any such facilities interfere with any
public safety communications. The Applicant shall provide a written statement from a
qualified radio frequency engineer, certifying that a technical evaluation of existing and
proposed facilities indicates no potential interference problems and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during this process.
Additionally, the Applicant shall notify the City at least ten calendar days prior to the
214
introduction of new service or changes in existing service, and shall allow the City to
monitor interference levels with public safety communications during the testing process.
D. License to Use. The Applicant may execute a license agreement with the City,
granting a non-exclusive license to use the Public Right-of-Way. Attachment of WCFs
on an existing traffic signal, street light pole, or similar structure shall require written
evidence of a license, or other legal right or approval, to use such structure by its owner.
E. Operation and Maintenance. To ensure the structural integrity of WCFs, the
owner of a WCF shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with the standards
contained in applicable local building, safety, and engineering codes. If upon inspection,
the City concludes that a WCF fails to comply with such codes and constitutes a danger to
persons or property, then, upon written notice being provided to the owner of the WCF,
the owner shall have 30 days from the date of notice to bring such WCF into compliance.
Upon good cause shown by the owner, the City’s Chief Building Official may extend such
compliance period not to exceed 90 days from the date of said notice. If the owner fails
to bring such WCF into compliance within said time period, the City may remove such
WCF at the owner’s expense.
F. Abandonment and Removal. If a WCF has not been in use for a period of three
months, the owner of the WCF shall notify the City of the non-use and shall indicate
whether re-use is expected within the ensuing three months. Any WCF that is not operated
for a continuous period of six months shall be considered abandoned. The City, in its sole
discretion, may require an abandoned WCF to be removed. The owner of such WCF shall
commence removal of the same within 30 days of receipt of written notice from the City.
If such WCF is not removed within said 30 days, the City may remove it at the owner’s
expense and any approved permits for the WCF shall be deemed to have expired.
Additionally, the City, in its sole discretion, shall not approve any new WCF application
until the Applicant who is also the owner or operator of any such abandoned WCF has
removed such WCF or payment for such removal has been made to the City.
G. Hazardous Materials. No hazardous materials shall be permitted in association
with WCFs, except those necessary for the operations of the WCF and only in accordance
with all applicable laws governing such materials.
H. Collocation. No WCF owner or operator shall unreasonably exclude a
telecommunications competitor from using the same facility or location. Upon request by
the Community Development Department, the owner or operator shall provide evidence
explaining why Collocation is not possible at a particular facility or site.
I. Compliance with Applicable Law.
Notwithstanding the approval of an application for new WCFs or Eligible Facilities
Request as described herein, all work done pursuant to WCF applications must be
completed in accordance with all applicable building, structural, engineering, electrical,
215
and safety requirements as set forth in the Aspen Municipal Code and any other applicable
laws or regulations. In addition, all WCF applications shall comply with the following:
1. Comply with any permit or license issued by a local, state, or federal agency
with jurisdiction of the WCF;
2. Comply with easements, covenants, conditions and/or restrictions on or
applicable to the underlying real property;
3. Be maintained in good working condition and to the standards established
at the time of application approval; and
4. Remain free from trash, debris, litter, graffiti, and other forms of vandalism.
Any damage shall be repaired as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than
ten calendar days from the time of notification by the City or after discovery by the
owner or operator of the Site. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any graffiti on WCFs
located in the Public Rights-of-Way or on Public Property may be removed by the
City at its discretion, and the owner and/or operator of the WCF shall pay all costs
of such removal within 30 days after receipt of an invoice from the City.
26.505.050 Procedures for Review.
No new WCF shall be constructed and no Collocation or modification to any WCF may occur
except after a written request from an applicant, reviewed and approved by the City in accordance
with this Chapter.
A. Review Procedures for certain WCFs, including Base Stations, Alternative Tower
Structures, and Alternative Tower Structures within Public Rights-of-Way, but excepting
Eligible Facilities Requests, and Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way.
In all zone districts, applications for these WCF facilities shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Department for conformance to this Section and using Wireless Communications
Facilities Design Guidelines. the Design Review procedures set forth in Section26.505.080. For
WCFs in the rights-of-way, except for Small Cell Facilities in the Right-of-Way, that are found to
have a significant visual impact (e.g.. proximity to historical sites, obstructing views), be
incompatible with the structure or surrounding area, or not meet the intent of these provisions, the
Community Development Department may refer the application to Planning and Zoning
Commission or Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, for a Special Review
determination.
B. Review Procedures for Towers.
In all zone districts, Towers, other than those defined or excepted in (A) above, must apply for
Special Review approval. These WCFs shall be reviewed for conformance using the procedures
set forth in Section 26.505.050.L. All applications for Towers shall demonstrate that other
alternative design options, such as using Base Stations or Alternative Tower Structures, are not
viable options as determined by the City.
C. Review Procedures for Eligible Facilities Requests.
1. In all zone districts, Eligible Facilities Requests shall be considered a permitted use,
subject to administrative review. The City shall prepare, and from time to time revise,
and make publicly available, an application form which shall require submittal of
Formatted: Font: Italic
216
information necessary for the City to consider whether an application is an Eligible
Facilities Request. Such required information may include, without limitation, whether
the project:
a. Constitutes a Substantial Change; or
b. Violates a generally applicable law, regulation, or other rule codifying objective
standards reasonably related to public health and safety.
The application shall not require the applicant to demonstrate a need or business case
for the proposed modification or Collocation.
2. Upon receipt of an application for an Eligible Facilities Request pursuant to this
Section, the Community Development Department shall review such application to
determine whether the application so qualifies.
3. Timeframe for Review. Subject to the tolling provisions of subparagraph 4 below,
within 60 calendar days of the date on which an applicant submits a complete
application seeking approval under this Section, the City shall approve the application
unless it determines that the application is not covered by this Subsection, or otherwise
in non-conformance with applicable codes.
4. Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day review period begins to run when
the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement of the City and the
applicant, or in cases where the Community Development Department determines that
the application is incomplete:
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written notice
to the applicant within thirty (30) days of receipt of the application, specifically
delineating all missing documents or information required in the application;
b. The timeframe for review begins running again the following business day after
the applicant makes a supplemental written submission in response to the City’s
notice of incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the applicant within
ten (10) days that if the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to
the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case of a
second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original notice
of incompleteness.
5. Failure to Act. In the event the City fails to act on a request seeking approval for an
Eligible Facilities Request under this Section within the timeframe for review
(accounting for any tolling), the request shall be deemed granted. The request becomes
effective when the applicant notifies the City in writing after the review period has
expired (accounting for any tolling) that the application has been deemed granted.
217
6. Interaction with Telecommunications Act Section 332(c)(7). If the City determines
that the applicant’s request is not an Eligible Facilities Request as delineated in this
Chapter, the presumptively reasonable timeframe under Section 332(c)(7) of the
Telecommunication Act, as prescribed by the FCC’s Shot Clock order, will begin to
run from the issuance of the City’s decision that the application is not a covered request.
To the extent such information is necessary, the City may request additional
information from the applicant to evaluate the application under Section 332(c)(7)
reviews.
D. Review Procedures for Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way.
1. Small Cell Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way may be approved pursuant to a
Master License Agreement or similar form of authorization or individually in
accordance with the provisions of this subsection.
2. Within ten (10) days of receipt of the application, the Director shall provide written
comments to the applicant determining completeness of the application and setting
forth any modifications required to complete the application to bring the proposal
into full compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.
3. The Director shall review the completed application for conformance with the
provisions in this Chapter and may approve or deny an application within 90 days of
the date the application is submitted for new stand-alone facilities or 60 days for
facilities collocated on city infrastructure.
a. To toll the timeframe for incompleteness, the City must provide written
notice to the Applicant within ten (10) days of receipt of the application,
specifically delineating all missing documents or information required in the
application;
b. The timeframe for review resets to zero (0) when the Applicant makes a
supplemental written submission in response to the City’s notice of
incompleteness; and
c. Following a supplemental submission, the City will notify the Applicant
within ten (10) days that the supplemental submission did not provide the
information identified in the original notice delineating missing information.
The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant
to the procedures identified in paragraph (a) of this subsection. In the case
of a second or subsequent notice of incompleteness, the City may not specify
missing information or documents that were not delineated in the original
notice of incompleteness.
4. Consolidated applications. The City shall allow a wireless provider to file a
consolidated application for up to twenty six (6) small cell facilities and receive a
single permit approval for the small cell networkconsolidated application. The
218
City’s denial of any individual small cell facility is not a basis to deny the
application as a whole or any other small cell facility incorporated within the
consolidated application.
4.5.
E. General.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, pursuant to Section 26.304.020, the
applicant shall conduct a pre-application conference with staff of the Community Development
Department. The planner shall then prepare a pre-application summary describing the submission
requirements and any other pertinent land use material, the fees associated with the reviews and
the review process in general. A pre-application conference is not required, but is recommended,
for Eligible Facility Requests or Small Cells in the Right-of-Way.
F. Administrative review.
Except for applications under subsections C and D above, after the pre-application summary is
received by the applicant, said applicant shall prepare an application for review and approval by
staff and the Community Development Director, respectively. In order to proceed with additional
land use reviews or obtain a development order, the Community Development Director shall find
the submitted development application consistent with the provisions, requirements and standards
of this Chapter and the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
G. Decision.
Any decision to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a WCF, shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence in a written record. The applicant shall receive a
copy of the decision.
H. Appeal of Director's determination.
The Community Development Director may apply reasonable conditions to the approval as
deemed necessary to ensure conformance with applicable review criteria in Wireless
Communications Facilities Design Guidelines Section 26.505.080. If the Community
Development Director determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do not comply with the
review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to the conditions of
approval determined by the Community Development Director, the applicant may apply for
special review (Chapter 26.430) by the Planning and Zoning Commission or, if applicable, by the
Historic Preservation Commission, and such application must be made within fifteen (15) calendar
days of the day on which the Community Development Director's decision is rendered. All
appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
I. Historic Preservation Commission review.
With the exception of Eligible Facilities Requests and Small Cell Facilities in the ROW, proposals
for the location of WCFs or equipment on any historic site or structure, shall be reviewed by the
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). Review of applications for WCFs and/or equipment
by the HPC shall replace the need for review by the Community Development Director. Likewise,
if the Historic Preservation Commission determines that the proposed WCFs and equipment do
not comply with the review criteria and denies the application or the applicant does not agree to
the conditions of approval determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, the applicant
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Condensed by 0.05 pt
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
219
may appeal the decision to the City Council, and such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15)
calendar days of the day on which the Historic Preservation Commission's decision is rendered.
All appeals shall require public hearings and shall be noticed by the applicant in accordance with
Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.a, b and c of this Code.
J. Building permit.
A building permit application cannot be filed unless and until final land use approval has been
granted and a development order has been issued. When applying for building permits, the
applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision granting land use
approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a copy of the signed
document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application.
A building permit, shall be submitted concurrently with the Land Use Application. Depending
on the nature of project, a full Building Permit may be necessary, or as would be the case for most
Eligible Facilities Requests, an Electrical Permit. A contractor for the proposed work must be
identified with the submitted application. A Building or Electrical Permit without an identified
contractor will be deemed incomplete – and the application will be tolled until the contractor is
identified.
K. Right of Way permit.
For all facilities located in the public right-of-way, aA Right of Way Ppermit shall be submitted
concurrently with the Land Use Application. application cannot be filed unless and until final land
use approval has been granted and a development order has been issued. When applying for Right
of Way permits, the applicant shall submit a signed letter acknowledging receipt of the decision
granting land use approval and his/her agreement with all conditions of approval, as well as a copy
of the signed document granting the land use approval for the subject building permit application.
For facilities in the right-of-way, the permit and design requirements are extensive. Applicants
should review Exhibit – a checklist that describes in detail the submittal requirements. A
contractor for the proposed work must be identified with the submitted application. A Right-of-
Way permit without an identified contractor will be deemed incomplete – and the application will
be tolled until the contractor is identified. Additionally, an Electrical Permit shall be required for
any installation that involves line voltage.
L. Special review.
An application requesting a variance from the review standards for height or location of WCFs
and/or equipment as as set forth in this chapter (except for Eligible Facilities Requests) and the
Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines or an appeal of a determination made by
the Community Development Director, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with
the common development review procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304, and the Special Review
Chapter, 26.430. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has
been posted and mailed, pursuant to Paragraphs 26.304.060.E.3.b and c.
1. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If the property is listed on the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or within a Historic Overlay District and
the application has been authorized for consolidation pursuant to Chapter 26.304, the
Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the special review. Such special review
Formatted: Font: Italic
220
may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the
following criteria:
a. Conformance with the applicable review standards of Subsection
26.505.080Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines.
b. If the facility or equipment is located on property listed on the Aspen inventory of
historic landmark sites and structures or within any historic district, then the
applicable standards of Chapter 26.415 (Development involving the Aspen
inventory of historic landmark sites and structures or development in an "H,"
Historic Overlay District) shall apply.
c. If the facility or equipment is located on property that is subject to the Commercial
Design Standards of Chapter 26.412, those applicable standards shall apply.
d. The applicant, in making the case for the variance, shall provide evidence that strict
adherence to the standard(s) or guideline(s), shall render the proposed facility
technically or practically infeasible.
c.e. The applicant in making the case for the variance shall provide evidence that there
are no feasible alternatives to the location and/or design of the proposed facility.
26.505.060 Application Contents
An application for approval of new WCFs and modified or additional WCFs, that are not Eligible
Facilities Requests, and or Small Cell Facilities Requests shall comply with the submittal
requirements applicable to all Land Use Reviews conditional use reviews pursuant to Chapter
26.304, Common development review. procedures and Chapter 26.425, Conditional uses of the
Aspen Municipal Code. Also, WCFs and equipment applications shall also, subject to their nature
shall contain at least the following additional information: contain required materials as described
in the checklist contained within the City of Aspen Wireless Development Application Packet and
the Wireless Communications Facilities Design Guidelines. Additionally, subject to their nature,
required Building, Electrical, and/or Right-of-Way permits shall be submitted concurrent to the
Land Use Application.
A. Site plan meeting the requirements of Title 29, Engineering Design Standards (29.01.020).
B. Visual "before and after" photographs (simulations) specifying the location of antennas,
support structures, transmission buildings and/or other accessory uses, access, parking, fences,
signs, lighting, landscaped areas and all adjacent land uses within one hundred fifty (150) feet.
Such plans and drawings should demonstrate compliance with the review standards of this
Chapter.
C. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status,
including all utilities, easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified (wet ink signed
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.63", No bullets ornumbering
Formatted: Font: Italic
Formatted: Font: Italic
221
and stamped and dated within the past twelve (12) months) by a registered land surveyor, licensed
in the State, which meets the requirements of Title 29, Engineering Design Standards (29.01.020).
D. Landscape plan drawn to a scale of one (1) inch equals ten (10) feet or one (1) inch equals
twenty (20) feet, including "before and after" photographs (simulations) indicating size, spacing
and type of plantings and indicating steps to be taken to provide screening as required by the
review standards of this Section. The landscape plans shall also indicate the size, location and
species of all existing vegetation and whether each of those indicated are proposed for removal
(indicate proposed mitigation), relocation (indicate from and to) or preservation. The planner can
determine if a landscape plan is necessary; for instance, when an antenna is to be attached to a
building, this requirement may be waived by the Community Development Director.
E. Lighting plan and photometric study indicating the size, height, location and wattage of
all proposed outdoor lighting sources. This study must also include a graphic indicating backlight,
up-light, and glare of light from each source/fixture. This requirement can be waived by the
Community Development Director if little or no outdoor lighting is proposed.
F. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, structural integrity report from a professional
engineer licensed in the State of Colorado documenting the following:
1. Tower height and design, including technical, engineering, and other pertinent
factors governing selection of the proposed design;
2. Total anticipated capacity of the structure, including number and types of antennas
which can be accommodated;
3. Failure characteristics of the tower and demonstration that site and setbacks are of
adequate size to contain debris in the event of failure; and
4. Specific design and reconstruction plans to allow shared use. This submission is
required only in the event that the applicant intends to share use of the facility by
subsequent reinforcement and reconstruction of the facility; and
5. Specific design considerations for impact or breakaway characteristics as required
in specific roadway right of ways.
G. Evidence that an effort was made to locate on an existing wireless telecommunication
services facility site including coverage/ interference analysis and capacity analysis and a brief
statement as to other reasons for success or no success.
H. Written documentation demonstrating a good faith effort in locating facilities in accordance
with site selection order of preference outline below.
I. Inventory of Existing Sites. On an annual basis at the request of the City, each applicant
for a WCF shall provide to the Community Development Department a narrative description, a
map, and a GIS compatible data file of the applicant’s existing or currently proposed WCFs within
the City, and outside of the City within one mile of its boundaries. The inventory list should
identify the site name, address, and a general description of the Facility (i.e., rooftop Antennas and
ground-mounted equipment).
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Don't add spacebetween paragraphs of the same style, Line spacing: single
222
J. Abandonment and Removal. Affidavits shall be required from the owner of the property
and from the applicant acknowledging that each is responsible for the removal of a WCF that is
abandoned or is unused for a period of six (6) months.
A. Conditions and limitations. The City shall reserve the right to add, modify or delete
conditions after the approval of a request in order to advance a legitimate City interest related to
health, safety or welfare. Prior to exercising this right, the City shall notify the owner and operator
in advance and shall not impose a substantial expense or deprive the affected party of a substantial
revenue source in the exercising of such right.
Approval by the Community Development Director for a WCF and/or equipment application shall
not be construed to waive any applicable zoning or other regulations; and wherein not otherwise
specified, all other requirements of this Code shall apply, including Title 21(Street, Sidewalks, and
other public places, and Title 29 (Engineering Design Standards). All requests for modifications
of existing facilities or approvals shall be submitted to the Community Development Director for
review under all provisions and requirements of this Section. If other than minor changes are
proposed, a new, complete application containing all proposed revisions shall be required.
Note – 26.505.070 and 26.505.080 have been removed from this chapter and relocated into the
Design Guidelines
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
223
EXHIBIT C – Summary of Public Outreach Efforts
Communications
+Press release about small group workshops
+Press release about Feedback Forum (event at the Limelight)
+Paid advertisements on Facebook throughout the workshop period and
Feedback Forum
+Advertisements in Aspen Daily News and Aspen Times
(November 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,12, 19, 21)
+Aspen Daily News articles – November 12, 2019 and November 27, 2019
+Aspen Public Radio stories – November 10, 2019 and December 19, 2019
+Aspen Community Voice – information and portal to receive comments
+Social Media posts November 1, 4 ,5, 26, December 2
Events
+Tabling at Aspen Saturday Market
+Project introduction meetings with: ACRA, CCLC, P&Z, HPC
+Discussion sessions with staff representatives of Town of Basalt, Town of
Snowmass Village, and Pitkin County
+Small group forums/workshops (1 hour – 1.5 hours each) a total of 8 sessions
Held at APD, Redbrick, and City Hall November 6, 7, 8, 11, 12 (2 sessions),
13, and 21 (total of 8 sessions)
+Feedback Forum – Limelight – December 4 – 11a - 1p and 4:30p - 6:30p
While the number of attendees at the small group forums was modest, staff had very
good conversations with members of the community who have been most concerned
about potential health impacts of the new technology. Additionally, we received useful
feedback on the individual elements of the design guidelines. Moving forward, staff
sees this tool as having great potential with other community discussions.
224
P&Z and HPC comments
Two primary comments emerged from discussions with P&Z and HPC. First, HPC was
particularly concerned about potential visual impacts to Main Street and the Commercial
Core Historic Districts. They recommended that staff identify alleyways as a preferred
location for small cell facilities. Secondly, both boards asked questions related to the
design of the luminaires (street lights) that will be attached to small cell poles. While staff
agrees that both topics likely need further discussion and study, staff recommends that
for the time being, the proposed location and street light design guidelines be adopted as
presented.
Summary of Public Comments – primarily from small group forums and Limelight
event
Question:
Do you support additional wireless facilities in Aspen if they would improve coverage /
service / speed of your wireless devices?
Responses:
• Don’t have a choice so yes.
• “they’re already here, just a different way of delivering the service”
• A lot more street lights – density makes it different in telecommunication
• Impossible to ignore pace of technology
• “necessary evil”
• Make it happen in a responsible way
• If aspen gets driverless vehicles, I am all for it. If only for the internet, then no
• Need to take case of customers
• Need guaranteed emergency contact
• Make parameter box too hard
• 1) health/safety, 2) aesthetics, 3) how tech we need?
• Not to lose “Aspen aesthetics” and turn to suburban America
• Nice to have better coverage but not at a cost
• Tourists have expectations to be up to date
• Big events cause interruption in service
• Concerned about density
• Service seems fine now, so no support to more
• “I’m fine with my cell service right now.” (i.e., as it is)
• “Speed is important for my work with video surveillance cameras, but overall health is
more important than everything else.”
• Do not support yet
• Need a case where it was worth it
• Do I need to download a movie super fast? No.
• Horrified, could care less about speed. Concerned about health and items in front of
house. Aspen worked hard not to have things in way, open to petitioning this off.
• Not important if improved. Can see how this might benefit others for example the
hospital.
225
• On both sides. No one asked us if we want it and health is a concern. 82% of people
interact with Parks on cell phones, affluent town and computer savvy, people on calls
are driving this endless no frontier. Don’t think we have a choice, mitigate best we can.
Think more yea the nay people
• Work on mitigation and carrier control. Quality of life feelings affected, being invaded.
Doesn’t feel right.
• “No, I don’t support additional small cell facilities due to aesthetic and health concerns”
• “ “No, I will use WiFi or a wired/fiber connection if I need better broadband”
• “I don’t care what it looks like. I don’t want it in my neighborhood.”
• No don’t care about improved service
• Put aside a fund to fight and lobby
• Aspen hasn’t done anything about it like other communities have
• Towers in China with face recognition. We should just say NO
• Make the best of this non-great situation
• No – 13 separate responses
• It’s fine for now but can it handle more growth? That’s intangible.
• Mine is working fine now
• It is fine now
• Absolutely not!
Question:
If health is your primary concern with small cell facilities, please discuss with your group
the issues that concern you the most and why?
Responses:
• A lot like politics, liars don’t figures….done tests with rats when you go to health side you
get fear (microwave oven/ atomic bombs), cherry picking of information, not enough
research
• Nick DeWolf – people next to tower freak out, they say sun is worse, 5G is same as
pickled vegetables, undusted concerns but not overly, believe concerns if can.
• Lack of data on knowing what impacts might be
• FCC isn’t commissioning studies – frustrating
• Lobby federal gov. to do studies
• Equating federal gov. to big tobacco “this is fine”
• Not enough info yet
• Shouldn’t be moving forward until there is more info
• Failure to have info is suspicious
• Work with the state for info
• If there is enough community will, maybe companies wouldn’t want the negative publicity
• Frustrated by the lack of control
• “Tower density and potential health impacts”
• “Get more providers on each pole/tower, multiple carriers and competition will result in
better service”
• The failure of having reliable health information is concerning
• I heard there are potential risks to health. So hold off if we can?
• I would like council to work with state
226
• How long can we delay this?
• I would like more information mater about health
• There is not enough information regarding health
• There is a good and a bad side. Do you want to give the tourist business to Vail because
you don’t have high speed internet?
• Push back in Europe
• I am a healthcare provider, read about studies but there are major health concerns.
Maybe not anything we can do
• Maybe a mass petition, but aren’t confident it’s going to happen
• Money is too large to change
• GMO is example to look at
• Support council to lobby against
• “Yes, because the radio frequency engineers are concerned with being in close
proximity to these facilities”
• Yes, health concerns, closer proximity of facilities and use of new RF bands (e.g.
millimeter wave)”
• “Aesthetics are important but health effects are my primary concern”
• Seriously concerned about how bad health impacts are
• Get safety study first
• “Health above all”
• “Who doesn’t want faster service? But who wants cancer, brain disease, other health
impacts?”
• Huge health risk
• Need to educate people
• Huge concerns, there are no safety studies! We do not want to be guinea pigs
• I have no technology. Please do not contaminate my world outside my door! This can
not be safe! Do I have to move out of these cell towers?
• Absolutely a concern due to higher levels of radiation proven unsafe. All of Europe is
fighting it. Why should we accept it?
• Concerns appears to be emerging through zero studies on health but legitimate issues.
• Please, please consider the long-term health impacts of radiation exposure. I don’t carry
a cell phone everywhere exactly for this concern.
• Yes, a concern, so wait.
• It’s our main concern in the health of the community, children and grandchildren.
• Not a concern
• Limit to extent possible near homes and schools
• A concern since no real data suggests it’s safe after long term exposure
• Put down your cell phone
• Huge concern- stop- delay
• New poles are a clutter. Use existing vertical segments
• Let’s get real health data – until then, wait
• Please wait. Bad for people and animals
• 5G at close proximity is more like a microwave not a radiowave
227
Exhibit D
228
229