HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20160208
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 08, 2016
5:00 PM
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)
V. Special Orders of the Day
a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments
b) Agenda Deletions and Additions
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #6, Series of 2016 - FASTER Transit Grant Agreement
b) Resolution #7, Series of 2016 - Mud & Debris Flow Assessment Project
c) Resolution #9, Series of 2016 - 626 W. Francis, Extension of AspenModern
negotiation period
d) Minutes - January 25, 2016
e) Board Appointments
f) Resolution #11, Series of 2016 - supporting federal Carbon Fee and Dividend
legislation
VII. Notice of Call-Up
a) Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation and Variations review for 980 Gibson Avenue, HPC Resolution #3,
Series of 2016
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #3, Series of 2016 - Fee Ordinance 43 Amendment
b) Ordinance #2, Series of 2016 - AspenModern negotiation for historic designation
of 626 W. Francis Street
IX. Public Hearings
X. Action Items
a) Call-up of HPC approval: 517 E Hopkins
b) Resolution #8, Series of 2016 - Adoption of “City of Aspen Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines,”
XI. Adjournment
P1
Next Regular Meeting February 22, 2016
COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES
• Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision
• Tone and Tenor Matter
• Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M.
P2
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Krueger Director of Transportation
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: January 26, 2016
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016
RE: Resolution No. 6, Series of 2016
State of Colorado, FASTER-Transit Grant Agreement
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
City Transportation staff is requesting approval of Resolution Number 6 of 2016, authorizing
the City Manager to sign and execute the attached Funding Advancement for Surface
Transportation & Economic Recovery (FASTER) Grant Agreement between the State of
Colorado, acting by and through the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Transit
and Rail (CDOT) and the City of Aspen. This grant agreement is for the purchase of two
replacement transit buses to be used in the City of Aspen local transit system. The total grant
awarded is $900,000. The state share at 80% is $720,000 and the City of Aspen’s local share at
20% is $180,000.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
There has been no previous Council action taken on this request. The full cost of the
replacement shuttles was approved and included in the 2015 Transportation Fund capital budget.
BACKGROUND:
The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) administers FASTER funds for the Federal
Transportation Administration (FTA). The funds were generated by the FASTER transportation
legislation approved by Colorado lawmakers in 2009 for the purpose of bridge reconstruction,
P3
VI.a
Page 2 of 3
highway safety projects and transit primarily through an increase in vehicle-registration fees in
Colorado.
DISCUSSION:
The City of Aspen applied for and was awarded FASTER grant funding for the replacement of
two transit buses. The Grant Agreement needs to be signed by the City Manager and then will go
back to CDOT for signature. Once the grant agreement has been fully executed, staff will bring a
contract for the bus order back to Council for approval.
The two new buses will replace two older buses that have reached the end of their useful lives.
The older buses are more than 15 years old and have over 500,000 miles on them. The
manufacturer of the older buses is no longer in business and parts are hard to come by. The
newer buses will be quieter and more efficient. The replacement buses will allow continued
reliable service for the over 1 million passengers that use the local transit service each year.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The full cost of the replacement shuttles was approved and included in the 2015 Transportation
Fund capital budget. Due to delays in the CDOT grant process, we did not receive a grant
agreement until January of 2016. The funding for these replacement buses will be carried
forward to 2016. The FASTER grant award reduces the cost of replacing the shuttle vehicles to
the City and will result in some savings for the Transportation Fund. The total grant award is for
$900,000. The state’s share will be $720,000 or 80% of the total. The City will be responsible
for the 20% local match or $180,000. The City will pay the full cost of the vehicles and will then
be reimbursed by the State.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The purchase of these vehicles directly relates to the City’s goal of keeping traffic at 1993 levels
while reducing PM-10 air and other air pollution through the encouragement of alternative
transportation. These buses will operate on biodiesel and the engines utilize the most advanced
emissions control technology available on the market.
P4
VI.a
Page 3 of 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution No.6 allowing the City Manager to sign
and execute the Grant Agreement between the State of Colorado and the City of Aspen for the
purchase of two replacement shuttle vehicles for use in the local transit system.
ALTERNATIVES:
Should City Council choose not to approve the grant agreement, the City would have to purchase
these vehicles using City funds rather than grant funds for 100% of the cost of the vehicles.
PROPOSED MOTION:
I move to approve resolution No 6 authorizing the City Manager to sign and execute the
FASTER Grant Agreement between the State of Colorado and the City of Aspen for the purchase
of two replacement buses for use on the local transit system.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 6, 2016
State of Colorado, CDOT, Division of Transit and Rail, FASTER Transit Service Grant
Agreement
P5
VI.a
RESOLUTION NO. 6
Series of 2016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING
A GRANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO (ASPEN), AND
THE STATE OF COLORADO, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CDOT), DIVISION OF TRANSIT AND RAIL
TO ENTER INTO A FASTER (FUNDING ADVANCEMENT FOR A SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION & ECONOMIC RECOVERY) GRANT AGREEMENT, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen seeks to improve air quality, reduce congestion and improve the
quality of life by encouraging the use of public transportation;
and
WHEREAS the City of Aspen has received a FASTER Transit Grant award for the purpose
of purchasing two replacement transit buses;
and
WHEREAS the Grant Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the Colorado
Department of Transportation, copies of which are annexed hereto and made a part thereof;
and
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 this FASTER TRANSIT GRANT
AGREEMENT between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the Colorado Department of Transportation,
copies of which are annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of
the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of
February, 2016.
_________________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate
copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the
day hereinabove stated.
______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P6
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #: 491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 1 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
STATE OF COLORADO
Colorado Department of Transportation
Division of Transit and Rail
FASTER Transit Grant Agreement
with the
CITY OF ASPEN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. PARTIES ............................................................................................................................................... 1
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY .................................................................. 1
3. RECITALS ............................................................................................................................................ 2
4. DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 2
5. TERM .................................................................................................................................................... 3
6. STATEMENT OF WORK / CONTRACT OBJECTIVE PLAN ........................................................... 3
7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE ................................................................................................................ 4
8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION .......................................................................................................... 5
9. GRANTEE RECORDS.......................................................................................................................... 5
10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS..................................................................... 6
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ................................................................................................................ 7
12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ...................................................................................... 7
13. INSURANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 7
14. BREACH ............................................................................................................................................... 9
15. REMEDIES ........................................................................................................................................... 9
16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES ................................................................................................ 11
17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE ............................................ 11
18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY....................................................................................................... 11
19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................................. 11
20. GENERAL PROVISIONS .................................................................................................................. 12
21. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................................. 13
22. SIGNATURE PAGE ........................................................................................................................... 16
23. EXHIBIT A .......................................................................................................................................... 17
24. EXHIBIT B .......................................................................................................................................... 22
25. EXHIBIT C .......................................................................................................................................... 27
26. EXHIBIT D .......................................................................................................................................... 28
27. EXHIBIT E .......................................................................................................................................... 30
28. EXHIBIT F .......................................................................................................................................... 32
29. EXHIBIT G .......................................................................................................................................... 35
30. EXHIBIT H .......................................................................................................................................... 37
31. EXHIBIT I ........................................................................................................................................... 39
1. PARTIES
This Grant (“Grant”) is entered into by and between CITY OF ASPEN (“Grantee”), and the STATE OF
COLORADO acting by and through the Colorado Department of Transportation, Division of Transit and Rail
(“State” or “CDOT”). Grantee and the State hereby agree to the following terms and conditions.
2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY
This Grant shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller
or designee (hereinafter called the “Effective Date”). The State shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Grantee
for any performance hereunder, including, but not limited to costs or expenses incurred, or be bound by any
provision hereof prior to the Effective Date.
P7
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 2 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
3. RECITALS
A. Authority, Appropriation, and Approval
Authority to enter into this Grant exists in CRS §§43-1-106, 43-1-110, 43-1-117, 43-2-101(4)(c) as
amended and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available pursuant to CRS §43-
4-811(2) and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment. Required
approvals, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies.
B. Consideration
The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and
valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Grant.
C. Purpose
The purpose of this Grant is for CDOT to disburse FASTER Transit Program Funds to Grantee to conduct
work within the provisions of this Grant. The work to be completed under this Grant by the Grantee is more
specifically described in Exhibits A and B.
D. References
All references in this Grant to sections (whether spelled out or using the § symbol), subsections, exhibits or
other attachments, are references to sections, subsections, exhibits or other attachments contained herein or
incorporated as a part hereof, unless otherwise noted.
4. DEFINITIONS
The following terms as used herein shall be construed and interpreted as follows:
A. Budget
“Budget” means the budget for the Work described in Exhibit A.
B. Evaluation
“Evaluation” means the process of examining Grantee’s Work and rating it based on criteria established in
§6, §19, and all Exhibits.
C. Exhibits and other Attachments
The following are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein: Exhibit A (Scope of Work and
Budget), Exhibit B (FASTER Program Requirements), and Exhibit C (Verification of Payment), Exhibit
D (49 CFR 18 Subpart C), Exhibit E (General Procurement Standards), Exhibit F (State and Grantee
Commitments), Exhibit G (Option Letter), Exhibit H (State or Federal-Aid Project Agreements with
Professional Subgrantee Services), and Exhibit I (Grantee Contract Administration Checklist).
D. Goods
“Goods” means tangible material acquired, produced, or delivered by Grantee either separately or in
conjunction with the Services Grantee renders hereunder.
E. Grant
“Grant” means this Grant, its terms and conditions, attached exhibits, documents incorporated by reference
under the terms of this Grant, and any future modifying agreements, exhibits, attachments or references
incorporated herein pursuant to Colorado State law, Fiscal Rules, and State Controller Policies.
F. Grant Funds
“Grant Funds” means available funds payable by the State to Grantee pursuant to this Grant.
G. Local Funds
“Local Funds” means funds provided by any city, county or entity (public or private) for performance of
the Work.
H. Manual
“Manual” refers to CDOT’s “Local Agency Manual”, if applicable.
I. Party or Parties
“Party” means the State or Grantee and “Parties” means both the State and Grantee.
J. Project
“Project” means Work identified in Exhibit A.
K. Program
P8
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 3 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
“Program” means the Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery
(FASTER) Senate Bill 09-108 grant program that provides the funding for this Grant.
L. Review
“Review” means examining Grantee’s Work to ensure that it is adequate, accurate, correct and in
accordance with the criteria established in §6, §19 and Exhibit A.
M. Services
“Services” means the required services to be performed by Grantee pursuant to this Grant.
N. State Funds
“State Funds” means funds provided by the State for performance of the Work.
O. Subgrantee
“Subgrantee” means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to aid in performance of its obligations.
P. Work
“Work” means the tasks and activities Grantee is required to perform to fulfill its obligations under this
Grant and Exhibit A, including the performance of the Services and delivery of the Goods.
Q. Work Product
“Work Product” means the tangible or intangible results of Grantee’s Work, including, but not limited to,
software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other finished or unfinished documents,
drawings, models, surveys, maps, materials, or work product of any type, including drafts.
5. TERM
A. Initial Term-Work Commencement
The Parties respective performances under this Grant shall commence on the Effective Date. This Grant
shall terminate on December 31, 2018 unless sooner terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere
herein.
B. Notice to Proceed
Grantee shall not commence performance of the Work until the date specified by a written notice to
proceed, which may be sent by email or by hardcopy pursuit to §16.
C. State’s Option to Extend Terms
The State may unilaterally require continued performance for two additional one year periods at the same
rates and same terms specified in the Grant. If the State exercises this option, it shall provide written notice
to Grantee at least 30 days prior to the end of the current Grant term in form substantially equivalent to
Exhibit G. If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become part of and be incorporated into
this Grant. The total duration of this Grant, including the exercise of any options under this clause, shall not
exceed three (3) years.
6. STATEMENT OF WORK / CONTRACT OBJECTIVE PLAN
A. Completion
Grantee shall complete the Work and its other obligations as described herein and in Exhibits A and B on
or before December 31, 2018. The State shall not be liable to compensate Grantee for any Work performed
prior to the Effective Date or after the termination of this Grant.
B. Goods and Services
Grantee shall procure Goods and Services necessary to complete the Work. Such procurement shall be
accomplished using the Grant Funds and shall not increase the maximum amount payable hereunder by the
State.
C. Employees
All persons employed by Grantee or Subgrantees shall be considered Grantee’s or Subgrantees’
employee(s) for all purposes hereunder and shall not be employees of the State for any purpose as a result
of this Grant.
D. Federal Laws, Rules and Regulations
If the Grant Funds involves federal funding, Grantee understands and agrees that federal laws, rules and
regulations will control the Work and its implementation. Unless a written waiver is granted, Grantee
P9
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 4 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
agrees to comply with all required federal laws, rules and regulations applicable to the Work, in addition to
all State requirements.
E. Option for Phased Performance
The State may unilaterally require the Grantee to begin performance on the next phase of the Project as
outlined in Scope of Work in Exhibit A at the same rates and same terms specified in the Grant. If the State
exercises this option, it shall provide written notice to Grantee in a form substantially equivalent to Exhibit
G. If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become part of and be incorporated into this Grant.
7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE
The State shall, in accordance with the provisions of this §7, pay Grantee in the following amounts and using
the methods set forth below:
A. Maximum Amount
The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $720,000.00 as determined by
the State from available funds. Grantee agrees to provide any additional funds required for the successful
completion of the Work. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid obligated balance of the Grant as
set forth in Exhibit A.
B. Payment
i. Advance, Interim and Final Payments
Any advance payment allowed under this Grant or in Exhibit A shall comply with State Fiscal Rules
and be made in accordance with the provisions of this Grant or such Exhibit. Grantee shall initiate any
payment requests by submitting invoices to the State in the form and manner set forth and approved by
the State.
ii. Interest
The State shall fully pay each invoice within 45 days of receipt thereof if the amount invoiced
represents performance by Grantee previously accepted by the State. Uncontested amounts not paid by
the State within 45 days may, if Grantee so requests, bear interest on the unpaid balance beginning on
the 46th day at a rate not to exceed one percent per month until paid in full; provided, however, that
interest shall not accrue on unpaid amounts that are subject to a good faith dispute. Grantee shall
invoice the State separately for accrued interest on delinquent amounts. The billing shall reference the
delinquent payment, the number of day’s interest to be paid and the interest rate.
iii. Available Funds-Contingency-Termination
The State is prohibited by law from making fiscal commitments beyond the term of the State’s current
fiscal year. Therefore, Grantee’s compensation is contingent upon the continuing availability of State
appropriations as provided in the Colorado Special Provisions, set forth below. If federal funds are
used with this Grant in whole or in part, the State’s performance hereunder is contingent upon the
continuing availability of such funds. Payments pursuant to this Grant shall be made only from
available funds encumbered for this Grant and the State’s liability for such payments shall be limited to
the amount remaining of such encumbered funds. If State or federal funds are not appropriated, or
otherwise become unavailable to fund this Grant, the State may immediately terminate this Grant in
whole or in part without further liability in accordance with the provisions herein.
iv. Erroneous Payments
At the State’s sole discretion, payments made to Grantee in error for any reason, including, but not
limited to overpayments or improper payments, and unexpended or excess funds received by Grantee,
may be recovered from Grantee by deduction from subsequent payments under this Grant or other
Grants, grants or agreements between the State and Grantee or by other appropriate methods and
collected as a debt due to the State. Such funds shall not be paid to any person or entity other than the
State.
C. Use of Funds
Grant Funds shall be used only for eligible costs identified herein and/or in the Budget. Budget line item
adjustments exceeding 10% but less than 24.99% must be submitted in advance of actual cost and receive
written State approval, which approval may be transmitted informally by email or such other means that
does not rise to the level of an amendment to this Grant. A budget revision of Exhibit A will be issued by
State with any such adjustment. Adjustments in excess of 24.99% for any line item shall be authorized by
the State in an amendment to this Grant. The State’s total consideration shall not exceed the maximum
amount shown herein.
P10
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 5 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
D. Local Funds
Grantee shall provide Local Funds as provided in Exhibit A. Payments to Grantee of Grant Funds will be
made for Project expenditures reported by Grantee and submitted to and accepted by the State for payment
based on the ratio required State Funds and Local Funds for which Grantee has submitted to the State.
E. Payment Compliance
All Grant reimbursements shall comply with 49 CFR 18 Subpart C (Exhibit D) of the Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
Additionally, Grantee shall only be reimbursed for costs allowable under 2 CFR Part 125, Appendix A.
8. REPORTING - NOTIFICATION
Reports, Evaluations, and Reviews required under this §8 shall be in accordance with the procedures of and in
such form as prescribed by the State and in accordance with §19, if applicable.
A. Performance, Progress, Personnel, and Funds
State shall submit a report to the Grantee upon expiration or sooner termination of this Grant, containing an
Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance and the final status of Grantee's obligations hereunder. In
addition, Grantee shall comply with all reporting requirements, if any, set forth in the Local Agency
Manual and/or this Grant.
B. Litigation Reporting
Within 10 days after being served with any pleading in a legal action filed with a court or administrative
agency, related to this Grant or which may affect Grantee’s ability to perform its obligations hereunder,
Grantee shall notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such pleadings to the State’s principal
representative as identified herein. If the State’s principal representative is not then serving, such notice and
copies shall be delivered to the Executive Director of CDOT.
C. Performance Outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States
[Not applicable if Grant Funds include any federal funds] Following the Effective Date, Grantee shall
provide written notice to the State, in accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives), within 20 days
of the earlier to occur of Grantee’s decision to perform, or its execution of an agreement with a Subgrantee
to perform, Services outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States. Such notice shall specify the
type of Services to be performed outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States and the reason why
it is necessary or advantageous to perform such Services at such location or locations. All notices received
by the State pursuant to this §8.C shall be posted on the Colorado Department of Personnel &
Administration’s website. Knowing failure by Grantee to provide notice to the State under this §8.C shall
constitute a material breach of this Grant.
D. Noncompliance
Grantee’s failure to provide reports and notify the State in a timely manner in accordance with this §8 may
result in the delay of payment of funds and/or termination as provided under this Grant.
E. Subgrants
Copies of any and all subgrants entered into by Grantee to perform its obligations hereunder shall be
submitted to the State or its principal representative upon request by the State. Any and all subgrants
entered into by Grantee related to its performance hereunder shall comply with all applicable federal and
state laws and shall provide that such subgrants be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.
9. GRANTEE RECORDS
Grantee shall make, keep, maintain and allow inspection and monitoring of the following records:
A. Maintenance
Grantee shall make, keep, maintain, and allow inspection and monitoring by the State of a complete file of
all records, documents, communications, notes and other written materials, electronic media files, and
communications, pertaining in any manner to the Work or the delivery of Services (including, but not
limited to the operation of programs) or Goods hereunder. Grantee shall maintain such records until the
last to occur of the following: (i) a period of three years after the date this Grant is completed or terminated,
or (ii) final payment is made hereunder, whichever is later, or (iii) for such further period as may be
necessary to resolve any pending matters, or (iv) if an audit is occurring, or Grantee has received notice that
P11
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 6 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
an audit is pending, then until such audit has been completed and its findings have been resolved (the
“Record Retention Period”).
B. Inspection
Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government and any other duly authorized agent of a
governmental agency to audit, inspect, examine, excerpt, copy and/or transcribe Grantee's records related to
this Grant during the Record Retention Period for a period of three years following termination of this
Grant or final payment hereunder, whichever is later, to assure compliance with the terms hereof or to
evaluate Grantee's performance hereunder. The State reserves the right to inspect the Work at all reasonable
times and places during the term of this Grant, including any extension. If the Work fails to conform to the
requirements of this Grant, the State may require Grantee promptly to bring the Work into conformity with
Grant requirements, at Grantee’s sole expense. If the Work cannot be brought into conformance by re-
performance or other corrective measures, the State may require Grantee to take necessary action to ensure
that future performance conforms to Grant requirements and exercise the remedies available under this
Grant, at law or in equity in lieu of or in conjunction with such corrective measures.
C. Monitoring
Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government, and other governmental agencies having
jurisdiction, in their sole discretion, to monitor all activities conducted by Grantee pursuant to the terms of
this Grant using any reasonable procedure, including, but not limited to: internal evaluation procedures,
examination of program data, special analyses, on-site checking, formal audit examinations, or any other
procedures. All monitoring controlled by the State shall be performed in a manner that shall not unduly
interfere with Grantee’s performance hereunder.
D. Final Audit Report
If an audit is performed on Grantee’s records for any fiscal year covering a portion of the term of this
Grant, Grantee shall submit a copy of the final audit report to the State or its principal representative at the
address specified herein.
10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS
Grantee shall comply with the provisions of this §10 if it becomes privy to confidential information in
connection with its performance hereunder. Confidential information, includes, but is not necessarily limited to,
any State records, personnel records, and information concerning individuals. Such information shall not
include information required to be disclosed pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS §24-72-101 et
seq.
A. Confidentiality
Grantee shall keep all State records and information confidential at all times and to comply with all laws
and regulations concerning confidentiality of information. Any request or demand by a third party for State
records and information in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately forwarded to the State’s
principal representative.
B. Notification
Grantee shall notify its agent, employees, Subgrantees, and assigns who may come into contact with State
records and confidential information that each is subject to the confidentiality requirements set forth herein,
and shall provide each with a written explanation of such requirements before they are permitted to access
such records and information.
C. Use, Security, and Retention
Confidential information of any kind shall not be distributed or sold to any third party or used by Grantee
or its agents in any way, except as authorized by this Grant or approved in writing by the State. Grantee
shall provide and maintain a secure environment that ensures confidentiality of all State records and other
confidential information wherever located. Confidential information shall not be retained in any files or
otherwise by Grantee or its agents, except as permitted in this Grant or approved in writing by the State.
D. Disclosure-Liability
Disclosure of State records or other confidential information by Grantee for any reason may be cause for
legal action by third parties against Grantee, the State or their respective agents. To the extent permitted by
law, the Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any
and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related
costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or
assignees pursuant to this §10.
P12
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 7 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Grantee shall not engage in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which
conflict in any way with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations hereunder. Grantee acknowledges that
with respect to this Grant, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to the State’s interests. Absent
the State’s prior written approval, Grantee shall refrain from any practices, activities or relationships that
reasonably appear to be in conflict with the full performance of Grantee’s obligations to the State hereunder. If
a conflict or appearance exists, or if Grantee is uncertain whether a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of
interest exists, Grantee shall submit to the State a disclosure statement setting forth the relevant details for the
State’s consideration. Failure to promptly submit a disclosure statement or to follow the State’s direction in
regard to the apparent conflict constitutes a breach of this Grant.
12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Grantee makes the following specific representations and warranties, each of which was relied on by the State
in entering into this Grant.
A. Standard and Manner of Performance
Grantee shall perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the highest standards of care, skill and
diligence in the industry, trades or profession and in the sequence and manner set forth in this Grant.
B. Legal Authority – Grantee and Grantee’s Signatory
Grantee warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this Grant and that it has taken all actions
required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable laws to exercise that authority, and to lawfully
authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this Grant, or any part thereof, and to bind Grantee to its
terms. If requested by the State, Grantee shall provide the State with proof of Grantee’s authority to enter
into this Grant within 15 days of receiving such request.
C. Licenses, Permits, Etc.
Grantee represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date it has, and that at all times during the term
hereof it shall have, at its sole expense, all licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other
authorization required by law to perform its obligations hereunder. Grantee warrants that it shall maintain
all necessary licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other authorizations required to
properly perform this Grant, without reimbursement by the State or other adjustment in Grant Funds.
Additionally, all employees and agents of Grantee performing Services under this Grant shall hold all
required licenses or certifications, if any, to perform their responsibilities. Grantee, if a foreign corporation
or other foreign entity transacting business in the State of Colorado, further warrants that it currently has
obtained and shall maintain any applicable certificate of authority to transact business in the State of
Colorado and has designated a registered agent in Colorado to accept service of process. Any revocation,
withdrawal or non-renewal of licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits or any such similar
requirements necessary for Grantee to properly perform the terms of this Grant shall be deemed to be a
material breach by Grantee and constitute grounds for termination of this Grant.
13. INSURANCE
Grantee and its Subgrantees shall obtain and maintain insurance as specified in this section at all times during
the term of this Grant. All policies evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder shall be issued by
insurance companies satisfactory to Grantee and the State.
A. Grantee
i. Public Entities
If Grantee is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS
§24-10-101, et seq., as amended (the “GIA”), then Grantee shall maintain at all times during the term
of this Grant such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet
its liabilities under the GIA. Grantee shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the State, if
requested by the State. Grantee shall require each Grant with Subgrantees that are public entities,
providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet
Subgrantee’s liabilities under the GIA.
P13
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 8 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
ii. Non-Public Entities
If Grantee is not a "public entity" within the meaning of the GIA, Grantee shall obtain and maintain
during the term of this Grant insurance coverage and policies meeting the same requirements set forth
in §13(B) with respect to Subgrantees that are not "public entities".
B. Grantee and Subgrantees
Grantee shall require each Grant with Subgrantees, other than those that are public entities, providing
Goods or Services in connection with this Grant, to include insurance requirements substantially similar to
the following:
i. Worker’s Compensation
Worker’s Compensation Insurance as required by State statute, and Employer’s Liability Insurance
covering all of Grantee and Subgrantee employees acting within the course and scope of their
employment.
ii. General Liability
Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 10/93 or
equivalent, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent Subgrantees, products and
completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability with
minimum limits as follows: (a) $1,000,000 each occurrence; (b) $1,000,000 general aggregate; (c)
$1,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate; and (d) $50,000 any one fire.
iii. Automobile Liability
Automobile Liability Insurance covering any auto (including owned, hired and non-owned autos) with
a minimum limit of $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit.
iv. Professional Liability
Professional liability insurance with minimum limits of liability of not less than $1,000,000 each claim
and $1,000,000 annual aggregate for both the Grantee or any Subgrantee when:
a) Contract items 625 (Construction Surveying), 629 (Survey Monumentation), or both are included
in the Grant
b) Plans, specifications, and submittals are required to be signed and sealed by the Grantee’s or
Subgrantee’s professional engineer, including but not limited to:
(1) Shop drawings and working drawings as described in subsection 105.02 of the CDOT
Standards Specification for Road and Bridge Construction Manual which can be found at:
www.coloradodot.info/business/designsupport/construction-specifications/2011-Specs/2011-
Specs-Bood.pdf
(2) Mix designs
(3) Contractor performed design work as required by the plans and specifications
(4) Approved value engineering change proposals
v. Additional Insured
Grantee and the State shall be named as additional insured on the Commercial General Liability
Insurance policy (leases and construction Grants require additional insured coverage for completed
operations on endorsements CG 2010 11/85, CG 2037, or equivalent).
vi. Primacy of Coverage
Coverage required of Grantee and Subgrantees shall be primary over any insurance or self-insurance
program carried by Grantee or the State.
vii. Cancellation
The above insurance policies shall include provisions preventing cancellation or non-renewal without
at least 45 days prior notice to the Grantee and Grantee shall forward such notice to the State in
accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives) within seven days of Grantee’s receipt of such
notice.
viii. Subrogation Waiver
All insurance policies in any way related to this Grant and secured and maintained by Grantee or its
Subgrantees as required herein shall include clauses stating that each carrier shall waive all rights of
recovery, under subrogation or otherwise, against Grantee or the State, its agencies, institutions,
organizations, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
C. Certificates
Grantee and all Subgrantees shall provide certificates showing insurance coverage required hereunder to
the State within seven business days of the Effective Date of this Grant. No later than 15 days prior to the
expiration date of any such coverage, Grantee and each Subgrantee shall deliver to the State or Grantee
certificates of insurance evidencing renewals thereof. In addition, upon request by the State at any other
P14
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 9 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
time during the term of this Grant or any subgrant, Grantee and each Subgrantee shall, within 10 days of
such request, supply to the State evidence satisfactory to the State of compliance with the provisions of this
§13.
14. BREACH
A. Defined
In addition to any breaches specified in other sections of this Grant, the failure of either Party to perform
any of its material obligations hereunder, in whole or in part or in a timely or satisfactory manner,
constitutes a breach. The institution of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or
similar law, by or against Grantee, or the appointment of a receiver or similar officer for Grantee or any of
its property, which is not vacated or fully stayed within 20 days after the institution or occurrence thereof,
shall also constitute a breach.
B. Notice and Cure Period
In the event of a breach, notice of such shall be given in writing by the aggrieved Party to the other Party in
the manner provided in §16. If such breach is not cured within 30 days of receipt of written notice, or if a
cure cannot be completed within 30 days, or if cure of the breach has not begun within 30 days and pursued
with due diligence, the State may exercise any of the remedies set forth in §15. Notwithstanding anything
to the contrary herein, the State, in its sole discretion, need not provide advance notice or a cure period and
may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part if reasonably necessary to preserve public safety
or to prevent immediate public crisis.
15. REMEDIES
If Grantee is in breach under any provision of this Grant, the State shall have all of the remedies listed in this
§15 in addition to all other remedies set forth in other sections of this Grant following the notice and cure period
set forth in §14(B) provided however, that the State may terminate this Grant pursuant to §15(B) without a
breach. The State may exercise any or all of the remedies available to it, in its sole discretion, concurrently or
consecutively.
A. Termination for Cause and/or Breach
If Grantee fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder with such diligence as is required to ensure its
completion in accordance with the provisions of this Grant and in a timely manner, the State may notify
Grantee of such non-performance in accordance with the provisions herein. If Grantee thereafter fails to
promptly cure such non-performance within the cure period, the State, at its option, may terminate this
entire Grant or such part of this Grant as to which there has been delay or a failure to properly perform.
Exercise by the State of this right shall not be deemed a breach of its obligations hereunder. Grantee shall
continue performance of this Grant to the extent not terminated, if any.
i. Obligations and Rights
To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or render
further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate outstanding
orders and subcontracts with third parties. However, Grantee shall complete and deliver to the State all
Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur obligations as are
necessary to do so within this Grant’s terms. At the sole discretion of the State, Grantee shall assign to
the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated orders or subgrants. Upon
termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary action to protect and preserve
property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an interest. All materials owned by the
State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately returned to the State. All Work Product, at the
option of the State, shall be delivered by Grantee to the State and shall become the State’s property.
ii. Payments
The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination. If, after
termination by the State, it is determined that Grantee was not in breach or that Grantee's action or
inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a termination in the public interest and the
rights and obligations of the Parties shall be the same as if this Grant had been terminated in the public
interest, as described herein.
iii. Damages and Withholding
Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the State
for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by Grantee and the
P15
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 10 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the State’s damages, until
such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee is determined. The State may
withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State deems necessary to protect the State,
including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of former lien holders, or to reimburse the State
for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar goods or services. Grantee shall be liable for excess
costs incurred by the State in procuring from third parties replacement Work, Services or substitute
Goods as cover.
B. Early Termination in the Public Interest
The State is entering into this Grant for the purpose of carrying out the public policy of the State of
Colorado, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, and/or courts. If this Grant ceases to further
the public policy of the State, the State, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Grant in whole or in part.
Exercise by the State of this right shall not constitute a breach of the State’s obligations hereunder. This
subsection shall not apply to a termination of this Grant by the State for cause or breach by Grantee, which
shall be governed by §15(A) or as otherwise specifically provided for herein.
i. Method and Content
The State shall notify Grantee of such termination in accordance with §16. The notice shall specify the
effective date of the termination and whether it affects all or a portion of this Grant.
ii. Obligations and Rights
Upon receipt of a termination notice, Grantee shall be subject to and comply with the same obligations
and rights set forth in §15(A)(i).
iii. Payments
If this Grant is terminated by the State pursuant to this §15(B), Grantee shall be paid an amount which
bears the same ratio to the total reimbursement under this Grant as the Services satisfactorily
performed bear to the total Services covered by this Grant, less payments previously made.
Additionally, if this Grant is less than 60% completed, the State may reimburse Grantee for a portion
of actual out-of-pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this Grant) incurred by Grantee
which are directly attributable to the uncompleted portion of Grantee’s obligations hereunder; provided
that the sum of any and all reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum amount payable to Grantee
hereunder.
C. Remedies Not Involving Termination
The State, in its sole discretion, may exercise one or more of the following remedies in addition to other
remedies available to it:
i. Suspend Performance
Suspend Grantee’s performance with respect to all or any portion of this Grant pending necessary
corrective action as specified by the State without entitling Grantee to an adjustment in price/cost or
performance schedule. Grantee shall promptly cease performance and incurring costs in accordance
with the State’s directive and the State shall not be liable for costs incurred by Grantee after the
suspension of performance under this provision.
ii. Withhold Payment
Withhold payment to Grantee until corrections in Grantee’s performance are satisfactorily made and
completed.
iii. Deny Payment
Deny payment for those obligations not performed, that due to Grantee’s actions or inactions, cannot
be performed or, if performed, would be of no value to the State; provided, that any denial of payment
shall be reasonably related to the value to the State of the obligations not performed.
iv. Removal
Request removal of any of Grantee’s employees, agents, or Subgrantees whom the State deems
incompetent, careless, insubordinate, unsuitable, or otherwise unacceptable, or whose continued
relation to this Grant is deemed to be contrary to the public interest or not in the State’s best interest.
v. Intellectual Property
If Grantee infringes on a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right
while performing its obligations under this Grant, Grantee shall, at the State’s option (a) obtain for the
State or Grantee the right to use such products and services; (b) replace any Goods, Services, or other
product involved with non-infringing products or modify them so that they become non-infringing; or,
(c) if neither of the foregoing alternatives are reasonably available, remove any infringing Goods,
Services, or products and refund the price paid therefore to the State.
P16
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 11 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES
Each individual identified below is the principal representative of the designating Party. All notices required to
be given hereunder shall be hand delivered with receipt required or sent by certified or registered mail to such
Party’s principal representative at the address set forth below. In addition to, but not in lieu of a hard-copy
notice, notice also may be sent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses, if any, set forth below. Either Party may from
time to time designate by written notice substitute addresses or persons to whom such notices shall be sent.
Unless otherwise provided herein, all notices shall be effective upon receipt.
A. State:
Jane Hickey
Division of Transit and Rail
4201 E. Arkansas Ave.
Denver, CO 80222
303-757-9237
jane.hickey@state.co.us
B. Grantee:
John D. Kreuger/Lynn Rumbaugh
CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, CO, 81611-1902
970-920-5042/970-920
john.krueger@cityofaspen.com/lynn.rumbaugh@cityofa
17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE
Any software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other documents, drawings, models,
materials, or Work Product of any type, including drafts, prepared by Grantee in the performance of its
obligations under this Grant shall be the exclusive property of the State and, all Work Product shall be delivered
to the State by Grantee upon completion or termination hereof. The State’s exclusive rights in such Work
Product shall include, but not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, and prepare derivative
works. Grantee shall not use, willingly allow, cause or permit such Work Product to be used for any purpose
other than the performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the State.
18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, nothing herein shall constitute a waiver, express or
implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the GIA. Liability for
claims for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the State of Colorado, its departments,
institutions, agencies, boards, officials, and employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of the GIA
and the risk management statutes, CRS §24-30-1501, et seq., as amended.
19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
If the maximum amount payable to Grantee under this Grant is $100,000 or greater, either on the Effective Date
or at anytime thereafter, this §19 applies.
Grantee agrees to be governed, and to abide, by the provisions of CRS §24-102-205, §24-102-206, §24-103-
601, §24-103.5-101 and §24-105-102 concerning the monitoring of vendor performance on state Grants and
inclusion of Grant performance information in a statewide Contract Management System.
Grantee’s performance shall be subject to Evaluation and Review in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Grant, State law, including CRS §24-103.5-101, and State Fiscal Rules, Policies and Guidance.
P17
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 12 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
Evaluation and Review of Grantee’s performance shall be part of the normal Grant administration process and
Grantee’s performance will be systematically recorded in the statewide Contract Management System. Areas of
Evaluation and Review shall include, but shall not be limited to quality, cost and timeliness. Collection of
information relevant to the performance of Grantee’s obligations under this Grant shall be determined by the
specific requirements of such obligations and shall include factors tailored to match the requirements of
Grantee’s obligations. Such performance information shall be entered into the statewide Contract Management
System at intervals established herein and a final Evaluation, Review and Rating shall be rendered within 30
days of the end of the Grant term. Grantee shall be notified following each performance Evaluation and Review,
and shall address or correct any identified problem in a timely manner and maintain work progress.
Should the final performance Evaluation and Review determine that Grantee demonstrated a gross failure to
meet the performance measures established hereunder, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of
Personnel and Administration (Executive Director), upon request by CDOT and showing of good cause, may
debar Grantee and prohibit Grantee from bidding on future Grants. Grantee may contest the final Evaluation,
Review and Rating by: (a) filing rebuttal statements, which may result in either removal or correction of the
evaluation (CRS §24-105-102(6)), or (b) under CRS §24-105-102(6), exercising the debarment protest and
appeal rights provided in CRS §§24-109-106, 107, 201 or 202, which may result in the reversal of the
debarment and reinstatement of Grantee, by the Executive Director, upon a showing of good cause.
20. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Assignment and Subgrants
Grantee’s rights and obligations hereunder are personal and may not be transferred, assigned or subgranted
without the prior, written consent of the State. Any attempt at assignment, transfer, or subgranting without
such consent shall be void. All assignments, subgrants, or Subgrantees approved by Grantee or the State are
subject to all of the provisions hereof. Grantee shall be solely responsible for all aspects of subgranting
arrangements and performance.
B. Binding Effect
Except as otherwise provided in §20(A), all provisions herein contained, including the benefits and
burdens, shall extend to and be binding upon the Parties’ respective heirs, legal representatives, successors,
and assigns.
C. Captions
The captions and headings in this Grant are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to
interpret, define, or limit its provisions.
D. Counterparts
This Grant may be executed in multiple identical original counterparts, all of which shall constitute one
agreement.
E. Entire Understanding
This Grant represents the complete integration of all understandings between the Parties and all prior
representations and understandings, oral or written, are merged herein. Prior or contemporaneous additions,
deletions, or other changes hereto shall not have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein.
F. Indemnification-General
Grantee shall indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and all
claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs,
incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or assignees
pursuant to the terms of this Grant; however, the provisions hereof shall not be construed or interpreted as a
waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions, of the
GIA, or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 USC 2671 et seq., as applicable, as now or hereafter amended.
G. Jurisdiction and Venue
All suits, actions, or proceedings related to this Grant shall be held in the State of Colorado and exclusive
venue shall be in the City and County of Denver.
H. Modification
i. By the Parties:
Except as specifically provided in this Grant, modifications of this Grant shall not be effective unless
agreed to in writing by the Parties in an amendment to this Grant, properly executed and approved in
accordance with applicable Colorado State law, State Fiscal Rules, and Office of the State Controller
P18
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 13 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
Policies, including, but not limited to, the policy entitled MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS -
TOOLS AND FORMS.
ii. By Operation of Law
This Grant is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in federal or Colorado State
law, or their implementing regulations. Any such required modification automatically shall be
incorporated into and be part of this Grant on the effective date of such change, as if fully set forth
herein.
I. Order of Precedence
The provisions of this Grant shall govern the relationship of the Parties. In the event of conflicts or
inconsistencies between this Grant and its exhibits and attachments including, but not limited to, those
provided by Grantee, such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in
the following order of priority:
i. Colorado Special Provisions,
ii. The Provision of the main body of this Grant,
iii. Exhibit A (Scope of Work and Budget),
iv. Exhibit B (FASTER Program Requirements),
v. Any executed Option Letter, and
vi. Other Exhibits in descending order of their attachment.
J. Severability
Provided this Grant can be executed and performance of the obligations of the Parties accomplished within
its intent, the provisions hereof are severable and any provision that is declared invalid or becomes
inoperable for any reason shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof.
K. Survival of Certain Grant Terms
Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, provisions of this Grant requiring continued performance,
compliance, or effect after termination hereof, shall survive such termination and shall be enforceable by
the State if Grantee fails to perform or comply as required.
L. Taxes
The State is exempt from all federal excise taxes under IRC Chapter 32 (No. 84-730123K) and from all
State and local government sales and use taxes under CRS §§39-26-101 and 201 et seq. Such exemptions
apply when materials are purchased or services rendered to benefit the State; provided however, that certain
political subdivisions (e.g., City of Denver) may require payment of sales or use taxes even though the
product or service is provided to the State. Grantee shall be solely liable for paying such taxes as the State
is prohibited from paying for or reimbursing Grantee for them.
M. Third Party Beneficiaries
Enforcement of this Grant and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely to the Parties, and
not to any third party. Any services or benefits which third parties receive as a result of this Grant are
incidental to the Grant, and do not create any rights for such third parties.
N. Waiver
Waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Grant, or any right or remedy hereunder,
whether explicitly or by lack of enforcement, shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver of any
subsequent breach of such term, provision or requirement, or of any other term, provision, or requirement.
O. CORA Disclosure
To the extent not prohibited by federal law, this Grant and the performance measures and standards under
CRS §24-103.5-101, if any, are subject to public release through the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS
§24-72-101, et seq.
21. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS
These Special Provisions apply to all Grants except where noted in italics.
A. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202 (1)
This Grant shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or
designee.
P19
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 14 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
B. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5)
Financial obligations of the State payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that
purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available.
C. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY
No term or condition of this Grant shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any
of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2671 et
seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended.
D. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
Grantee shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an employee. Neither
Grantee nor any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the State.
Grantee and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers compensation
benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Grantee or
any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to Grantee and its
employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Grantee or a third party. Grantee shall pay
when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head taxes incurred pursuant to this
Grant. Grantee shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind the State to any agreement, liability
or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein. Grantee shall (a) provide and keep in force workers'
compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide
proof thereof when requested by the State, and (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its
employees and agents.
E. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW
Grantee shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules, and regulations in effect or
hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair
employment practices.
F. CHOICE OF LAW
Colorado law, and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation,
execution, and enforcement of this grant. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which
conflicts with said laws, rules, and regulations shall be null and void. Any provision incorporated herein by
reference which purports to negate this or any other Special Provision in whole or in part shall not be valid
or enforceable or available in any action at law, whether by way of complaint, defense, or otherwise. Any
provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this
Grant, to the extent capable of execution.
G. BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED
The State of Colorado does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any
provision to the contrary in this Grant or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void.
H. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00
State or other public funds payable under this Grant shall not be used for the acquisition, operation, or
maintenance of computer software in violation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing
restrictions. Grantee hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Grant and any extensions,
Grantee has and shall maintain in place appropriate systems and controls to prevent such improper use of
public funds. If the State determines that Grantee is in violation of this provision, the State may exercise
any remedy available at law or in equity or under this Grant, including, without limitation, immediate
termination of this Grant and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws or applicable licensing
restrictions.
I. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST/CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201 and
24-50-507
The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial
interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Grant. Grantee has no interest and shall not
acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of
Grantee’s services and Grantee shall not employ any person having such known interests.
P20
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 15 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
J. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4
[Not applicable to intergovernmental agreements]
Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3.5), the State Controller may withhold payment under the State’s vendor
offset intercept system for debts owed to State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or child support
arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax, accrued interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39-21-101, et
seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; (d)
amounts required to be paid to the Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing
to the State as a result of final agency determination or judicial action.
K. PUBLIC GRANTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101
[Not applicable to agreements relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment advisory
services or fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental agreements, or
information technology services or products and services]
Grantee certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien
who will perform work under this Grant and will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who
are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Grant, through
participation in the E-Verify Program or the State program established pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5)(c),
Grantee shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant or
enter into a grant with a Subgrantee that fails to certify to Grantee that the Subgrantee shall not knowingly
employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant. Grantee (a) shall not use E-
Verify Program or State program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants
while this Grant is being performed, (b) shall notify the Subgrantee and the granting State agency within
three days if Grantee has actual knowledge that a Subgrantee is employing or contracting with an illegal
alien for work under this Grant, (c) shall terminate the subgrant if a Subgrantee does not stop employing or
contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice, and (d) shall comply with
reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5), by
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Grantee participates in the State program, Grantee
shall deliver to the granting State agency, Institution of Higher Education or political subdivision, a written,
notarized affirmation, affirming that Grantee has examined the legal work status of such employee, and
shall comply with all of the other requirements of the State program. If Grantee fails to comply with any
requirement of this provision or CRS §8-17.5-101 et seq., the granting State agency, institution of higher
education or political subdivision may terminate this Grant for breach and, if so terminated, Grantee shall
be liable for damages.
L. PUBLIC GRANTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101
Grantee, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of
perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal
law, (b) shall comply with the provisions of CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has produced one form of
identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of this Grant.
SPs Effective 1/1/09
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
P21
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 16 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
22. SIGNATURE PAGE
THE PARTIES HERETO HAVE EXECUTED THIS GRANT
* Persons signing for Grantee hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Grantee’s behalf and
acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect.
GRANTEE
CITY OF ASPEN
By:
Print Name of Authorized Individual
Title:
Print Title of Authorized Individual
_____________________________________________
*Signature
Date: _________________________
STATE OF COLORADO
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor
Colorado Department of Transportation
Shailen P. Bhatt – Executive Director
_______________________________________
By:
Signatory avers to the State Controller or delegate that, except
as specified herein, Grantee has not begun performance or that
a Statutory Violation waiver has been requested under Fiscal
Rules
Date: _________________________
2nd Grantee Signature if Needed
By:
Title:
______________________________________________
*Signature
Date: _________________________
ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Grant is not valid until signed and
dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If
Grantee begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grantee for such
performance or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder.
STATE CONTROLLER
Robert Jaros, CPA, MBA, JD
By:___________________________________________
Colorado Department of Transportation
Date:_____________________
P22
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 17 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
23. EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET
The City of Aspen
Grant Year 2016
Title of Project FASTER
Project
Description
Purchase (2) Bus Replacements
Recipient The City of Aspen DUNS 076460104
Contact John D. Krueger / Lynn Rumbaugh
City of Aspen Transportation Dept.
VEND 2000009
Address 130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone 970-920-5042
970-920-5038
Email John.Krueger@cityofaspen.com
Lynn.Rumbaugh@cityofaspen.com
Fax 970-544-9447
Project Budget *WBS 21203.10.50
State Share (at 80% or less) $ 720,000
Local Share (at 20% or more) $ 180,000
Total Project Budget $ 900,000
*The grants and line item WBS numbers may be replaced without changing the amount of the grant at CDOT’s discretion.
A. Agency Overview
The City of Aspen transit system consists of eight fare-free routes. Service operates to and from the Rubey Park
Transit Center for over 20 hours a day, 365 days a year, more than 52,000 hours a year and over 480,000 annual
miles and carries over 1 million passengers annually. Seven routes are fixed; the eighth route operates as a
combined fixed route and dial-a-ride service. The transit system operates a fleet of sixteen vehicles consisting
of buses and shuttle vehicles.
The City of Aspen transit system has been operating for 30 years. It provides high quality free transit service to
local residents, commuting workers and tourists. Aspen’s transit system interfaces seamlessly with RFTA’s
regional system as well as with the Town of Snowmass Village’s shuttle system by offering fare-free service in
both communities and their environs. Our local transit system has helped our community come into compliance
with pm-10 clean air standards and has kept the community traffic levels at or below 1993 standards.
The City contracts with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) to operate the system.
B. Project Description
The City of Aspen shall perform all Project activities described in the application submitted to the State on
November 26, 2014 and as specifically described in this Grant. The application and application update are
incorporated herein by reference to the extent consistent with this Grant.
The City of Aspen shall use FASTER capital funds to purchase (2) Bus Replacements and (1) with 100% local
funding (“Project Property”). Options may include but are not limited to the following:
• 35’ – 40’ foot size, approximately 30-50 passenger capacity
• Gasoline/Diesel/Electric Hybrid/Compressed natural gas CNG
• 2 wheelchair securement locations
• ADA compliant lift
• Back-up cameras
• Lettering
• Mud & snow tires
• Drop-down chains
• Fold away seats
• Wheel chair anchorage systems
P23
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 18 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
• TDSS – Tie Down Securement System
The vehicles being purchased are to replace the following existing vehicles in the City of Aspen’s fleet:
VIN#: COTRAMS Cap
Inv#:
Year Make Model
1N9TA1CA41L013211 2001 Neoplan AN 435-L
1N9TA1CA11L013215 2001 Neoplan AN 435-L
The third, provided with 100% local funding: 016 1 Bus Bus # 263 vin # 1N9TA1CAX1L013214
C. Performance Standards
1. The City of Aspen will utilize the Project Property purchased through this project in its transit operations to
achieve the performance goals established by CDOT. The City of Aspen will comply with established
CDOT requirements for maintenance of effort and effective utilization of equipment that maintains a State
or Federal Interest.
2. Performance will be reviewed annually. If the State's review determines the City of Aspen’s performance
does not meet the standards of performance set forth in this section, the following steps will be taken:
a. The State will notify the City of Aspen in writing that performance does not meet the requirements of
this Grant.
b. Thirty (30) calendar days after date of such notification, the City of Aspen will submit to the State a
written explanation of the cause(s) of the substandard performance, which shall include a written plan
for improving performance.
c. The State will review the plan for improvement and notify the City of Aspen of its’ decision within 21
days.
d. If the plan is approved by the Department, the City of Aspen will implement the plan immediately
upon receipt of the State's notification. If the plan is not approved by the Department remedial
measures will be determined on a case by case basis. Such remedial measures may include termination
of this Grant and return of the grant funds or capital equipment purchased with such funds, in
accordance with the terms of this Grant.
3. Milestones
Grant Agreement with CDOT is Executed Jan 2016
Submit Procurement Process and Bid Package to CDOT Project Manager
for Approval
Jan 2016
Bid Package is Released (within 60 days of execution date) Jan 2016
Bids are Due (generally 30 days from release date) Jan 2016
Process Documentation Submitted to CDOT Project Manager for
Concurrence
Feb 2016
Submit Procurement Authorization to CDOT Project Manager for
Approval
Feb 2016
Issue Purchase Order to Vendor for Vehicle Mar 2016
Take Delivery of First Vehicle Jul 2016
Accept First Vehicle Jul 2016
Take Delivery of and Accept All Vehicles (TBD)
Submit Reimbursement Request (see Procurement Packet) to DTR Aug 2016
P24
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 19 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
D. Project Budget
1. The cost for this FASTER project is estimated to be as follows:
*WBS 21203.10.50
State Share (at 80% or less) $ 720,000
Local Share (at 20% or more) $ 180,000
Total Project Budget $ 900,000
2. The Total Project Budget shall not exceed the maximum allowable cost of $900,000. The State will pay no
more than 80% of the eligible, actual capital costs up to the maximum FASTER amount of $720,000. In the
event the final, actual Project cost is less than the maximum allowable cost, the State is not obligated to
provide any more than 80% of the eligible, actual capital costs. The State will retain any remaining balance
of the FASTER share. The City of Aspen shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred in the Project in
excess of the amount paid by the State from FASTER funds for the state share of eligible, actual costs.
3. No refund or reduction of the amount of the Grantee's share to be provided will be allowed unless there is
at the same time a refund or reduction of the state share of a proportionate amount.
4. The State shall have no obligation to provide State funds for use on this Project. The State will administer
state funds for this Project under the terms of this Grant, provided that the FASTER share of funds to be
administered by the State are made available and remain available. In no event shall the State have any
obligation to provide State FASTER funds for the City of Aspen’s share of the Project. The City of Aspen
shall initiate and prosecute to completion all actions necessary to enable the City of Aspen to provide its
share of the total project budget at or prior to the time that such funds are needed to meet the total project
budget.
E. Contract Expiration
This Grant will expire according to the terms and conditions of the Grant. The expiration date for this Grant is
December 31, 2018.
F. Procurement
Procurement of this capital equipment will comply with State procurement procedures outlined in “A Handbook
for the Procurement of Goods and Services using FTA/CDOT Funds, November 2009”, (found at:
http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/transitandrail/transit/transit-grant-programs/procurement-policies-and-
practices/2009%20Procurement%20Handbook%20and%20Appendices%20FINAL_11_16_09.pdf/ ) as well as the FTA’s
requirements for Third Party Contracting outlined in Circular 4220.1F 11-01-08 (found at:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/legislation_law/12349_8641.html). Where available, purchase by the Grantee of the
capital equipment may be pursuant to the most current State Price Agreement, (found at:
http://www.gssa.state.co.us/co/portal.nsf/xpPriceAgreementsByCategory.xsp).
In addition to the basic State requirements outlined below, State and FTA (where applicable) procedures for
purchase of this Project Property must be followed and will be outlined prior to purchase.
1. Before proceeding with the purchase directly from the vendor, the City of Aspen shall submit Procurement
Authorization along with a purchase order for the Project Property to CDOT for approval.
• If the Grantee is a non-profit organization, AND elects to use the State of Colorado State Price
Agreement to purchase goods or services under this contract, the Grantee shall also submit an
application to and be qualified by the State Procurement Office prior to proceeding with the purchase.
IMPORTANT NOTE: All milestones in this scope of work must be completed no later than the
contract expiration date of December 31, 2018. (current year, plus two)
P25
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 20 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
2. Once the purchase order is verified by CDOT and the Project Property is ordered, the State shall be notified
of the agreed upon delivery date between the selected vendor and the City of Aspen and CDOT may choose
to attend the delivery of the Project Property.
3. Upon delivery, the City of Aspen shall be responsible for having the Project Property inspected and
accepted within ten (10) working days of delivery from the vendor; unless Project Property defects
discovered during inspection prevents the City of Aspen from accepting the Project Property in the 10 day
time frame, of at which time the vendor will be contacted to rectify the issue(s) of concern.
4. The City of Aspen shall be responsible for reimbursing the entire amount of the Project Property to the
selected vendor within three (3) working days after acceptance of the Project Property.
5. It is the City of Aspen’s responsibility to pay the Project Property vendor in full under the terms of this
contract, unless financial hardship is proven by the grantee that does not allow a grantee agency to pay the
entire amount prior to seeking reimbursement from the State. CDOT must approve this hardship request in
advance. In these cases, CDOT will only approve the situation if the vendor is willing to accept payment
within a 30 day timeframe and also willing to withhold title and Manufacturers Statement of Origin (MSO)
paperwork until full payment is received from the grantee. Title paperwork can also be sent to CDOT to
withhold if the vendor deems necessary.
The FASTER funding share provided for this capital purchase is $720,000.
G. Reimbursement Eligibility
1. Requests for reimbursement for project costs will be paid to the City of Aspen upon presentation of
invoice(s) to the State for eligible costs incurred after the date of execution of this Grant through December
31, 2018 and within the limits of this Grant.
2. Grantees must bill the State for the state share specified within the provisions set forth in Paragraph
F: Procurement or as otherwise specified by the State prior to the receipt of capital equipment. The
state share must be paid to the vendor whether or not the Grantee has received the reimbursement
from the State.
H. State Interest/Service Life
1. State Interest in the Project Property will expire as determined by the State. State Interest is defined by the
service life of the capital equipment, which is determined by the State.
2. No later than three (3) days after the purchase and acceptance of the Project Property, the City of Aspen
shall provide, in writing, to the State a “Certificate of Procurement and Acceptance” form.
3. The City of Aspen shall not sell or otherwise release the Project Property to any party while there is State
Interest in the Project Property without written approval from the State.
I. Safety Data
The City of Aspen shall maintain and submit, as requested, data related to bus safety. This may include, but not
be limited to, the number of vehicle accidents within certain measurement parameters set forth by the State; the
number and extent of passenger injuries or claims; and, the number and extent of employee accidents, injuries
and incidents.
P26
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 21 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
J. Ongoing Operational Funding
The City of Aspen manages an eight-route transit system that carries over 1-million passengers annually on a
fare-free* system. The City has committed to offering extensive transit services via a number of community
planning documents. Funding for transit service operations is generated via sales tax, lodging tax and paid
parking revenues.
*With the exception of door-to-door service on its fixed route deviation service, Mountain Valley Dial-a-Ride.
K. Project Measurement and Certification
1. The City of Aspen will work cooperatively with CDOT to market and/or publicize this project as requested
by CDOT. Such efforts may include ribbon cuttings, news articles, photos, and/or other media to be
supplied by The City of Aspen as appropriate.
2. The City of Aspen expects these buses (as part of the entirety of its fleet) to, on an annual basis,:
• provide approximately 1.1 million rides.
• travel approximately 500,000 miles.
• operate for approximately 54,500 hours.
P27
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 22 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
24. EXHIBIT B - FASTER Program Requirements
1. PROJECT PAYMENT PROVISIONS
A. The State will reimburse the Grantee for incurred costs relative to the Project following the State's
review and approval of such charges, subject to the terms and conditions of this Grant. Provided,
however, that charges incurred by the Grantee prior to the Effective Date of this Grant will not be
charged by the Grantee to the Project, and will not be reimbursed by the State.
B. The State will reimburse the Grantee’s reasonable, allocable, allowable costs of performance of the
Work, not exceeding the maximum total of this Grant. The applicable principles described in Exhibit D
shall govern the allowability and allocability of costs under this Grant. The Grantee shall comply with
all such principles. To be eligible for reimbursement, costs by the Grantee shall be:
i. in accordance with the provisions, terms and conditions of this Grant;
ii. necessary for the accomplishment of the Work;
iii. reasonable in the amount for the Goods and Services provided;
iv. actual net cost to the Grantee (i.e. the price paid minus any refunds, rebates, or other items of
value received by the Grantee that have the effect of reducing the cost actually incurred);
v. incurred for Work performed after the Effective Date of this Grant; and
vi. satisfactorily documented.
Examples of ineligible costs include:
i. Staff or administrative overhead costs of the Grantee, unless specifically allowed for in the Scope
of Work;
ii. Fines and penalties; and
iii. Entertainment expenses.
C. The Grantee shall establish and maintain a proper accounting system in accordance with generally
accepted accounting standards and principles (a separate set of accounts, or as a separate and integral
part of its current accounting scheme) to assure that Grant Funds are expended and costs accounted for
in a manner consistent with this Grant and Project objectives:
i. All allowable costs charged to the Project, including any approved services contributed by the
Grantee or others, shall be supported by properly executed payrolls, time records, invoices, grants
or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature of the charges.
ii. Any check or order drawn up by the Grantee, including any item which is or will be chargeable
against the Project account shall be drawn up only in accordance with a properly signed voucher
then on file in the office of the Grantee, which will detail the purpose for which said check or
order is drawn. All checks, payrolls, invoices, grants, vouchers, orders or other accounting
documents shall be clearly identified, readily accessible, and to the extent feasible, kept separate
and apart from all other such documents.
D. The Grantee will prepare and submit to the State, no more than monthly, charges for costs incurred
relative to the Pproject. The Grantee’s invoices shall include a description of the amounts of Services
performed, the dates of performance and the amounts and description of reimbursable expenses. The
invoices will be prepared in accordance with the State’s standard policies, procedures and standardized
billing format to be supplied by the State.
E. To be eligible for payment, billings must be received within 60 days after the period for which
payment is being requested and final billings on this Grant must be received by the State within 60
days after termination of this Grant.
i. Payments pursuant to this Grant shall be made in whole or in part, from available funds,
encumbered for the purchase of the described services. If this Grant is terminated, final payment
to the Grantee may be withheld at the discretion of the State until completion of final audit.
2. STATE AND GRANTEE COMMITMENTS
CDOT and the Grantee also agree to ensure the Project is completed within the applicable design and
construction standards in accordance with Exhibit F-State and Grantee Commitments.
3. PROCUREMENT STANDARDS
The Grantee agrees to carry out its procurements consistent with the general procurement standards of the
State. The Grantee agrees to follow the general procurement standards set forth in Exhibit E.
P28
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 23 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
4. CONFORMANCE WITH LAW
The Grantee and its agent(s) will adhere to all applicable state and federal laws, Executive Orders and
implementing regulations as they currently exist and may hereafter be amended. Further, the Grantee
agrees to comply with the intent and requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regardless of whether or not there is federal funding involved, as is consistent with CDOT’s Environmental
Stewardship Guide.
5. NON DISCRIMINATION
The Grantee agrees to comply with and ensure any Sub grantees comply with, the requirements of:
A. The American with Disabilities Act, Title II, and its implementing regulations--28 CFR Part 35, and
49 CFR parts 27, 37 and 38; and
B. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Titles VI and VII, and their implementing regulations.
6. STATE INTEREST This section applies if box checked
The Grantee understands and agrees that the State retains a State interest in any real property, or equipment
financed with State assistance (Project property) until, and to the extent that the State relinquishes its State
interest in that Project property, as described in Exhibit A. All State interests in real property or equipment
shall survive termination, expiration or cancellation of this Grant. With respect to any Project property
financed with State assistance under this Grant, the Grantee agrees to comply with the following:
A. Use of Project Property. The Grantee agrees to use Project property for appropriate Project purposes
for the duration of the useful life of that property, as required by the State and set forth in the scope.
Should the Grantee unreasonably delay or fail to use Project property during the useful life of that
property, the Grantee agrees that it may be required to return the entire amount of the State assistance
expended on that property. The Grantee further agrees to notify the State immediately when any
Project property is withdrawn from Project use or when any Project property is used in a manner
substantially different from the representations the Grantee has made to CDOT.
B. Maintenance. The Grantee agrees to maintain Project property in good operating order to the State’s
satisfaction.
C. Records. The Grantee agrees to keep satisfactory records pertaining to the use of Project property, and
submit to the State upon request such information as may be required to assure compliance with this
Section.
D. Encumbrance of Project Property. The Grantee agrees to maintain satisfactory continuing control of
Project property as follows:
i. Written Transactions. The Grantee agrees that it will not execute any transfer of title, lease, lien,
pledge, mortgage, encumbrance, third party grant, subgrant, grant anticipation note, alienation,
innovative finance arrangement (such as a cross border lease, leveraged lease, or otherwise), or
any other obligation pertaining to Project property, that in any way would affect the continuing
State interest in that Project property.
ii. Oral Transactions. The Grantee agrees that it will not obligate itself in any manner to any third
party with respect to Project property.
iii. Other Actions. The Grantee agrees that it will not take any action adversely affecting the State
interest in or impair the Grantee's continuing control of the use of Project property.
E. Transfer of Project Property. The Grantee understands and agrees as follows:
i. Grantee Request. The Grantee may transfer any Project property financed with State assistance to
another public body or private nonprofit entity to be used for the same purpose set forth herein
with no further obligation to the State Government, provided the transfer is approved by the State
in writing.
ii. State Government Direction. The Grantee agrees that the State may direct the disposition of, and
even require the Grantee to transfer, title to any Project property financed with State assistance
under this Grant if it is found that the Project property is not being used for the intended purpose
as stated in the Scope of Work.
iii. Leasing Project Property to Another Party. If the Grantee leases any Project property to another
party, the Grantee agrees to retain ownership of the leased Project property, and assure that the
lessee will use the Project property appropriately, either through a written lease between the
Grantee and lessee, or another similar document, consistent with the Project purpose set forth
P29
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 24 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
herein. Upon request by the State, the Grantee agrees to provide a copy of any relevant
documents.
F. Disposition of Project Property. The Grantee agrees that the State may establish the useful life of
Project property, and that it will use Project property continuously and appropriately throughout the
useful life of that property.
i. Project Property Prematurely Withdrawn from Use. For Project property withdrawn from
appropriate use before its useful life has expired, the Grantee agrees as follows:
a). Notification Requirement. The Grantee agrees to notify the State immediately when any
Project property is prematurely withdrawn from appropriate use, whether by planned
withdrawal, misuse, or casualty loss.
b). Calculating the Fair Market Value of Prematurely Withdrawn Project Property. The
Grantee agrees that the State retains a State interest in the fair market value of Project
property prematurely withdrawn from appropriate use. The amount of the State interest in
the Project property shall be determined by the ratio of the State assistance awarded for
the property to the actual cost of the property. The Grantee agrees that the fair market
value of Project property prematurely withdrawn from use will be calculated as follows:
I. Equipment. The Grantee agrees that the fair market value of Project equipment and
supplies shall be calculated by straight-line depreciation of that property, based on
the useful life of the equipment as established or approved by the State. The fair
market value of Project equipment shall be the value immediately before the
occurrence prompting the withdrawal of the equipment or supplies from
appropriate use. In the case of Project equipment lost or damaged by fire, casualty,
or natural disaster, the fair market value shall be calculated on the basis of the
condition of that equipment or supplies immediately before the fire, casualty, or
natural disaster, irrespective of the extent of insurance coverage.
II. Real Property. The Grantee agrees that the fair market value of real property shall
be determined either by competent appraisal based on an appropriate date
approved by the State, or by straight line depreciation, whichever is greater.
III. Exceptional Circumstances. The Grantee agrees that the State may require the use
of another method to determine the fair market value of Project property. In
unusual circumstances, the Grantee may request that another reasonable valuation
method be used including, but not limited to, accelerated depreciation, comparable
sales, or established market values. In determining whether to approve such a
request, the State may consider any action taken, omission made, or unfortunate
occurrence suffered by the Grantee with respect to the preservation of Project
property withdrawn from appropriate use.
c). Financial Obligations to the State. The Grantee agrees to remit to the State the State
interest in the fair market value of any Project property prematurely withdrawn from
appropriate use. In the case of fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the Grantee may fulfill its
obligations to remit the State interest by either:
I. Investing an amount equal to the remaining State interest in like-kind property that
is eligible for assistance within the scope of the Project that provided State
assistance for the Project property prematurely withdrawn from use; or
II. Returning to the State an amount equal to the remaining State interest in the
withdrawn Project property.
G. State Interest-Project. The State shall protect its interest in the equipment being obtained with Grant
Funds.
H. Insurance Proceeds. If the Grantee receives insurance proceeds as a result of damage or destruction to
the Project property, the Grantee agrees to:
i. Apply those insurance proceeds to the cost of replacing the damaged or destroyed Project
property taken out of service, or
ii. Return to the State an amount equal to the remaining State interest, based on straight line
depreciation, in the damaged or destroyed Project property.
I. Misused or Damaged Project Property. If any damage to Project property results from abuse or
misuse occurring with the Grantee's knowledge and consent, the Grantee agrees to restore the Project
P30
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 25 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
property to its original condition or refund the value of the State interest, based on straight line
depreciation, in that property, as the State may require.
J. Responsibilities After Project Closeout. The Grantee agrees that Project closeout by the State will
not change the Grantee’s Project property management responsibilities as stated in this Section of the
Grant.
7. RAILROADS This section applies if box checked
In the event the Project involves modification of a railroad company’s facilities whereby the Work is to be
accomplished by railroad company forces, the Grantee shall make timely application to the Public Utilities
Commission requesting its order providing for the installation of the proposed improvements and not
proceed with that part of the Work without compliance. The Grantee shall also establish contact with the
railroad company involved for the purpose of complying with applicable provisions of 23 CFR 646, subpart
B, concerning State or Federal-aid projects involving railroad facilities, including:
A. Executing an agreement setting out what work is to be accomplished and the location(s) thereof, and
that the costs of the improvement shall be eligible for federal participation.
B. Obtaining the railroad’s detailed estimate of the cost of the Work.
C. Establishing future maintenance responsibilities for the proposed installation.
D. Proscribing future use or dispositions of the proposed improvements in the event of abandonment or
elimination of a grade crossing.
E. Establishing future repair and/or replacement responsibilities in the event of accidental destruction or
damage to the installation.
8. UTILITIES, ACCESS, RIGHT OF WAY This section applies if box checked
A. Utilities. If necessary, the Grantee will be responsible for obtaining the proper clearance or
approval from any utility company, local, State, or federal government agency, or other entity which
may become involved in this Project. CDOT will reasonably assist Grantee in this regard in all cases in
which CDOT is in a unique position to do so, provided that in no case will CDOT be required to
expend State funds to provide such assistance. Prior to this Project being advertised for bids, the
Grantee will certify in writing to the State that all such clearances have been obtained.
B. Access. The Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining an access permit from CDOT Region
offices. The Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining a use and occupancy permit from the State.
Prior to this Project being advertised for bids, the Grantee will certify in writing to the State that all
such clearances have been obtained.
C. Right of Way. The parties acknowledge that the Project is for the mutual benefit of the Grantee
and CDOT, and that it shall be constructed on State right of way. As a result of the Project being
constructed on State right of way, the Grantee shall be responsible for obtaining an approved
Interchange Approval consistent with CDOT Policy Directive 1601. The Grantee shall also be
responsible for executing a grant with CDOT that addresses how construction oversight shall be
coordinated and carried out.
If the Project includes right of way, prior to this Project being advertised for bids, the Grantee will
certify in writing to the State that all right of way has been acquired in accordance with the applicable
State and federal regulations, or that no additional right of way is required.
Any acquisition/relocation activities must comply with all federal and state statutes, regulations,
CDOT policies and procedures, 49 CFR Part 24, the Uniform Act government-wide regulation-, the
FHWA “Project Development Guide” and CDOT’s “Right of Way Operations Manual”.
Allocation of responsibilities can be as follows:
i. Federal participation in right of way acquisition (3111 charges), relocation (3109 charges)
activities, if any, and right of way incidentals (expenses incidental to acquisition/relocation of
right of way – 3114 charges);
ii. Federal participation in right of way acquisition (3111 charges), relocation (3109 charges) but no
participation in incidental expenses (3114 charges); or
iii. No federal participation in right of way acquisition (3111 charges) and relocation activities (3109
P31
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 26 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
expenses).
Regardless of the option selected above, the State retains oversight responsibilities. The Grantee’s and
the State’s responsibilities for each option is specifically set forth in CDOT’s Right of Way Operation
Manual. The manual is located at http://www.dot.state.co.us/ROW_Manual/.
9. DISADVANTAGE BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (“DBE”) EFFORTS
The State encourages the Grantee to utilize small businesses owned by minorities, women and
disadvantaged individuals to the greatest extent possible without sacrificing adequate competition. The
Grantee is reminded of the illegality of discrimination and of the need to take all necessary and reasonable
steps to ensure non-discrimination in the area of contracting and procurement and to create a level playing
field where small minority, women, and disadvantaged businesses can compete fairly in CDOT assisted
contracts and procurements. This policy specifically upholds the Transportation Commission’s
commitment to fair and equitable business practices and is supported by CDOT’s small business
development programs.
The CDOT Center for Equal Opportunity (EO) can provide lists of qualified DBE/MBE/WBE vendors as
well as other technical assistance. Inquiries can be directed to the Director of Center for Equal Opportunity
or Business Team Supervisor at 303-757-9234.
10. MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS This section applies if box checked
The Grantee will maintain and operate the improvements constructed under this Grant at its own cost and
expense during their useful life, in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the State. The Grantee will make
proper provisions for such maintenance obligations each year. Such maintenance and operations shall be
conducted in accordance with all applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations which define the Grantee’s
obligations to maintain such improvements. The State may make periodic inspections of the Project to
verify that such improvements are being adequately maintained.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
P32
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 27 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
25. EXHIBIT C – VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT
This checklist is to assist the Grantee in preparation of its billing packets to CDOT. This checklist is provided as
guidance and is subject to change by CDOT. CDOT shall provide notice of any such changes to Grantee. All
items may not apply to your particular entity. CDOT’s goal is to reimburse Grantees as quickly as possible and a
well organized and complete billing packet helps to expedite payment.
□ Verification of Payment –
General Ledger Report must have the following:
○ Identify check number or EFT number
○ If no check number is available, submit Accounts Payable Distribution report with the General
Ledger
○ In-Kind (must be pre-approved by CDOT) and/or cash match
○ Date of the report
○ Accounting period
○ Current period transactions
○ Account coding for all incurred expenditures.
If no General Ledger Report, all of the following are acceptable:
○ copies of checks
○ check registers
○ paycheck stub showing payment number
○ showing the amount paid, the check number or electronic funds transfer (EFT) and the date paid.
CDOT needs to ensure that expenditures incurred by the local agencies have been paid by the local
agency before CDOT is invoiced by the local agency.
Payment amounts should match the amount requested on the reimbursement. Additional explanation
and documentation is required for any variances.
□ In-Kind or Cash Match – If an entity wishes to use these types of match, they must be approved by
CDOT prior to any work taking place.
If in-kind or cash match is being used for the local match, the in-kind or cash match portion of the
project must be included in the project application and the scope of work attached to the contract or
purchase order. FTA does not require pre-approval of in-kind or cash match, but CDOT does.
General ledger must also show the in-kind and/or cash match.
□ Indirect costs – If an entity wishes to use indirect costs, the rate must be approved by CDOT prior to
applying it to the reimbursements.
If indirect costs are being requested, an approved indirect letter from CDOT or your cognizant agency
must be provided. The letter must state what indirect costs are allowed, the approved rate and the time
period for the approval. The indirect cost plan must be reconciled annually and an updated letter
submitted each year thereafter.
□ Fringe Benefits- Considered part of the Indirect Cost Rate and must be reviewed and approved prior
to including these costs in the reimbursements.
Submit an approval letter from cognizant agency that verifies fringe benefit or
Submit the following fringe benefit rate proposal package to CDOT Audit Division:
○ Copy of Financial Statement
○ Personnel Cost Worksheet
○ State of Employee Benefits
○ Cost Policy Statement
P33
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 28 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
26. EXHIBIT D - 49 CFR 18 Subpart C
This Exhibit D includes select applicable provisions as they exist or as of the Effective Date. Grantee is
responsible for compliance with all State and federal laws, rules and regulations as they currently exist and may
hereafter be amended.
Financial Administration
Sec. 18.20 Standards for financial management systems.
(a) A State must expend and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and procedures for
expending and accounting for its own funds. Fiscal control and accounting procedures of the State, as well
as its subgrantees and cost-type contractors, must be sufficient to-
(1) Permit preparation of reports required by this part and the statutes authorizing the grant, and
(2) Permit the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have not
been used in violation of the restrictions and prohibitions of applicable statutes.
(b) The financial management systems of other grantees and subgrantees must meet the following standards:
(1) Financial reporting. Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of financially-
assisted activities must be made in accordance with the financial reporting requirements of the grant
or subgrant.
(2) Accounting records. Grantees and subgrantees must maintain records which adequately identify the
source and application of funds provided for financially assisted activities. These records must
contain information pertaining to grant or subgrant awards and authorizations, obligations,
unobligated balances, assets, liabilities, outlays or expenditures, and income.
(3) Internal control. Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant
cash, real and personal property, and other assets. Grantees and subgrantees must adequately
safeguard all such property and must assure that it is used solely for authorized purposes.
(4) Budget control. Actual expenditures or outlays must be compared with budgeted amounts for each
grant or subgrant. Financial information must be related to performance or productivity data,
including the development of unit cost information whenever appropriate or specifically required in
the grant or subgrant agreement. If unit cost data are required, estimates based on available
documentation will be accepted whenever possible.
(5) Allowable cost. Applicable OMB cost principles, agency program regulations, and the terms of grant
and subgrant agreements will be followed in determining the reasonableness, allowability, and
allocability of costs.
(6) Source documentation. Accounting records must be supported by such source documentation as
cancelled checks, paid bills, payrolls, time and attendance records, contract and subgrant award
documents, etc.
Sec. 18.22 Allowable costs.
(a) Limitation on use of funds. Grant funds may be used only for:
(1) The allowable costs of the grantees, subgrantees and cost-type contractors, including allowable costs
in the form of payments to fixed-price contractors; and
(2) Reasonable fees or profit to cost-type contractors but not any fee or profit (or other increment above
allowable costs) to the grantee or subgrantee.
(b) Applicable cost principles. For each kind of organization, there is a set of federal principles for determining
allowable costs. Allowable costs will be determined in accordance with the cost principles applicable to the
organization incurring the costs. The following chart lists the kinds of organizations and the applicable cost
principles.
P34
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 29 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
For the costs of a Use the principles in--
State, local or Indian tribal government. OMB Circular A-87.
Private nonprofit organization other than an (1)
institution of higher education, (2) hospital, or (3)
organization named in OMB Circular A122 as not
subject to that circular.
OMB Circular A-122.
Educational institutions. OMB Circular A-21.
For-profit organization other than a hospital and an
organization named in OMB Circular A122 as not
subject to that circular.
48 CFR part 31. Contract Cost Principles
and Procedures, or uniform cost accounting
standards that comply with cost principles
acceptable to the federal agency.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
P35
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 30 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
27. EXHIBIT E - General Procurement Standards
This Exhibit E includes select applicable provisions as they exist or as of the Effective Date. Grantee is
responsible for compliance with all State and federal laws, rules and regulations as they currently exist and may
hereafter be amended.
General Procurement Standards
1. Maintain a contract administration system which ensures that contractors perform in accordance with
the terms, conditions, and specifications of the contract or purchase order.
2. Maintain a written code of standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees
engaged in the award and administration of contracts.
3. Maintain procedures that provide for the review of proposed procurements to avoid purchase of
unnecessary or duplicative items.
4. Use value engineering clauses in contracts for construction projects of sufficient size to offer
reasonable opportunities for cost reductions.
5. Make awards only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the
terms and conditions of the proposed procurement. Consideration shall be given to such matters as
contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and
technical resources.
6. Maintain records sufficient to detail the significant history of the procurement. Including:
a. Rationale for the method of procurement;
b. Selection of contract type;
c. Contractor selection or rejection;
d. Basis for the contract price; and
e. Other.
7. Maintain protest procedures to handle and resolve disputes relating to procurements.
8. All procurement transactions shall be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition.
9. Maintain written selection procedures for procurement transactions.
10. Ensure that all pre-qualified list of persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and
services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum open and free
competition.
11. Method of procurements to be followed:
a. Small Purchase – is a relatively simple and informal procurement method for securing services,
supplies, or other property that do not cost more than $150,000.00. If small purchase procedures
are used, price or rate quotation shall be obtained from at lease three sources. Quotations will be in
writing if for goods in excess of $10,000 and if for services in excess of $25,000.00.
b. Formal Sealed Bids –are publicly solicited and a firm-fixed-prices (lump sum or unit price) is
awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and
conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. This method is preferred for procuring
construction. If this method is used, the following requirements apply:
i. Must be publicly advertised;
ii. Must give at least 14 days for bidders to respond;
iii. Must include any specifications and pertinent attachments to all bidders to respond
properly;
iv. All bids will be publicly opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bid;
v. A firm fixed-price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder; and
vi. Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason.
P36
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 31 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
c. Competitive Proposals – are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of
sealed bids. If this method is used, the following requirements apply:
i. Request for proposals will be publicized;
ii. Identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance;
iii. Proposals will be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources;
iv. Have a method for conducting technical evaluation of the proposals received and for
selecting awardees;
v. Awards will be made to the responsible firm whose proposal is most advantageous to the
program, with price and other factors considered; and
vi. May be used for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering professional
services whereby competitors’ qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified
competitor is selected. Note – the method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can
only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase
other types of services through A/E firms. See also Exhibit I for procurement of A/E
professional services.
d. Noncompetitive Proposals - may be used only when the award of a contract is infeasible under the
other three methods and the following circumstances applies:
i. The item is available only from a single source;
ii. The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting
from competitive solicitation;
iii. The awarding agency authorizes noncompetitive proposals; or
iv. After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
12. Small, Minority and Women owned business enterprise and labor surplus area firms – In accordance
with Exhibit B, Section 9 take affirmative steps to assure that minority and women business
enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible.
a. Placing qualified firms on solicitation lists;
b. Assuring that firms are solicited whenever they are potential sources;
c. Dividing total quantities to permit maximum participation;
d. Establishing delivery schedules, where the requirement permits, which encourage participation by
S/M/W owned firms; and
e. Using the services of the Small Business Administration, Minority Business Development Agency
of the Department of Commerce, the CDOT EO office or other agencies that qualify S/M/W
owned firms.
13. Bonding requirements – For construction or facility improvement contracts or subcontracts exceeding
$100,000.00.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
P37
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 32 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
28. EXHIBIT F - State and Grantee Commitments
A. Design – This section applies if box checked:
1. Work including preliminary design or final design (the “Construction Plans”), design work sheets, or
special provisions and estimates (collectively referred to as the “Plans”), requires that the Grantee
comply with the following requirements, as applicable:
a. perform or provide the Plans, to the extent required by the nature of the Work;
b. prepare final design (Construction Plans) in accord with the requirements of the latest edition of
the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) manual or other
standard, such as the Uniform Building Code, as approved by CDOT;
c. prepare special provisions and estimates in accord with the State’s Roadway and Bridge Design
Manuals and Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction or Grantee specifications
if approved by CDOT;
d. include details of any required detours in the Plans, in order to prevent any interference of the
construction Work and to protect the traveling public;
e. stamp the Plans produced by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer;
f. provide final assembly of Plans and Grant documents;
g. be responsible for the Plans being accurate and complete; and
h. make no further changes in the Plans following the award of the construction contract except in
writing approved by all the Parties. The Plans shall be considered final when approved and
accepted by the Parties hereto, and when final they shall be deemed incorporated herein.
2. Grantee:
a. shall comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and applicable
federal regulations and standards as contained in the document “ADA Accessibility Requirements
in CDOT Transportation Projects”;
b. (If applicable) shall afford the State ample opportunity to review the Plans and make any changes
in the Plans that are directed by the State to comply with FHWA requirements.
c. may enter into a contract with a Subgrantee to do all or any portion of the Plans and/or of
construction administration. Provided, however, that if State funds are involved in the cost of such
work to be done by a Subgrantee, that Subgrantee subgrant (and the performance/provision of the
Plans under the subgrant) must comply with all applicable requirements of 23 CFR Part 172 and
with any procedures implementing those requirements as provided by the State, including those in
this Grant. If the Grantee does enter into a subgrant with a Subgrantee for the Work:
(1) Grantee shall submit a certification that procurement of any design Subgrantee subgrant
complied with the requirements of 23 CFR 172.5(1) prior to entering into subgrant. The State
shall either approve or deny such procurement. If denied, the Grantee may not enter into the
subgrant.
(2) Grantee shall ensure that all changes in the Subgrantee subgrant have prior approval by the
State. Such changes in the subgrant shall be by written supplement grant. As soon as the
subgrant with the Subgrantee has been awarded by the Grantee, one copy of the executed
subgrant shall be submitted to the State. Any amendments to such subgrant shall also be
submitted.
(3) it shall require that all Subgrantee billings under that subgrant shall comply with the State’s
standardized billing format. Examples of the billing formats are available from the CDOT
Agreements Office.
(4) it (or its Subgrantee) shall use the CDOT procedures described to administer that design
Subgrantee subgrant, to comply with 23 CFR 172.5(b) and (d).
(5) it may expedite any CDOT approval of its procurement process and/or Subgrantee subgrant
by submitting a letter to CDOT from the certifying Grantee’s attorney/authorized
representative certifying compliance with 23 CFR 172.5(b) and (d).
(6) it shall ensure that its Subgrantee subgrant complies with the requirements of 49 CFR 18.36(i)
and contains the following language verbatim:
(a) “The design work under this Grant shall be compatible with the requirements of the Grant
between the Grantee and the State (which is incorporated herein by this reference) for the
design/construction of the Project. The State is an intended third party beneficiary of this
subgrant for that purpose.”
P38
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 33 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
(b) “Upon advertisement of the Project work for construction, the Subgrantee shall make
available services as requested by the State to assist the State in the evaluation of
construction and the resolution of construction problems that may arise during the
construction of the Project.”
(c) “The Subgrantee shall review the construction Subgrantee’s shop drawings for
conformance with the subgrant documents and compliance with the provisions of the
State’s publication, Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction, in
connection with this work.”
d. The State, in its discretion, will review construction plans, special provisions and estimates and will
cause the Grantee to make changes therein that the State determines are necessary to ensure
compliance with State and federal requirements.
B. Construction – This section applies if box checked:
1. Work including construction requires that, the Grantee perform the construction and construction
administration in accordance with the approved Plans and CDOT oversight. Such administration shall
include Project inspection and testing; approving sources of materials; performing required plant and
shop inspections; documentation of grant payments, testing and inspection activities; preparing and
approving pay estimates; preparing, approving and securing the funding for Grant modification orders
and minor subgrant revisions; processing Subgrantee claims; construction supervision; and meeting the
Quality Control requirements of CDOT which can be found in the FHWA and CDOT Stewardship
agreement located at:
http://www.coloradodot.info/business/permits/accesspermits/references/stewardship-agreement.pdf .
2. The State shall have the authority to suspend the Work, wholly or in part, by giving written notice
thereof to the Grantee, due to the failure of the Grantee or its Subgrantee to correct Project conditions
which are unsafe for workers or for such periods as the State may deem necessary due to unsuitable
weather, or for conditions considered unsuitable for the prosecution of the Work, or for any other
condition or reason deemed by the State to be in the public interest.
3. Grantee:
a. shall appoint a qualified professional engineer, licensed in the State of Colorado, as the Grantee
Project Engineer (“LAPE”), to perform that administration. The LAPE shall administer the Project
in accordance with this Grant, the requirements of the construction subgrant and applicable State
procedures.
b. if bids are to be let for the construction of the Project, it shall advertise the call for bids upon
approval by the State and award the construction subgrant(s) to the low responsible bidder(s) upon
approval by the State.
(1) In advertising and awarding the bid for the construction, the Grantee shall comply with
applicable requirements of 23 USC §112, 23 CFR Parts 633 and 635, and CRS §24-92-101 et
seq. Those requirements include, without limitation, that the Grantee/Subgrantee shall comply
with terms and conditions as required by 23 CFR §633.102(e).
(2) The Grantee has the option to accept or reject the proposal of the apparent low bidder for
work on which competitive bids have been received. The Grantee must declare the acceptance
or rejection within 3 working days after said bids are publicly opened.
(3) By indicating its concurrence in such award, the Grantee, acting by or through its duly
authorized representatives, agrees to provide additional funds, subject to their availability and
appropriation for that purpose, if required to complete the Work under this Project if no
additional State funds will be made available for the Project. This paragraph also applies to
Projects advertised and awarded by the State.
c. If all or part of the construction Work is to be accomplished by Grantee personnel (i.e. by force
account), rather than by a competitive bidding process, the Grantee will ensure that all such force
account work is accomplished in accordance with the pertinent State specifications and
requirements with 23 CFR Part 635, Subpart B, Force Account Construction.
(1) Such Work will normally be based upon estimated quantities and firm unit prices agreed to
between the Grantee, the State and FHWA (if needed) in advance of the Work, as provided
for in 23 CFR §635.204(c). Such agreed unit prices shall constitute a commitment as to the
value of the Work to be performed.
(2) An alternative to the above is that the Grantee may agree to participate in the Work based on
actual costs of labor, equipment rental, materials supplies and supervision necessary to
P39
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 34 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
complete the Work. Where actual costs are used, eligibility of cost items shall be evaluated
for compliance with 48 CFR Part 31.
(3) Rental rates for publicly owned equipment will be determined in accordance with the State’s
Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction §109.04.
(4) All force account work shall have prior approval of the State and/or FHWA (if needed) and
shall not be initiated until the State has issued a written notice to proceed.
C. State’s Obligations
1. The State will perform a final Project inspection prior to Project acceptance as a “Quality
Control/Assurance” activity. When all Work has been satisfactorily completed, the State will sign the
CDOT Form 1212 (for FHWA), if applicable.
2. Notwithstanding any consents or approvals given by the State for the Plans, the State will not be liable
or responsible in any manner for the structural design, details or construction of any major structures
that are designed by or are the responsibility of the Grantee within the Work of this Grant.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
P40
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 35 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
29. EXHIBIT G - Option Letter
NOTE: This option is limited to the specific scenarios listed below AND cannot be used in place of exercising a
formal amendment.
SAP PO# Original CMS Option Letter No. CMS #
Contractor / Grantee: _________________________________________________
A. SUBJECT: (Choose applicable options listed below AND in section B and delete the rest)
1. Option to renew (for an additional term); this renewal cannot be used to make any change to the
original scope of work; and
2. Option to initiate next phase to include Design, Construction, Environmental, Utilities, ROW ONLY
(does not apply to Acquisition/Relocation or Railroads);
B. REQUIRED PROVISIONS. All Option Letters shall contain the appropriate provisions set forth below:
(Insert the following language for use with Option #1): In accordance with Paragraph(s) __________ of
grant routing number (insert FY, Agency code, & CLIN routing #), between the State of Colorado,
Department of Transportation, and (insert Grantees name) the State hereby exercises the option for an
additional term of (insert performance period here) at a cost/price specified in Paragraph/Section/Provision
________________ of the original grant, AND/OR an increase in the amount of goods/services at the same
rate(s) as specified in Paragraph ______________________ of the original grant.
(Insert the following language for use with Option #2): In accordance with the terms of the original
grant (insert FY, Agency code & CLIN routing #) between the State of Colorado, Department of
Transportation and (insert Grantee’s name here), the State hereby exercises the option to initiate the phase
in (indicate Fiscal Year here) that will include (describe which phase will be added and include all that
apply – Design, Construction, Environmental, Utilities, ROW incidentals or Miscellaneous). Total funds
for this Grant remain the same (indicate total dollars here) as referenced in
Paragraph/Section/Provision/Exhibit ________________of the original grant.
(The following language must be included on all options): The amount of the current Fiscal Year grant
value is (increased/decreased) by ($ amount of change) to a new Grant value of ($_____________) to
satisfy services/goods ordered under the grant for the current fiscal year (indicate Fiscal Year). The first
sentence in Paragraph/Section/Provision ____________ is hereby modified accordingly. The total grant
value to include all previous amendments, option letters, etc. is ($______________). The effective date of
this Option Letter is upon approval of the State Controller or delegate, whichever is later.
State of Colorado
John W. Hickenlooper, Governor
By: _____________________________________________
Executive Director,
Colorado Department of Transportation
Date: __________________
ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER
CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Option Letter is not valid until
signed and dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance
until such time. If Grantee begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay
Grantee for such performance or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder.
P41
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 36 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
STATE CONTROLLER
Robert Jaros, CPA, MBA, JD
By:___________________________________________
Controller
Colorado Department of Transportation
Date:_____________________
P42
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 37 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
30. EXHIBIT H - State or Federal-Aid Project Agreements with Professional Subgrantee Services
The Grantee shall use these procedures to implement State or Federal-aid project agreements with professional
Sub grantee services including, but not limited to engineering, design, or architectural services.
23 CFR Part172 applies to a federally funded Grantee project agreement administered by CDOT that involves
professional Sub grantee services. 23 CFR §172.1 states “The policies and procedures involve federally funded
grants for engineering and design related services for projects subject to the provisions of 23 USC §112(a) and
are issued to ensure that a qualified Subgrantee is obtained through an equitable selection process, that
prescribed work is properly accomplished in a timely manner, and at fair and reasonable cost” and according to
23 CFR §172.5 “Price shall not be used as a factor in the analysis and selection phase.” Therefore, local
agencies must comply with these CFR requirements when obtaining professional Subgrantee services under a
federally funded Subgrantee subgrant administered by CDOT.
Preference of Colorado Labor
Grantee certifies, warrants, and agrees that it has knowledge of the “Keep Jobs in Colorado Act of 2013”
codified at Sections 8-17-101, et seq., of the Colorado Revised Statutes and accompanying rules, 7 CCR 1103-
6, and that Colorado labor shall be employed to perform at least eighty percent (80%) of the Work.
CDOT has formulated its procedures in Procedural Directive (P.D.) 400.1 and the related operations guidebook
titled "Obtaining Professional Subgrantee Services". This directive and guidebook incorporate requirements
from both Federal and State regulations, i.e., 23 CFR Part172 and Colorado Revised Statute CRS §24-30-1401
et seq. Copies of the directive and the guidebook may be obtained upon request from CDOT's Agreements and
Consultant Management Unit. [Local agencies should have their own written procedures on file for each
method of procurement that addresses the items in 23 CFR Part 172].
Because the procedures and laws described in the Procedural Directive and the guidebook are quite lengthy, the
subsequent steps serve as a short-hand guide to CDOT procedures that a Grantee must follow in obtaining
professional Subgrantee services. This guidance follows the format of 23 CFR Part 172. The steps are:
1. The contracting Grantee shall document the need for obtaining professional services.
2. Prior to solicitation for Subgrantee services, the contracting Grantee shall develop a detailed scope of
work and a list of evaluation factors and their relative importance. The evaluation factors are those
identified in CRS §24-30-1403. Also, a detailed cost estimate should be prepared for use during
negotiations.
3. The contracting agency must advertise for grants in conformity with the requirements of CRS §24-30-
1405. The public notice period, when such notice is required, is a minimum of 15 days prior to the
selection of the three most qualified firms and the advertising should be done in one or more daily
newspapers of general circulation.
4. The request for Subgrantee services should include the scope of work, the evaluation factors and their
relative importance, the method of payment, and the goal of ten percent (10%) for Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) participation as a minimum for the project.
5. The analysis and selection of the Subgrantee should be done in accordance with CRS §24-30-1403. This
section of the regulation identifies the criteria to be used in the evaluation of CDOT pre-qualified prime
Subgrantee and their team. It also shows which criteria are used to short-list and to make a final
selection.
The short-list is based on the following evaluation factors:
a. Qualifications,
b. Approach to the project,
c. Ability to furnish professional services.
d. Anticipated design concepts, and
e. Alternative methods of approach for furnishing the professional services.
Evaluation factors for final selection are the Subgrantee's:
P43
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 38 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
a. Abilities of their personnel,
b. Past performance,
c. Willingness to meet the time and budget requirement,
d. Location,
e. Current and projected work load,
f. Volume of previously awarded contracts, and
g. Involvement of minority Subgrantees.
6. Once a Subgrantee is selected, the Grantee enters into negotiations with the Subgrantee to obtain a fair
and reasonable price for the anticipated work. Pre-negotiation audits are prepared for grants expected to
be greater than $50,000. Federal reimbursement for costs are limited to those costs allowable under the
cost principles of 48 CFR Part 31. Fixed fees (profit) are determined with consideration given to size,
complexity, duration, and degree of risk involved in the work. Profit is in the range of six (6) to fifteen
(15) percent of the total direct and indirect costs.
7. A qualified Grantee employee shall be responsible and in charge of the project to ensure that the work
being pursued is complete, accurate, and consistent with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the
Grant. At the end of project, the Grantee prepares a performance evaluation (a CDOT form is available)
on the Subgrantee.
8. Each of the steps listed above is to be documented in accordance with the provisions of 49 CFR §18.42,
which provide for records to be kept at least three (3) years from the date that the Grantee submits its
final expenditure report. Records of projects under litigation shall be kept at least three (3) years after the
case has been settled.
The CRS §§24-30-1401 through 1408, 23 CFR Part 172, and P.D. 400.1, provide additional details for
complying with the eight (8) steps just discussed.
THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
P44
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 39 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
31. EXHIBIT I - Grantee Contract Administration Checklist
The following checklist has been developed to ensure that all required aspects of a project approved for federal
funding have been addressed and a responsible party assigned for each task.
After a project has been approved for federal funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program,
CDOT Project Manager, Grantee Project Manager, and CDOT Resident Engineer prepare the checklist. It
becomes a part of the contractual Grant. CDOT will not process a Grant without this completed checklist. It will
be reviewed at the “Final Office Review” meeting to ensure that all parties remain in agreement as to who is
responsible for performing individual tasks.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
GRANTEE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION CHECKLIST
Project No.
STIP No.
Project Code
Region
Project Location
Date
Project Description
Grantee
Grantee Project Manager
CDOT Resident Engineer
CDOT Project Manager
INSTRUCTIONS:
This checklist shall be utilized to establish the contract administration responsibilities of the individual
parties to this Grant. The checklist becomes an attachment to the Grant. Section numbers correspond to the
applicable chapters of the CDOT Local Agency Manual.
The checklist shall be prepared by placing an "X" under the responsible party, opposite each of the tasks.
The “X” denotes the party responsible for initiating and executing the task. Only one responsible party
should be selected. When neither CDOT nor the Grantee is responsible for a task, not applicable (NA) shall
be noted. In addition, a “#” will denote that CDOT must concur or approve.
Tasks that will be performed by headquarters staff will be indicated. The regions, in accordance with
established policies and procedures, will determine who will perform all other tasks that are the
responsibility of CDOT.
The checklist shall be prepared by the CDOT Resident Engineer or the CDOT Project Manager, in
cooperation with the Grantee Project Manager, and submitted to the CDOT Program Engineer. If contract
administration responsibilities change, the CDOT Resident Engineer, in cooperation with the Grantee Project
Manager, will prepare and distribute a revised checklist.
P45
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 40 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
NO. DESCRIPTION OF TASK
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Grantee CDOT
TIP / STIP AND LONG-RANGE PLANS
2.1 Review Project to ensure it is consist with STIP and amendments thereto X
FEDERAL FUNDING OBLIGATION AND AUTHORIZATION
4.1 Authorize funding by phases (CDOT Form 418 –State or Federal-aid Program
Data. Requires FHWA concurrence/involvement)
X
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Prepare Design Data - CDOT Form 463
5.2 Prepare Grantee/CDOT Inter-Governmental Agreement (see also Chapter 3) X
5.3 Conduct Consultant Selection/Execute Consultant Agreement
5.4 Conduct Design Scoping Review Meeting
5.5 Conduct Public Involvement
5.6 Conduct Field Inspection Review (FIR)
5.7 Conduct Environmental Processes (may require FHWA
concurrence/involvement)
5.8 Acquire Right-of-Way (may require FHWA concurrence/involvement)
5.9 Obtain Utility and Railroad Agreements
5.10 Conduct Final Office Review (FOR)
5.11 Justify Force Account Work by the Grantee
5.12 Justify Proprietary, Sole Source, or Grantee Furnished Items
5.13 Document Design Exceptions - CDOT Form 464
5.14 Prepare Plans, Specifications and Construction Cost Estimates
5.15 Ensure Authorization of Funds for Construction X
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CIVIL RIGHTS AND LABOR COMPLIANCE
6.1 Set Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (UBDE) Goals for
Consultant and Construction Contracts (CDOT Region EEO/Civil Rights
Specialist)
6.2 Determine Applicability of Davis-Bacon Act
This project is is not exempt from Davis-Bacon requirements as
determined by the functional classification of the project location (Projects
located on local roads and rural minor collectors may be exempt.)
CDOT Resident Engineer (Signature on File) Date
X
6.3 Set On-the-Job Training Goals. Goal is zero if total construction is less than $1
million (CDOT Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialist)
X
6.4 Title VI Assurances:
Ensure the correct Federal Wage Decision, all required Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise/On-the-Job Training special provisions and FHWA Form
1273 are included in the Contract (CDOT Resident Engineer)
X
ADVERTISE, BID AND AWARD
7.1 Obtain Approval for Advertisement Period of Less Than Three Weeks
7.2 Advertise for Bids
7.3 Distribute “Advertisement Set” of Plans and Specifications
P46
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 41 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
NO. DESCRIPTION OF TASK
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Grantee CDOT
7.4 Review Worksite and Plan Details with Prospective Bidders While Project Is
Under Advertisement
7.5 Open Bids
7.6 Process Bids for Compliance
Check CDOT Form 715 - Certificate of Proposed Underutilized DBE
Participation when the low bidder meets UDBE goals
X
Evaluate CDOT Form 718 - Underutilized DBE Good Faith Effort
Documentation and determine if the Contractor has made a good faith effort
when the low bidder does not meet DBE goals
X
Submit required documentation for CDOT award concurrence
7.7 Concurrence from CDOT to Award X
7.8 Approve Rejection of Low Bidder X
7.9 Award Contract
7.10 Provide “Award” and “Record” Sets of Plans and Specifications
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
8.1 Issue Notice to Proceed to the Contractor
8.2 Project Safety X
8.3 Conduct Conferences:
Pre-Construction Conference (Appendix B)
Pre-survey
1. Construction staking
2. Monumentation
Partnering (Optional)
Structural Concrete Pre-Pour (Agenda is in CDOT Construction Manual)
Concrete Pavement Pre-Paving (Agenda is in CDOT Construction Manual)
HMA Pre-Paving (Agenda is in CDOT Construction Manual)
8.4 Develop and distribute Public Notice of Planned Construction to media and
local residents
8.5 Supervise Construction
A Professional Engineer (PE) registered in Colorado, who will be “in
responsible charge of construction supervision.”
Grantee Professional Engineer
or Phone number
CDOT Resident Engineer
Provide competent, experienced staff who will ensure the Contract work is
constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications
Construction inspection and documentation
8.6 Approve Shop Drawings
8.7 Perform Traffic Control Inspections
8.8 Perform Construction Surveying
8.9 Monument Right-of-Way
8.10 Prepare and Approve Interim and Final Contractor Pay Estimates
P47
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 42 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
NO. DESCRIPTION OF TASK
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Grantee CDOT
Provide the name and phone number of the person authorized for this task.
Grantee Representative Phone number
8.11 Prepare and Approve Interim and Final Utility and Railroad Billings
8.12 Prepare Grantee Reimbursement Requests X
8.13 Prepare and Authorize Change Orders
8.14 Approve All Change Orders X
8.15 Monitor Project Financial Status
8.16 Prepare and Submit Monthly Progress Reports
8.17 Resolve Contractor Claims and Disputes
8.18 Conduct Routine and Random Project Reviews
Provide the name and phone number of the person responsible for this task.
CDOT Resident Engineer Phone number
X
MATERIALS
9.1 Conduct Materials Pre-Construction Meeting
9.2 Complete CDOT Form 250 - Materials Documentation Record
1. Generate form, which includes determining the minimum number of
required tests and applicable material submittals for all materials placed on the
project
2. Update the form as work progresses
3. Complete and distribute form after work is completed
9.3 Perform Project Acceptance Samples and Tests
9.4 Perform Laboratory Verification Tests
9.5 Accept Manufactured Products
Inspection of structural components:
1. Fabrication of structural steel and pre-stressed concrete structural
components
2. Bridge modular expansion devices (0” to 6” or greater)
3. Fabrication of bearing devices
9.6 Approve Sources of Materials
9.7 Independent Assurance Testing (IAT),
Grantee Procedures CDOT Procedures
1. Generate IAT schedule
2. Schedule and provide notification
3. Conduct IAT
9.8 Approve mix designs
Concrete
Hot mix asphalt
9.9 Check Final Materials Documentation
9.10 Complete and Distribute Final Materials Documentation
CONSTRUCTION CIVIL RIGHTS AND LABOR COMPLIANCE
10.1 Fulfill Project Bulletin Board and Pre-Construction Packet Requirements
P48
VI.a
CDOT – Division of Transit and Rail
SAP PO #:491001119
Routing #: 16-HTR-ZL-00185
Document Builder Generated Page 43 of 43 FASTERGrant.22.Jul11 – originated from approved OSC Grant template Rev 1/12/11
NO. DESCRIPTION OF TASK
RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
Grantee CDOT
10.2 Process CDOT Form 205 - Sublet Permit Application
Review and sign completed CDOT Form 205 for each subcontractor, and
submit to EEO/Civil Rights Specialist
10.3 Conduct Equal Employment Opportunity and Labor Compliance Verification
Employee Interviews. Complete CDOT Form 280
10.4 Monitor Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Participation to Ensure
Compliance with the “Commercially Useful Function” Requirements
10.5 Conduct Interviews When Project Utilizes On-the-Job Trainees. Complete
CDOT Form 200 - OJT Training Questionnaire
10.6 Check Certified Payrolls (Contact the Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialists for
training requirements.)
10.7 Submit FHWA Form 1391 - Highway Construction Contractor’s Annual EEO
Report
FINALS
11.1 Conduct Final Project Inspection. Complete and submit CDOT Form 1212 -
Final Acceptance Report (Resident Engineer with mandatory Grantee
participation.)
X
11.2 Write Final Project Acceptance Letter
11.3 Advertise for Final Settlement
11.4 Prepare and Distribute Final As-Constructed Plans
11.5 Prepare EEO Certification
11.6 Check Final Quantities, Plans, and Pay Estimate; Check Project
Documentation; and submit Final Certifications
11.7 Check Material Documentation and Accept Final Material Certification (See
Chapter 9)
11.8 Obtain CDOT Form 17 from the Contractor and Submit to the Resident
Engineer
11.9 Obtain FHWA Form 47 - Statement of Materials and Labor Used … from the
Contractor
11.10 Complete and Submit CDOT Form 1212 – Final Acceptance Report (by
CDOT)
X
11.11 Process Final Payment
11.12 Complete and Submit CDOT Form 950 - Project Closure
11.13 Retain Project Records for Six Years from Date of Project Closure
11.14 Retain Final Version of Grantee Contract Administration Checklist
cc: CDOT Resident Engineer
CDOT Project Manager
CDOT Region Program Engineer
CDOT Region EEO/Civil Rights Specialist
CDOT Region Materials Engineer
CDOT Contracts and Market Analysis Branch
Grantee Project Manager
P49
VI.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM : April Long, P.E., Stormwater Manager
THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE OF MEMO: February 1, 2016
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016
RE: Mud & Debris Flow Assessment Project, Professional Services Contract
Approval for Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
SUMMARY: Staff recommends that Council approves the contract for Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
in the amount of $124,993.00 for professional services for the Mud & Debris Flow Assessment Project.
BACKGROUND: Debris and mud flows are rivers of rock, earth, and other debris saturated with
water. The debris flows are usually triggered by rapid melting of the snowpack or an unusually intense
rainstorm. Several mud and debris flow prone areas are located on Aspen Mountain. Some of the areas
have been dormant for some time, and they may no longer be near a critical stability state under
current conditions. Other areas have been active in the last 30 years including the Roch Run landslide
area. Slope creep is the slow downward progression of rock and soil down a slope. Slope creep areas
on Aspen Mountain have been monitored, and continue to be active.
The City completed a mudflow analysis in 2001 as part of the Aspen Mountain Surface Drainage
Master Plan (2001 Master Plan). The 2001 Master Plan analyzed the Aspen Mountain drainage basin
for mudflow potential and impact and estimated the depth of mudflow throughout downtown. The
2001 Master Plan evaluated system upgrades and on-mountain capital projects to mitigate the impacts
from a mud or debris flow. However, those improvements ranged in cost from $8 million to $11
million. Therefore, the preferred alternative was to guide development within the mudflow plain to
understand and limit the impacts of development on the mudflow plain. This guidance in provided
within Chapter 7 of the Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP).
In 2014, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) updated the rainfall data for
Aspen, which is different than the data used in the original 2001 Master Plan and could potentially
change mudflow risks and impacts in town. The Mud and Debris Flow Assessment Project will more
accurately depict the possible flows in town, will evaluate the associated risks, and will guide
adjustments to the standards outlined in the URMP and the Stormwater Capital Improvements Plan.
In recent history, the frequency of wildfires in the western United States has increased. After a
wildfire, the charred ground where vegetation has burned away cannot easily absorb rainwater,
increasing the risk of flooding and mudflows for several years. Properties directly affected by fires,
P50
VI.b
and those located downstream of burn areas, are most at risk. These risks will be evaluated during this
project.
The following are major tasks to be completed by the consultant for this project:
• History and Background: Provide City with a document describing other relevant programs
and local past events including types, locations, damages, magnitude, and other pertinent
information.
• Mud and Debris Flow Design Storm: Provide City with memorandum that establishes criteria
for mud and debris flow analysis in City.
• FLO-2D Modeling: Provide City with all model files (10-yr, 25-yr, & 100-yr), a hazard/risk
map, and a comparison of past mudflow studies and the remodeled studies.
• Wildfire Risk Assessment: Provide City with mapping of potential post-fire runoff and debris
flow rates and depths.
• Damage and Financial Impacts: For each event, calculate public infrastructure repair costs
and operational costs that the City would acquire in order to restore the City to pre-event
operations. Provide City with a comparison of the overall cost and City’s costs for all events.
• Mitigation Assessment: Develop conceptual alternatives for mitigating or reducing impacts
from mudflow. Provide City with alternative projects’ costs, reduced damage cost savings, and
a list of possible grant programs.
• Update Criteria: Provide City with updated Mudflow Chapter in Urban Runoff Management
Plan with updated mapping, and add a section to the chapter on wildfire hydrologic and debris
flow risk.
• FLO-2D Training: Conduct training sessions for City staff on updated FLO-2D model - goal
of training will be to build working familiarity with FLO-2D to allow City engineers to review
and evaluate submittals.
DISCUSSION: Proposals were received from four consultants listed below:
Wright Water Engineers, Inc.
AECOM
RESPEC
Riada Engineering, Inc.
A team of four employees from the engineering department performed independent reviews of the
proposals. The proposals were then ranked as a group based on the rankings of each reviewer.
The consultant team receiving the highest scores and the review committee’s selection is the Wright
Water Engineers, Inc. team, which includes Tetra Tech, Inc. This team was selected based on its
expertise in the subject matter, experience with similar and relevant projects, understanding of the
project and of Aspen’s desired approach, and the quality and detail of their proposal.
The Wright Water Engineers team members have worked on mud flow assessments in Aspen, the
Roaring Fork valley, and across the nation. Of significant importance, the Wright Water Engineering
team demonstrated a more comprehensive understanding of the services Aspen would need to
complete a mud flow assessment in this area and delivered a comprehensive and well-defined project
approach.
P51
VI.b
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Staff intends to use stormwater funds dedicated and approved for
this Project by City Council in 2015 (Acct. # 160.94.94120.82770) with an additional $10,000
contingency added to the existing 125,000.00 budget through a budget adjustment from the fund
balance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approves the contract for Wright Water
Engineers, Inc. as discussed above.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution
Attachment B: Agreement for Professional Services (between the City of Aspen and Wright Water
Engineers, Inc.) includes Scope of Work and Fee Proposal
P52
VI.b
RESOLUTION # 7
(Series of 2016)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS, 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 setting
forth the terms and conditions regarding the mud & debris flow assessment project
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Wright Water Engineers, Inc., a true and
accurate copy of which is attached as Exhibit “B”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract
setting forth the terms and conditions regarding the mud & debris flow assessment
project between the City of Aspen and Wright Water Engineers, Inc. a copy of
which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the
City Manager to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of February 2016.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held February 8, 2016.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P53
VI.b
P54
VI.b
P55
VI.b
P56
VI.b
P57
VI.b
P58
VI.b
P59
VI.b
P60
VI.b
P61
VI.b
P62
VI.b
P63
VI.b
P64
VI.b
P65
VI.b
P66
VI.b
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Acting Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 626 W. Francis, Resolution #9, Series of 2016, Extension of AspenModern
negotiation period
DATE: February 8, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: Community Development received an application for AspenModern historic
landmark negotiation related to 626 W. Francis Street on November 19, 2015. This initiated a 90
day timeframe within which the review process is to be completed by HPC and City Council.
HPC agendas have been particularly full recently and there was a delay in getting to Council.
City Council is holding First Reading on February 8th and Second Reading on February 22nd.
The 90 day negotiation period runs out on February 17th.
Staff and the applicant request Council extend the negotiation period by 30 days, to March 18th.
This will allow some leeway if the public hearing is continued. Additional extensions may be
granted by Council if the applicant is also amenable.
APPLICANT: 626 W. Francis LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
ADDRESS: 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen,
CO.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-011.
______________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #9, Series of 2016, extending the
AspenModern negotiation period for 626 W. Francis to March 18, 2016.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits:
Resolution #9, Series of 2016
P67
VI.c
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL EXTENDING THE ASPEN
MODERN NEGOTIATION PERIOD RELATED TO THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 626 W. FRANCIS STREET, UNIT A, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS,
CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-011
Resolution #9, Series of 2016
WHEREAS, 626 W. Francis LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects, submitted an
application pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C, AspenModern Properties, of the Aspen
Municipal Code, to voluntarily participate in the AspenModern ninety-day negotiation
period for 626 W. Francis Street; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.415.025.C.1, the ninety-day AspenModern
negotiation commenced on November 19, 2015 and will expire on February 17, 2016;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing cannot be scheduled before City Council until February
22, 2016, therefore staff and the property owner are in agreement that a 30 day extension
of the negotiation to March 18, 2016 is appropriate to allow additional time to discuss
options for the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
The 626 W. Francis negotiation period established by Aspen Municipal Code Section
26.415.025.C is hereby extended to March 18, 2016.
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on February 8, 2016.
Approved as to form:
______________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attest: Mayor:
______________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P68
VI.c
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 2016
1
CITIZEN COMMENTS ............................................................................................................................... 2
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2
CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................. 3
Resolution #5, Series of 2016 – Additional Design Services for Burlingame Ranch Phase II single
Family Homes #1-4 ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Minutes – January 11, 2016 .................................................................................................................. 3
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2016 – Hotel Jerome – Planned Development ........................................... 4
P69
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 2016
2
At 5:00 pm Mayor Skadron called the regular meeting to order with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins,
Daily and Myrin present.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
1. Freddie Wyatt, Munch & CO, event producer for the cannabis industry and for the X games
cannabis events asked the Council to look at a private cannabis club for Aspen. It would need to
be regulated on site private and a safe place for Aspen. People can buy but they are not allowed
to recreate on the streets, mountains or hotel rooms. It could dove tail into the special events and
private consumption sections for cannabis use in the crowds. It is here and not going anywhere.
Denver has reopened this.
Mayor Skadron asked if this is happening anywhere else. Mr. Wyatt said they are based in
Washing DC and have been asked to look at this there as well as in Las Vegas. He would like to
do it here as a juice/coffee bar.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilwoman Mullins said spill the beans is happening again. It is productive when there are enough
people for a good discussion. It will be Tuesdays from 3 to 4. Look for the ads in the paper. It is a
nice way to talk to Councilmembers. She said she would like Council with Staff to discuss the pros
and cons of changing the charter so Council can have some input on the hiring of the community
development director. Anything we do now will not have an effect on the current hiring process but
would be something that would be voted on in November. In thinking about the Staff members that
have the most impact on the community we might consider the same thing for the Chief of Police. She
suggested a work session about the pros and cons and possible ballot question.
Councilman Daily stated he supports Councilwoman Mullins idea of a work session.
Councilman Myrin said last week was gay ski week and was fantastic. It is put on by Aspen Out, a
local volunteer organization. This year’s numbers were up twice from last year. There was a media
sponsor through Logo TV that begins airing on the 28th. All the money raised goes to non-profits with
some to local scholarships. Next year is the 40th year. If there is a way at a work session to include
public comment live on line during meetings from people watching at home it would be interesting to
find out how other municipalities do that or if there is a model to work with.
Councilman Frisch gave a hats off to Aspen Hall of Fame and Helen, the Anderson Brothers and
Boogie for their contributions. 39 years is a long time for any event and it is a great way to kick off
the year with ski week. Regarding the marijuana clubs, the last time this was discussed at the moment
there weren’t any other municipalities in Colorado that had these types of clubs. The suggestion was
we were not going to be a leader. It would be interesting to know what Mayor Hancock is doing but
he is not opposed to discussing the issue. Jim True, city attorney, said we do have zoning against
private clubs. Use of marijuana in public is prohibited by the constitution. This is where the definition
of private club becomes a problem. The state is grappling with the issue. There is legislation being
proposed and we are not sure how that will address the constitution problem. There is also discussion
about amending the constitution to address this issue because the whole state is grappling with this
issue. He is not sure what Denver has done. We are in the same place that it is a problem throughout
the state that other communities are looking at. I think it would take an amendment to the constitution
P70
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 2016
3
and it may happen in November. Councilman Frisch said he is open minded to the discussion to a
non-alcoholic venue in time.
Mayor Skadron gave a thanks to ACRA for a successful Winterskol and the team at Aspen Out for a
successful gay ski week. He gave a heads up that X games starts on Thursday.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Resolution #5 – design services for Burlingame
Councilwoman Mullins asked how many single family homes. Chris Everson, asset, replied four.
She asked for the total construction cost. Mr. Everson said it is yet unknown since they plan on going
out to bid this April. They will come back in May for a discussion on the total cost per home, what
income levels to serve, potential subsidies and what sales process to use. At last check with the
housing office there were 20 to 30 interested parties in the homes. Subsidies may affect the lottery
process. Councilwoman Mullins said the fee seems high. Are you satisfied it is in line? Mr. Everson
said it has gone up. Based on his estimates the increase in design costs did bump the design fess from
7 to 11 percent of construction costs. It includes architecture plus civil engineering, draining,
retaining, landscape, irrigation and mechanical.
Councilman Myrin asked what were the unacceptable impacts for the neighborhood mentioned in the
memo. Mr. Everson said the improvements in 2015 included new public parks and the expansion of
BG phase I parking. Part of the phase 2 approval was a requirement to increase parking. That work is
now complete. Trying to construct these homes while doing the parking and parks it became clear that
work was not going to happen at the same time. Councilman Myrin said there are a bunch of
consultants for sound and other things but nothing that speaks to heat tape and leaks like we are
dealing with at Centennial. Is there someone who looks at that? Mr. Everson said the budget includes
11 percent as design fees. The budget is based on using 22 percent of construction costs for soft costs.
The other 11 percent is QA services like you are talking about. We will get reports from those third
parties to make sure builders are building to spec. Councilman Myrin said more important is to make
sure spec addresses those issues. Mr. Everson stated the architect is the same that was used for all the
BG phase 2 buildings. We want a tight building enclosure and pay attention to snow shedding and sun
angles. Those are held over from the previous work that was done.
Councilman Daily said the memo talks about the designs were taken to the HOA and they said they
would rather see a stricter adherence to the affordable housing guidelines. Where do the designs differ
from those? Mr. Everson said in the 2010 to 11 timeframe we worked on the design process and at the
time we believed we could gain efficiencies by working on our own. The ordinance allowed for the
duplexes and was crafted in a way that allowed for the duplexes but created conflict because it said
they should conform to the HOA design guidelines for Burlingame ranch. Last summer we came to
you to talk about that conflict. We went back to the HOA and their preference was to avoid the duplex
all together. Councilman Daily asked if the new design does that. Mr. Everson replied yes.
• Resolution #5, Series of 2016 – Additional Design Services for Burlingame Ranch Phase II single
Family Homes #1-4
• Minutes – January 11, 2016
P71
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 2016
4
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in
favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #1, SERIES OF 2016 – Hotel Jerome – Planned Development
Councilman Myrin recused himself because he received a notice of mailing.
Councilman Daily said for the record last spring/summer his firm assisted the current owner of the
Hotel Jerome in purchasing the Jerome. Since that time the firm has done no work. Holland & Hart
and he have no current or recent involvement in this property. They don’t owe us any fees. We have a
clean record. I don’t feel we have at present any professional relationship that would be impaired in
any way by me voting on this application.
Justin Barker, community development, said this proposal includes two properties, the Hotel Jerome
and former Aspen Times. Both are zoned commercial core and designated historic. The Jerome
property also includes a planned development overlay. The hotel currently contains 93 units and 93
keys. The former Times building is currently vacant commercial space. The proposed project
includes merging the properties into one lot, a request for the City to vacate 56 feet of the existing
alley, demolition and redevelopment of the rear portion of the Times, redevelopment of the courtyard,
and reconfiguration of the amenities and some hotel rooms. The proposal adds five lodge units and
nine keys. The original proposal included a fourth floor but has since been removed. The required
reviews include conceptual design reviews, demolition, planned development project review,
subdivision and growth management. The project would require two planned development variations
from the commercial core dimensional requirements. The first is for the first floor minimum floor
height for the Aspen Times building as well as the new lodge construction in order to reduce the
overall height of the development. The second variation would be from the average lodge unit size in
order to increase the allowable FAR for the lodge uses. This would not affect the overall allowable
floor area for the property. The applicant has requested for this to be a combined review and have
HPC serve as a recommending body on all conceptual level reviews and have City Council be the
decision making body on these reviews. Staff recommendation is for approval on first reading and to
schedule second reading for February 22.
Councilwoman Mullins said this is an important project in town and a complicated application. She
would like clarifications on a few things. She would like more information on the historic resource
including how much is original. The memo says only 30 percent will be left. How much is the late
1880’s building. The references to the alley vacation were not clear if they are asking the City for it.
How much land is being requested from the City and are easements needed. The Jerome already has a
PD, she asked for discussion on why the subdivision process and the benefit of the Times coming in
under that umbrella. In reference to the change in floor height, reassert you are keeping the original
floor to ceiling height in the historic building and that is why it is non-conforming. The lodge unit
density and using the FAR for 500 square foot or less but the units average 590 square feet. Are all the
units 590 or is there one big one that is skewing the average. What is the public amenity exactly. Is it
limited access and does it qualify. She asked for better illustrations of options A and B and why did
HPC recommend one over the other and Staff reasons. She asked for clarification on the entry and
drop off and better illustrations off the drop off design.
P72
VI.d
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council January 25, 2016
5
Councilman Frisch said the average lodge unit size is going up but the existing rooms are staying and
that is spreading the average up. Mr. Barker said the majority will remain untouched but two units
will be expanded. Councilman Frisch said the code says over 500 it’s .5 then jumps up to 2.5. Is that
something that is recent. Mr. Barker stated he is not sure but will include it for second reading.
Councilman Frisch said for someone who walks towards it what does it look like now and what will it
look like at the end from a non-technical aspect. He said he wants to see good representations of what
we will see.
Mayor Skadron had the same question about the average lodge unit size and the ratio, how did we get
from .5 to 2.5. He asked to go through the nine keys and will they ever be used or is it a design feature
to deliver four larger rooms. What is the effect on average lodge unit size if you are here asking for
four 2,500 square foot rooms or that number subdivided by the nine keys available for each room. The
existing partial vacation is not the justification for the total vacation, is it? Sunny Vann, representing
the applicant, said the majority of the alley was previously vacated and portions of the hotel sit on it.
The alley currently dead ends behind the Aspen Times building. They are requesting a vacation of a
small piece that goes behind the Aspen Times, retaining the portion behind Carl’s. It allows for a
substantial improvement to the courtyard and to separate the addition to the historic Aspen Times
building.
Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #1, Series of 2016; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins.
All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 1
(SERIES OF 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT – PROJECT REVIEW APPROVAL, MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL,
MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL, DEMOLITION, GROWTH
MANAGEMENT APPROVAL, AND CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN APPROVAL FOR
A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPEMNT PLAN FOR THE HOTEL JEROME PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON PROERTIES COMMONLY KNOWN AS 310 & 330 E MAIN
STREET (LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT I TO THIS RESOLUTION), CITY OF ASPEN,
PTIKIN COUNTY, COLORDO.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #1, Series of 2016 on first reading; seconded by
Councilman Frisch. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor
Skadron, yes. Motion carried.
Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn at 5:45 p.m.; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor,
motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P73
VI.d
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk
DATE: February 3, 2016
RE: Board Appointments
On February 1, 2016 City Council conducted part one of the interviews for board openings. The
remainder of the interviews for board vacancies will be on March first. By approving the
consent calendar, Council is making the following appointments:
Planning & Zoning Commission Keith Goode
Historic Preservation Commission Nora Berko
Housing Authority Rally Dupps
P74
VI.e
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Menges, Data Research and Project Planner, Canary Initiative
THRU: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager, Canary Initiative
DATE OF MEMO: February 2, 2016
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016
RE: Council resolution supporting federal Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: On behalf of the members of the Aspen chapter of the Citizens’
Climate Lobby (CCL), City of Aspen staff requests City Council sign a resolution supporting the
introduction and passage of federal Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation. Local constituents and
members of the Aspen chapter of CCL believe a Council resolution would assist and strengthen
their efforts in lobbying federal representatives to introduce and pass this legislation.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a July 6, 2015 work session, Aspen CCL co-chairs
Ruthie Brown and Mona Newton provided Council with a presentation on this proposal,
describing the urgency of federal climate legislation and the merits of the Carbon Fee and
Dividend policy proposal. Council asked a variety of questions, received answers and requested
that CCL work with City staff to finalize a resolution for their further consideration.
During that session, Aspen CCL members also requested that Council support sending a City
staff member with them to the annual CCL conference in Washington DC where CCL members
from around the country converge to ask their senators and congressmen/women to consider
introducing Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation. Council approved this request and staff
member Chris Menges provided a supporting role to Aspen CCL members for two days of
congressional lobbying in Washington DC during the summer of 2015. Given that Council had
not formally adopted a related resolution at that time, no lobbying was done by staff on behalf of
themselves, the City or its residents. Rather, staff supported Aspen CCL members with expertise
in climate science, solutions, economics and policy to help add context to their efforts.
BACKGROUND: The Aspen community and the City of Aspen have a long history of
environmental stewardship and the pursuit of an environmentally sustainable community. This
leadership extends to understanding the impacts of climate science and implementing local
policies aimed at mitigating climate change. Part of this understanding is that local action is
necessary, but not sufficient if deleterious climate change impacts are to be avoided in Aspen and
throughout the region. Accordingly, staff has heard from Council that opportunities should be
identified to support action at the national and international levels that would constrain emissions
of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to safe levels.
P75
VI.f
Page 2 of 3
While Aspen has approached this directive in a variety of ways including supporting the EPA’s
Clean Power Plan and signing the Compact of Mayors, local citizens have organized to request
additional action. Namely, for City Council to sign a resolution supporting the introduction and
passage of federal Carbon Fee and Dividend legislation. During this session, Council will hear
from Aspen CCL co-chair Ruthie Brown about why Carbon Fee and Dividend is, according to
CCL, the optimal, most effective and economically efficient policy for reducing economy-wide
GHG emissions at the national level.
DISCUSSION: Carbon Fee and Dividend Explained by Citizens’ Climate Lobby
Carbon Fee and Dividend is the climate change solution created by the Citizens’ Climate Lobby
(CCL) to account for the costs of burning fossil fuels. Climate scientists and economists alike say
this solution is the best first step to reducing the likelihood of catastrophic climate change.
Carbon Fee and Dividend’s Impact: Within 20 years, Carbon Fee and Dividend could reduce
GHG emissions 52% below 1990 levels while growing the economy and saving lives.
How Carbon Fee and Dividend Works (Basic):
1. Place a steadily rising fee on fossil fuels (i.e. coal, oil and gas).
2. Give all of the revenue from the carbon fee back to households.
3. Use a border adjustment to discourage business relocation.
4. It's good for the economy AND even better for the climate.
What is a Carbon Fee? It is a fee based on the amount of carbon in a fossil fuel. Fossil fuels
such as oil, gas and coal contain carbon. When burned they release the potent GHG, carbon
dioxide (CO2), into the atmosphere. The fee is based on the tons of carbon dioxide the fuel would
generate, and it would be collected at the earliest point of entry into the economy — well, mine
or port. The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year.
How Would a Carbon Fee Affect Energy Prices? The best example would be gasoline. A $1
per ton increase in the carbon fee would equal about 1 penny on the price of gas. So if the carbon
tax started at $15/ton, gasoline would go up by about 15 cents per gallon the first year and 10
cents each year afterward.
What is the Dividend? The dividend is defined as the quantity of revenue to be rebated to
American households. In this case, 100 percent of the total carbon fees collected are divided up
and given back to all households equally. This dividend helps citizens pay the increased costs
associated with the carbon fee while our nation transitions to a clean energy economy. Because
not everyone uses the same amount of carbon, the majority of American households (about 66
percent) are estimated to earn back as much or more than they pay in increased costs.
Why Carbon Fee and Dividend Works (Narrative): Because the fee (and the price of fossil
fuel) goes up predictably over time, it sends a clear price signal to begin using fossil fuels more
efficiently or replace them with low emissions energy. That price signal motivates investment to
P76
VI.f
Page 3 of 3
move into low emissions technologies, as the true cost of fossil fuels is brought back onto the
balance sheets of those who sell them. The rising cost of fossil fuels increases the demand for
low emissions products, making them even less expensive as they reach mass production. This
clear and easy-to-understand price signal (increasing fossil fuel costs and decreasing green
technology costs) drive the transition to a green economy. This transition will reduce GHG
emissions, stabilizing our climate.
How Many New Jobs Will be Created if the US Adopts Carbon Fee and Dividend
Legislation? National employment increases by 2.1 million jobs after 10 years, and 2.8 million
after 20 years (more than a 1% increase in total US employment).
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The introduction of federal Carbon Fee and Dividend
legislation would have no direct budget impact for the City of Aspen. Passage of the legislation
could affect the City’s budget by increasing the cost of fossil-based energy products (like
gasoline, diesel and electricity produced with coal or natural gas). Passage of the legislation is
anticipated to significantly grow the national economy and increase per-capita income all while
significantly reducing CO2 emissions (according to a detailed economic analysis by Regional
Economic Models Inc. or REMI). In the “Mountain Region” which includes Colorado, passage
of the legislation would likely lead to a net increase in jobs. Accordingly, it is plausible that
passage of the legislation could strengthen Aspen’s tourism-based economy while simultaneously
safeguarding it from the worst impacts of climate change.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Within 20 years, Carbon Fee and Dividend could reduce
nationwide GHG emissions 52% below 1990 levels while growing the economy and saving lives.
The City of Aspen has a firm commitment to mitigating climate change to protect all aspects of
the local environment. Though local action is necessary to achieve this goal, it is not alone
sufficient, and policies to dramatically reduce emissions at the national and international scale
are necessary. Carbon Fee and Dividend provides a pathway to stabilize GHG emissions to safe
levels at the national scale in a market-based, economically efficient manner.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council and the Mayor approve the
Carbon Fee and Dividend resolution.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council and the Mayor may choose not to support this resolution.
They may also request additional information, or propose any alternate next steps for
consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: CCL Legislative proposal: Carbon Fee and Dividend
Attachment B: Summary of “The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact
of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax” By REMI and Synapse
Attachment C: Regional REMI Summary for the Mountain (MNT) Region (Arizona, Colorado,
Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming)
P77
VI.f
RESOLUTION #11
(Series of 2016)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, URGING THE U.S. CONGRESS TO INTRODUCE AND THEN
PASS LEGISLATION THAT LEVIES AN ANNUALLY INCREASING
REVENUE-NEUTRAL FEE ON THE CARBON IN FOSSIL FUELS AT THE
POINT OF PRODUCTION OR IMPORTATION.
WHEREAS, climate scientists worldwide agree that Earth is
warming rapidly to a degree that is perilous to human civilization,
numerous species, and to the global ecosystem; and
WHEREAS, the primary cause of the rapid warming is human
activity, especially through the combustion of fossil fuels that create
greenhouse gasses (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO2); and
WHEREAS, the United States Global Change Research Program,
anticipates that inaction on reducing global emissions of CO2 will lead to
increased heat, drought, insect outbreaks, flooding and wildfires coupled with
declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields and a myriad of health
impacts throughout the Southwestern United States; and
WHEREAS, the likely impacts of unmitigated climate change on
Aspen could pose serious threats to the region’s economy, ecology and
heritage; and
WHEREAS, every additional release of GHGs diminishes the
chances of avoiding damaging climate change; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council has a record of acknowledging
the reality of climate change, its probable effects on the community, and the
City’s ability and responsibility to reduce its contribution to the causes of
climate change, as evidenced by the City’s Canary Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, local action is necessary yet insufficient to avoid catastrophic
climate change; and
WHEREAS, national and international policies to reduce GHG emissions
must be rapidly implemented; and
WHEREAS, Aspen citizens representing the Aspen chapter of the Citizens’
Climate Lobby have identified a policy known as Carbon Fee and Dividend as an
optimal, revenue-neutral policy to reduce economy-wide GHG emissions at the
national scale, and request a Council Resolution endorsing this policy to
strengthen their efforts in lobbying at the federal level; and
P78
VI.f
WHEREAS, such an instrument would encourage consumers and the
market to transition away from carbon-based energy and fuels to clean energy
sources; and
WHEREAS, a revenue-neutral “carbon fee and dividend” is a superior,
economically efficient and market based method to reduce carbon emissions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, that the governing body recognizes
the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels is recognized by scientists as a primary
cause of climate change, and that an effective and efficient measure to address this
problem is the enactment of a revenue-neutral fee on carbon production at its
source, with the fees being returned to Americans as a dividend.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the governing body:
1. Strongly urges the U.S Congress to pass legislation that levies an
annually increasing revenue-neutral fee on the carbon in fossil fuels at the
point of production or importation, that would be sufficient to reduce US
GHG emissions to climate-safe levels by 2050; and
2. Requests that the U.S. Congress construct and implement this policy with
the speed appropriate to the gravity and urgency of the situation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to forward a
copy of this resolution to the City’s Congressional Delegation.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of
Aspen on the 8th day of February 2016.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
I, Linda Manning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held February 8th, 2016.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P79
VI.f
Legislative proposal: Carbon Fee and Dividend
Findings:
1. Causation: Whereas the weight of scientific evidence indicates that greenhouse gas emissions from
human activities including the burning of fossil fuels and other sources are causing rising global
temperatures,
2. Mitigation (Return to 350 ppm or below): Whereas the weight of scientific evidence also indicates
that a return from the current concentration of more than 400 parts per million (“ppm”) of carbon
dioxide (“CO2”) in the atmosphere to 350 ppm CO2 or less is necessary to slow or stop the rise in
global temperatures,
3. Endangerment: Whereas further increases in global temperatures pose imminent and substantial
dangers to human health, the natural environment, the economy, national security, and an
unacceptable risk of catastrophic impacts to human civilization,
4. Co-Benefits: Whereas the measures proposed in this legislation will benefit the economy, human
health, the environment, and national security, even without consideration of global temperatures, as
a result of correcting market distortions, reductions in non-greenhouse-gas pollutants, reducing the
outflow of dollars to oil-producing countries and improvements in the energy security of the United
States,
5. Benefits of Carbon Fees: Whereas phased-in carbon fees on greenhouse gas emissions (1) are the
most efficient, transparent, and enforceable mechanism to drive an effective and fair transition to a
domestic-energy economy, (2) will stimulate investment in alternative-energy technologies, and (3)
give all businesses powerful incentives to increase their energy-efficiency and reduce their carbon
footprints in order to remain competitive,
6. Equal Monthly Per-Person Dividends: Whereas equal monthly dividends (or “rebates”) from carbon
fees paid to every American household can help ensure that families and individuals can afford the
energy they need during the transition to a greenhouse gas-free economy and the dividends will
stimulate the economy,
Therefore the following legislation is hereby enacted:
1. Collection of Carbon Fees/Carbon Fee Trust Fund: Upon enactment, impose a carbon fee on all
fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases at the point where they first enter the economy. The fee shall
be collected by the Treasury Department. The fee on that date shall be $15 per ton of CO2 equivalent
emissions and result in equal charges for each ton of CO2 equivalent emissions potential in each type
of fuel or greenhouse gas. The Department of Energy shall propose and promulgate regulations
setting forth CO2 equivalent fees for other greenhouse gases including at a minimum methane,
nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons, and nitrogen
trifluoride. The Treasury shall also collect the fees imposed upon the other greenhouse gases. All
fees are to be placed in the Carbon Fees Trust Fund and be rebated 100% to American households as
outlined below.
2. Emissions Reduction Targets: To align US emissions with the physical constraints identified by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to avoid irreversible climate change, the yearly
increase in carbon fees including other greenhouse gases, shall be at least $10 per ton of CO2
P80
VI.f
equivalent each year. Annually, the Department of Energy shall determine whether an increase larger
than $10 per ton per year is needed to achieve program goals. Yearly price increases of at least $10
per year shall continue until total U.S. CO2-equivalent emissions have been reduced to 10% of U.S.
CO2-equivalent emissions in 1990.
3. Equal Per-Person Monthly Dividend Payments: Equal monthly per-person dividend payments shall
be made to all American households (½ payment per child under 18 years old, with a limit of 2
children per family) each month. The total value of all monthly dividend payments shall represent
100% of the total carbon fees collected per month.
4. Border Adjustments: In order to ensure there is no domestic or international incentive to relocate
production of goods or services to regimes more permissive of greenhouse gas emissions, and thus
encourage lower global emissions, Carbon-Fee-Equivalent Tariffs shall be charged for goods
entering the U.S. from countries without comparable Carbon Fees/Carbon Pricing. Carbon-Fee-
Equivalent Rebates shall be used to reduce the price of exports to such countries. The State
Department will determine rebate amounts and exemptions if any.
P81
VI.f
Summary of “The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power,
and Demographic Impact of a National
Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax” By REMI and Synapse
Summary by Danny Richter, Ph.D.
About the study:
Citizens' Climate Education Corporation (CCEC) and Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL)
contracted a third party, Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. (REMI) to do a nation-wide
macroeconomic study on the impact of its Fee and Dividend (F&D) policy. The policy modeled
is not a perfect representation of F&D (most obviously, F&D begins at $15 per ton whereas the
study began at $10 per ton), but it is quite close, and accounts for the impact F&D's border tariff
adjustment would have on the US economy. REMI used three models to do the study: (1) The
Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) built by the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory and run by Synapse Energy Economics; (2) the Carbon Analysis Tool (CAT); an
enhancement of the open-source CTAM model and populated by data from the US Energy
Information Administration (EIA); and (3) REMI PI+, a proprietary dynamic model of
subnational units of the United States’ economy whose methodology and equations are
peer-reviewed and available to the public. Output included impacts on 160 industries, nationally
and regionally for the 9 “U.S. Census” regions commonly grouped together in a number of
federal data sources and in the energy market forecasts from the EIA.
Model results were able to estimate the effects of the policy on GDP, personal income,
employment, prices, carbon dioxide emissions, mortality due to NOx and SOx emissions,
revenues, monthly dividend amount, energy generation capacity by technology, energygeneration by
type, investment in power, population, and economic migration on both a regional
and national level. Income and employment figures for each of 160 industry categories
considered are included. These 160 industries encompass the entire economy.
Figure 1: U.S. CO2 emissions under F&D (yellow) and
without a carbon tax (blue). F&D reduces US emissions to
69% of 1990 levels by 2025, and to 50% by 2035.
Figure 2: Thousands of jobs created by F&D relative to
the case without a carbon tax. Over a million jobs created
within 4 years, over 2 million within 9 years.
P82
VI.f
The results are all relative to a baseline case where there is no carbon tax (modeled by
using the exact same set-up, with a $0/ton value for the carbon tax). In other words, all three
models were run two times. Both times, the set-up was identical except for one thing: the price
of carbon was either $0 from 2016-2035 (the baseline), or was $10 per ton in 2016 and
increased by $10 every year after that (F&D).
Why should we trust REMI?
CCL hired REMI because we are committed to quality data free of ideological taint that
you might get from some think tanks. As its name suggests, REMI models regional economics.
It does this well. Dr. George Treyz founded REMI in 1980, after working as an academic with
Nobel Prize-winner Lawrence Klein and other pioneers in the field of econometric modeling.
REMI's modeling products grew from Dr. Treyz's work on one of the first regional
macroeconomic models ever created: the Massachusetts Economic Policy Analysis (MEPA)
model. Close links to the upper echelons of academia have persisted throughout REMI's 3+
decades of experience, resulting in several academic publications in journals such as the
American Economic Review, the Review of Economics and Statistics, and the Journal of
Regional Science.
This experience and expertise is why private and public entities from all across the
political spectrum have entrusted REMI to do their analyses, and paid them well for that
expertise. These former clients include, but are not limited to: the American Gas Association
(AGA), the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the National Federation of Independent Business
(NFIB), the National Education Association (NEA), the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Booz Allen Hamilton, EY (formerly Ernst and Young), PWC (formerly Price Waterhouse
Coopers), and ICF International. Like CCL and CCEC, REMI is truly nonpartisan.
In that same spirit, CCL and CCEC did not attempt to influence the outcome of the
report in any way. In fact, we were excited when we saw that not all the results were positive for
every region, because that speaks to the integrity of the analysis. Our first priority is a livable
world, and we can't get there without an honest and clear-eyed view of the facts.
Figure 4: Annual additional GDP due to Fee and
Dividend relative to no carbon tax. The numbers are positive
due to more jobs and more consumer spending with F&D.
Over the 20 years considered, GDP is $1.375 trillion higher
than without F&D.
Figure 3: Cumulative lives saved from avoided emissions
by region under F&D. Region ENC, including Ohio,
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin, has the most
lives saved. 227,000 American lives would be saved in 20
years under F&D.
P83
VI.f
Study Highlights:
CO2 emissions decline 33% after 10 years, and 52% after 20 relative to baseline (Figure 1).
National employment increases by 2.1 million jobs after 10 years, and 2.8 million after 20
years. This is more than a 1% increase in total US employment we don't get without a carbon
tax (Figure 2)!
13,000 lives are saved annually after 10 years, with a cumulative 227,000 American lives
saved over 20 years (Figure 3).
$70-$85 billion increase in GDP from 2020 on, with a cumulative increase in national GDP
due to F&D of $1.375 trillion (Figure 4).
Size of monthly dividend for a family of 4 with two adults in 2025 = $288, and in 2035 =
$396. Annually, this is $3,456 per family of 4 in 2025 ($1152 per capita--children get ½
dividend) (Figure 5).
Electricity prices peak in 2026, then start to decrease.
Real incomes increase by more than $500 per person in 2025. This increase accounts for cost
of living increases (Figure 6).
Maximum cost-of-living increase by 2035 is 1.7-2.5%, depending on region (Figure 7).
Electricity generation from coal is phased-out by 2025.
Biggest employment gains in healthcare, retail, and other services (excluding public
administration). This is because people have more money in their pockets to spend, and these
industries are most boosted by consumer spending.
Regional Gross Product is steady or rising in 8 of 9 regions.
Why Haven't Previous Studies Found Such Positive Impacts?
The majority of previous reports considering a carbon tax have not modeled a completely
revenue-neutral carbon tax, do not envision a policy with such an aggressive rate of increase, do not
have the same detail as REMI can provide, do not consider a 100% dividend, and do not report health
benefits. Where revenue-neutrality was modeled, a “double-dividend” was often discovered in which
carbon emissions were reduced and economic output grew. As these previous studies have highlighted,
including a May 2013 study by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a carbon tax without revenue-
Figure 5: Average monthly dividend for a family of four.
Each adult gets one full share, and each child one half-share
up to two children.
Figure 6: US Income per capita, after accounting for cost-
of-living increases. This means that even accounting for the
increased cost of living, the average American is wealthier
every single year of the policy.
P84
VI.f
recycling is a completely different policy from a carbon tax that does recycle revenue. The two
policies, revenue-neutral carbon tax and a carbon tax without revenue returned, should not be confused
in terms of their effect on the economy.
Failing to consider such a rapid rate of increase in the carbon tax has prevented previous
studies from realizing the magnitude of emissions reductions and scale of economic benefit reported in
this study. Often, this was because rates of increase were not considered politically feasible. Most
other models, run by academics or think tanks, do not have the detail provided by REMI. Over the past
3 decades, REMI's regional modeling techniques have been refined, detail has been added, and
functionality improved. Three decades of such work and refinement in the private sector are what have
given it an unmatched level of detail and reliability difficult to replicate.
Despite these differences in conception, the results of REMI's work are largely consistent with
previous studies in terms a benefit to the economy, industry effects, and emissions reductions. For
example, the May 2013 CBO study also stated that a well-designed carbon tax could increase
economic output and found a hypothetical $20 per ton carbon tax scenario would result in an 8%
reduction in emissions at the national level. If held at that level, REMI's model setup would have
found comparable results.
Interpreting the Results: Take-home points
The biggest take-home from this study is that there is no economic argument against Fee
and Dividend. It creates jobs, grows the economy, saves lives, and makes Americans richer. It
does this while also reducing CO2 emissions to 31% below 1990 levels by 2025, and to 50%
below 1990 levels by 2035.
F&D therefore sets the new standard for climate and economic policy. Other policies
must now compare their climate and economic impact against F&D. To be against doing
anything is to be against jobs, against a larger economy, and against saving American lives. We
know of no politician who wants to be against these things, and so we hope that this study will
clear the way to rapid passage of F&D.
Revision 8: March 24, 2015
Figure 7: Cost of living increases by region. The lowest cost of living increase is approx. 1.7%, and the highest
2.5% in 2035. The total increase over 20 years is thus about equal to 1 year of average inflation.
P85
VI.f
Regional REMI Summary for the Mountain (MNT) Region
(Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming)
National Highlights in 2025:
2.1 million more jobs with Fee and
Dividend (F&D).
CO2 emissions 31% below 1990 levels.
90,000 American lives saved from better
air quality.
$80 - $90 annual billion increase in GDP.
MNT-Specific Findings:
Gross Regional Product (GRP):
Figure 1: Gross Regional Product (GRP) Changes in the Nine Regions (p. 21). MNT is a
richer region with F&D with growth peaking at a $10 billion increase to GRP. This is growth
relative to the $0 carbon fee scenario; i.e. this does not occur without F&D. [Note: all numbers
for this graph, and all graphs, are relative to the baseline $0 carbon fee scenario in the models.]
2025: Top 3 Industry Winners (GRP)
1) Real Estate (+$2.6 billion (b) to GRP)
2) Retail Trade (+$2.3b)
3) Ambulatory Health Services (+$2.1b)
2025: Top 3 Industry Losers (GRP)
1) Mining (except oil and gas) (-$2.0b)
2) Petrol. And coals manufacture (-$1.2b)
3) Oil and Gas Extraction (-$1.1b)
Net of all industries in 2025: +$10 billion to regional GRP.
Count of the industries considered in 2025: 44 add to and 22 subtract from GRP. 1 has
zero change.
P86
VI.f
Employment:
Figure 2: Regional breakdown of employment increases (p. 20). MNT has a respectable job
growth of +220,000 jobs by 2025, landing somewhere in the middle of all the regions. As with
GRP, these are jobs that do not exist without F&D.
2025: Top 3 Job Gainers
1) Retail Trade (+34 thousand (k) jobs)
2) Ambulatory Health Services (+27k)
3) Construction (+27k)
2025: Top 3 Job Losers
1) Mining (except oil and gas) (-8k)
2) Oil and Gas Extraction (-5k)
3) Air Transportation (-2k)
Net of all industries in 2025: +220,000 jobs.
Count of the industries considered in 2025: 33 add jobs, 5 lose jobs, 29 have no change.
Energy Production:
Figure 3: Electrical Power
Generation (p. 111). Coal is quickly phased out by 2022, while the power generated by natural
gas remains largely unchanged until 2030 when gas with carbon capture and storage begins to
take over. Wind energy production sees huge growth almost immediately after implementation of
P87
VI.f
the policy. Geothermal also sees a large expansion after 2020.
Real Income:
Figure 4: Real Income Per Capita (p. 38). This reflects the increase in income per person after
accounting for increased cost of living (up by 1.75% in 2025; p. 33), increased energy prices
(peaking in 2026 then dropping; p 34), net of the impact to the labor market, F&D checks, as well
as population and demographic trends (p. 44). Also worth noting is that the inflation over the
entire 20-year period for the region is equivalent to adding one “extra” year of inflation.
Other notable findings:
The main lesson of the study is that the fee lowers investment in capitol-intensive
industries (e.g. mining, fossil fuels), and the dividend boosts investment in labor-
intensive industries. Accordingly, the biggest growth occupations for the region in 2025
are retail sales workers (+14,000 jobs), food and beverage serving workers (+12,000
jobs), and health diagnosing and treating practitioners (+10,000 jobs) (p. 114-5). These
occupations are winners because of the dividend, which boosts consumer spending, and
thus results in job gains in labor-intensive industries.
Conclusions:
Despite the loss of $3.8 billion in coal and related industries, the region still has a net
gain of $10 billion, a net increase in jobs, and a substantial increase in population. For
example, the 2025 loss of 8,000 mining jobs is far outweighed by the 27,000 jobs added
in construction alone. Losses due to fewer coal plants are more than offset by growth in
other industries. The MTN region is a clear winner with Fee and Dividend!
Full REMI report: http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/REMI-carbon-tax-
report-62141.pdf
Revision 1: Feb. 17, 2015
P88
VI.f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Notice of HPC approval of Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation and Variations review for 980 Gibson Avenue, HPC
Resolution #3, Series of 2016
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016
BACKGROUND: On January 13, 2016, the Historic Preservation Commission approved
Conceptual Major Development, Demolition, Relocation and Variations review for a project
located at 980 Gibson Avenue.
980 Gibson Avenue is in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood and is part of Alpine Acres
Subdivision. In the 1960s, a number of Victorian era homes were moved to this subdivision from
unknown locations in Aspen. These properties are all landmark designated.
The miner’s cottage at 980 Gibson was significantly altered over the years. It is linked to another
Victorian (990 Gibson) by a garage. City Council recently approved a request to separate 980
Gibson and 990 Gibson into two fee simple lots.
The owner of 980 Gibson wishes to demolish all non-historic construction on the site, reposition
and restore the Victorian, dedicate it as a voluntary deed restricted Carriage House (a form of
Accessory Dwelling Unit) and build a new detached free market home.
HPC discussed the project on January 13th and granted approval, with conditions, by a 5-0 vote.
Sideyard setback variations were allowed in order to distance the historic and new structures from
each other. HPC also granted a variation so that the basements of the primary house and the
Carriage house abut below grade for ease of construction. The Commission allowed for exceptions
to the Residential Design Standards and the Carriage House Design Standards where existing size
and architectural characteristics of the miner’s cottage are not entirely in conformance with current
land use requirements.
The board required two minor adjustments to the site plan be completed for Final review in order to
place the proposed structures in a manner that is most sensitive to historic preservation concerns on
this property and adjacent sites.
PROCEDURE: Pursuant to Section 26.412.040(B), City Council has the option of exercising the
Call Up provisions outlined in Section 26.412.040(B) within 15 days of notification.
For this application, City Council may vote to Call Up the project at the February 8th or February
22nd meetings. If City Council does not exercise the Call Up provision, the HPC Resolution shall
stand.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Staff memo to HPC, January 13, 2016
Exhibit B: Approved plans
P89
VII.a
Exhibit C: HPC minutes, January 13, 2016
Exhibit D: HPC Resolution #3, Series of 2016
P90
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 1 of 16
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 980 Gibson Avenue- Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation, and Variations review, PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: January 13, 2016
________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: 980 Gibson Avenue is in the Smuggler Mountain neighborhood and part of
Alpine Acres Subdivision. In the 1960s, a number of Victorian era homes were moved to
this subdivision from unknown locations in Aspen. These properties are all landmark
designated.
The miner’s cottage at 980 Gibson was significantly altered over the years. It is linked to
another Victorian (990 Gibson) by a garage.
The property has been sold and the new owner wishes to demolish all non-historic
construction on the site, reposition and restore the Victorian, dedicate it as a deed restricted
Carriage House (a form of Accessory Dwelling Unit) and build a new detached free market
home on the south side of the lot.
HPC is asked to consider Conceptual design (scale, massing and site plan), Relocation,
Demolition, and Variation requests.
Following Conceptual, staff will inform City Council of the HPC decision, allowing them
the opportunity to “Call-Up” any aspects of the approval that they find require additional
review. This is a standard practice for all significant projects.
The last review step before applying for building permit is Final design (landscape,
lighting and materials.)
APPLICANT: Gibson Matchless LLC, represented by Haas Land Planning and Zone 4
Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2737-074-10-001.
ADDRESS: 980 Gibson Avenue, Unit 1, Alpine Acres Subdivision, City of Aspen, CO.
ZONING: R-6
P91
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 2 of 16
CONCEPTUAL MAJOR DEVELOPMENT
Major Development is a two-step process requiring approval by the HPC of a
Conceptual Development Plan, and then a Final Development Plan. Approval of a
Conceptual Development Plan shall be binding upon HPC in regards to the location
and form of the envelope of the structure(s) and/or addition(s) as depicted in the
Conceptual Plan application including its height, scale, massing and proportions. No
changes will be made to this aspect of the proposed development by the HPC as part
of their review of the Final Development Plan unless agreed to by the applicant.
Staff Response: Conceptual review focuses on the height, scale, massing and
proportions of a proposal. A list of the relevant HPC design guidelines is attached as
“Exhibit A.”
Currently, it is difficult to distinguish the original Victorian house. In preparation for this
hearing, staff has searched all of the standard sources for documentation. There are no
photos showing the house before alteration, and the original location of the building has
not been identified so there are no Sanborn maps to reference. The only information that
can guide the historic preservation aspect of this project is inspection of the existing
framing and materials, and assessment of original vs. changed conditions. The project
architects have done an initial study of the building, removing drywall in a few key
locations. Evidence of historic framing, sheathing and siding has been found.
There are indications that, when the historic resource was moved to 980 Gibson a few
decades ago, it was placed so the historic rear façade is facing the street and the historic
front façade faces the back yard. This photograph, taken in 1980, shows the Gibson façade
of the house.
P92
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 3 of 16
The image below, left, shows the house as seen today, from the back yard. The image
below, right, shows how 980 Gibson might have looked originally.
The first topic for HPC to discuss is demolition of the non-historic additions. Demolition
shall be approved if it is demonstrated that the application meets any one of the following
criteria:
a. The property has been determined by the City to be an imminent hazard to
public safety and the owner/applicant is unable to make the needed repairs
in a timely manner,
b. The structure is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts
to properly maintain the structure,
c. The structure cannot practically be moved to another appropriate location in
Aspen or
d. No documentation exists to support or demonstrate that the property has
historic, architectural, archaeological, engineering or cultural significance
and
Additionally, for approval to demolish, all of the following criteria must be met:
a. The structure does not contribute to the significance of the parcel or
historic district in which it is located and
b. The loss of the building, structure or object would not adversely affect the
integrity of the historic district or its historic, architectural or aesthetic
relationship to adjacent designated properties and
c. Demolition of the structure will be inconsequential to the historic
preservation needs of the area.
The applicant proposes to demolish the addition identified in the photos above, and the
garage that lies on the south side of the Victorian. These areas are not part of the original
structure. They detract from the original resource and confuse the history of the property.
P93
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 4 of 16
The applicant will also remove the materials that are enclosing what appears to be the
original front porch. Any historic elements that are uncovered must be retained.
Staff supports the demolition as proposed.
The remaining historic resource is to be repositioned on a new basement, in the northwest
corner of the site.
Relocation of a historic building 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 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.
The house is not in a historic district and it is not original to the site. Its current
orientation appears to be inappropriate and detrimental to the historic character of the
building. Staff supports placing the structure in a prominent location at the intersection
of Gibson Avenue and Matchless Drive. The miner’s cottage will be freestanding; at
least 17’ away from the proposed new house. A small addition is proposed on the back
of the resource, addressed in more detail below.
As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit the standard
assurances that relocation will proceed with care, including a $30,000 deposit with the
City during the construction process.
P94
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 5 of 16
Setbacks
The applicant requests three setback variances related to the relocation of the miner’s
cottage.
In order to grant 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.
The project includes a north (Matchless Drive) side-yard reduction of 9’6” for the
miner’s cottage, so that 5’6” is provided. There is no neighboring parcel that will be
impacted by this variation. Staff finds that this variation maximizes the distance between
the old and new structures and therefore mitigates a potential adverse impact to the
resource.
A south side-yard reduction of 7’ is requested, so that 8’
is provided. This variation relates to an upper floor deck
that runs along the front (Gibson) and side of the new
house. The deck meets the setback requirement along
Gibson, but sits in the required south sideyard, which
abuts 990 Gibson.
990 Gibson is also a landmark designated miner’s cottage
that was moved to this neighborhood and has been
heavily altered. Unfortunately, the front of the house is
too obscured by trees to see from the street.
990 Gibson sits in the required sideyard setback
for its own lot. The house may or may not be
relocated on the site in a future redevelopment.
Staff does have a concern with the placement of
a contemporary elevated deck at 980 Gibson so
close (about 12’) from the side of the Victorian
at 990 Gibson. Staff has concerns with the
relatively large size of the deck as a feature of
the front of the new house and finds it to be in
conflict with the design guidelines. We find that
the standards for a setback variation are not met.
We recommend that the deck be located only on
the Gibson façade of the house and not wrap into
the side setback. Even if this is accomplished,
the side of the house intrudes into the setback by 3.” (14’9” is provided where 15’ is
required.) Staff recommends the proposed new house be shifted 3” towards the north
The front of 990 Gibson Avenue
P95
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 6 of 16
(closer to the 980 Gibson Victorian.) Full compliance with the required side setback is
reasonable and the impact on the Victorian is not significant enough to justify a variation.
The third requested variation is a full waiver of the required distance between two detached
buildings, as measured below grade only. To be considered detached, structures are to be
completely separated by a distance of 5,’ above and below grade. This measurement is
more than met by separation between the structures above grade, but the basements of the
two units will touch. The applicant requests this relief because it is easier and more cost
effective to construct the adjacent basements if the foundations touch.
Planning staff reviewed this request and supports the waiver only if there is a dirt or gravel
filled chamber that separates the living spaces between the two units. This chamber must be
5’ wide, for the full length that the basements abut. It is important to provide a deterrent to
any future effort to combine the free market house and the carriage house into one larger
home. This would be a zoning violation and staff does not support enabling that possibility.
HPC should be aware that the property owner significantly redesigned this project after
receiving initial feedback from staff. The original site plan and a rendering are shown
below. Staff had concerns about the width of the new house as viewed from Gibson
Avenue. The revised proposal, currently under consideration by HPC, is at the bottom of
the page.
P96
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 7 of 16
Staff finds that this project has a number of benefits not only to the historic resource, but
also the neighborhood. The miner’s cottage is being extracted from its current condition
and will be a highlight of the street, adjacent to a number of other Victorian homes. The
miner’s cottage will have only a small addition, joining a handful of others in Aspen that
have been preserved in their original size, as an authentic representation of 19th century
life. The miner’s cottage may be made available for occupancy as an affordable housing
unit. The project eliminates a driveway along a busy street.
The property owner is not requesting a floor area bonus for this project. Because of
square footage limitations that affect this subdivision, the new house cannot be more than
2,486 square feet in size, which helps prevent it from overwhelming the smaller historic
structure.
Regarding the HPC design guidelines,
staff finds that the proposal for the
miner’s cottage is appropriate at the
Conceptual level. The applicant is
making a good effort to restore the
form of the building. Many details
will need closer study at Final review,
and others will need to be resolved
during construction, when more
original fabric can be inspected. Most
of the original exterior materials,
doors and windows have been
replaced. Full documentation of
remaining original elements is needed.
A small addition is proposed on the rear of the house to accommodate a stair to the
basement. The addition is appropriate, however the architect must confirm that it does
not cover the historic fascia on the rear facing gable end (see illustration above). Staff
also recommends a slight reduction in the size of the lightwell that is proposed next to the
front porch of the miner’s cottage, to be no larger than the building code requirement
(See guideline 9.7). At this point, staff assumes that the historic porch is still in place,
but enclosed. The dimensions and roof pitch that exist in that area now must be reflected
in the proposed design.
Regarding the new house, staff finds that the design guidelines are met, with the
exception of the front deck. Staff has recommended that HPC not approve a requested
variance to allow the deck to extend to the side of the house. We recommend that it be
no wider than the Gibson Avenue facing gable end in order to be more sympathetic to the
width of the Victorian. The deck also creates second floor oriented outdoor living space
that is not characteristic of the miner’s cottage. For that additional reason staff
recommends a reduction in the size of this feature. The guidelines state:
P97
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 8 of 16
Residential Design Standards
In addition to the HPC guidelines, the project must meet the Residential Design
Standards. Two standards are not met:
1. Building orientation. The front facades of all principal structures shall be parallel
to the street. On corner lots, both street-facing facades must be parallel to the
intersecting streets. On curvilinear streets, the front facade of all structures shall
be parallel to the tangent of the midpoint of the arc of the street. Parcels as
outlined in Subsection 26.410.010.B.4 shall be exempt from this requirement.
One (1) element, such as a bay window or dormer, placed at a front corner of the
building may be on a diagonal from the street if desired.
2. Build-to lines. On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square
feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front façade shall be within five (5) feet of
the minimum front yard setback line. On corner sites, this standard shall be met
on the frontage with the longest block length. Porches may be used to meet the
sixty percent (60%) standard.
In order to grant variations, HPC must find that the proposal will:
a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context
in which the development is proposed and purpose of the particular standard. In
evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may
consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures,
the immediate neighborhood setting, or a broader vicinity as the board feels is
necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or,
b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific
constraints.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building
by using a front porch.
The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the
entry.
A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
P98
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 9 of 16
CARRIAGE HOUSE REQUIREMENTS
Staff finds that these variations are appropriate. The two buildings are parallel to Gibson
Avenue. They cannot be parallel to Matchless Drive because it has an irregular shape.
Regarding build to lines, the miner’s cottage cannot be moved any closer to the front lot
line because of existing trees. The new house is purposely set back on the lot to give the
historic building prominence.
The applicant proposes to voluntarily deed restrict the historic resource as a Carriage
House, a form of Accessory Dwelling Unit. A Carriage House is not considered a second
dwelling unit. It is not required to be rented, but if it is rented it must be to a qualified
working resident as determined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
Guidelines.
Approval of a Carriage House would normally be conducted by the Community
Development Director, however this unit does not meet all of the required design
standards (deviations highlighted in gray below), therefore HPC approval is needed.
26.520.050 Design standards
All ADUs and carriage houses shall conform to the following design standards unless
otherwise approved, pursuant to Subsection 26.520.080.D, Special Review:
1. An ADU must contain between three hundred (300) and eight hundred (800) net
livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be a closet or storage area.
A carriage house must contain between eight hundred (800) and one thousand two
hundred (1,200) net livable square feet, ten percent (10%) of which must be closet
or storage area.
2. An ADU or carriage house must be able to function as a separate dwelling unit.
This includes the following:
a. An ADU or carriage house must be separately accessible from the exterior.
An interior entrance to the primary residence may be approved, pursuant to
Special Review;
b. An ADU or carriage house must have separately accessible utility systems,
controls and disconnect panels. This does not preclude shared services;
c. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a full-size kitchen containing at a
minimum:
i. Minimum 30-inch wide oven, 4-burner stovetop.
ii. A sink, dishwasher, and a minimum 20 cubic foot refrigerator with
freezer.
P99
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 10 of 16
iii. Minimum 24 square feet of counter space and a minimum of 15 cubic feet
of cabinet space.
iv. Kitchens may not be located in a closet.
d. An ADU or carriage house shall contain a ¾ or larger bathroom containing, at
a minimum, a sink, a toilet and a shower.
e. An ADU or carriage house shall contain washer/dryer hookups, with a dryer
vent rough-in, to accommodate minimum 27-inch wide washer/dryer units.
3. One (1) parking space for the ADU or carriage house shall be provided on-site
and shall remain available for the benefit of the ADU or carriage house resident.
The parking space shall not be located in tandem, or “stacked,” with a space for
the primary residence.
4. The finished floor level of fifty percent (50%) or more of the unit’s net livable
area is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher.
5. The ADU or carriage house shall be detached from the primary residence. An
ADU or carriage house located above a detached garage or storage area or
connected to the primary residence by an exterior breezeway or trellis shall still
qualify as detached. No interior connections to the primary residence, or portions
thereof, shall qualify the ADU or carriage house as detached.
6. An ADU or carriage house shall be located within the dimensional requirements
of the Zone District in which the property is located.
7. The roof design shall prevent snow and ice from shedding upon an entrance to an
ADU or carriage house. If the entrance is accessed via stairs, sufficient means of
preventing snow and ice from accumulating on the stairs shall be provided.
8. ADUs and carriage houses shall be developed in accordance with the
requirements of this Title which apply to residential development in general.
These include, but are not limited to, building code requirements related to
adequate natural light, ventilation, fire egress, fire suppression and sound
attenuation between living units. This standard may not be varied.
9. All ADUs and carriage houses shall be registered with the Housing Authority and
the property shall be deed restricted in accordance with Section 26.520.070, Deed
restrictions and enforcement. This standard may not be varied.
An application requesting a variation of the ADU and carriage house design
standards shall be processed as a Special Review. A Special Review for an ADU or
Carriage House may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on
conformance with the following criteria:
1. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed in a manner which promotes the
purpose of the ADU and carriage house program, promotes the purpose of the
Zone District in which it is proposed and promotes the unit's general livability.
P100
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 11 of 16
2. The proposed ADU or carriage house is designed to be compatible with and
subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site
configuration, landscaping, privacy and historical significance of the property.
Staff recommends that approval be granted to allow the net livable area below grade to be
more than 50% of the overall unit. It is undesirable to make a larger above grade addition
to the historic resource. The unit as designed is very livable and, if rented will be a
benefit to the City’s affordable housing inventory.
The standards above require the Carriage House to be detached from the primary
residence. The zone district requires 5’ of separation between structures in order to be
considered detached. Staff addressed this issue under HPC’s criteria for setback
variances. We support the foundation between the two buildings being continuous, but
require the 5’ separation to be achieved below grade by creating a physical barrier
between the living spaces.
Regarding the requirement that the Carriage House be located within the dimensional
requirements of the zone district, HPC has the authority to approve the requested sideyard
and basement level variations based on the landmark status of the property.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends HPC grant Conceptual Major
Development, Demolition, Relocation, and Variations review with the following
conditions:
1. By noon on Tuesday, January 12th, provide revisions to the project to staff, by
email, addressing recommended areas for redesign which are to remove the
requested south sideyard variation by making the deck no wider than the Gibson
Avenue facing gable end of the new house and by moving the new house
northward, design a dirt or gravel filled chamber that separates the below grade
living spaces between the two structures (this chamber must be 5’ wide, for the full
length that the basements abut), confirm that the addition on the back of the
miner’s cottage does not cover the historic fascia on the rear facing gable end,
reduce the size of the lightwell that is proposed next to the front porch of the
miner’s cottage to be no larger than the minimum building code requirement and
ensure that the dimensions and roof pitch shown for the porch on the miner’s
cottage reflect the enclosed front porch that appears to be in place now.
2. As part of a building permit review, the applicant will be required to submit a
report from a licensed engineer, architect or housemover demonstrating that the
structure can be moved, and the method for moving and protecting the structure,
must be submitted with the building permit application. In addition the applicant
must provide a bond, letter of credit or cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000
to be held by the City during the duration of the relocation process.
P101
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 12 of 16
3. HPC hereby grants a north (Matchless Drive) side-yard reduction of 9’6” for the
miner’s cottage, so that 5’6” is provided.
4. HPC hereby waives compliance with the Building Orientation and Build-to-lines
requirements of the Residential Design Standards.
5. HPC hereby waives compliance with the Carriage House design standards stated
at Municipal Code Section 26.520.050.2, numbered 4, 5 and 6.
6. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted
within one (1) year of January 13, 2016, 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.
EXHIBITS:
HPC Resolution #__, Series of 2016
Exhibit A: Design Guidelines
Exhibit B: Application
Exhibit A: Relevant HPC Design Guidelines for 980 Gibson Avenue, Conceptual
review
1.9 Maintain the established progression of public-to-private spaces when
considering a rehabilitation project.
This includes a sequence of experiences, beginning with the "public" sidewalk,
proceeding along a "semi-public" walkway, to a "semi-private" porch or entry feature
and ending in the "private" spaces beyond.
Provide a walkway running perpendicular from the street to the front entry.
Meandering walkways are discouraged, except where it is needed to avoid a tree.
Use paving materials that are similar to those used historically for the building style.
Concrete, wood or sandstone may be appropriate for certain building styles.
1.11 Preserve and maintain mature landscaping on site, particularly landmark
trees and shrubs.
Protect established vegetation during construction to avoid damage. Replacement of
damaged, aged or diseased trees must be approved by the Parks Department.
If a tree must be removed as part of the addition or alteration, replace it with species
of a large enough scale to have a visual impact in the early years of the project.
5.1 Preserve an original porch.
P102
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 13 of 16
Replace missing posts and railings when necessary. Match the original proportions
and spacing of balusters when replacing missing ones.
Unless used historically on the property, wrought iron, especially the "licorice stick"
style that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, is inappropriate.
Expanding the size of a historic porch is inappropriate.
5.5 If porch replacement is necessary, reconstruct it to match the original in form
and detail.
Use materials that appear similar to the original.
While matching original materials is preferred, when detailed correctly and painted
appropriately, alternative materials may be considered.
Where no evidence of the appearance of the historic porch exists, a new porch may be
considered that is similar in character to those found on comparable buildings. Keep
the style and form simple. Also, avoid applying decorative elements that are not
known to have been used on the house or others like it.
When constructing a new porch, its depth should be in scale with the building.
The scale of porch columns also should be similar to that of the trimwork.
The height of the railing and the spacing of balusters should appear similar to those
used historically as well.
9.1 Proposals to relocate a building will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In general, relocation has less of an impact on individual landmark structures than
those in a historic district.
It must be demonstrated that relocation is the best preservation alternative.
Rehabilitation of a historic building must occur as a first phase of any improvements.
A relocated building must be carefully rehabilitated to retain original architectural
details and materials.
Before a building is moved, a plan must be in place to secure the structure and
provide a new foundation, utilities, and to restore the house.
The design of a new structure on the site should be in accordance with the guidelines
for new construction.
In general, moving a building to an entirely different site or neighborhood is not
approved.
9.3 If relocation is deemed appropriate by the HPC, a structure must remain
within the boundaries of its historic parcel.
If a historic building straddles two lots, then it may be shifted to sit entirely on one of
the lots. Both lots shall remain landmarked properties.
9.4 Site the structure in a position similar to its historic orientation.
It should face the same direction and have a relatively similar setback.
It may not, for example, be moved to the rear of the parcel to accommodate a new
building in front of it.
9.5 A new foundation should appear similar in design and materials to the historic
foundation.
On modest structures, a simple foundation is appropriate. Constructing a stone
foundation on a modest miner's cottage is discouraged because it would be out of
character.
Where a stone foundation was used historically, and is to be replaced, the
replacement should be similar in the cut of the stone and design of the mortar joints.
P103
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 14 of 16
9.6 When rebuilding a foundation, locate the structure at its approximate historic
elevation above grade.
Raising the building slightly above its original elevation is acceptable. However,
lifting it substantially above the ground level is inappropriate.
Changing the historic elevation is discouraged, unless it can be demonstrated that it
enhances the resource.
9.7 A lightwell may be used to permit light into below-grade living space.
In general, a lightwell is prohibited on a wall that faces a street (per the Residential
Design Standards).
The size of a lightwell should be minimized.
A lightwell that is used as a walkout space may be used only in limited situations and
will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If a walkout space is feasible, it should be
surrounded by a simple fence or rail.
10.2 A more recent addition that is not historically significant may be removed.
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 that creates an appearance inconsistent with the historic character of
the primary building is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an earlier period than that of the primary building also
is inappropriate.
An addition that seeks to imply an inaccurate variation of the primary building's
historic style should be avoided.
An addition that covers historically significant features is inappropriate.
10.4 Design a new addition to be recognized as a product of its own time.
An addition should be made distinguishable from the historic building, while also
remaining visually compatible with these earlier features.
A change in setbacks of the addition from the historic building, a subtle change in
material or a differentiation between historic, and more current styles are all
techniques that may be considered to help define a change from old to new
construction.
10.6 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.
10.8 Place an addition at the rear of a building or set it back 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 structure is inappropriate.
Additional floor area may also be located under the building in a basement which will
not alter the exterior mass of a building.
Set back an addition from primary facades in order to allow the original proportions
and character to remain prominent. A minimum setback of 10 feet on primary
structures is recommended.
10.9 Roof forms should be similar to those of the historic building.
Typically, gable, hip and shed roofs are appropriate.
Flat roofs are generally inappropriate for additions on residential structures with
sloped roofs.
P104
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 15 of 16
10.10 Design an addition to a historic structure such that it will not destroy or
obscure historically important architectural features.
For example, loss or alteration of architectural details, cornices and eavelines should
be avoided.
10.14 The roof form and slope of a new addition should be in character with the
historic building.
If the roof of the historic building is symmetrically proportioned, the roof of the
addition should be similar.
Eave lines on the addition should be similar to those of the historic building or
structure.
11.1 Orient the primary entrance of a new building to the street.
The building should be arranged parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional
grid pattern of the site.
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the primary entrance to a new building
by using a front porch.
The front porch should be "functional," in that it is used as a means of access to the
entry.
A new porch should be similar in size and shape to those seen traditionally.
In some cases, the front door itself may be positioned perpendicular to the street;
nonetheless, the entry should still be clearly defined with a walkway and porch that
orients to the street.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear similar in scale with the historic buildings
on the parcel.
Subdivide larger masses into smaller "modules" that are similar in size to the historic
buildings on the original site.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in scale to the historic building.
The primary plane of the front should not appear taller than the historic structure.
The front should include a one-story element, such as a porch.
11.5 Use building forms that are similar to those of the historic property.
They should not overwhelm the original in scale.
11.6 Use roof forms that are similar to those seen traditionally in the block.
Sloping roofs such as gable and hip roofs are appropriate for primary roof forms.
Flat roofs should be used only in areas where it is appropriate to the context.
On a residential structure, eave depths should be similar to those seen traditionally in
the context.
Exotic building and roof forms that would detract from the visual continuity of the
street are discouraged. These include geodesic domes and A-frames.
11.10 The imitation of older historic styles is discouraged.
This blurs the distinction between old and new buildings.
Highly complex and ornately detailed revival styles that were not a part of Aspen's
history are especially discouraged on historic sites.
14.17 Design a new driveway in a manner that minimizes its visual impact.
Plan parking areas and driveways in a manner that utilizes existing curb cuts. New
curb cuts are not permitted.
If an alley exists, a new driveway must be located off of it.
14.18 Garages should not dominate the street scene.
P105
VII.a
HPC Review 1.13.16
980 Gibson Avenue
Page 16 of 16
P106
VII.a
9 8 0 G I B S O N A V E N U E
R E V I S E D H P C C O N C E P T U A L D E S I G N R E V I E W | 1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
P
1
0
7
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
SITE PLAN REVISED
23'-8"
5'-6"
6
'
1
5
'
4'
33
'
-
6
"
15'
43'-1"
36'-3"
42
'
12'-9 1/2"
7945
7940
7950
7955
7940
7945
7950
7955
PROPERTY LINE
3
8
.
0
0
'
S 82
°59
'52
" E
10
6
.85
'
S 23°44'00" E 24.22'
N 23°44'00" W 75.78'
N
5
5
°
2
9
'
5
1
"
E
S 48 °50 '17 " E 58 .19 '
N
66
°20
'39
"
E
14
2
.85
'
M
A
T
C
H
L
E
S
S
D
R
I
V
E
H
E
R
R
O
N
R
O
A
D
FRONT SETBACK
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
SID
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
REAR SETBA
C
K
R. O. W.
S
I
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
GIBSON AVENUE
990 GIBSON
DO
W
N
UP
CH PARKING SPOT
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
DECK ABOVE
DOWN
BUILDING BUMP-OUT
ABOVE
FIRE PLACE
ABOVE
LINE OF WINDOW
WELL BELOW
CARRIAGE
HOUSE
980 GIBSON
N
SCALE : 1" = 10'
0 5 10 20 40
P
1
0
8
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
LOWER LEVEL PLAN REVISED
5'
UP
FRONT SETBACK
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
SID
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
UP
DIRT OR GRAVEL
FILLED CHAMBER
N
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 1'5'10'2'
P
1
0
9
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
MAIN LEVEL PLAN REVISED
23'-8 11/16"
3
8
.
0
0
'
S 23°44'00" E 24.22'
N
5
5
°
2
9
'
5
1
"
E
M
A
T
C
H
L
E
S
S
D
R
I
V
E
FRONT SETBACK
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
SI
D
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
R. O. W.
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
D
O
W
N
UP
OUTLINE OF ROOF ABOVE
DECK ABOVE
DOWN
BUILDING BUMP-OUT
ABOVE
FIRE PLACE
ABOVE
LINE OF WINDOW
WELL BELOW
N
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 1'5'10'2'
P
1
1
0
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
UPPER LEVEL PLAN REVISED
22'-4 3/8"
23'-9 1/2"
DECK
FRONT SETBACK
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
SID
E
SE
T
B
A
C
K
S
I
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
3
8
.
0
0
'
S 23°44'00" E 24.22'
N
5
5
°
2
9
'
5
1
"
E
D
O
W
N
12
:
1
2
S
L
O
P
E
1
2
:
12
S
L
O
P
E
2
:
1
2
S
L
O
P
E
12 : 12
SLOPE
12 : 12
SLOPE
2
:
12
S
L
O
P
E
N
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 1'5'10'2'
P
1
1
1
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
HISTORIC CARRIAGE HOUSE ELEVATIONS REVISED
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATIONNORTH ELEVATION
GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
12
'-9 "
5 '-0 "
GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
13
'-0 "
5 '-0 "
13
'-9 "
5 '-0 "
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
12
'-9 "
5 '-0 "
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
HISTORIC MINER'S COTTAGE IMAGERYHISTORIC MINER'S COTTAGE IMAGERY
0 1'5'10'2'
NOTE: ALL ELEMENTS OF THE HISTORIC
MINER'S COTTAGE WILL BE RESTORED TO
THE ORIGINAL DIMENSION AND DESIGN
P
1
1
2
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
NEW HOUSE ELEVATIONS REVISED
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
0 1'5'10'2'
T.O. RIDGE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
11
'-4 "
13
'-0 "
SECOND FLOOR
5 '-8 "
GRADE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
11
'-4 "
13
'-0 "
SECOND FLOOR
5 '-8 "
P
1
1
3
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
NEW HOUSE ELEVATIONS REVISED
WEST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
GRADE
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
GRADE
T.O. RIDGE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
11
'-4 "
13
'-0 "
SECOND FLOOR
5 '-8 "
0 1'5'10'2'
T.O. RIDGE
1/3 POINT OF ROOF
11
'-4 "
13
'-0 "
SECOND FLOOR
5 '-8 "
P
1
1
4
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
CONCEPTUAL IMAGES REVISED
VIEW FROM GIBSON AVE
P
1
1
5
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
CONCEPTUAL IMAGES REVISED
VIEW FROM GIBSON AVE
P
1
1
6
V
I
I
.
a
980 GIBSON
1 2 . 3 1 . 2 0 1 5
HPC CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
SITE ELEVATIONS REVISED
WEST ELEVATION FROM GIBSON AVE
0 1'5'10'2'
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
P
1
1
7
V
I
I
.
a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
6
MOTION: Bob moved to approve Resolution #2, 2016 as amended; second
by Gretchen. Roll call vote: Sallie, yes; Bob, yes; Gretchen, yes; Patrick,
yes; Willis, yes. Motion carried 5-0.
980 Gibson Ave. – Conceptual Major Development, Demolition,
Relocation and Variations, Public Hearing
Affidavit of public notice – Exhibit I
New elevations – Exhibit II
Nora was seated.
Amy said this property is part of the Alpine Acres subdivision. It was
annexed into the city in the 60’s. 980 and 990 sat on one parcel as a duplex.
Recently they have been subdivided into two separate lots. This application
is to demolish the garage that links the two buildings together and to restore
980 Gibson back to its original form; rotate it on the lot and place it on the
front corner at the intersection of Gibson and Matchless and build a new
house next to it. We do not know where the house came from so we cannot
identify the exact shape. It appears that it is turned backwards on the lot. A
lot of the door and window openings have been changed. We feel good
enough that this project will bring back the character of the building as an
example of a miner’s cottage and make it a nice feature of that
neighborhood. There are historic materials and they will be used as
guidance for the project. There are a few concerns with the renovation of
the Victorian. There is a little addition proposed on the back of it to
accommodate a stair to the basement and we want to make sure that that
wasn’t damaging historic material any more than necessary. We have asked
the applicant to restudy the placement so that they don’t cut into an original
fascia line and they have accomplished that. We also asked them to reduce
the size of a light well that is right adjacent to the right porch of the historic
resource so that it isn’t any bigger than the code requirement and they have
accomplished that. We also asked that they ensure that the porch follows the
dimensions that appear to be the original enclosed porch that is currently
facing the back yard. There are a lot of details of this project that will have
to be finalized during construction when we get a better look at original
fabric. Staff supports the design as proposed and we have a few conditions
of approval. The applicant has addressed all of them. The applicant has
asked for a couple of setback variances to the side yards. One of the side
yards is along Matchless Drive and it relates to the placement of the
P118
VII.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
7
Victorian cottage and they have asked for a reduction from 15 feet to 5.6
feet. We support that. On the opposite side they are requesting a similar
reduction that is adjacent to the 990 Gibson Victorian. The applicant has
placed the house so that it doesn’t provide the full 15 foot side yard setback.
We have requested that they address that in part by reducing the width of a
deck that is proposed on the front of the house. They have accomplished
that in the plans. There are still cantilevered levels on that side that protrude
slightly into the setback. There are two proposals one completely removes
the house out of the setback but then that means it is closer to the Victorian.
In this project you are to have the miner’s cottage and the new house
completely separated by a distance of five feet above and below grade. The
applicant has asked to have the foundations touch because it is easier for
them to construct. Zoning concern is that someone might punch a hole in
the wall and the two structures would become one. We have asked them to
create a gravel filled chamber below grade of a five foot width that would
make it harder for someone to connect the two units in the future. The
applicant is requesting a variation from two of the RDS’s, building
orientation and build to lines. In terms of building orientation there
buildings are both square to Gibson Ave. but they can’t to Matchless
because it a curvilinear street. The build to line standard would require that
the two houses both be up front at the setback line on Gibson but they cannot
do that because of vegetation and the shape of the Victorian and they also
have a preference for setting the new house back a bit in order for the
Victorian to be the highlight so staff supports that. They are making the
miner’s cottage an accessory dwelling unit or a carriage house. This unit
will possibly be a voluntarily affordable housing unit. The owner doesn’t
have to rent it. If they choose to it has to be to a qualified working employee
within Pitkin County and there is no set rate on the rent but there are some
restrictions to its use. As a result the applicant has to meet some design
standards and they need some exceptions. When you are creating this kind
of unit more than half net livable space needs to be above grade. In this case
there is more livable space below grade. We think that is an appropriate
exception for HPC to make because we wouldn’t want to see a larger
addition. The second variation is that the carriage house be completely
detached from the primary residence and they are butting up against each
other but we have required the gravel filled chamber and we feel that
satisfies the intent of the requirement. The carriage house is expected to
comply with dimensional requirements but you are asked to grant some
setback variations for it.
P119
VII.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
8
Amy said we support the granting of conceptual major development for the
design. We also support HPC approving the demolition of the non-historic
parts of the building. We support your approval of relocation to pick the
historic house up and move it forward to the front of the site and rotate it in
the proper direction. We support HPC granting the variations for setbacks,
RDS’s and the accessory dwelling design standards.
Sallie said the ADU gives the owner the opportunity to rent legally a place
on their property that they otherwise would not be able to. If they rent it
they have to rent it to qualified employees so it can offer one more space for
a Pitkin County employee. If it wasn’t an ADU they couldn’t have a
kitchen.
Amy said this gives it the best chance to be occupied.
Sallie recused herself
Bill Pollock, Zone 4 architects
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Mitch said what is left of the Victorian after you take off all the additions
over the years is a very small footprint about 450 square feet of net livable
area. The client wanted to let the house stand alone and be a miner’s cottage
and not attach his whole house to the back of it. The owner likes the idea of
someone living there and can look after his house. We will first need to
figure out what is historic in the house and turn the house around. As a point
we are not asking for a bonus.
Mitch said a subdivision was done to split the two parcels up. The lot line
goes through a garage which will be removed. The house will be turned
around to face Gibson Ave. so that it is visible. There are two huge trees in
front of 990 which make it difficult to see 980 and those trees will go away
and the client is paying for that. It will be a slow careful demolition process
to see what is inside all the walls and what is original. Mitch went over the
site plan.
Bill Pollock said the mass is half of what the original design was. The client
doesn’t want to move the new house closer to the restored Victorian. The
ground floor and the footprint of the building complies with the setback
requirement of 15 feet. We have an 18 inch cantilever for a chimney and a
two foot cantilever at the back by the master bathroom.
P120
VII.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
9
Mitch said you are allowed to have a roof overhang project 18 inches into
the setback. We are not proposing any fencing. The projections have no
impact on a setback standpoint or on historic preservation. Pushing the
house further closer to the Victorian does start to have an impact. We are
hoping HPC allows the projections to be in the 15 foot setback but at the
ground level we comply. Our allowable floor area is about 7800 square feet.
The setbacks are based on the lot size of between 11,000 and 12,000 square
feet. Our setbacks are unusually large relative to the FAR allowed on the
property. We are hoping HPC approves the overhangs given the amount of
effort we are going through to restore the Victorian. On the carriage house
the square footage is only about 450 square feet. We wanted to make the
unit more livable by going below grade. With the 5 foot gravel filled
chamber the unit is detached. We are hoping we can get through conceptual
approval.
Nora inquired about the tree removals.
Mitch said the cottonwoods on Gibson have to remain. On Matchless a
string of trees will remain. Only a few will be cut down in order to get to the
driveway.
Willis inquired about the size of the lot and ceilings heights of the new
construction.
Bill said it is 11,587 square feet. The ceiling height is 10 feet and 9 foot
plate heights on the second floor.
Gretchen asked about the concept of the proposal.
Bill said the client wanted a traditional mountain modern home but sty
within the context of the two historic homes on either side.
Nora asked about the overhangs and the perceived heaviness of the deck .
Bill said the client loves the view of Aspen Mountain. The client spends a
lot of time outside and will do on the deck. Part of the overhang is to break
the two story mass up. The other is to provide a covered area to get from the
garage to the front door.
P121
VII.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
10
Willis said the 3D version is what is being represented.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing.
Chris Greenwood said she lives in the neighborhood. Chris asked about the
height requirements.
Willis said the height requirements are 25 foot measured to about 1/3 of the
way up to the primary roof shape.
Chris said the height would be about another 5 feet past that. Chris also
asked about the trees.
Bill said all the trees on the property have been flagged. All the trees on the
site plan will remain. According to the Parks Dept. most of the trees on -site
are not healthy. The only trees that we are allowed to take down are those
that are not healthy or not deemed to be an asset to the City. If we take
down any trees we would have to do a mitigation program.
Chris said the historic building is very close to the street and the corner is
dicey when you are driving. You have a hard time seeing.
Amy said some of the trees that are going to be removed are part of that
problem at the intersection. The pine tree and aspens at the corner are all
going away with the approval of the Parks Dept.
Chairperson, Willis Pember closed the public hearing.
Mitch said they will be doing plantings to help with the mitigation.
Willis identified the issues:
East setback,
East setback on the Matchless Drive, 5’6”
Below grade setback
5 foot gravel filled chamber
RDS’s – building orientation and build to line - Matchless curve issue
The caretaker unit
Partial demolition
P122
VII.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
11
Willis said the project is commendable and placing the resource on the
corner with no attachments except to the north is remarkable. This building
will stand off as a jewel to the community. The site plan is great and the fact
that they are not requesting a bonus is commendable. In doing that they
have maximumized the separation and justifies the request for the east side
yard setback variation request. The below grade setback is fine. The RDS’s
are straight forward. The evolution of the site planning is all good and
turning it northward to create a more porous reading are all great things.
The overall height being pushed to the maximum height is something to
discuss at mass and scale.
Bob agreed with Willis. This is such an improvement from the original
proposal and they have moved in the right direction. I have no issue with
the height considering what is possible on that site. It is commendable that
the historic house is being preserved.
Patrick said he is OK with the side yard setback rather than moving the new
house over. I am not OK with the 5.6 for the historic resource and it is really
close to the road. I would suggest that the historic resource be moved two
more feet away from the road which would be 7.6. Also on the cantilevered
roof I would recommend that the size be cut in half.
Gretchen said the overall concept is good and it is successful. I also agree
that the carriage house should be moved further away from the street. The
rotation of the house is good. I have a problem giving variances out for new
Construction when there is enough room to solve the issues. The building
overwhelms the Victorian but it can work. There are a lot of different
window styles and it confuses the building and that could be addressed at
final. The least amount of things that we have to vary is what I would prefer
to see on an 11,000 square foot parcel. The height can work as long as there
is some compatibility in scale or concept and I’m not finding it.
Nora said she is pleased to see the little cabin being restored. Nora also said
she feels the new building is sitting on top of the little Victorian. Maybe
move it back a little as it doesn’t meet guideline 11.3 which is that the front
elevation needs to be similar in scale. The huge overhang is awkward and
the porch feels very heavy. The building just looks a little top heavy. If it
was moved back a little and trimmed down a little it could be acceptable.
P123
VII.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
12
Bob said he has no problem with the overall height. This proposal is
definitely an improvement over what is existing.
Wills said the grade goes up as you go north so if the building is pushed
further to the north the addition will climb and look taller.
Gretchen said it is a good project, it just needs a little tweaking.
Amy commented that if you want to reduce the setback variance on the 990
side by pushing the new house back that becomes a different variance. The
RDS’s want the new house to be forward. I don’t know if it would feel good
if the house moves further away from the street.
MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve resolution #3, 2016 with the
condition that the carriage house move 2 feet east away from Matchless.
Reduce the mass and size of the overhang on the new proposed residence.
Move the proposed residence no less than 2 to 5 feet back.
Drop #1; keep #2, tweak #3; Keep #4,5,6
Motion second by Patrick. Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Nora, yes; Patrick,
yes; Bob, yes; Willis, yes; Motion carried 5 -0.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Gretchen. All in favor,
motion carried.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P124
VII.a
P125
VII.a
P126
VII.a
P127
VII.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Tom Rubel, Parks and Open Space Coordinator
Jeffrey Alden, Parks and Recreation Financial Analyst
THRU: Jeff Woods, Parks and Recreation Manager
DATE OF MEMO: February 3, 2016
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2016
RE: 2016 Parks Fee for ‘Landscape/Resource Review
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: It is the request of Council to amend the Ordinance 43, Series of
2015 to add to the 2016 fee schedule a Parks Department fee for Landscape/Resource Review at
$0.03 per square foot.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council adopted Parks Department fee rates for 2016
within Ordinance 43 on November 23, 2015.
BACKGROUND: Since 2012 the Parks Department has charged various fees related to
development review. For 2016 the Parks Department requested and Council approved an
increase to Parks fees related to development. However, there was no intent to increase the
Landscape/Resource Review fee. It was intended to move forward at the historic rate of $0.03
per square foot. Unfortunately, as a result of a spreadsheet program that rounded the fee to the
nearest dollar, the historic fee was rounded down to zero and inadvertently dropped from the
proposed Ordinance 43-2015. It is staff’s request that the ordinance be amended to reinstate the
historic rate of $0.03 per square foot, commencing as of January 1, 2016.
The Landscape/Resource Review is an important part of the overall development review.
Activities related to this fee include reviewing building permits that have impacts to trees,
landscaping, or ditches, including stream margins, 8040 greenline, or view planes. The goal is to
ensure that all landscaping plans adhere to City of Aspen standards.
In 2015 the Landscape/Resource fee review accounted for $46,180 in fees over 1,539,324 square
feet. Parks staff feels that this review is critical to maintaining the Aspen’s natural resources and
overall appeal. Revenues from the development review fees are devoted to one FTE to complete
the review process for parks.
DISCUSSION: The table below reflects historic and proposed development fees at for the Parks
Department. The only change from the originally approved fee ordinance is to reinstate the
Landscape/Resource Review fee, shown at the bottom of the table.
P128
VIII.a
Sec. 2.12.080. Parks Department
fees 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Development Fees
Encroachments - Minor Review N/A $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $72.00
Encroachments - Major Review N/A $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $143.00
Right of Ways - Minor Review N/A $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $72.00
Right of Ways - Major Review N/A $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $130.00 $143.00
Landscaping and Grading Permit N/A $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $65.00 $72.00
Landscape/Resource Review/Sq Ft N/A $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03 $0.03
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The aggregate fiscal impact associated with the above
recommended fee changes is projected to be $50,000 for 2016 and has already been incorporated
into the 2016 budget proposal.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the ordinance
to reinstate the proposed fee for the 2016 budget year.
ALTERNATIVES: Any fee can be amended in any manner as desired by the Council.
PROPOSED MOTION: Move to adopt Ordinance 2 to revise the 2016 fee ordinance to include
the requested fee adjustment as outlined above.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
__________________________________________________________________________________
P129
VIII.a
ORDINANCE NO. 3
Series of 2016
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING ORDINANCE 43, SERIES OF 2015, WHICH ADJUSTED MUNICIPAL
FEES INCLUDED UNDER TITLE 2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of
the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the
costs of providing such programs and services; and
WHEREAS, on November 23, 2015, the City Council adopted Ordinance 43, Series of
2015, which amended and adopted fees for various departments within the City to be in effect for
the year 2016; and,
WHEREAS, Ordinance 43, Series of 2015, inadvertently dropped an historic fee from
Section 2.12.080, Parks Department fees that reimburses the Parks Department for
Landscape/Resource Review. The fee inadvertently dropped was intended to continue through
2016 at the historic amount.
WHEREAS, this ordinance is intended to amend Ordinance 43, Series of 2015 by
reinstating the Landscape/Resource Review fee for the entire year of 2016.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Ordinance 43, Series of 2015, is hereby amended to add the following line item to Section
2.12.080. Parks Department fees, under “Development Fees,” to be in effect as of January 1,
2016:
Development Fees
Landscape/Resource Review/Sq Ft $0.03
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of February, 2016, in the City
Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of February, 2016
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P130
VIII.a
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 22rd day of February, 2016.
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda Manning, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
James R. True, City Attorney
2
P131
VIII.a
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Acting Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: First Reading of Ordinance #2, Series of 2016, AspenModern negotiation for
historic designation of 626 W. Francis Street
DATE: February 8, 2016
SUMMARY:
626 W. Francis Street is one unit in a
duplex that was built in 1964.
A new owner proposes landmark
designation through the AspenModern
program. The same applicant voluntarily
designated the other half of this duplex
and completed a minor remodel in 2013.
The units are mirror images of each
other.
The AspenModern process permits
negotiation of special preservation
incentives. An interior remodel of 626
W. Francis is underway. No HPC review
was needed and no other expansion of the building is proposed at this time.
To incentivize the designation, the applicant requests Council grant a 500 square foot floor area
bonus and allow the bonus to be converted into two Transferable Development Rights, to be
landed elsewhere in Aspen.
The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the application on January 27th and
recommended Council support the designation and incentives by a 7-0 vote. Staff and HPC
recommend Council approve this ordinance on First Reading.
APPLICANT: 626 W. Francis LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects.
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-011.
ADDRESS: 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri Condominiums, City and Townsite of Aspen,
CO.
ZONING: R-6
P132
VIII.b
2
HISTORIC DESIGNATION
AspenModern Criteria.
To be eligible for designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures
as an example of AspenModern, an individual building, site, structure or object or a collection of
buildings, sites, structures or objects must have a demonstrated quality of significance. The
quality of significance of properties shall be evaluated according to criteria described below.
When designating a historic district, the majority of the contributing resources in the district
must meet at least two of the criteria a-d, and criterion e described below:
a. The property is related to an event, pattern, or trend that has made a contribution to
local, state, regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific event,
pattern or trend is identified and documented in an adopted context paper;
b. The property is related to people who have made a contribution to local, state,
regional or national history that is deemed important, and the specific people are identified
and documented in an adopted context paper;
c. The property represents a physical design that embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period or method of construction, or represents the technical or aesthetic
achievements of a recognized designer, craftsman, or design philosophy that is deemed
important and the specific physical design, designer, or philosophy is documented in an
adopted context paper;
d. The property possesses such singular significance to the City, as documented by the
opinions of persons educated or experienced in the fields of history, architecture, landscape
architecture, archaeology or a related field, that the property’s potential demolition or major
alteration would substantially diminish the character and sense of place in the city as
perceived by members of the community, and
e. The property or district possesses an appropriate degree of integrity of location,
setting, design, materials, workmanship and association, given its age. The City Council shall
adopt and make available to the public score sheets and other devices which shall be used by
the Council and Historic Preservation Commission to apply this criterion.
Staff Response:
There is relatively little documentation of the subject building. The original building permit is
attached as Exhibit B. Following is an explanation of the Modern Chalet style, from the paper
“Aspen’s Twentieth Century Architecture: Modernism 1945-1975.
Modern Chalet
A distinctive postwar housing type in Aspen is locally termed a modern chalet. With its
moderately pitched gable roof oriented to the front, it recalls traditional chalets associated
P133
VIII.b
3
with ski country, but in its expansive glass and minimal decoration, it also seems classically
modernist, as if the architect and client liked the chalet idea for Aspen’s emerging ski
identity, but updated it and made it modern to fit the community’s avant-garde tastes.
Characteristically, modern chalets have low-to-moderately pitched roofs based on a 3:12
ratio; broad façades organized in rectilinear solid or glass panels; overhanging eaves,
frequently with exposed roof beams; glass often extending to the eaves; minimal decoration;
and sometimes stone or brick piers. The symmetrical modern chalets generally have a
tripartite organization: a large central glazed area flanked by wood or masonry piers.
Predominantly built between the late 1950s and late 1960s, these compact buildings were
custom-designed for clients as well as erected by speculative builders. They have a
rectangular footprint and fit well on the gridded streets of the older West End and Shadow
Mountain neighborhoods. For the most part, their sizable window walls are oriented to
Aspen Mountain.
Although some modern chalets, such as 500 E. Durant Street, served commercial purposes, most
extant examples are residential. They encompass a range of options, from single family to
duplexes and even quadriplexes. While evoking such contemporaneous hybrid modernist
homes as Eichler in California, Honn in Oklahoma, Keck in Chicago, and Koch (Tech
Built) in the east, when compared side-by-side, the Aspen modern chalets not only look
different, but arise out of different circumstances. Eichler and the others were meeting the
postwar demand for suburban homes that fit the American dream of home ownership, up-to-
date while still affordable. The Aspen real estate market was geared toward affluent vacation
home owners who might be attracted to Aspen for a variety of reasons—the culture of the
Aspen Institute, the skiing of Aspen Mountain, the charm of an authentic western town, or the
cachet of owning property in such a desirable place.
Many of Aspen’s modern chalets were built in the West End, close to the Aspen Institute and its
intellectual and cultural offerings. Urban lots in this established neighborhood fitted the
compact modern chalets well, yet they still offered mountain views. The modern chalets
added to the West End’s rich building mix, including Victorian cottages and Second Empire
and Queen Anne mansions as well as postwar traditional gabled chalets and classic flat-roofed
modernist houses. Often two- and multiple-family structures, they also represent a shift in
Aspen’s evolution as a vacation destination serving both winter and summer tourists.
625 Gillespie Avenue, designed by Benedict.
City of Aspen files.
P134
VIII.b
4
In 1957, Benedict designed two free-standing early modern chalets side-by-side on
separate lots, at 625 & 615 Gillespie Avenue (demolished). Identical, the one- story
structures had a horizontal base of board-and- batten siding punctuated by two vertical
windows defining the ground floor, and glazing in the upper gabled section below the low-
pitched roof. Simple and straightforward, they were topped by overhanging eaves and an
extensive roof that encompassed a car port.
Five other West end modern chalets date from 1962 to
1965 and show the range of variations within this simple
vacation house (see left.) Many modern chalets have
glass to the eaves and flanking brick piers. Projecting
balconies cantilevered across the front, injecting a three-
dimensional rectilinear base that hover just above the
ground are also common characteristics.
Staff finds that historic designation criteria a and c are met. To date, two modern chalets have
been designated (624 W. Francis and 120 Red Mountain Road). One has been demolished (219
S. Third) and five others including the subject house have been identified as eligible structures
located within the core of town. This particular style of postwar architecture is a hybrid of other
more common architectural approaches, adjusted to this mountain environment. While some
modern chalets were professionally designed, others were owner or contractor interpretations. It
is important to carefully consider preservation opportunities for this small collection of Aspen
structures.
The second component of designation is scoring the physical integrity of the building. Staff’s
score sheet is attached. Staff scored the building as a “Best” example of AspenModern, with 18
out of 20 points. This is a classic example of the style, with relatively few alterations. The
original windows have been replaced in kind. Staff finds that designation criterion e is met.
HPC has concurred with this assessment of the historic significance of the property.
P135
VIII.b
HISTORIC PRESERVATION BENEFITS
The Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, at a public meeting, regarding the proposed land use application or building
permit and the nature of the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this
meeting.
The Historic Preservation Commission, using context papers and integrity scoring sheets
for the property under consideration, shall provide Council with an assessment of the
property’s conformance with the designation criteria of Section 26.415.030.C.1. When any
benefits that are not included in Section 26.415.110 are requested by the property owner,
HPC shall also evaluate how the designation, and any development that is concurrently
proposed, meets the policy objectives for the historic preservation program, as stated at
Section 26.415.010, Purpose and Intent. As an additional measure of the appropriateness
of designation and benefits, HPC shall determine whether the subject property is a “good,
better, or best” example of Aspen’s 20th century historic resources, referencing the scoring
sheets and matrix adopted by City Council.
Staff Response: Staff and HPC find 626 W. Francis to be a “best” example of a modern chalet.
The applicant requests a 500 square foot floor area bonus, to be converted into two TDRs.
When the adjacent unit, 624 W. Francis, was designated, HPC and Council awarded a 72 square
foot floor area bonus for use on the site and a 250 square foot bonus to be converted into a TDR,
among other incentives. Typically, each historic property is eligible for a total of 500 square
feet. Though this property contains two residences, both of which will be recognized as historic,
one 500 square foot maximum bonus is the standard. The applicant requests 500 square feet in
addition to the 322 square feet that was awarded to 624 W. Francis, for a total of 822 square feet
associated with the property. The property will not be eligible for any more floor area bonuses in
the future unless the Municipal Code changes to allow it, and the bonus is approved by a review
board.
The 500 square foot bonus converted into TDRs is the only incentive the applicant requests for
this designation. Staff recommends Council support this modest incentive relative to the other
AspenModern negotiations. No other bonuses, fee waivers, expedited permitting, etc. are
involved.
626 W. Francis does appear to have a small (less than 200 square feet) amount of floor area
available for future expansion within the zoning allowance. HPC design review would be
required.
______________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff and HPC recommend Council support the proposed
AspenModern landmark designation of 626 W. Francis Street on First Reading. Please note that
the ordinance which designated Unit B of this duplex in 2013 included language clarifying that
P136
VIII.b
Unit A was not to be designated. The property owner at the time was opposed to that action.
The attached ordinance supersedes those statements.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
“I move to approve Ordinance #2, Series of 2016 on First Reading.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
EXHIBITS:
Ordinance #2, Series of 2016
Exhibit A: Application
Exhibit B: Plat
Exhibit C: Original building permit
Exhibit D: Integrity score
Exhibit E: Draft HPC Resolution
Exhibit F: Ordinance #40, Series of 2013, designation of 624 W. Francis Street
P137
VIII.b
Ordinance #2, Series of 2016
626 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 1 of 4
ORDINANCE #2
(Series of 2016)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND
PRESERVATION BENEFITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 626 W. FRANCIS
STREET, UNIT A, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-011
WHEREAS, the applicant, 626 W. Francis LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects,
submitted an application on November 19, 2015, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section
26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, to voluntarily participate in a ninety-day landmark
designation negotiation for the property located at 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri
Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and
WHEREAS, the application initiated a 90 day period of negotiation that may be extended if no
agreement has been reached. Since the review process could not be completed within 90 days,
City Council, through Resolution #9, Series of 2016, granted a 30 day extension of the
negotiation period, from February 17, 2016 to March 18, 2016; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation
period, “the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of
the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;” and
WHEREAS, the property owner and representative met with the Historic Preservation
Commission on January 27, 2016; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 27, 2016, the HPC considered the designation
and found that 626 W. Francis is a “best” example of the modern chalet style in Aspen. HPC
recommended City Council approval of Historic Landmark Designation and preservation
benefits; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, “council
may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community
Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to
reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property”; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that “as part of the mutually acceptable
agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee
waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another
Board or Commission, including variations;” and
P138
VIII.b
Ordinance #2, Series of 2016
626 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application
for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri
Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, subject to the conditions
described herein.
Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records
of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the
historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of
the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department.
This ordinance shall supersede language found in Section 1 of Ordinance #40, Series of 2013,
which indicated that 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri Condominiums, was not subject to
designation.
Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves the following designation incentive.
1. Floor area bonus: A 500 square foot floor area bonus is hereby approved to be issued in
the form of two Transferable Development Rights.
Section 3: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a
vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the
Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said
property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any
approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three
(3) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set
forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted
or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as
specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result
P139
VIII.b
Ordinance #2, Series of 2016
626 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 3 of 4
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within
the meaning of § 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific
development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval by the Historic Preservation
Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the
approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to
Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such
notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri Condominiums, Block 21, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City
of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance.
The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review.
The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate
this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of
vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development
approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than
those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 4: 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 Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: 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 6: 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.
P140
VIII.b
Ordinance #2, Series of 2016
626 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 4 of 4
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 22nd day of February, 2016 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 8th day of February, 2016.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ___ day of ____, 2016.
_______________________
Steven Skadron, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
P141
VIII.b
P142
VIII.b
P143
VIII.b
P144
VIII.b
P145
VIII.b
P146
VIII.b
P147
VIII.b
P148
VIII.b
P
1
4
9
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
0
V
I
I
I
.
b
P
1
5
1
V
I
I
I
.
b
P152
VIII.b
1) Rectilinear footprint, classic chalet orientation
with gable end to the street and/or mountain
view
X
Character Defining Features of the Modern Chalet Style
X
5) Deep eave overhang, may have exposed
roof beams
8) Minimal decoration
X
X
7) Large central glazed area is flanked by brick
or stone piers2) Broad gabled facade organized in rectilinear
solid or glass panels, generally in a tripartite
organization
3) Low to moderate pitched roof, often
based on a 3:12 ratio
6) Glass in gable ends extending to the
eaves
X
Check box if
statement is true.
One point per box.
9) Balcony on front facade
4) Roof eave comes down to a low plate height
at the upper level
10) Entry door recessed or on side elevation
X
X
X
X
A building must have 6 of the 10
character defining features, either
present or clearly documented
through photographic of physical
Total Points, 0 – 10
9
through photographic of physical
evidence to qualify as Modern
Chalet Style. Restoration may be
required as part of the award of
incentives.
If the property earned 6 or more
points, continue to the next page.
If the property earned less than 6
points, scoring ends.
1
2
3
4
5
6
9
7
8
10
P
1
5
3
V
I
I
I
.
b
P154
VIII.b
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVE ASPENMODERN
HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION BENEFITS FOR
THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 626 W. FRANCIS STREET, UNIT A, STARRI
CONDOMINIUMS, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION #4, SERIES OF 2016
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-011
WHEREAS, the applicant, 626 W. Francis LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects,
submitted an application on November 19, 2015, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section
26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, to voluntarily participate in a ninety-day landmark
designation negotiation for the property located at 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri
Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and
WHEREAS, Amy Simon, in her staff report to HPC dated January 27, 2016, performed an
analysis of the application based on the standards. The staff recommendation was that the
property should be designated a landmark as it meets the criteria for designation and the integrity
score qualifies as the “best” category of historic resources. Staff recommended that HPC support
the applicant’s request for a floor area bonus, to be converted into TDRs as a designation
incentive; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 27, 2016, the Historic Preservation
Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, including the staff
recommendation, and public comments, and found the project to be consistent with the review
criteria, with conditions, by a vote of 7 to 0.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby finds that the property located at 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri
Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado meets the designation criteria
of Land Use Code Section 26.415.025 and 030. HPC hereby recommends Council approve a
500 square foot floor area bonus, to be converted into Transferable Development Rights.
APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 27th day of January,
2016.
______________________
Willis Pember, Vice Chair
Approved as to Form:
___________________________________
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
ATTEST:
___________________________
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P155
VIII.b
ORDINANCE #40
Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO
APPROVING ASPENMODERN HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND
PRESERVATION BENEFITS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 624 W. FRANCIS
STREET, UNIT B, STARRI CONDOMINIUMS, BLOCK 21, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF
ASPEN, COLORADO
PARCEL ID: 2735-124-09-012
WHEREAS, the applicant, 624 W. Francis LLC, represented by Kim Raymond Architects,
submitted an application on August 16, 2013, pursuant to Aspen Municipal Code Section
26.415.025(C), AspenModern Properties, to voluntarily participate in a ninety-day landmark
designation negotiation for the property located at 624 W. Francis Street, Unit B, Starri
Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, CO; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 26.415.025.C(1)(b) states that, during the negotiation
period, "the Community Development Director shall confer with the Historic Preservation
Commission, during a public meeting, regarding the proposed building permit and the nature of
the property. The property owner shall be provided notice of this meeting;" and
WHEREAS, the property owner and representative met with the Historic Preservation
Commission on September 11, 2013; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on September 11, 2013, the HPC considered the
designation and proposed development, and found that 624 W. Francis is a"best" example of the
modern chalet style in Aspen. HPC recommended City Council approval of Historic Landmark
Designation and preservation benefits; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)(d), states that, during the negotiation period, "council
may negotiate directly with the property owner or may choose to direct the Community
Development Director, or other City staff as necessary, to negotiate with the property owner to
reach a mutually acceptable agreement for the designation of the property"; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.025.C(1)d establishes that "as part of the mutually acceptable
agreement, the City Council may, at its sole discretion, approve any land use entitlement or fee
waiver permitted by the Municipal Code and may award any approval that is assigned to another
Board or Commission, including variations;" and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department performed an analysis of the application
for Landmark Designation and found that the review standards are met; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development
standards and that the approval of the development proposal is consistent with the goals and
elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
Ordinance #40, Series of 2013
624 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 1 of 5
P156
VIII.b
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion
of public health, safety, and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN,COLORADO,AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Historic Landmark Designation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby approves Historic Designation for 624 W. Francis Street, Unit B, Starri
Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado, subject to the conditions
described herein.
Upon the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall record with the real estate records
of the Clerk and Recorder of the County, a certified copy of this ordinance. The location of the
historic landmark property designated by this ordinance shall be indicated on the official maps of
the City that are maintained by the Community Development Department.
The Historic Designation for 624 W. Francis Street, Unit B, Starri Condominiums, Block 21,
City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado as provided for herein shall in no way encumber or apply
to 626 W. Francis Street, Unit A, Starri Condominiums, Block 21, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado, or any common elements of the Starri Condominiums which are owned in common by
the owners of Unit A and Unit B, Starri Condominiums. In the event of any amendment to the
condominium map or declaration of protective covenants of the Starri Condominiums after the
effective date of this ordinance which in any way reallocates property or improvements to Unit
B, Starri Condominiums as comprising a part of Unit B, the Historic Designation for Unit B,
Starri Condominiums as provided for herein shall apply, pursuant to and in compliance with the
intent of this ordinance, to such reallocated property or improvements. In the event of any
amendment to the condominium map or declaration of protective covenants of the Starri
Condominiums after the effective date of this ordinance which in any way reallocates property or
improvements to Unit A, Starri Condominiums as comprising a part of Unit A, the Historic
Designation for Unit B, Starri Condominiums as provided for herein shall not apply, pursuant to
and in compliance with the intent of this ordinance, to such reallocated property or
improvements. However, any reallocation of property or improvements from Unit B to Unit A
must have the prior written approval of the City of Aspen.
Section 2: Aspen Modern Negotiation
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
City Council hereby accepts the following incentive, granted by HPC.
1. Expedited review. Council directs all building permit review departments to expedite
review of the permit for the subject application. Provided that the applicant submits a
permit by October 15, 2013, and provided that the applicant responds to any requests for
additional information or revisions within 3 business days of the request, the Building
Department shall endeavor to issue the permit by November 15, 2013.
Ordinance#40, Series of 2013
624 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 2 of 5
P157
VIII.b
2. Waiver of permit fees. Permit review fees for plan check, zoning, energy code,
engineering, construction mitigation and GIS shall be waived, along with tap fees the
City Water Department.
3. Waiver of impact fees. Parks and TDM fees for the permit shall be waived.
4. Tree removal. The fee to remove an aspen tree and spruce tree identified on the plans
shall be waived.
5. Floor area bonus: A 250 square foot floor area bonus has been awarded by the HPC
and is hereby approved to be issued in the form of a TDR. A 72 square foot floor area
bonus has been awarded for the proposed remodel of this property.
Section 3: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted herein shall constitute a site-specific development plan and a
vested property right attaching to and running with the Subject Property and shall confer upon the
Applicant the right to undertake and complete the site specific development plan and use of said
property under the terms and conditions of the site specific development plan including any
approved amendments thereto. The vesting period of these vested property rights shall be for three
3) years which shall not begin to run until the date of the publications required to be made as set
forth below. However, any failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to this
approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested property rights. Unless otherwise exempted
or extended, failure to properly record all plats and agreements required to be recorded, as
specified herein, within 180 days of the effective date of the development order shall also result
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights and shall render the development order void within
the meaning of§ 26.104.050, Void Permits. Zoning that is not part of the approved site-specific
development plan shall not result in the creation of a vested property right.
No later than fourteen (14) days following final approval by the Historic Preservation
Commission, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the
approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to
Chapter 26.308, Vested Property Rights. Pursuant to § 26.304.070(A), Development Orders, such
notice shall be substantially in the following form:
Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific
development plan, and the creation of a vested property right, valid for a period of
three (3) years, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24,
Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described
property: 624 W. Francis Street, Unit B, Starri Condominiums, Block 21, City and
Townsite of Aspen, CO.
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the Development Order from subsequent reviews and
approvals required by this Ordinance of the general rules, regulations and ordinances or the City
of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are not inconsistent with this Ordinance.
Ordinance #40, Series of 2013
624 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 3 of 5
P158
VIII.b
The vested rights granted hereby shall be subject to all rights of referendum and judicial review.
The period of time permitted by law to exercise the right of referendum to refer to the electorate
this Section of this Ordinance granting vested rights; or, to seek judicial review of the grant of
vested rights shall not begin to run until the date of publication of the notice of final development
approval as set forth above. The rights of referendum described herein shall be no greater than
those set forth in the Colorado Constitution and the Aspen Home Rule Charter.
Section 4: 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 Historic Preservation Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan
development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless
amended by an authorized entity.
Section 5: 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 6: 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.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7: Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 15th day of October, 2013 in the City
Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of
Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 23rd day of September,2013.
f'
Steven Sk on,Mayor
ATTEST:
ZAaz/ti!'A
Kathryn K,#, City Clerk
Ordinance#40, Series of 2013
624 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 4of5
P159
VIII.b
FINALLY,adopted,passed and approved this ' day of 2013.
r
Steven Ska' on, Mayor
ATT ST:
Kathryn Ko ity Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Xmes R. True, City Attorney
Ordinance#40, Series of 2013
624 W. Francis, AspenModern Negotiation
Page 5 of 5
P160
VIII.b
0, ) d Zed
a
Ad Name: 9571350A LEGAL NOTICE
ORDINANCE 40,2013 PUBLIC HEARING J
Customer: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Ordinance#40,Series of 2013 was adopted on first
Your account number: 1013028 2013. This or inance,ifadopted iIappr vene-2013. This ordinance,if adopted,will approve ne-
gotiations for AspenModern for 624 W.Francis
Street. The public hearing on this ordinance is
scheduled for October 15,2013 at 5:00 p.m.CityHall,130 South Galena.PROOF OF PUBLICATION To see the entire text,go to the city's legal notice
T A T
website
Z1 2:1 IMI:
htt f://www.aspe npitki n.conVD epa rtme nts/C le rk/Le-gal-Notices/
IF you would like a copy FAXed or e-mailed to you,
call the city clerk's office,429-2667
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Septem-
ber 26,2013- [9571350]
STATE OF COLORADO,
COUNTY OF PITKIN
I,Jim Morgan, do solemnly swear that I am General
Manager of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY, that
the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in
part and published in the County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado, and has a general circulation therein;that
said newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin for a period
of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior
to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or
advertisement.
The Aspen Times is an accepted legal advertising
medium, only for jurisdictions operating under
Colorado's Home Rule provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every
number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1
consecutive insertions;and that the first publication
of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated 9/26/2013 and that the last publication of
said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
9/26/2013.
In witness whereof,I have here unto set my hand
this 09/26/2013.
Jim Morgan,General Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary public
in and for the County of Garfield,State of Colorado
this 09/26/2013.
9
Pamela J.Schultz,Notary Public
Commission expires:November 1,2015
Y AU.B
PAMELA J.
SCHULTZ
c8
Yy C11mmISstn Expires 11101!2015
P161
VIII.b
Staff Memo - 517 E. Hyman Call-up
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Aspen City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Senior Planner
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director
RE: Call-up of HPC approval of Demolition, Conceptual Major
Development, and Conceptual Commercial Design for 517 E. Hopkins
Ave., HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2015
MEETING DATE: February 8, 2015
On January 11th City Council voted to call
up a recent HPC approval for discussion.
The call-up procedures are described
below.
During a public meeting, City Council
shall consider the application de novo and
may consider the record established by the
HPC. The City Council shall conduct its
review of the application under the same
criteria applicable to the HPC.
City Council may take the following
actions:
1. Accept the decision, or
2. Remand the application to HPC with direction from City Council for rehearing and
reconsideration, or
3. Continue the meeting to request additional evidence, analysis or testimony as necessary to
conclude the call-up review.
The final HPC vote on this application was six to one (6-1). Staff supports the HPC decision and
recommends Council select Option #1, accepting the HPC decision.
If Council selects Option #2 and remands the application back to the Board, the rehearing and
reconsideration of the application by HPC is final and concludes the call-up review. Substantial
changes to the application outside of the specific topics listed in the remand to HPC may require
a new call-up notice to City Council; however the call up review would be limited only to the
new changes to the application.
Following the conclusion of the call-up process, this application will be subject to Final Major
Development Review by HPC.
P162
X.a
Staff Memo - 517 E. Hyman Call-up
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND:
The existing development is a 9,000 square foot lot that contains a three-story building with
offices in the basement, commercial on the first floor, and residential units on the upper floors.
There is also a large carved out subgrade space that accesses the offices. Built in 1950, this
building is not historically significant, but is located within the Commercial Core Historic
District. The property is also located within the Courthouse view plane review area, however the
zone district limits height to 28’, which is below the height of the view plane (approximately
31’-37’).
HPC was asked to conduct Conceptual design review of a project that involves demolishing non-
historic construction on the site and new construction.
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) approved the proposal by a vote of 6-1. The
approved drawings are attached, along with the HPC resolution and draft minutes.
DISCUSSION:
Demolition, Conceptual Major Development & Commercial Design:
The proposal is to demolish the existing building and construct a new two-story commercial space.
HPC approved demolition, finding that the existing building has no historic significance.
Two options for the two-story element at the middle of the proposed building were presented to
HPC. Option A includes a setback from the property line and Option B has the two-story element at
the property line with a recessed entry. Please refer to the drawings on the next page.
P163
X.a
Staff Memo - 517 E. Hyman Call-up
Page 3 of 5
Option A: Two story element set back
Option B: Two story element at property line
Staff recommended in favor of Option B, as it more closely meets Guideline 6.18, from the
“Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines”. Additionally, the
guidelines state that setbacks should reinforce the objective of maintaining and enhancing the
special urban and traditional character of the strong urban edge of the street façade.
6.18 Maintain the alignment of facades at the sidewalk’s edge.
• Place as much of the façade of the building at the property line as possible.
• Locating an entire building front behind the established storefront line is inappropriate.
• A minimum of 70% of the front façade shall be at the property line.
P164
X.a
Staff Memo - 517 E. Hyman Call-up
Page 4 of 5
Most of the commissioners were supportive of Option A, mentioning that the undulating façade
provides a better connection and fits better with the mix on the street and surrounding context,
particularly the Connor Cabins and Kenichi building (see image below). It was also mentioned that
Option A breaks up the façade and massing of the proposed building more than Option B. The
design objectives for the Commercial Core support this by promoting creative, contemporary design
that respects the historic context and a variety in the street level experience. One objectives states
that “architectural form should recognize existing scale and diversity and build upon established
design traditions”. A few commissioners discussed if there was a middle ground between the two
design options. HPC ultimately decided in favor of Option A.
The Code states that the application shall comply with the guidelines as determined by the
appropriate Commission. The guidelines set forth design review criteria, standards and guidelines
that are to be used in making determinations of appropriateness. Although these criteria, standards
and guidelines are relatively comprehensive, there may be circumstances where alternative ways of
meeting the intent of the policy objectives might be identified. HPC determined that the proposed
project met all other applicable guidelines. The proposed project is also in conformance will all
dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core zone district.
Public Amenity:
The current development contains approximately 5.5% of the lot that qualifies as public amenity.
The project must provide a minimum of 10% of the lot (900 sf) as public amenity, either through
on-site, off-site, cash-in-lieu payment, or a combination. On-site public amenity is required to meet
a certain set of design criteria including open to view, open to the sky, and within a certain height
above or below the street level. The Design Guidelines also describe desirable characteristics of on-
site amenity space.
The Commercial Core has a strong and relatively consistent street façade line. However, there are
some departures from this where small areas of open space provide relief. Public amenity space
along the primary street frontage should be an accent within, and exception to, an otherwise well-
defined street façade.
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
CONNOR
CABINS
KENICHI
BUILDING
P165
X.a
Staff Memo - 517 E. Hyman Call-up
Page 5 of 5
The proposed project includes approximately 285 sf of public amenity space including benches and
planters in the northeast corner of the property. HPC accepted the proposed amenity at ground level
as it meets the design criteria and serves as an accent within the established street façade of the rest
of the building.
The two second floor decks were also proposed as public amenity. HPC did not accept the second
floor space as public amenity, due to lack of exterior public access and the desire to see public
amenity space at street level. HPC also accepted a cash-in-lieu payment for the remaining required
provision of public amenity. HPC determined this was acceptable for this property, due to the
location on the south side of the street creating a less than desirable space with limited solar and
view access. Additional on-site requirement would also require pushing more of the building façade
further from the street, which would further diminish the presence of a consistent street façade and
contradict the Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council uphold HPC Resolution #31, Series of
2015, granting Demolition, Conceptual Major Development, and Conceptual Commercial
Design, Demolition for 517 E. Hopkins Ave. HPC approved the project by a vote of 6-1.
RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE):
“I move to uphold HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2015.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Conceptual Design
Exhibit B: HPC minutes from December 9, 2015
Exhibit C: HPC Resolution #31, Series of 2015
P166
X.a
FI
N
.
F
L
O
O
R
0'
-
0
"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
16
'
-
0
"
UP
P
E
R
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
28
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
27
'
-
0
"
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
(N
.
I
.
C
.
)
EX
I
S
T
I
N
G
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
BE
Y
O
N
D
(N
.
I
.
C
.
)
B.
O
.
L
I
N
T
E
L
11
'
-
1
1
3
/
4
"
B.
O
.
L
I
N
T
E
L
1
12
'
-
8
"
RO
O
F
26
'
-
6
"
T.
O
.
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
19
'
-
6
"
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
7
8
9
12
5
10
10
10
5
13
5
5
5
2
14
14
15
16
17
T/
O
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
SH
A
F
T
31
'
-
0
"
15
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
16
'
-
0
"
UP
P
E
R
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
28
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
27
'
-
0
"
B.
O
.
L
I
N
T
E
L
11
'
-
1
1
3
/
4
"
T.
O
.
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
19
'
-
6
"
54
10
10
11
FI
N
.
F
L
R
.
S
P
A
C
E
'
A
'
0'
-
8
3
1
/
3
2
"
15
18
T/
O
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
SH
A
F
T
31
'
-
0
"
15
17
17
TR
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
TR
A
N
S
1
AD
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
S
C
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
.
:
A
L
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
N
D
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
H
E
R
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
T
H
E
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
A
N
D
U
N
P
U
N
L
I
S
H
E
D
W
O
R
K
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
S
A
M
E
M
A
Y
N
O
T
B
E
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
D
,
U
S
E
D
O
R
D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
.
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
:
C
A
M
B
U
R
A
S
&
T
H
E
O
D
O
R
E
,
L
T
D
.
R
A
8
/
1
8
/
1
5
T
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
A-
2
1
1
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
5
1
7
E
A
S
T
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
.
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
EA
S
T
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
D
K
E
Y
E
D
N
O
T
E
S
NU
M
B
E
R
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
1
P
E
T
E
R
S
E
N
B
R
I
C
K
,
K
O
L
U
M
B
A
S
E
R
I
E
S
,
K
4
.
2
H
O
R
I
Z
O
N
T
A
L
W
O
O
D
P
L
A
N
K
S
,
F
I
N
I
S
H
(
T
B
D
)
3
P
R
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
B
R
A
K
E
M
E
T
A
L
.
4
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
O
U
S
S
T
E
E
L
R
A
I
L
I
N
G
,
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
.
5
C
L
E
A
R
L
O
W
-
E
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
N
G
G
L
A
S
S
W
I
T
H
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
F
R
A
M
I
N
G
.
6
P
R
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
M
E
T
A
L
O
V
E
R
H
A
N
G
.
7
E
X
P
O
S
E
D
S
T
E
E
L
C
O
L
U
M
N
,
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
.
8
C
L
E
A
R
L
O
W
-
E
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
N
G
GL
A
S
S
W
I
T
H
AL
U
M
I
N
U
M
C
U
R
T
A
I
N
WA
L
L
,
E
Q
U
A
L
L
Y
S
P
A
C
E
D
P
A
N
E
S
.
9
S
T
E
E
L
B
E
A
M
W
R
A
P
P
E
D
I
N
P
R
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
B
R
A
K
E
M
E
T
A
L
,
FI
N
I
S
H
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
.
10
S
T
E
E
L
M
E
M
B
E
R
,
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
.
11
G
L
A
Z
I
N
G
I
N
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
.
12
P
R
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
M
E
T
A
L
C
O
P
I
N
G
.
13
R
O
O
F
L
I
N
E
14
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
U
R
A
L
C
A
S
T
S
T
O
N
E
.
15
B
O
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
.
16
B
U
T
T
-
G
L
A
Z
E
D
S
T
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
.
17
P
R
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
M
E
T
A
L
C
O
V
E
R
E
D
E
N
T
R
Y
.
18
8
"
C
M
U
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
H
E
R
E
E
X
P
O
S
E
D
.
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
B
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
1
1
1
-
1
8
-
1
5
R
A
I
S
S
U
E
D
T
O
L
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
A
P
1
6
7
X
.
a
FI
N
.
F
L
O
O
R
0'
-
0
"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
16
'
-
0
"
UP
P
E
R
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
28
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
27
'
-
0
"
B.
O
.
A
L
L
E
Y
L
I
N
T
E
L
12
'
-
8
"
T/
O
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
SH
A
F
T
31
'
-
0
"
1
TR
A
S
H
EN
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
TR
A
S
H
E
N
C
L
O
S
U
R
E
RO
O
F
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
S
C
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
NE
I
G
H
B
O
R
I
N
G
TR
A
N
S
F
O
R
M
E
R
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
16
'
-
0
"
UP
P
E
R
P
A
R
A
P
E
T
28
'
-
0
"
PA
R
A
P
E
T
27
'
-
0
"
1
2
2
3
4
EN
T
I
R
E
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
A
B
U
T
S
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
OU
T
L
I
N
E
O
F
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
S
C
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
.
:
A
L
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
N
D
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
H
E
R
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
T
H
E
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
A
N
D
U
N
P
U
N
L
I
S
H
E
D
W
O
R
K
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
S
A
M
E
M
A
Y
N
O
T
B
E
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
D
,
U
S
E
D
O
R
D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
.
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
:
C
A
M
B
U
R
A
S
&
T
H
E
O
D
O
R
E
,
L
T
D
.
R
A
8
/
1
8
/
1
5
T
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
A-
2
1
2
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
E
X
T
E
R
I
O
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
5
1
7
E
A
S
T
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
.
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
So
u
t
h
3
/
1
6
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
We
s
t
RE
F
E
R
E
N
C
E
D
K
E
Y
E
D
N
O
T
E
S
NU
M
B
E
R
K
E
Y
N
O
T
E
1
8
"
C
M
U
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
W
H
E
R
E
E
X
P
O
S
E
D
.
2
P
R
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
E
D
M
E
T
A
L
C
O
P
I
N
G
.
3
B
O
A
R
D
F
O
R
M
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
F
I
N
I
S
H
.
4
C
L
E
A
R
L
O
W
-
E
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
N
G
G
L
A
S
S
W
I
T
H
A
L
U
M
I
N
U
M
ST
O
R
E
F
R
O
N
T
F
R
A
M
I
N
G
.
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
B
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
1
1
1
-
1
8
-
1
5
R
A
I
S
S
U
E
D
T
O
L
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
P
1
6
8
X
.
a
UP
DNDN
UP
UPUP
T
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
(
N
.
I
.
C
.
)
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
3
'
-
7
7
/
8
"
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
(
N
.
I
.
C
.
)
A
D
J
A
C
E
N
T
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
(
N
.
I
.
C
.
)
2
'
-
1
0
"
23
'
-
1
0
"
24
'
-
1
0
"
23
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
"
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
'
A
'
21
5
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
'
B
'
21
6
RE
T
A
I
L
S
P
A
C
E
'
C
'
10
2
LO
B
B
Y
21
4
ST
A
I
R
#
1
21
2
EL
E
V
.
21
1
ST
A
I
R
#
2
21
3
CO
V
E
R
E
D
TR
A
S
H
A
R
E
A
21
8
S
F
90
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
1
3
'
-
8
"
6
1
'
-
1
0
"
1
4
'
-
6
"
72
'
-
7
"
17
'
-
8
1
/
2
"
24
'
-
2
"
24
'
-
1
"
23
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
7'
-
8
1
/
2
"
9
2
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
8
5
'
-
1
0
"
9
5
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
AI
R
C
U
R
T
A
I
N
BY
T
E
N
A
N
T
AI
R
C
U
R
T
A
I
N
BY
T
E
N
A
N
T
AI
R
C
U
R
T
A
I
N
BY
T
E
N
A
N
T
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
BY
T
E
N
A
N
T
(A
P
P
R
O
X
.
)
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
BY
T
E
N
A
N
T
(A
P
P
R
O
X
.
)
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
BY
T
E
N
A
N
T
(A
P
P
R
O
X
.
)
O
P
E
N
T
O
S
K
Y
1
0
'
-
0
"
OP
E
N
T
O
S
K
Y
10
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
24
'
-
7
"
47
'
-
1
1
"
9'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
OV
E
R
H
A
N
G
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
OV
E
R
H
A
N
G
OP
E
N
I
N
G
8'
-
0
"
4'
-
0
"
4
'
-
0
"
7'
-
0
"
2
'
-
2
"
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
21
5
5
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
9
'
-
3
"
9
'
-
3
"
7'
-
0
"
8
.
3
%
R
A
M
P
U
P
1
8
'
-
6
"
6
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
6
'
-
5
"
8
.
3
%
R
A
M
P
U
P
8
.
3
%
R
A
M
P
U
P
3'
-
9
"
8
.
3
%
R
A
M
P
U
P
8
.
3
%
R
A
M
P
U
P
2
6
'
-
0
"
T
2
'
-
1
1
/
2
"
5
'
-
1
0
"
8
'
-
4
1
/
2
"
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
M
E
T
E
R
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
,
T
Y
P
.
BO
L
L
A
R
D
PR
O
T
E
C
T
I
O
N
,
T
Y
P
.
TE
N
A
N
T
S
P
A
C
E
'
F
'
L1
0
0
34
'
-
3
"
35
'
-
1
0
1
/
8
"
9'
-
7
1
/
4
"
10
'
-
5
1
/
8
"
34
'
-
3
"
35
'
-
1
0
"
5'
-
6
"
14
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
90
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
1
0
0
'
-
0
"
TE
N
A
N
T
S
P
A
C
E
'
D
'
21
9
TE
N
A
N
T
S
P
A
C
E
'
E
'
22
0
TE
N
A
N
T
S
P
A
C
E
'
G
'
22
1
CO
R
R
I
D
O
R
22
2
WO
M
E
N
'
S
21
7
EL
E
V
.
L1
0
2
ST
A
I
R
#
2
L1
0
3
ST
A
I
R
#
1
L1
0
1
34
'
-
3
"
35
'
-
1
0
"
4
5
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
9
'
-
5
"
4
5
'
-
3
1
/
2
"
1
1
'
-
4
"
1
3
'
-
6
"
5
1
'
-
2
"
2
4
'
-
0
"
86
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
9
6
'
-
8
"
ME
N
'
S
21
8
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
21
9
4
8
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
4
8
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
18
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
9
'
-
1
"
1
3
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
.
:
A
L
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
N
D
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
H
E
R
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
T
H
E
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
A
N
D
U
N
P
U
N
L
I
S
H
E
D
W
O
R
K
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
S
A
M
E
M
A
Y
N
O
T
B
E
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
D
,
U
S
E
D
O
R
D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
.
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
:
C
A
M
B
U
R
A
S
&
T
H
E
O
D
O
R
E
,
L
T
D
.
R
A
8
/
1
8
/
1
5
T
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
A-
1
0
0
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
5
1
7
E
A
S
T
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
.
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
MA
I
N
L
E
V
E
L
-
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
LO
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
-
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
N
N
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
B
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
1
1
2
-
2
-
1
5
R
A
I
S
S
U
E
D
T
O
L
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
P
1
6
9
X
.
a
DNDN
RD
OR
D
RD OR
D
RD
OR
D
RD
OR
D
OU
T
D
O
O
R
DE
C
K
22
'
-
1
1
1
/
2
"
SE
C
O
N
D
F
L
O
O
R
TE
N
A
N
T
S
P
A
C
E
20
0
7
6
'
-
4
"
2
3
'
-
8
"
24
'
-
3
"
23
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
25
'
-
1
"
6'
-
1
"
ST
A
I
R
#
1
20
2
EL
E
V
.
20
3
ST
A
I
R
#
2
20
4
8
'
-
2
"
21
'
-
9
1
/
2
"
1
4
'
-
6
1
/
2
"
17
'
-
1
0
1
/
2
"
24
'
-
7
"
55
'
-
7
1
/
2
"
10
'
-
0
"
7
4
'
-
5
1
/
2
"
78
'
-
6
"
10
'
-
2
1
/
2
"
ME
N
'
S
20
5
WO
M
E
N
'
S
20
6
5
'
-
0
"
5
'
-
0
"
1
0
'
-
0
"
1
8
'
-
5
"
RO
O
F
AC
C
E
S
S
OU
T
D
O
O
R
DE
C
K
A-
2
1
1
2
A-
2
1
2
A-
2
1
2
A-
2
1
1
1
2
1
S
L
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
S
L
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
SL
O
P
E
SC
U
P
P
E
R
AW
N
I
N
G
BE
L
O
W
AW
N
I
N
G
BE
L
O
W
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
A
R
E
A
RO
O
F
AC
C
E
S
S
ME
C
H
A
N
I
C
A
L
SC
R
E
E
N
I
N
G
19
'
-
3
"
50
'
-
0
"
19
'
-
3
"
1
5
'
-
0
"
1
4
'
-
0
"
DE
C
K
BE
L
O
W
DE
C
K
BE
L
O
W
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
T
I
T
L
E
:
S
C
A
L
E
:
D
R
A
W
N
B
Y
:
D
A
T
E
:
R
E
V
I
E
W
E
D
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
N
O
.
:
A
L
L
D
R
A
W
I
N
G
S
A
N
D
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
H
E
R
E
I
N
C
O
N
S
T
I
T
U
T
E
T
H
E
O
R
I
G
I
N
A
L
A
N
D
U
N
P
U
N
L
I
S
H
E
D
W
O
R
K
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
,
A
N
D
T
H
E
S
A
M
E
M
A
Y
N
O
T
B
E
D
U
P
L
I
C
A
T
E
D
,
U
S
E
D
O
R
D
I
S
C
L
O
S
E
D
W
I
T
H
O
U
T
T
H
E
W
R
I
T
T
E
N
C
O
N
S
E
N
T
O
F
T
H
E
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
.
C
O
P
Y
R
I
G
H
T
:
C
A
M
B
U
R
A
S
&
T
H
E
O
D
O
R
E
,
L
T
D
.
R
A
8
/
1
8
/
1
5
T
T
A
S
P
E
N
,
C
O
A-
1
0
1
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
A
N
D
R
O
O
F
P
L
A
N
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
1
4
-
4
4
0
0
7
5
1
7
E
A
S
T
H
O
P
K
I
N
S
A
V
E
.
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
1
SE
C
O
N
D
L
E
V
E
L
-
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
N
N
1
/
8
"
=
1
'
-
0
"
2
RO
O
F
P
L
A
N
R
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
N
O
.
D
A
T
E
B
Y
D
E
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
1
1
1
-
1
8
-
1
5
R
A
I
S
S
U
E
D
T
O
L
A
N
D
P
L
A
N
N
E
R
P
1
7
0
X
.
a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015
MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 124 W. Hallam conceptual
development to February 10; second by Gretchen.
Michael suggested giving the applicant clear direction.
Sallie also said if we required a model our discussions would go a lot easier.
Bob said you don't see the new addition on the back from the streetscape or
very little of it. A lot of it is on the alley. A pitched roof would not work
and I am very positive about this project. There will also be something on
the west side of the lot.
John said we owe the applicant some direction as to what needs changed.
Willis said a block elevation of the alley would is advised and photo sides of
the alley.
Patrick suggested the applicant listen to staffs recommendation.
Roll call vote: Gretchen, yes; Patrick, yes; Willis, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, yes
Sallie, no; John, no. Motion carried 5-2.
517 E. Hopkins Ave. -Conceptual Design Review and Demolition
Proof of publication -Exhibit I
Justin Barker, Senior Planner
Justin said the proposed project is to demolish the existing building and
replace it with a two story commercial building with a basement. This
building is not a designated building but is located within the commercial
core historic district. HPC is being asked to review conceptual design,
conceptual commercial design review as well as the demolition for the
existing building. All other reviews will be combined with the final review.
Staff is in support of the demolition. There is currently no parking provided
onsite and the applicant has the right to maintain this deficit and will only
have to provide for the increase of net leasable which they are going to do
through cash-in-lieu. The project is also required to provide a minimum of
10% of public amenity space of the lot which equates to about 900 square
feet and it is a 9,000 square foot lot. There is currently 500 square feet of
space that qualified as public amenity which is essentially the walkway that
8
EXHIBIT B P171
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015
leads between the street and the alley. The proposed building has a setback
area in the northeast comer which is about 285 square feet which the
applicant has represented as public amenity space and they are also
proposing the use of the upper level decks as public amenity space. Staff is
in support of the northeast comer but not for the second story portions. Staff
recommends that the remaining be cash-in-lieu payment. There are two
design options. Both options have 4 modules to the design on the street
level. There are three commercial areas and one is the entrance area for the
circulation of the building. The entrance area is set back about 14 feet from
the property line. Option A which has the center space set back from the
property line includes a bridge cat walk between the other two commercial
spaces to connect to the roof deck areas. Option B is what is presented after
the applicant met with staff which pulls the center commercial area forward
so that the three commercials are located at the property line. Option B is in
line with the guidelines which bring the building fronts as close to the
property line and sidewalk as possible. It helps create a stronger street
fa9ade which is what the guidelines request. It also displays a strong height
variation which is requested by the guidelines for properties that are over
6,000 square feet. Both designs conform to the zone district. The maximum
height is 28 feet and they are at 28 feet. The only portion that extends over
that is the elevator overrun which is permitted by right in the code. The
proposed development is below what the view plane is and is not subject to
view plane review. Staff recommends approval of option B.
Mark Hunt, owner
Mitch Haas, Haas Planning
Mark said the City came to us and asked us to explore putting in some office
space and that is why the aspen leaf is on the building. The City decided to
go elsewhere. The leaf is a signage place holder. The space to the east is
designed to be a shared office environment where there would be short and
long term offices with a social environment to that. There is also a health
and fitness area as part of the project. We will be using steel and glass
partitions to keep it light and airy. The ground floor has a lobby with a large
corridor where local artists can hang their work. There are exterior decks
above the retail. There will also be benches and landscaping outside. It is
one building but we are delineating with the different heights and different
facades. There is 285 square feet on the ground that is calculated for public
amenity. There will probably be another 750 to 900 square feet provided in
the right-of-way. We are only counting the 285 sq.ft. and will pay the cash-
9
P172
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015
in-lieu for the balance. On exhibit A the ins and outs of the fac;ade are
consistent with the block and the color is softer. Adding the wood makes a
difference and it works well with the brick and stone as proposed and it
engages the street.
Mitch said the building itself is set back off the street. The public amenity
today is essentially the walkway that leads to a transformer and then to the
alley. The walkway is on the northeast side of the property. We can do the
balance of the public amenity 903 square feet with cash-in-lieu even though
the code says it can be taken in the form of physical or operational
improvements to public rights-of-ways or private property in commercial
areas. Why we shouldn't get credit for improving the street scape putting in
benches, trees and a detached sidewalk I don't understand. The view plane
height ranges between 30.6 feet at the front of the property and 34.4 at the
front and at the back of the property between 36 and 41 feet high. We fall
below the view plan and the elevator run is also below the view plane. The
existing building is 10 to 12 feet taller than the proposed. The second floor
space on the north east will be broken up into pods or cubicles. There are
also three broken retail frontages that face the street.
Option B would be all brick punched openings on the second floor. Staff is
recommending approval of option B. The existing building fails to meet the
guidelines with the sunken courtyard.
Dwayne Romero, represented the applicant
The proposed structure is stepping back out of a pre-existing encroachment
into the view plane that runs to the benefit of the court house. The mass and
scale of the proposal is completely in line with the concept of small
downtown character. The proposal has an active lifestyle health and fitness
thread and a community social gathering space tied to it. It is a great
program for our community needs and the shared office model is also
included that rounds out the program.
Mark said the four studio units on the third floor will be replaced 100
percent off site. The second floor is not laid out for retail use.
Mitch said the zoning has changed and we cannot have a third floor.
Justin said the housing credits will be addressed with the growth
management review in the future. They will either build units or buy credits.
10
P173
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015
John asked staff why they do not like the connecting deck etc.
Justin said the design holds the property line and establishes the street wall
that is in the guidelines.
Mark said option A looks like individual buildings and B is more of the
same material.
Bob said plan A provides more space on the second floor and has more glass
which makes the space lighter and airy. Bob commended the applicant for
putting that kind of space in our community and it is needed and successful.
Chairperson, Willis Pember opened the public hearing. There were no
public comments. The public comment portion of the agenda item was
closed.
Mitch summarized and said in terms of height, scale and mass we have kept
things to the 28 foot height limit. We have broken up the fa9ade into
modules to give a rhythm to the property. We have heard in other reviews
that breaking up the frontage so that it looks like separate development is
recommended.
Willis identified the issues:
Public amenity
Demolition
Cash-in-lieu
View plane
Mass and scale
Community character
Willis said this is an excellent presentation and the applicant gave a
convincing case for demolition. What was lacking in the presentation was
the street elevation showing the former Gap building and the Kenichi
building. Option A has a better connection and fits with the mix on the
street and the context. As Bob said the glass is a functionally good thing for
an open office plan. Willis said he tends to supports staffs recommendation
for approval.
11
P174
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015
Michael said he supports the demolition and option B. Exhibit A presents
messy facades going in and out and the punched windows are appropriate.
Regarding the public amenity and because of the location on the south side
of the street and the fact that there isn't a real way of providing it I can grant
it for the small opening in the entry and paying cash-in-lieu for the balance.
The second level doesn't meet the criteria for public amenity.
Patrick said they have done a good job with no variances requested. Having
the breakup in option A is preferred. On Hopkins everything historically is
pulled back. Regarding public amenity cash-in-lieu has not been beneficial
to the community as much as putting physical space on the site. If the public
amenity is on the ground floor it works. In general the project works and the
concept is great and hopefully it will go through.
Willis said the outdoor amenity space represented on the second module is
not open to the sky so it doesn't count for public amenity.
Gretchen said she is totally in favor of tearing this building down. Option A
is appropriate. The fact that the decks above are connected is a good feature
and it feels very community friendly. The breakdown of the building is
totally successful. The only concern is the streetscape and the walkway
which will be missed. There will be a narrow very small walkway to the
very large fa9ade. There should have been more discussion about the comer
and the integration of the building.
Mark said the building is 14 Yi feet back from the street.
Gretchen commented that the board should know what is going on next to
the proposed building and see it in plan. The comer is harsh. When
applications come before us we need to see a streetscape. Regarding
affordable housing it is a mistake to take any affordable housing away when
it could be kept there. Continually moving employee housing out of the core
is a huge mistake. The different materials and the way it steps in and out
and the details are all great.
John said he is in complete agreement with Option A and it is messy vitality
and the look of the proposal. When it comes to the public amenity you are
reinstating a nice detached sidewalk with benches and in the past portions of
what applicants have done were calculated in the public amenity. You
should get credit for doing the detached sidewalk and benches because it
12
P175
X.a
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 9, 2015
improves the streetscape. The pedestrian sidewalk experience by the old
Gap building is one of the best in town. By doing the detached sidewalk you
are doing a service to the community. The undulation proposed will do
good for the Saturday market.
Nora said she also agrees that street scape diagrams should be provided on
all applications. Even when you know the street well it is different when
you see a new building on it. Philosophically public amenity space should
be on the street. Nora said she prefers option B. Option Bis much quieter
and unified. There are too many materials.
Sallie said she is OK with the conditions. Sallie said she would prefer A to
look a little more like B, (A Vi.) The Theory building next door is one
material and not chaotic. I would stand behind that building any day. B
feels like a side street. Option A brings in a lot of glass and it doesn't feel
cold.
Bob said functionally with the glass A is better. A has a little too many
variables. Maybe there can be a middle ground between A & B. The relief
of A is good. The fenestration can be dealt with at final.
Michael pointed out that the second floor fenestration of all glass will
probably not meet the design guidelines for final. A shows a better
distinction between the two story element and the one story element of the
fa9ade. B looks like it is ready to go to final. Option A might not be what
you end up with.
Motion: John moved to approve resolution #31, 2015 as written with a
minor amendment that option A is conceptually approved and everything
else will be addressed at final. Motion second by Willis.
Roll call vote: Patrick, yes; Gretchen, yes; John, yes; Bob, yes; Nora, no,
Sallie, yes, Willis, yes; Motion carried 6-1.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Bob. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Cler
13
P176
X.a
·w:,··.,
_)
RECEPTION#: 625749, 12/21/2015 at10:34:24 AM,
__ · I
1 OF 7, R $41.00 Doc Code RESOLUTIONJanice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, co
RESOLUTION NO. 31; (SERIES OF 2015)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
GRANTING CONCEPTUAL COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL, MAJOR DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AND DEMOLTION APPROVAL FOR 517 E HOPKINS A VENUE, LOTS D, E, AND F, BLOCK 94, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN
COUNTY, COLORADO.
Parcel ID: 2737-073-40-003
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 517
E.Hopkins LLC (Applicant), represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning for the following
land use review approvals:
•Commercial Design Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.412;
•Major Development Conceptual Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415;
•Demolition Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415, and;
WHEREAS, all code citation references are to the qty _of Aspen Land Use Code in effect
on the day of initial application -September 21, 2015, as applicable to this Project; and,
WHEREAS, the application represents that the proposed building does not infringe into
any protected Mountain View Planes pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.050; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from
the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department,
Environmental Health Department, and Parks Department, as a result of the Development Review
Committee meeting; and,
WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Asp.en Community Development Department
reviewed the proposed Application and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.304, Common Development Review Procedures, and
. Section 26.304.060.B.4, Modification of Review Procedures, all other necessary land use reviews,
as identified herein, have been combined to be considered by the Historic Preservation
Commission _ at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the
Community Development Director and relevant referral agencies; and,
WHEREAS, such combination of review procedures was done to ensure clarity of review,
was accomplished with all required public noticing provided as evidenced by an affidavit of public
noticing submitted to the record, and the public was provided a thorough and full review of the
proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Application at a duly
noticed public hearing on December 9, 2015, during which the recommendations of the
Community Development Director and comments from the public were requested and heard by
the Historic Preservation Commission; and,
WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on December 9, 2015, the Historic
Preservation Commission approved Resolution 31, Series of 2015, by a six to one (6 -1) vote
Historic Preservation Commission
Reso No.31, Series 2015
Page I of3
EXHIBIT C
P177
X.a
granting conceptual approvals and demolition approval, with the recommended conditions of
approval listed hereinafter.
\,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1: Approvals
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Historic Preservation Commission hereby grants -Major Development Conceptual approval,
·Conceptual Commercial Design approval, and Demolition approval subject to the recommended
conditions of approval as listed herein.
Option A is conceptually approved.
Section 2: Subsequent Reviews
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
Applicant is required to obtain Final Commercial Design Review, Final Major Development
Review, Growth Management Review.
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 3: Public Amenity
The project has a 10% public amenity requirement. · A portion of the required public amenity will
be provided onsite, located in front of the entrance to the upper and lower levels. The remaining
public amenity requirement will be mitigated through cash-in-lieu.
Section 4: ACSD
A potential location for a grease trap ( sub grade) shall be included in the building permit application
to allow flexibility for future conversion of the commercial/retail spaces to restaurant.
Section 5: Demolition
Demolition is granted pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.415.080.
Section 6:
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 and the Historic Preservation Commission are
hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals Jnd the same shall be complied with as
if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions or an authorized authority.
Historic Preservation Commission
Reso No.31, Series 2015
Page 2 of3
P178
X.a
Section 7:
This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 8:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 9th day of December, 2015.
·Approved as to form:
Attest:
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Conceptually approved elevations and floor plans
Historic Preservation Commission
Reso No.31, Series 2015
Page 3 of3
P179
X.a
TIO ELEVATOR 0--w:-o--S.!::!8.El_ - - - - - -
� �:�ii-R_PARAPET _____ _
� .. � .. ----1 r: ... :::;c:,�:�L v
-' SECONQ.FLOOR ·L .. ; ..
16' O" --.·---
�NIEL_ r . �-.
11·-,1314· -1-�-;:�
I exi�;imi-
1 -����; :\N.I.C.)
� ��:L®L_ -1 1,·. @, 11 u�
NORTH ELEVATION 3116"=1'-0"
--2�
_ __!&,��
_llQ. IJ.���: e� �
TIO ELEVATOR -- -- - --;�.�F� � = :::: � UPPER PARAPET � 28'-0" L___��RAeE_l �
-----_LQ.��� �
_____ SECONO_F��� S
-----4?':L����� �
I/ // ,'/ ,,, l''�";-.,}:'jg;,�,;�::\iJ -£IN.i:LR0�:;,7;�: {9
2 EASTELEVATION 3116"•1'-0"
REFERENCED KEYED NOTES
gl "' ill �i ii !I
rn ·re __. o
� 8 ; I � �' "a u=;
IE1 I � I•
� I� I� I�· II
A-211
P
1
8
0
X
.
a
PROPOSED EXTERIOR B.EVATIONS t ...a,1 =�----1 517 EAST HOPKINS·AVE. 1-'--+-'="+"'+--�"�W�,0�,0�=�0�==��'--,
l\)•==---1 ASPEN.CO
P181
X.a
I
�
�
�
PROPOSED FLOOR PlNIS
,! �1""
� �!
�i ·tl±tfh f\ls�
@i;•
i �i
..... o•------• 517 EAST HOPKINS AVE. I-'-+="-+=+-�"='"�"='="="="='"="�-,
ASPEN.CO
l!Ll ;�-�
"�(
@I
r \ J
._______!3'·2'1'2.
� �� " .
=� �
I�� •
�1 •
���
\
P182
X.a
PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN NfJ ROOf PLAN :f> •��----l'AOJl;CTNO. 14"""4007 LOCATKlNJ'<O.· ...... o•=----
....a.•==�---517 EAST HOPKINS AVE. 1--'---+-'="+'"+-�'=="='0=�=0�==��'--t
ASPEN.CO
I
I s
!@
I
I
P183
X.a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and City Council
THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Acting Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Simon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: Adoption of “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines,” Resolution
#8, Series of 2016
DATE: February 8, 2016
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: HPC’s current design guidelines were adopted in 2000. Amendments were
initiated in 2004 and in 2010, but not completed due to budget constraints and intervening
projects which sidetracked the work.
Over the last several months, Staff and HPC revisited the progress made previously and
incorporated it into a new proposed update. HPC reviewed drafts and provided revisions to staff
at four public meetings before endorsing the final draft on January 13, 2016. During the
development of this draft, staff visited with six architecture and landscape design firms in Aspen
to take their input, and held two focus group meetings; one with additional design professionals
and one geared to the general public. Suggestions that came out of these meetings were reported
to HPC and included in the document. Staff also ran an advertisement in the newspaper noting
that the final draft of the guidelines were available for review, and the draft has been posted on
the City website for the last month. No additional feedback was received as a result of that
outreach.
HPC’s powers and duties, as established in the Aspen Municipal Code, include developing
design guidelines and recommending them for Council adoption. Council adoption is required
because the guidelines are used as the basis of all findings and decisions by the HPC.
The purpose of amending the guidelines is to incorporate knowledge that has been gained from
15 years of using the original document. HPC worked to clarify design policies, to provide
better illustrations, and to simplify and abbreviate the text where possible.
The changes are too comprehensive to provide a red-lined version indicating all new and
removed language, although the majority of the previous guidelines still appear in this final draft.
Some guidelines which were advisory, such as guidelines regarding paint color- a topic not in
HPC’s authority, have been removed. The existing guidelines contain information about
building maintenance which is already covered more appropriately in the historic preservation
contractor training manual, so that information is removed from the new guidelines.
While the guidelines do contain some information that is applicable to commercial and civic
development in Aspen, those topics are primarily addressed in the “Commercial, Lodging and
P184
X.b
Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines.” The City has issued an RFP to update that
document in 2016. Council involvement and adoption of the final product will be needed.
The Historic Preservation Guidelines currently proposed for Council adoption contain an
Introduction, a Historic Overview of Aspen, and twelve chapters of guidelines. Chapter 1 relates
to site planning and landscapes. Chapters 2 through 8 address proper treatment for historic
building materials and features, as well as secondary structures, such as barns and sheds.
Chapters 9 through 11 establish direction for alterations, additions, and new construction on a lot
containing historic resources. Chapter 12 includes numerous topics related to accessibility,
mechanical equipment, lights and signs.
The Aspen Historic Preservation Program was created over forty years ago. The program has
had many successes because property owners often have the resources to complete high quality
restoration work and the City provides generous incentives in order to partner with property
owners in the stewardship of the town’s historic resources. The program has always struggled,
however, with the size of proposed additions and the overall extent of changes that are often
proposed for historic properties.
In staff’s opinion, the new guidelines take another step forward by giving the Commission, and
applicants, a better understanding of appropriate work. There are several new, more restrictive
ideas incorporated in the guidelines. For instance, the new guidelines indicate that no addition
directly attached to a historic resource can more than double it in size. Additions directly behind
a historic resource on a corner lot would be limited to one story in height, unless the new
development was completely detached. Applicants are given several options for successfully
meeting these goals, since every property is unique. An example guideline is:
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
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.
P185
X.b
Another area where HPC has worked to make policy improvements is on the important topic of
distinguishing new construction from old. This is a basic tenant of historic preservation, so that
all changes to a historic property can be understood as new, not original work. There is a vast
spectrum of possible ways to identify new work as new, and a danger of going too far and
creating incompatibility. To provide more guidance on this balance, HPC has developed this
new text:
Staff and HPC believe that the new “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines” are
appropriate and a necessary update. HPC voted 7-0 for adoption of this document.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #8, Series of 2016, adopting the “City
of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines.”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Attachments:
Resolution #8, Series of 2016 and Exhibit A, proposed design guidelines
I. HPC minutes: Sept. 23, Oct. 14, Oct. 28 and Dec. 2, 2015, and Jan. 13, 2016
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.
P186
X.b
II. HPC Resolution #1, Series of 2016
P187
X.b
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING “CITY OF ASPEN
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES”
RESOLUTION #8, SERIES OF 2016
WHEREAS, Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.415.060.B references the “City of Aspen
Historic Preservation Design Guidelines” and requires conformance with applicable guidelines
for the approval of any proposed work requiring historic preservation review; and
WHEREAS, the “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines” were adopted by City
Council in 2000 and have not been amended since that time; and
WHEREAS, Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.220.010.E, Powers and Duties of the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC), allows the HPC to recommend Council adoption of new
guidelines; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meetings on September 23, October 14, October 28, and December
2, 2015, and their regular meeting on January 13, 2016, the HPC discussed proposed new
guidelines and provided direction to the Community Development Department. In October
2015, the Community Development Department held eight outreach meetings to seek input on
the draft from local design offices and the public. This input was considered by the HPC; and
WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 13, 2016, the Historic Preservation
Commission recommended Council adopt the final draft of the guidelines by a 7 to 0 vote; and
WHEREAS, Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.208.010.H, Powers and Duties of the City
Council, requires Council adoption of any guidelines that will be used in a guiding or regulatory
capacity by the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That City Council hereby adopts the “City of Aspen Historic Preservation Guidelines,” attached
as Exhibit A.
APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on February 8, 2016.
Approved as to form:
______________________
James R. True, City Attorney
Attest: Mayor:
______________________ ____________________________
Linda Manning, City Clerk Steven Skadron, Mayor
P188
X.b
City of Aspen
Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
P189
X.b
P190
X.b
Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
P191
X.b
P192
X.b
table of contents
introduction
historic overview
design guidelines:
rehabilitation
appendix
Why Preserve Historic Resources 8
Purpose of the Design Guidelines 10
How to Use the Guidelines 10
Design Review Process 13
Aspen Historic Overview 16
Architectural Styles in Aspen 21
Chapter 2: Building Materials 52
Chapter 3: Windows 55
Chapter 4: Doors 59
Chapter 5: Porches & Balconies 63
Chapter 6: Architectural Details 66
Chapter 7: Roofs 68
Chapter 8: Secondary Structures 73
design guidelines:
new construction
Chapter 9: Excavation, Building Relocation, & Foundations 76
Chapter 10: Building Additions 79
Chapter 11: New Buildings on Landmarked Properties 85
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Historic Preservation 94
design guidelines:
general
Chapter 12: Accessibility, Architectural Lighting,
Mechanical Equipment, Services Areas, & Signage 90
design guidelines:
context
Chapter 1: Site Planning & Landscape Design 36
P193
X.b
P194
X.b
I ntroduction
P195
X.b
8 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Aspen is a unique community, rich with history,
dramatic landscapes, a vibrant economy, and vital
cultural scene. Each of these elements contributes
to the appeal of the City and enhances its livability.
Within this context, the preservation of historic
resources is a high priority. This policy is articulated
in the Aspen Area Community Plan and in ordinances
that address protection of landmarked properties and
historic districts.
This document provides background on the City’s
preservation program and local history and then
presents design guidelines that articulate policies for
the treatment of locally-designated historic properties
and districts.
Why Preserve Historic Resources
Across the nation, thousands of communities
promote historic preservation because doing so
contributes to neighborhood livability, variety, and
quality of life, minimizes negative impacts on the
environment and yields economic rewards. These
same reasons apply in Aspen. Preservation of the
built environment in Aspen provides a fundamental
link to the past. Many of the buildings tell the story
of Aspen’s unique historical development. Preserving
these resources creates a sense of place for those
who live here and provides visitors a connection with
this unique heritage.
Construction Quality
Many of the historic structures in the City are of high
quality construction. Other buildings are more modest,
but even so may have used lumber from mature trees
that were properly seasoned and typically milled to
full dimension, which often yields stronger framing.
Historic masonry walls were carefully laid, resulting in
buildings with considerable stability.
Many older structures were thoughtfully detailed and
the finishes of materials, including fixtures, wood
floors and trim, were of high quality and exemplify
hand craftsmanship that is more unusual today.
Some AspenModern structures represent early use of
building technologies that continue to be favored.
Adaptability
Owners frequently find that the floor plans of historic
buildings easily accommodate modern lifestyles and
support a diversity of populations. Many rooms are
large, permitting a variety of uses while retaining
the overall historic character of the structure. Even
historic buildings that are smaller in scale often have
lots that can accommodate additions, if needed.
Livability and Quality of Life
When groups of older buildings occur as a historic
district, such as along Main Street or the Commercial
Core in Aspen, they create a street scene that is
pedestrian friendly, and encourages walking and
neighborly interaction. Mature trees and decorative
architectural features also contribute to a sense of
identity that is unique for each historic neighborhood—
an attribute that is rare and difficult to achieve in
newer areas of a city. These therefore are desirable
places to live and work.
Environmental Benefits
Preserving a historic structure is sound environmental
conservation policy because “recycling” saves energy
and reduces the need for producing new construction
materials. Three types of energy savings occur:
IntroductIon
i ntroduction
Note: Not every guidelines will apply to each
project, and some balancing of the guidelines
must occur on a case-by-case basis. The
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC)
must determine that a sufficient number of the
relevant guidelines have been adequately met in
order to approve a project proposal. It must be
emphasized that these are only guidelines and
they are not applicable in all cases, and need to
be weighed with the practicality of the measure.
P196
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 9
• First, energy is not consumed to demolish the
existing building and dispose of the resulting
debris.
• Second, energy is not used to create new building
materials, transport them and assemble them on
site.
• Finally, the embodied energy which was used to
create the original building and its components,
is preserved.
By reusing older buildings, pressure is reduced to
harvest new lumber and other materials that may
have negative effects on the environment of other
locales where these materials are produced.
Economic Benefits
Historic resources are finite and cannot be replaced,
making them precious commodities that many buyers
seek. Preservation adds value to private property.
Many studies across the nation document that, where
local historic districts are established, property values
typically rise, or at least are stabilized. In this sense,
designation of a historic district appears to protect
investment. Property owners within the district know
that the time and money they spend on improving
their properties will be matched with similar efforts
on surrounding lots. Arguably, this applies to Aspen
as well.
Nationwide studies prove that preservation projects
also contribute more to the local economy than do
new building programs because each dollar spent
on a preservation project has a higher percentage
devoted to labor and to the purchase of materials
available locally. By contrast, new construction
typically has a higher percentage of each dollar spent
devoted to materials that are produced outside of
the local economy and to special construction skills
that may be imported. When money is spent on
rehabilitating a building, it has a higher “multiplier
effect,” keeping more money circulating in the
community. Rehabilitation therefore, provides more
jobs for Aspen area residents.
Heritage Tourism
Preservation minded communities are among
the leading tourist destinations. Aspen has an
authenticity that visitors appreciate. There are many
opportunities to connect with the history of Aspen
as a tourist and this contributes to longer stays and
repeat visits.
Incentives for Preservation
While the economic benefits are substantial, special
incentives also exist to help offset potential added
costs of appropriate rehabilitation procedures.
Income tax credits are offered at the state and federal
levels for appropriate rehabilitation. Eligible projects
also can qualify for the Colorado Historical Society’s
State Historical Fund, a substantial opportunity for
owners of commercial and significant residential
properties.
The City also offers financial bonuses which are
available for historic landmarks. The Aspen Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) has the ability to
award zoning bonuses to historic landmarks.
Responsibility of Ownership
Ownership of a historic property carries both the
benefits described above and a responsibility to
respect the historic character of the resource and its
setting. While this responsibility does exist, it does not
automatically translate into higher construction or
maintenance costs. Ultimately, residents and property
owners should recognize that historic preservation
is a long-range community policy that promotes
economic wellbeing and overall viability of the City
at large and that they play a vital role in helping to
implement that policy through careful stewardship of
the area’s historic resources.
Levels of Historic Designation in Aspen
Local Landmark
The City has identified approximately 300 historic
resources, including buildings, structures, parks,
cemeteries, and bridges as historic landmarks.
Because there was a long period of economic
depression at the turn of the 20th century, historic
development in Aspen generally occurred either in the
silver mining era (these resources are termed Aspen
Victorian) or around World War II (these resources are
termed AspenModern).
The local register designation process is established
through the police powers of Aspen’s zoning
ordinance. Criteria for designation are set forth in
city codes and designated properties are subject
to protections outlined in the ordinance, including
demolition and design review. In general, any exterior
alteration to an inventoried property must be reviewed
and approved before work can begin.
District Designation
Currently, the City of Aspen has two locally designated
historic districts, the Main Street Historic District, and
the Commercial Core Historic District. The districts
were created to preserve the character of entire
IntroductIon P197
X.b
10 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
IntroductIon
neighborhoods. In general, any demolition, exterior
alteration, or construction on a property within a
historic district must be reviewed and approved
before work can begin.
National Register Listing
The National Register of Historic Places is a list of
sites and properties of historic significance that is
maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. Properties
so listed may have national significance, but they
may also be listed if they are determined to have
significance at a state or local level. The National
Register is administered by the National Park Service
and nominations are submitted through the State
Historic Preservation Officer in Denver, using criteria
adopted by the Secretary of the Interior. Properties
listed in the National Register may be eligible for federal
income tax credit incentives. Designated properties
are also protected from federally-funded projects
which might harm or alter the historic character.
Such federal projects must be reviewed for their
potential negative impact. In these cases, alterations
are reviewed by the National Park Service. Otherwise,
only the standard process for all Aspen landmarks
applies. The History Colorado website lists National
Register properties by county: historycolorado.org/
oahp/pitkin-county.
Purpose of the Design Guidelines
These design guidelines are specifically for
properties listed on the “Inventory of Historic Sites
and Structures,” inside and outside of the historic
districts. Additional guidelines for the Main Street and
Commercial Core Historic Districts are found in the
“Commercial, Lodging, and Historic District Design
Objective and Guidelines”, a separate document
available on aspenpitkin.com.
The design guidelines serve to reinforce the purpose
of the Historic Preservation Chapter in the Aspen
Land Use Code:
• Recognize, protect, and promote the retention
and continued utility of the historic buildings and
districts in the City.
• Promote awareness and appreciation of Aspen’s
unique heritage.
• Ensure the preservation of Aspen’s character
as an historic mining town, early ski resort and
cultural center.
• Retain the historic, architectural and cultural
resource attractions that support tourism and the
economic welfare of the community.
• Encourage sustainable reuse of historic
structures.
• Encourage voluntary efforts to increase public
information, interaction or access to historic
building interiors.
The design guidelines provide a basis for making
decisions about the appropriate treatment of historic
resources and compatible new construction. They
also serve as an educational and planning tool for
property owners and their design professionals who
seek to make improvements that may affect historic
resources.
How to Use the Guidelines
While the design guidelines are written such that they
can be used by the layman to plan improvements,
property owners are strongly encouraged to enlist
the assistance of qualified design and planning
professionals, including architects, landscape
architects, structural engineers, preservation
contractors, and preservation consultants to assure
that the work contemplated will help preserve the
historic character of the City.
Any affected property owner who plans to make
changes to the exterior of a building must obtain a
Certificate of No Negative Effect or a Certificate of
Appropriateness. In order to review each project in a
consistent manner, City Preservation Staff and the HPC
will use these guidelines as a basis for determining
the appropriateness of the work proposed.
How Many Guidelines Must Be Met?
Note that not every guideline will apply to each project,
and that some balancing of the guidelines must occur
on a case-by-case basis. City Staff or the HPC will
determine that a sufficient number of the relevant
guidelines have been adequately met in order to
approve a project proposal.
What is the Format of a Guideline?
The chapters containing design guidelines are
organized in a format that provides background
information as well as specific regulatory language.
Each of these chapters contains the following
components:
Policy Statement
A broad statement explaining the City’s basic
approach for the treatment of the design feature being
discussed. This statement provides the basis for the
P198
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 11
more detailed background information and design
guidelines that follow. In a case in which special
conditions in a specific project are such that the
detailed design guidelines do not appear to address
the situation, then this broad policy statement serves
as the basis for determining the appropriateness of
the proposed work.
Background Information
A discussion of the issues typically associated with
the specific design topic is presented next. This
may include technical information, such as factors
associated with the preservation of a historic building
material, as well as general preservation theory that is
relevant to the topic at hand.
Pertinent Sub-Topics
The sections that follow the background information
are divided into sub-topics. For example, in the chapter
addressing Building Materials, the sub-topics include:
treatment, repair and replacement. This organization
allows the user to quickly select the specific design
topics within a section that are relevant.
Design Guidelines
The specific design guidelines are presented as bold
face statements under each sub-topic. These are also
numbered to indicate their relative position within the
chapter and to aid in specific reference in the review
process. Also provided with the design guidelines are
supplementary requirements, which are bulleted (•)
statements. These supplementary statements clarify
the primary design guideline statement and may
suggest specific methods for complying with it.
How Were the Design Guidelines Developed?
The City’s first preservation guidelines were adopted in
1972. The guidelines have been revised and improved
multiple times taking community input and the
experience of the Historic Preservation Commission
into account. The design guidelines incorporate
concepts set forth in The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
(listed in the Appendix)—a nationally accepted set of
basic preservation design principles. This document
is compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards, while expanding on how these basic
preservation principles apply in Aspen.
The Concept of Historic Significance
What makes a property historically significant? It is
generally recognized that a certain amount of time
must pass before the historical significance of a
property can be evaluated. The National Register, for
example, requires that a property be at least 50 years
old or have extraordinary importance before it may be
considered. Aspen does not have a minimum age for
designation.
A property may be significant for one or more of the
following reasons:
• Antiquity
• Association with events patterns, trends, or people
that have contributed to local, state, regional, or
national history.
• Physical design associated with distinctive
characteristics of a building type, period, or
construction method.
• An example of an architect or master craftsman or
an expression of particularly high artistic values.
• Singular significance to the City.
• Integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
Period of Significance
Every historic building or district has a period of
significance—or the time span during which it gained
architectural, historical or geographical importance.
In most cases, a property is significant because it
represents or is associated with a particular period in
history. Frequently, this begins with its construction
date and continues through the peak of early
occupation. Building fabric and features that date
from the period of significance typically contribute to
the character of the structure or district.
Concept of “Integrity”
In addition to being historically significant, a property
also must have integrity—a sufficient percentage
of the structure must date from the period of
significance. The majority of the building’s structural
system and its materials should date from that time
and its key character defining features also should
remain intact. These may include architectural details
as well as the overall mass and form of the building.
It is these elements that allow a building or district to
be recognized as a product of its time.
Preservation Principles
While the guidelines in this document provide direction
for specific design issues, some basic principles form
the foundation for them. The following preservation
principles apply to all historic properties in Aspen.
IntroductIon P199
X.b
12 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
IntroductIon
Respect the historic design character of the
building.
Don’t try to change a building’s style or make it look
older than it really is. Confusing the character by
mixing elements of different styles is not appropriate.
Seek uses that are compatible with the historic
character of the building.
Uses that closely relate to the building’s original use
are preferred. Every reasonable effort should be made
to provide a compatible use for the building that will
require minimal alteration to the building and its site.
Protect and maintain significant features and
stylistic elements.
Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled
craftsmanship should be treated with sensitivity. The
best preservation procedure is to maintain historic
features from the outset so that intervention is not
required.
Repair deteriorated historic features, and
replace only those elements that cannot be
repaired.
Maintain the existing material, using recognized
preservation methods whenever possible. If
disassembly is necessary for repair or restoration, use
methods that minimize damage to original materials
and re-install in the existing configuration.
Selecting a Preservation Approach
Each preservation project is unique. A project may
include a variety of treatment techniques, including the
repair and replacement of features and maintenance
of those already in good condition. Some of the basic
preservation treatments are described in the section
that follows. In each case, it is important to develop
an overall strategy for treatment that is based on an
analysis of the building and its setting.
Analysis should begin with an investigation of the
history of the property. This may identify design
alterations that have occurred and may help in
developing an understanding of the significance
of the building as a whole, as well as its individual
components. Sources for historic information
include the City of Aspen Community Development
Department, the Aspen Historical Society, and two
City websites; aspenvictorian.com and aspenmod.
com. Denver Public Library Western History
Collection (digital.denverlibrary.org) and on-line fire
insurance maps from the turn of the century, Sanborn
Maps, (cudl.colorado.edu) are also helpful.
Historical research should be combined with an
on-site assessment of existing conditions. In this
inspection, identify those elements that are original
and those that have been altered. Also determine the
condition of individual building components.
Finally, list the requirements for continued use of
the property. Is additional space needed? Or should
the work focus on preserving and maintaining the
existing configuration?
In addition to the historical background, research
should also be done which identifies the preservation
incentives offered by the HPC. The preservation
incentives are a way for the property owner to improve
a project and make it more sympathetic to the historic
resource.
By combining an understanding of the history of the
building, its present condition, and the need for action,
one can then develop a preservation approach. When
doing so, consider the following terms:
Maintenance
Work that often focuses on keeping the property in
good condition by repairing features as deterioration
becomes apparent, using procedures that retain
the original character and finish of the features. In
some cases, preventive maintenance is executed
prior to noticeable deterioration. No alteration or
reconstruction is involved. Property owners are
strongly encouraged to maintain their property in
good condition so that more aggressive measures
of rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction are not
needed.
Preservation
Preservation is keeping an existing building in good
condition by a careful program of maintenance and
repair. It will often include repair and stabilization
of materials and features in addition to regularly
scheduled maintenance.
Restoration
To restore, one reproduces the appearance of a
building exactly as it looked at a particular moment
in time; to reproduce a pure style—either interior or
exterior. This process may include the removal of
later work or the replacement of missing historic
features. A restoration approach is used on missing
details or features of a historic building when the
features are determined to be particularly significant
to the character of the structure and when the original
P200
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 13
IntroductIon
configuration is accurately documented.
Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is the process of returning a property
to a state which makes a contemporary use possible
while still preserving those portions or features of
the property which are significant to its historic,
architectural and cultural values. Rehabilitation
may include the adaptive reuse of the building and
constructing additions. Most good preservation
projects in Aspen may be considered rehabilitation
projects.
Adaptive Use
Converting a building to a new use that is different
from its original purpose is considered to be adaptive
use. For example, converting a residential structure to
offices is adaptive use. A good adaptive use project
retains the historic character of the building while
accommodating new functions.
While adaptive use allows the building owner to
convert the building to a purpose other than that
for which it was designed, it should be done with
respect to the original building form. For example, it
would be inappropriate to turn the living room of a
historic building into a bathroom. The reason for this
is that when the programmatic uses of a building are
drastically altered, this often results in a major change
to the original floor plan as well as to the exterior
appearance of the building. When adaptive use is
the preferred preservation alternative, the proposed
design should honor the original building function as
closely as possible.
Combining Preservation Strategies
Many successful projects that involve historic
structures in Aspen may include a combination of
preservation, restoration, and other appropriate
treatments. For example, a house may be adapted to
use as a restaurant, and in the process, missing porch
brackets may be replicated in order to restore the
original appearance, while existing original dormers
may be preserved.
Planning a Preservation Project
Once the basic approach to a project has been defined,
it is important to assess the property and to identify
any significant character-defining features and
materials. Retaining these elements, and then using
the guidelines to select an appropriate treatment
mechanism will greatly enhance the overall quality
of the preservation project. In making the selection
follow this sequence:
1. If a feature is intact and in good condition,
maintain it as such.
2. If the feature is deteriorated or damaged, repair
it to its original condition.
3. If it is not feasible to repair the feature, then
replace it with one that is the same or similar
in character (materials, detail, finish) to the
original one. Replace only that portion which is
beyond repair.
4. If the feature is missing entirely, reconstruct it
from appropriate evidence.
5. If a new feature or addition is necessary, design
it in such a way as to minimize the impact on
original features.
Design Review Process
The Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
The City Council appoints volunteers to the Aspen
Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The HPC
is comprised of members who are city residents,
have an expressed interest and expertise in historic
preservation, and are knowledgeable about the
heritage of the City.
Some work is exempt from historic preservation review
and other work may qualify for an Administrative
Review by the Community Development Department.
Approval is generally not required for a change in
paint color or interior alterations. A Community
Development Department review includes work such
as signs, fences, roofs and repairs. More substantial
projects are reviewed by HPC.
Applicants are encouraged to participate in a pre-
application conference with the Historic Preservation
Officer (HPO), available in the Community
Development Department. At this conference, the
HPO will identify any necessary review process,
discuss approvals that may be needed from other city
boards, provide application forms, and suggest any
modifications which may make the application more
consistent with the standards and guidelines.
Importance of Acquiring a Permit
Once approvals are granted, a property owner may
Any contractor, superintendent, or owner/builder
wishing to receive a building permit to work on a
historic structure will be required to complete the
“Aspen/Pitkin County Preservation Awareness
Program” and receive a specialty license in
historic preservation.
P201
X.b
14 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
IntroductIon
apply for a building permit. Obtaining a building
permit is a crucial step in any construction process.
If a city building or zoning inspector finds that work
is occurring without a permit, the work is stopped, or
“red tagged.” In the simplest situation, construction is
delayed; in more contentious cases, the work has to be
reversed or rebuilt, resulting in long delays, additional
fees and fines, and occasionally court appearances.
Undertaking an act of demolition on a landmarked
structure without HPC approval may result in a long
term suspension of building permits for the property.
Building permits are not only a way for the City to keep
track of applications, but they also serve as protection
for the owner. Obtaining a building permit means that
the work will be inspected to determine that it has
been executed correctly.
The HPC is deeply committed to its responsibilty in
protecting the visual memory of the community and
ensuring that historic resources are respected within
the evolution of the City.
There are many possible directions to take when
approaching a preservation project. The Commission
appreciates a clear explanation of context, how the
proposal contributes to a sense of place in the
community, and site analysis. An applicant should
explain their intent and approach and provide models,
story poles, material samples and other information
to assist the review process.
P202
X.b
H istoric o verview
P203
X.b
16 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Aspen has experienced several cycles of development
in its history, beginning with the mining industry of
the 1880s, the creation of the skiing industry in the
1930s and the City’s transformation into a center for
arts and culture in the 1940s, all of which have led to
the contemporary attraction it holds for intellectuals,
outdoor enthusiasts and life-style connoisseurs.
The Early Years - Mining
Aspen is located in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley,
where people have lived for at least 5,000 years. The
Ute Indians arrived in the area around 1400 A.D. and
controlled the region until the 1870s, preventing access
to most of the valley under the 1868 Ute Reservation
Settlement Act. However, they did allow the Hayden
Survey to be completed in 1873, which was ultimately
responsible for determining the evidence of gold and
silver in the surrounding mountains.
Following the reports from the Hayden Survey, in the
summer of 1879, four prospectors from Leadville
arrived in the valley to explore the mining potential.
Quickly, they sank shafts to indicate they had mined
the land and filed claims upon their return to Leadville.
By the end of 1879 at least 35 prospectors camped
at the base of Aspen Mountain, enduring the winter
so as not to lose potential fortunes. The resulting
pressure to mine and allow settlement of the area led
to the removal of the Ute people to Utah.
Henry B. Gillespie and B. Clark Wheeler, two ambitious
men who would come to direct the growth of the
region, arrived in the mining camp in the spring of
1880. Although it was Gillespie who initiated the
efforts to create a town (which was to be called Ute
City), Wheeler was first to complete a survey, and he
gave Aspen its name. In March of 1880, B. Clark
Wheeler incorporated the Aspen Town and Land
Company with the financing of eastern capitalists.
Initially, Aspen was a typical mining camp, with
tents and crude log structures for businesses and
homes. Transportation into the area was only by way
of Taylor Pass, through Ashcroft until 1881, when
the Independence Pass Toll Road was completed.
Between 1883 and 1885, the population increased
from 500 to 3,500 people, and the town had municipal
water service, a telegraph, telephones and electricity,
thanks to what was reportedly the first commercially
operated hydroelectric plant in the United States.
HIstorIc overvIew
A spen H istoric o verview
View of Aspen in 1900.
P204
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 17
Aspen was in the thrust of a building boom, including
construction of over twenty business buildings, and in
1884, well over one hundred homes to meet a housing
shortage. Civic improvements were made and the City
Council added street signs and house numbers. The
town was platted into 30’x100’ lots and the city was
divided east-west by Center Street (now Garmisch
Street,) and north-south by Main Street. These two
thoroughfares were both 100-feet-wide, while other
streets were 75-feet. The residential districts were
generally within proximity to the trails leading to the
mines. The commercial district, originally four blocks
in size, was located at the base of Aspen Mountain.
The industry associated with the mining process
such as the mills were located on the perimeter of the
town. According to the Time’s editor, reflecting on the
character of the town, “the pretty cottages, the palatial
stores and the neat churches and public buildings,
attest to their energy, prosperity and cultivation.”
Many of Aspen’s achievements in the mid-1880s
can be attributed to an eastern capitalist, Jerome
B. Wheeler, no relationship to B. Clark Wheeler.
Among other investments, Wheeler facilitated
the development of two major sources of mining
infrastructure—a smelter to process the ore locally for
greater economic return and a railroad to connect the
town to outlying regions.
By 1886, two railroad companies were in competition
to reach Aspen first; the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad
and the Colorado Midland Railroad, which was
partially bankrolled by Jerome Wheeler. The first train
on the Rio Grande line pulled into Aspen in November
of 1887. The Colorado Midland was hindered by
bridge construction over Maroon and Castle Creeks,
but ultimately arrived in town in December 1887. The
railroad cars carried three to four thousand tons of ore
each week to be processed; the returning cars brought
valuable merchandise, including commodities and
luxury items.
As Aspen prospered, around 1888, more substantial,
brick and stone, high style buildings began to be built.
It was the custom of the day for successful
businessmen to build a city block in a unified
architectural style, using the best location for his own
business and renting out to others. The business
blocks (for example the Aspen Block, on the southwest
corner of Hyman and Galena) were symbols of the
prosperity of the town, and the individuals for whom
they were named, as well as a growing civic pride.
Two of the most important structures built during this
period were financed by Jerome B. Wheeler—the
Wheeler Opera House and the Hotel Jerome.
Most of the houses built during this time were from
designs found in pattern books, volumes of building
plans that were widely available. The majority of the
homes were wood frame, although some larger and
more elaborate houses were constructed of brick.
The miner’s cottages generally measured twenty-
eight feet by thirty feet and were divided into five main
spaces: a parlor (with bay window), sitting room,
kitchen, sleeping area and a porch. An outhouse and
sheds for livestock also would have been located on
the lot. Exterior detailing on the cottages was relatively
minimal, mostly focusing on the porch and the most
prominent window. Produced at a rate of four per day,
this family house, painted, plastered and ready for
occupancy, cost $1,000.00 to build. The 300 block of
HIstorIc overvIew
A view of Cooper Avenue in 1900.
A view of houses on Lake Avenue in 1910.
P205
X.b
18 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
E. Main Street contains examples of the pattern-style,
vernacular miner’s cottage.
Residential landscapes at this time were often
utilitarian in design, with small vegetable gardens
and few ornamental plantings. Fences were low
and transparent in nature to provide some definition
between private yards and the public right-of-way.
The planting of cottonwood rows was the dominant
landscaping feature in the residential and commercial
districts. Small irrigation ditches to promote growth
linked the tree-plantings.
In spite of fast-paced construction, by 1889 the
housing shortage continued in Aspen, especially for
miners’ families. In response, in September of 1889,
the city council chartered a company to create a
horse-drawn streetcar line. The completed system
stretched two miles, crisscrossing the town and
changing the face of Aspen by expanding its limits
beyond the walking capacity of pedestrians.
The Silver Crash - Aspen’s Quiet Years
By 1892 Aspen was the third largest city in Colorado
with 12,000 residents—only surpassed by Denver and
Leadville. Aspen did outpace Leadville as Colorado’s
leading silver producer, and housed the largest opera
house in the state and finest luxury hotel on the
Western Slope. In the spring of 1893, the financial
success of Aspen crashed when Congress repealed
the Sherman Silver Purchase Act. The “Silver Queen”
of the Rockies came to a grinding halt, as did almost
all of Colorado’s silver mines. By the end of 1893,
the mining workforce had dropped from 2,250 to
150 men. By 1900, Aspen’s total population had
dropped to 3,300 people and by 1930 had reached
a low of 700 people. The events of 1893 initiated a
period commonly referred to as the ‘’Quiet Years’,
which lasted until the 1930s. Homes were vacant,
stores empty and the grand architecture of the
commercial and residential blocks entered a long
stage of deterioration and neglect. Entire blocks were
barren without a single occupied house and buildings
stood as bare skeletons, the victims of salvaging for
materials, fire and vandalism.
During the “Quiet Years,” most people survived on
modest resources. Residents raised much of their
own food, merchants extended credit when possible
and neighbors shared with neighbors. Throughout
this extended depression numerous records indicate
an enduring pulse of optimism amongst Aspenites.
The theme of unfailing pride dominated during the
“Quiet Years.”
The major transportation services, the Midland
Railroad and the Rio Grande Railroad were also
affected by the financial crisis. The Midland line was
purchased by the Santa Fe Railroad, but the route was
abandoned by 1900 and the track was removed by
1921. The Rio Grande was more fortunate and endured
the silver crash by hauling cattle and sheep rather
than silver. By the 1930s and 1940s it once again met
market demands by hauling the building materials
and eventually passengers for the development of
Aspen as a ski resort.
Aspen’s Second Cycle-Ski Town
Snow and spectacular mountains would provide
the resources in the 1930s for Aspen to begin
development as an international ski resort. While
miners had previously used old barrel staves to slide
down the mountain after work, they never guessed
that this transportation method would be the next
boom for their remote mining town.
It was the chance meeting of a miner’s son, Tom
Flynn, with Olympic bobsled champion, Billy Fiske
in California that initiated speculation for the ski-
industry in Aspen. Fiske soon hired Andre Roch,
a celebrated mountaineer, avalanche expert and
engineer, to survey the area. Roch spent the next six
months identifying the recreational advantages of
the region. Following the survey, Fiske and capitalist
Theodore Ryan personally cleared brush off the
hillside, creating the first alpine slope near Aspen.The Marolt Ranch in 1920, with the defunct Holden Lixiviation
Plant (a silver processor) in the background.
P206
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 19
HIstorIc overvIew
Roch developed a downhill race course. Originally
called “Roch Run Trail” or “the Roch”, only a section
of the original course remains today. Roch believed
that by creating a race course, Aspen would receive
more publicity, thereby development of the mountain
would be accomplished more quickly. It was a great
success, attracting not only top skiers, but visionary
capitalists.
In 1938, Roch’s served as the site for the Rocky
Mountain Ski Association Championship and by
1941, the Aspen Ski Club hosted the U.S. World
Alpine Championships. World War II interrupted the
development of Aspen skiing; but troops in training
at the 87th Mountain Infantry and later the 10th
Mountain Division would come to test their skills on
the weekends. After the war, many of these same
people came back to settle in Aspen and continue
the momentum of developing its skiing potential.
By 1950 Aspen was internationally famous for its
terrain, World Cup Ski events and pioneering ski-
industry technology. Lift capacity continued to
expand at Aspen and new ski areas were developed.
In 1957, Aspen Highlands opened, to be followed by
Buttermilk a year later. The significant addition of the
Snowmass ski area in 1967 firmly established Aspen
as an international skiing destination. By 1986, Aspen
installed the world’s longest, single-stage vertical
rise gondola—the Silver Queen. Aspen continues to
maintain its position as an international ski resort,
attracting the world’s top skiing competitors and
most celebrated ski events.
Skiing also changed the architectural character of
Aspen. Lodges were built in the chalet style familiar
to their European owners. To enhance the alpine
experience for tourists, landscaping trends attempted
to bring the mountain environment into town.
Spruce trees and other conifers were planted along
streetscapes and throughout the commercial and
residential districts.
Aspen’s Cultural Renaissance - The Aspen Idea
Investment capital began to flow into Aspen as
influential people such as Elizabeth and Walter
Paepcke promoted the town. The Paepckes were
Chicago industrialists with grand visions. Walter
Paepcke dreamed of a community “of peace with
opportunities for a man’s complete life...where he
can earn a living, profit by healthy, physical recreation,
with facilities at hand for his enjoyment of art, music
and education.” He created the Goethe Bicentennial
Convocation in 1949, which attracted the world’s
foremost artists, writers, musicians and celebrated
humanitarians. The success of this event led to
the creation of the Aspen Institute, Aspen Center
for Physics, Aspen Music Festival and School,
and numerous other world class conferences and
events enjoyed in Aspen today. The International
Design Conference, founded in 1950 left an indelible
impression upon the architectural characteristics
Lift One, 1950.
Aspen Institute, 1965.
P207
X.b
20 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
of Aspen and how the Aspen community promotes
innovative design. Examples of private residences
and civic structures influenced by the Modernist
movement can be found throughout the city.
Present Day Aspen - International Resort for
the Mind and Body
Aspen lures people today with world-class
accommodations, outdoor recreation opportunities,
artistic venues and educational forums. Its setting,
unique architecture and sense of history provide a
backdrop whereby the Aspen community can provide
the best of both worlds— charm and natural beauty
with cosmopolitan entertainment and flare.
The Elks Building, 2015.
P208
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 21
HIstorIc overvIew
Note: Dates indicated describe the approximate
period covered by a particular building style within
Aspen.
Architectural Styles in Aspen
The City of Aspen contains a wide variety of building
types and architectural styles that reflect its
evolution, many of which have historic significance.
This rich architectural heritage enhances the City and
contributes to its strong “sense of place.”
The following is a brief overview of the most frequently
recognized styles found in Aspen. This survey of
building types and styles reflects changing building
technologies, tastes of the times, and the distinct
Aspen context.
Pioneer
Circa 1879-1893, Residential
These buildings were generally constructed of round
logs, hewn logs, or log slabs considered to be mill-
waste, and built as basic shelter for early Aspen
settlers. Later examples copied this style. The log
members were laid on alternating tiers, implementing
a variety of notching techniques for joinery. The
details of the log connections and the character of
the log cuts themselves are important features. The
spaces between the logs were filled with “chinking”
consisting of a mixture of animal hair, clay, straw and
other natural materials. The roofs were constructed of
readily available material, including canvas, wooden
shingles, and sheet metal. In Aspen, some of these
log structures were later updated and covered with
milled wooden siding and details.
Characteristics:
• Log construction.
• Hip or gable roof.
• Rough-sawn wood trim.
A Pioneer house at 205 S. Third, constructed in 1885, or earlier
P209
X.b
22 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
False-Front Store Front
Circa 1880-1893, Commercial
Relatively few examples of false-front buildings
survive. These structures are from the early settlement
phase when wood was the primary construction
material. The front created a facade that made a
building appear larger and taller than it actually
was, masking a gabled roofline. Cornice details and
kickplate elements below the storefront windows also
were created from wood.
Characteristics:
• Gable roof concealed behind false front.
• Recessed entry.
• Large glass display windows.
• Simple bracketed cornices.
• Painted wood lap siding.
• Kickplate below display window.
• Transom above display window.
• Wood doors and windows.
Carpenter Gothic
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
This style is characterized by wooden interpretations
of Gothic masonry structures, with an emphasis upon
verticality and picturesque composition. Jig-saw cut
trim elements were popular but straight lines and
simple geometric forms provided the framework for
more ornamental attachments. These ornamental
details and the overall vertical form of this style are
important features that should be preserved. All-
white color schemes were popular, with accent colors
only appearing on shutters.
Characteristics:
• Steeply pitched roof.
• Cross gable roof plan or side gable roof plan with
central cross gable over the door.
• Clapboard siding.
• Decorative barge board along eaves of main
gables and dormers.
• Two-over-two, double-hung sash windows.
• Bay windows and lancet windows.
• Elaborate porch railings, square posts, cut-out
boards.
False front structure at 310 E. Main, constructed in the 1890s.
A Carpenter Gothic house at 302 East Hopkins, constructed in
1883.
P210
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 23
HIstorIc overvIew
Vernacular L-Type or “Miner’s
Cottage”
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
The term “vernacular” refers to building traditions
that reflect local taste, customs and materials. The
vernacular houses of Aspen are similar to those
throughout other Colorado mining towns—these
houses were designed for utilitarian purposes with
minimal attempts to copy a prescribed style. Typically,
decorative elements were applied to cottages with
steep roofs, wooden siding, vertical sash windows and
front porches. Some homes received more ornament
than others, often influenced by Queen Anne or
Gothic Revival designs, usually around windows and
doors and at porches and gable ends. In plan, these
cottages were L-type, gable end, or side gable. Often
shed additions were added.
The L-type houses have two wings with intersecting
gable roofs that form a letter “L” in plan. Very often an
attached porch runs along the street-facing facade.
Most of these houses are 1- story, but 1-1/2 and
2-story versions also exist. This is the most common
historic resource type remaining in Aspen.
Characteristics:
• Overall, simple building forms.
• 1-story, covered porch, usually at the intersection
of the two wings.
• Projecting bay windows.
• Wood clapboard siding.
• Shingle roof.
• Two front doors, a social custom.
Side Gable
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
This house style has a ridgeline that runs parallel to
the street. Often a porch runs the width of the house.
Details are similar to other gable cottage plans.
Characteristics:
• Full-width, one-story porch.
• Decorative elements focused on the porch area.
• Porch projects forward from the front wall plane.
• Painted wood lap siding.
• Wood trim around windows and doors.
A Vernacular L-type house at 205 S. Spring, constructed in
1887.
A side gable house at 117 N. Sixth, constructed in 1885.
P211
X.b
24 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
Gable-End
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
This house type has a simple, rectangular shape with
a gable roof with the ridge running perpendicular to
the street. Most have a porch on the gable-end. Most
are wood sided. Most are 1 - 1-1/2 story and a few
are 2-story.
Characteristics:
• Bay-windows .
• Full width or inset 1-story porch, with hip or gable
roof.
• Decorative shingles in gable-end.
• Gable ornaments, including brackets and barge
boards.
• Overall, modest character.
• Porch may project forward or be inset into the
front wall plane.
• Two front doors, a social custom.
Italianate
Circa 1880-1893, Residential and Commercial
The Italianate style was introduced by Andrew Jackson
Downing in his 1850 publication, The Architecture
of Country Houses. He extolled the virtues of the
Gothic Revival, but also offered the “villa,” a version
based on Italian country houses that veered more
toward classicism and did not have the religious
overtones of the Gothic Revival. Cornices with large
brackets appeared on porches and bay windows. Flat,
ornamental arches capped most windows and doors.
Characteristics:
• Rectangular, square, with a side-passage plan, or
cross-gable.
• Brick, wood clapboard and stucco.
• Double-hung, narrow windows, often with round
arch heads.
• Window panes are either one-over-one or two-
over-two.
• Protruding sills.
• Ornate treatment of the eaves, including the use
of brackets, modillions and dentil courses.
• Low-pitched, hipped roof.
• Bay windows, often rectangular.
• Quoins, or decorative blocks, at corners.
• Metal cresting along roof ridges.
• Transom over entry, often curved.
An gable end house at 612 W. Main, constructed in 1888.
An Italianate house at 201 E. Hyman, constructed in 1883.
The Wheeler Opera House at 320 E. Hyman is an example of an
Italianate commercial structure, constructed in 1889.
• Ornate treatment of porch with turned columns,
posts and bargeboard ornament.
P212
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 25
HIstorIc overvIew
Dutch Colonial Revival
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
The most distinguishing feature of this style is the
gambrel roof. The details, such as the window pattern,
porches and materials are closely associated with the
Shingle and Queen Anne styles.
Characteristics:
• Gambrel roof; both side-passage and front-facing
variations can be found.
• Single gable end.
• One story.
• Prominent front porch, with classically-detailed
porch supports and plain balustrades.
• Double-hung sash windows, with either single
panes or multiple panes in the upper light.
• Lunette windows in the upper gable.
• Large, single pane windows with a fixed transom
on the first story.
Queen Anne
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
In the United States, Queen Anne developed from the
desire to establish a national style. This style includes
decorative wall surface patterns, framed in strap-
work, polychrome color schemes, and steeply pitched
rooflines. Typically, the buildings are 1 - 2-stories in
height. Preserving the ornamental details and the
original materials of this style are high priorities.
Characteristics:
• Irregular, asymmetrical massing.
• Forward extension of wall planes; towers and
triangular sections.
• Decorative shingles.
• Spindlework porch supports with lace-like
brackets.
• Windows with leaded or stained glass.
• Patterned window panes.
• Bay windows.
• Corbelled brick chimneys.
A Dutch Colonial Revival house at 611 West Main, constructed
in 1886.
A Queen Anne house at 128 E. Main, constructed circa 1893.
P213
X.b
26 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
Second Empire
Circa 1880-1893, Residential
The Second Empire refers to the reign of Louis
Napoleon, the grand-nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte,
who ruled France from 1852 to 1870. In both France
and America, the Second Empire style coincided
with a period of prosperity and materialism, and was
associated with urbanity and a cosmopolitan society.
The style is characterized by its distinctive mansard
roof, often containing windows on the steep lower
slope. The complex massing and arrangement of
towers is unified through decorative cornices similar
to those of the Italianate style.
Characteristics:
• Steeply pitched, mansard roof.
• Roof can be either straight or concave, and is
interrupted by dormers.
• Complex massing forms .
• Brick, stucco or wood clapboard.
• Wrought-iron ornament, such as cresting on roof
or heavy, ornate fencing.
• Wide eaves, often with modillions.
• Corbelled chimney.
• Heavily molded cornices and window trim.
Industrial
Circa 1880-1893, Commercial, Public
The Industrial style represents an age when the
production of goods was an overriding goal. This
style was sometimes employed for utilitarian public
buildings, and featured large, open interior spaces,
made possible by a heavy wood truss system.
Characteristics:
• Large rectangular forms.
• Masonry construction.
• Large interior spaces.
• Smaller, vertically proportioned windows.
• Masonry cornice supported on corbels.
A Second Empire house at 442 W. Bleeker, constructed in 1885.
Aspen City Hall, originally an Armory, at 130 South Galena,
constructed in 1891.
P214
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 27
HIstorIc overvIew
Victorian-Era Commercial Building
Circa 1880-1893, Commercial
The commercial storefront of the late 19th and early
20th centuries is the most common type of building
found today in most historic commercial districts
throughout the country. Usually one to four stories
in height, these buildings are divided into two distinct
bands. The first floor is more commonly transparent,
so goods can be displayed, while the second story
has smaller windows and is usually reserved for a
residential or office space. The majority of these
buildings in Aspen were constructed between 1888
and 1893.
As this type evolved towards the turn-of-the century,
so too did the amount of ornamentation and high-
style influences. Cornice and midbelt moldings
became more prominent, more elaborate window
and door openings were used and much of the
facade was covered with varying degrees of applied
ornamentation. Italianate details were popular. With
the introduction of cast-iron, the weight of second and
third stories of these Victorian commercial structures
was carried over larger expanses of glass on the first
floor.
Characteristics:
• Cast-iron supported or wood post storefronts.
• Large display windows on the first-floor usually
framed in wood, but sometimes metal.
• Transom lights above display windows.
• Kickplate below display windows.
• Recessed entry.
• Wood double doors.
• Tall second story windows with wood frames.
• Decorative cornice at top.
• Masonry walls.
• Varying degrees of ornamentation.
• Corner entry.
A Victorian era commercial building at 419 E. Hyman,
constructed in 1889.
P215
X.b
28 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
The Collins Block, located at 204 South Mill Street, constructed
in 1891-1893.
Neo-Classical
Circa 1880-1893, Commercial
The Neoclassical movement is an American
phenomenon that began with the 1893 Colombian
Exposition in Chicago. Greek Revival precedents
were most commonly used, but with more variety
in composition and detail. In Aspen, popular
neoclassical details were simple Doric columns,
triangular pediments and large cornices with rows
of dentil moldings. Other classical orders, including
Corinthian and Ionic, sometimes are used as well.
These appeared on both residential and commercial
buildings.
Characteristics:
• Free-standing columns, usually Doric order.
• Cornice with dentil moldings.
• Triangular pediment, sometimes supported on
classical columns.
Romanesque Revival
Circa 1880-1893, Commercial and Public
Promoted by the prominent Boston architect,
Henry Hobson Richardson, the Romanesque, or
Richardsonian Romanesque style was commonly
used for large public buildings during the 1880s—
following suit with Richardson’s Trinity Church in
Boston. Romanesque structures were always of
masonry construction. Rounded stone arches were
typical details, as were carved stone columns with
Corinthian capitals, which feature an acanthus leaf
pattern. Attached stone pilasters, or piers also were
common.
Characteristics:
• Asymmetrical facades.
• Masonry walls, usually with rough-faced, squared
stonework.
• Most have towers with conical roofs.
• Round-topped arches over windows, porch
supports, or entrance.
• Deeply recessed openings.
• Decorative colonnettes around windows.
• Decorative floral patterns on column capitals and
wall surfaces.
• Wood frames for doors and windows.
The Aspen Community Church, an example of the Romanesque
Revival style, constructed at 200 E. Bleeker in 1890.
P216
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 29
HIstorIc overvIew
Rustic architecture at 300 W. Main, constructed in 1944.
Rustic Architecture
Circa 1900-present, Residential, Commercial, Public
Popularized by the designs of the National Park
Service for its institutional buildings, these structures
were designed to blend with the environment and
were constructed of native building materials. An
emphasis upon simplicity, hand craftsmanship and
the natural environment made this a popular style
for vacation homes, hunting lodges, dude ranches
and tourist facilities. In Aspen, these appear similar
to Pioneer Houses, but usually include larger timber
elements and emphasize more craftsmanship in
details.
Characteristics:
• Hand built out of locally available materials, using
limited tools.
• Single story or 1 1/2 story.
• Low pitched gable roof.
• Simple rectangular footprint, with smaller
addictive elements.
• Small porch or entry feature.
• True log construction with overlapping log
ends, coped and stacked, with chinking to infill
irregularities between the logs.
• Rough sawn board and batten siding.
• Stone at the base or in the fireplace and chimney.
• Small window openings, spare and usually
horizontally proportioned with wood trim.
• Minimal detail and decoration.
The Bell Tower, originally built as a WPA project in 1930 and
later substantially reconstructed, is located at Paepke Park and
is an example of Rustic architecture.
P217
X.b
30 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
International style residence at 301 Lake, constructed in 1972.
Bauhaus/International Style
Circa 1928-1960, Residential, Commercial, Public
The use of the words “international style” refers to the
title of the exhibit promoted by the Museum of Modern
Art in New York City in 1931 which presented the
work of forty architects from fifteen countries. It has
become synonymous with modern styles and post-
World War II architecture that emphasized simple
rectilinear forms that expressed internal functions.
New materials and construction techniques also
were used. In Aspen, some variations emphasized
techniques and materials from elsewhere, while
others adapted the International Style to local
materials and building methods. Several of the
International Style buildings in Aspen were designed
by Herbert Bayer, a noted artist and designer from the
Bauhaus school who had a significant influence on
postwar architectural development in Aspen.
Characteristics:
• Simple geometric forms, both in plan and
elevation.
• Flat roofs, usually single story.
• Proportions are long and low, horizontal lines are
emphasized.
• Asymmetrical arrangement of elements.
• Windows are treated as slots in the wall surface,
either vertically or horizontally, or glazing appears
as a curtain wall.
• Detailing is reduced to the composition of
elements rather than decorative effects.
• Materials are generally manufactured and
standardized, surfaces are smooth, with minimal
or no detail at window jambs, grade, and roof
edge.
• Entry is usually marked by a void in the wall, a
cantilevered screen element, or other architectural
clue that directs one into the composition.
• Buildings are connected to nature through the use
of courtyards, wall elements that extend into the
landscape, and areas of glazing that allow a visual
connection to the natural environment.
• Schemes are monochromatic, using neutral
colors. Primary colors are used for accents.
P218
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 31
HIstorIc overvIew
Chalet
Circa 1945-1960s, Residential and Commercial
This style is reminiscent of alpine architecture in
Europe and was popular for early American ski resort
towns, including Aspen. Large balconies and shallow
roofs with wide eaves are identifying features. Wood
trim often reflected a jig-saw cutout design, especially
on balustrades and gable ornaments. Stucco was
often combined with wood siding. Occasionally,
mountain scenes were painted on the stucco. The
style primarily used for hotels and residences.
Characteristics:
• Large, singular roof form, generally low in slope.
• Deep overhangs with the structure of the roof
expressed on the underside.
• Eaves and rakes decorated with cutouts and
fretwork bargeboards.
• Continuous porch or balcony running the length
of the primary side.
• Decorative elements such as balustrades with
cut out shapes (hearts, edelweiss, snowflakes,
nature theme).
• Rectangular footprint.
• Stucco ground floor with minimal openings and
wood lintels.
• Slider and casement windows, horizontally
proportioned and used sparingly.
• Decorative shutters or flowerboxes.
• Colors are restricted to white for the stucco
base and dark brown wood walls, eaves,
and balustrades. Bright colors are used
sparingly for accents and decorative elements.
Mountain Chalet Style at 312 W. Hyman, constructed in 1956.
P219
X.b
32 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
HIstorIc overvIew
A Modern Chalet Style home at 120 Red Mountain Road,
constructed in 1962.
A Pan Abode located at 630 W. Main, constructed 1965.
Log Kit/Pan Abode Buildings
Circa 1950s to 1970, Residential and Commercial
Pan Abode is a brand name for log kit houses
available beginning in 1952. These buildings were also
manufactured by other companies as early as 1948.
The logs were milled, tongue and groove and came
pre-cut and notched for easy assembly. The system
was popular in Aspen for ski lodges and modest
homes. They were quick to build (a plus in Aspen’s
limited construction season) and inexpensive.
Characteristics:
• Tongue and groove cedar log construction.
• Overlapping notches at corners.
• Wood framed, multi-light picture window.
• Low-pitched roof, usually gabled but occasionally
shed.
• Deep overhanging eaves.
• Recessed entrance with rounded or squared
corners.
• Natural, stained wood.
• Simple, rectilinear footprint usually one story.
Modern Chalet
Circa 1950s-1960s, Residential
A distinctive postwar housing type in Aspen is
locally termed a Modern Chalet. With its moderately
pitched gable roof oriented to the front, it recalls
traditional chalets associated with ski country, but
in its expansive glass and minimal decoration, it also
seems classically modernist. For the most part, the
sizable window walls on these buildings are oriented
to Aspen Mountain.
Characteristics:
• Rectilinear footprint, classic chalet orientation
with gable end to the street and/or mountain view.
• Broad gabled facade organized in rectilinear
solid or glass panels, generally in a tripartite
organization.
• Low to moderate pitched roof, often based on a
3:12 ratio.
• Roof eave comes down to a low plate height at
the upper level.
• Deep eave overhang, may have exposed roof
beams.
• Glass in gable ends extending to the eaves.
• Large central glazed areas is flanked by brick or
stone piers.
• Minimal decoration.
• Balcony on front facade.
• Entry door recessed or on side elevation.
P220
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 33
HIstorIc overvIew
This Wrightian style building is located at 720 E. Hyman, and
was constructed in 1976.
Wrightian/Organic
Circa 1945-Early 1970s, Residential, Commercial,
Public
The Wrightian style was developed by the architect
Frank Lloyd Wright. Several buildings in Aspen were
designed by architects who studied under Frank
Lloyd Wright.
Characteristics:
• Low horizontal proportions, flat or low pitched hip
roofs.
• Deep roof overhangs that create broad shadow
lines across the facade, glazing is usually
concentrated in these areas.
• Materials are usually natural and hand-worked,
such as rough-sawn wood timbers and brick,
brick is generally used as a base material, wall
infill, or in an anchoring fireplace element.
• Wood structural systems tend more toward heavy
timber or post-and-beam rather than typical stud
framing.
• Structural members and construction methods
are usually expressed in the building.
• Roof structure is often expressed below the roof
sheathing.
• Glass is used as an infill material which expresses
a void or a structural system, or it is used to
accentuate the surface of a wall through pattern
or repetition.
• No trim isolating the glazing from the wall plane,
window openings are trimmed out to match
adjacent structural members in a wood context,
brick openings tend to be deeply set with no trim
other than the brick return.
• Structures are related to the environment through
battered foundation walls, cantilevered floors
and/or porches, clear areas of glazing that create
visual connections between inside and outside,
and the effect of the roof plane hovering over the
ground.
• Decoration stems from the detailing of the
primary materials and the construction technique,
no applied decorative elements are used.
• Colors are usually related to the natural colors
of materials (natural brick, dark stained wood,
white stucco), accent colors are used minimally
and mainly to accentuate horizontal lines of the
structure.
This Wrightian residence is located at 835 W. Main, and was
constructed in 1947.
P221
X.b
P222
X.b
D esign g uidelines :c ontext
P223
X.b
36 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
c HA pter 1: s ite p l A nning & l A ndsc A pe d esign
Background
The character of a historic structure is greatly
influenced by the surrounding framework of streets
and public spaces, the physical characteristics of the
specific site, and the way in which the historic resource
is situated on the lot. It is important to analyze the
context of a property before developing a strategy for
treatment and/or alteration. Analysis should begin
with a study of the overall development pattern of
the neighborhood or district. The defining elements
of the site need to be identified, and the placement
of the historic resource reviewed for its consistency
or deviation from the context of the neighborhood or
district. How structures occupy their site, in terms of
alignment, orientation, and spacing creates much of
the context of a neighborhood. This context, along
with right-of-way treatment, sidewalks, pedestrian
and vehicular access, fences, natural features, alley
relationship, landscaping and other site features all
combine to define Aspen’s historic character.
In the original Aspen townsite, the consistency of site
development reflects a specific and identifiable time
period. Some neighborhoods located outside of the
formal townsite grid were planned much later and
reflect a less formal pattern of development. HPC’s
intent is that any project acknowledges the history
of the surrounding area and uses the strongest and
most common features as a framework for proposed
development.
In addition to architectural landmarks, Aspen has
significant cultural and historic landscapes that
represent early development patterns. Included in
these private and public landscapes are: cemeteries,
parks, campuses, public art, alleys, street right of
ways, waterways, and similar public features. These
landscapes are integral to the historic pattern of the
community and should be preserved.
How to Start
When beginning a project, the applicant should follow
these steps:
• Document the existing site conditions, including
existing plant material, natural features, historic
artifacts, and configuration of the site.
• Note neighborhood development patterns
including existing and historic street and alley
conditions, setbacks, and alley development.
• Determine whether the existing context supports
or detracts from the historic resource and
incorporate findings into the design process.
• Retain historic site features and incorporate
important existing and historic development
patterns into the site.
Policy: Historic landscapes, landscape elements,
and landscape patterns should be preserved.
Additions and/or changes to the landscape
should be compatible with the associated
historic resource and the historic context of the
neighborhood or district in which the project is
located.
Note: A permit is required for modifications
within the publically owned right-of-way,
including planting strips, sidewalks and irrigation
ditches. This permit is issued by the Engineering
Department in consultation with other City
agencies. In general, the right-of-way within a
given neighborhood should have a consistent
design character. Right-of-ways should not be
altered in a manner that makes them appear to
be an extension of the adjacent private property.
The Municipal Code includes detailed information
about the City’s regulations affecting trees on
public and private property.
P224
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 37
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
Neighborhood and District Patterns
Maintaining significant development patterns in
Aspen’s neighborhoods is important. Intentionally
siting buildings to highlight historic development
patterns reflects the evolution of Aspen’s development.
Resources which are helpful in studying development
patterns include Victorian era fire insurance maps
(Sanborn Maps), the 1896 Willit’s Map, the 1893
Bird’s Eye View of town, subdivision maps, aerial
photography, and GIS mapping. These are found
in the Community Development Department or the
Historical Society. GIS maps can be found online at
aspenpitkin.com and Sanborn maps are online at
www.cudl.colorado.edu.
Within the historic townsite, the road layout is a grid.
The neighborhoods and structures were organized in
an orthogonal pattern, regardless of topography, with
building façades parallel to the street. Main Street is
the widest boulevard dividing Aspen north and south.
Garmisch Street, formerly Center Street, divides the
townsite east and west. In the west part of town,
historic irrigation ditches are found alongside many
streets.
Within the original townsite, some Post-World War II
buildings were set at an angle on the lot as a reflection
of a different design philosophy – for example, many
chalets are oriented to face Aspen Mountain. In later
subdivisions, the grid is generally absent: streets are
curvilinear and lots are irregular. It may require careful
study to discern consistent or original development
patterns remaining in these areas due to intense
redevelopment. Consult with a landscape architect
early in the conceptual process.
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.
Streets, Alleys, & Ditches
Alleys are an important feature of the historic townsite
and have traditionally been used for utilitarian
functions. Today, this is an appropriate location
for cars, storage, service areas, and in some cases,
secondary residential units or small businesses.
Historic photograph of Aspen’s west end neighborhood.
This historic structure is easily viewed from the street and is
surrounded by a large open yard.
P225
X.b
38 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Though alterations to streets, alleys, and ditches are
not generally within the HPC’s purview, development
which removes a platted street or alley, or overplants a
ditch, is discouraged. Ditches should be simple water
channels planted with sod banks that do not include
flower beds, hardscapes, or bridges that change the
simplicity of the feature.
1.2 Preserve the system and character of
historic streets, alleys, and ditches.
When HPC input is requested, the following bullet
points may be applicable.
• Retain and preserve the variety and character
found in historic alleys, including retaining historic
ancillary buildings or constructing new ones.
• Retain and preserve the simple character of
historic ditches. Do not plant flowers or add
landscape.
• Abandoning or re-routing a street in a historic
area is generally discouraged.
• Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential
areas.
• Opening a platted right of way which was
abandoned or never graded may be encouraged
on a case by case basis.
Driveways & Parking
Typical transportation in the 19th Century included
horses and wagons that were housed in the alleys or
on side streets. As cars became more common after
World War II, some development was automobile
oriented and included driveways accessed from
the primary street. Many Post-War residences
incorporated this auto-centric trend with carports
and these examples should be preserved. Generally
though, in an effort to minimize the visual impact of
vehicles, and meet current pedestrian safety goals,
vehicular access should now be accommodated at
the alley where possible.
1.3 Remove driveways or parking areas
accessed directly from the street if they were
not part of the original development of the site.
• Do not introduce new curb cuts on streets.
• Non-historic driveways accessed from the street
should be removed if they can be relocated to the
alley.
Where a historic driveway is accessed from a street, minimize
the visual impacts by limiting paving.
This Herbert Bayer designed residence, built in 1963, features
a streetfacing carport.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
A ditch in the West End neighborhood.
P226
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 39
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
1.4 Design a new driveway or improve an
existing driveway in a manner that minimizes
its visual impact.
• If an alley exists at the site, the new driveway must
be located off it.
• Tracks, gravel, light grey concrete with minimal
seams, or similar materials are appropriate for
driveways on Aspen Victorian properties.
Yards, Walkways, and Patios
Key landscape features include setbacks, public
space and private space, the arrangement of trees,
shrubbery and hedges, species of vegetation, natural
features, walkways and patios, site furnishings, site
lighting, fences, vehicular and pedestrian access, and
walls.
Aspen Victorian Properties
Commercial zone districts allow lot line to lot line
development with minimal setbacks if any. As such,
most commercial properties do not contain on-site
walkways and patios. This alignment of structures
contributes to a sense of visual continuity and vitality
for 19th Century resources in the Commercial Core
Historic District.
In 19th century residential settings, a “hierarchy” of
open space exists along the street. Access from the
public street to private residences was commonly
achieved with a modest walkway. These walkways
were typically narrow in width, made of simple,
indigenous materials, and ran perpendicular from
the street to the entry or porch. Typical residential
neighborhoods located in the original townsite had a
relatively consistent front yard setback. Open lawns
were common. Side and rear yard setback patterns
created distinctive patterns and contributed to the
overall open space and rhythm of a neighborhood.
Rear yard setbacks have traditionally been fairly
minimal
AspenModern Properties
Post-war development oftentimes reflects a
deliberate effort to bring the outside indoors or to
contrast a natural, wild landscape with a minimalist,
stark building. Many Post-War buildings incorporated
patios, built in planters, deep overhanging eaves, wide
steps, and other types of design elements to define the
landscape as part of the architecture of the building.
These features are integral to the design tenets of
Post-War architecture and should be preserved.
An elevated front pation was part of the original design for
this AspenModern landmark in the Commercial Core Historic
District.
P227
X.b
40 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
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.
• 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
The historic hierarchy of spaces from public to semi-public to
private.
A flagstone walkway suits the character of this 1956 Pan
Abode home.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
A Victorian era walkway in Aspen.
P228
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 41
when viewed from the public right of way.
• Refer to City Engineering for additional guidance
and requirements.
1.9 Landscape development on AspenModern
landmarks shall be addressed on a case by
case basis.
1.10 Built-in furnishings, such as water
features, fire pits, grills, and hot tubs, that
could interfere with or block views of historic
structures are inappropriate.
• Site furnishings that are added to the historic
property should not be intrusive or degrade the
integrity of the neighborhood patterns, site, or
existing historic landscape.
• Consolidating and screening these elements is
preferred.
Softscape Features & Plants
While most historic plant materials on private property
have been replaced over time, some specimens
do survive, particularly in residential settings. 19th
Century photographs indicate that front yards were
typically mowed grass and a mix of cottonwood trees,
lilacs, sweet peas, flowering vines, and yellow shrub-
roses. Back yards were often dirt to accomodate
animals and livestock.
In later periods, yard designs evolved - a Rustic Style
building may have a more natural, less manicured
character with informal planting of native trees, shrubs
and flowers and prominent placement of spruces
near the entry. Always refer to historic photos of the
site when available to guide landscape design.
While HPC may not have the opportunity to review
landscape alterations that do not occur as part of a
development project, the following guidelines apply to
all activity on historic sites and will be enforced when
necessary. Permits are required for site disturbances
great than 200 square feet. Refer to the Engineering
page on the city website aspenpitkin.com for updated
information.
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
A simple, albeit contemporary, walkway may be acceptable for
a large, ornate Victorian.
Historic cottonwood trees surround this corner lot.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn P229
X.b
42 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
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.
1.12 Provide an appropriate context for historic
structures. See diagram.
• Simplicity and restraint are required. Do not
overplant a site, or install a landscape which is
overtextured or overly complex in relationship to
the historic resource, particularly in Zone A. In
Zone A, new planting shall be species that were
used historically or species of similar attributes.
• In areas immediately adjacent to the landmark,
Zone A and Zone B, plants up 42” in height, sod,
and low shrubs are often appropriate.
• Contemporary planting, walls and other features
are not appropriate in Zone A. A more contemporary
landscape may surround new development or be
located in the rear of the property, in Zone C.
• Do not cover areas which were historically
unpaved with hard surfaces, except for a limited
patio where appropriate.
• Where residential structures are being adapted to
commercial use, proposals to alter the landscape
will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The
residential nature of the building must be honored.
• In the case of a historic landmark lot split, careful
consideration should be given so as not to over
plant either property, or remove all evidence of
the landscape characteristics from before the
property was divided.
• Contemporary landscapes that highlight an
AspenModern architectural style are encouraged.
1.13 Additions of plant material to the
landscape that could interfere with or block
views of historic structures are inappropriate.
• Low plantings and ground covers are preferred.
• Do not place trees, shrubs, or hedgerows in
locations that will obscure, damage, or block
significant architectural features or views to the
building. Hedgerows are not allowed as fences.
A small conifer planted in front of a historic structure can grow
beyond expectations and completely block the building.
• Consider mature canopy size when planting new
trees adjacent to historic resources. Planting trees
too close to a landmark may result in building
deteriorate or blocked views and is inappropriate.
• Climbing vines can damage historic structures and
are not allowed.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn P230
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 43
cHapter1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
Zone A
most signicant
Zone B
moderately signicant
Zone C
unrestricted
Historic Resource
Non-historic
addition
NOTE: Zones of signi -
cance are approximate and
deviations may be deemed
appropriate by the HPC.
Zone C may include
secondary historic resourc-
es such as a historic shed
or outbuilding. When this
occurs, the allowances in
Zone B shall apply to the
areas around the historic
shed or outbuilding.
FRONT
REAR
Historic
Resource
Non-historic Addition
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
L
O
T
P231
X.b
44 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng and landscape desIgn
Zone A
most signicant
Zone B
moderately signicant
Zone C
unrestricted
Historic Resource
Non-historic
addition
NOTE: Zones of signi -
cance are approximate and
deviations may be deemed
appropriate by the HPC.
Zone C may include
secondary historic resourc-
es such as a historic shed
or outbuilding. When this
occurs, the allowances in
Zone B shall apply to the
areas around the historic
shed or outbuilding.
STREET
ALLEY
Historic
Resource
Non-historic Addition
STREET
P232
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 45
Site Lighting
Traditionally, outdoor lighting on 19th century sites
was minimal or non-existent. While electricity was
available in Aspen in the late 1880s, based on available
historic photographs, exterior lights, including porch
lights, were not commonly found. To maintain historic
character, all outdoor lighting must be minimized.
Landscape lighting on AspenModern properties
varies based on architectural style and time period of
development.
For additional information, see the City’s Lighting
Standards.
1.14 Minimize the visual impacts of landscape
lighting.
• Landscape and pathway lighting is not permitted
in Zone A (refer to diagram) on Aspen Victorian
properties unless an exception is approved by
HPC based on safety considerations.
• Landscape, driveway, and pathway lighting on
AspenModern properties is addressed on a case-
by-case basis.
• Landscape light fixtures should be carefully
selected so that they are compatible with the
building, yet recognizable as a product of their
own time.
• Driveway lighting is not permitted on Aspen
Victorian properties.
• Landscape uplighting is not allowed.
Fences
Originally, wood picket fences were commonly used
to define front yards on Aspen Victorian properties.
These fences provided a subtle delineation of private
yard versus public right-of-way and were low in height,
transparent in design, and did not create walled off
private areas. The fence’s vertical slats were set apart
with spaces between, and the overall height of the
fence was approximately three feet. Many properties
traditionally had open lawns with no fencing.
Some Post-WWII properties may have original fences
that provide less transparency than those used in the
19th century, or have other unique characteristics.
Fencing on these properties will be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
1.15 Preserve original fences.
• Fences which are considered part of the historic
significance of a site should not be moved,
Landscape lighting that suits this AspenModern home.
A picket fence is an appropriate choice for a Victorian era
home.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn P233
X.b
46 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence
that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic
fence based on photographic evidence.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the
most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street
facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use
materials that are appropriate to the building
type and style.
• The new fence should use materials that were
used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most
locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create
a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that
a decorative fence historically existed on the site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the
early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian
properties. This fence type has many desirable
characteristics including transparency, a low
height, and a simple design. When this material is
used, posts should be simply detailed and not
oversized.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent
quality, allowing views into the yard from the
street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in
height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets
must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type
of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to
the fence segment.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be
designed so that it avoids blocking public views
of important features of a designated building.
This is one of the last remaining original Victorian fences in
Aspen.
A historic wire fence ;located on Cooper Ave.
A privacy fence that reflects a traditional picket fence style.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
A historic photograph showing both a simple wire fence and a
taller and more opaque privacy fence.
P234
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 47
removed, or inappropriately altered.
• Replace only those portions of a historic fence
that are deteriorated beyond repair.
• Replacement elements must match the existing.
1.16 When possible, replicate a missing historic
fence based on photographic evidence.
1.17 No fence in the front yard is often the
most appropriate solution.
• Reserve fences for back yards and behind street
facing façades, as the best way to preserve the
character of a property.
1.18 When building an entirely new fence, use
materials that are appropriate to the building
type and style.
• The new fence should use materials that were
used on similar properties during the period of
significance.
• A wood fence is the appropriate solution in most
locations.
• Ornate fences, including wrought iron, may create
a false history are not appropriate for Aspen
Victorian landmarks unless there is evidence that
a decorative fence historically existed on the site.
• A modest wire fence was common locally in the
early 1900s and is appropriate for Aspen Victorian
properties. This fence type has many desirable
characteristics including transparency, a low
height, and a simple design. When this material is
used, posts should be simply detailed and not
oversized.
1.19 A new fence should have a transparent
quality, allowing views into the yard from the
street.
• A fence that defines a front yard must be low in
height and transparent in nature.
• For a picket fence, spacing between the pickets
must be a minimum of 1/2 the width of the picket.
• For Post-WWII properties where a more solid type
of fence may be historically appropriate, proposals
will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• Fence columns or piers should be proportional to
the fence segment.
1.20 Any fence taller than 42” should be
designed so that it avoids blocking public views
of important features of a designated building.
This is one of the last remaining original Victorian fences in
Aspen.
A historic wire fence ;located on Cooper Ave.
A privacy fence that reflects a traditional picket fence style.
• A privacy fence should incorporate transparent
elements to minimize the possible visual impacts.
Consider staggering the fence boards on either
side of the fence rail. This will give the appearance
of a solid plank fence when seen head on. Also
consider using lattice, or other transparent
detailing on the upper portions of the fence.
• A privacy fence should allow the building corners
and any important architectural features that are
visible from the street to continue to be viewed.
• All hedgerows (trees, shrub bushes, etc.) are
prohibited in Zones A and B.
Retaining Walls
Historically stone retaining walls were sometimes
used on steep slopes. Some of these walls survive and
are important character-defining features. Whenever
feasible they should be preserved. The addition of
retaining walls on flat sites or in locations where they
were not seen historically should be avoided.
1.21 Preserve original retaining walls
• Replace only those portions that are deteriorated
beyond repair. Any replacement materials should
match the original in color, texture, size and finish.
• Painting or covering a historic masonry retaining
wall or covering is not allowed.
• Increasing the height of a retaining wall is
inappropriate.
1.22 When a new retaining wall is necessary,
its height and visibility should be minimized.
• All wall materials, including veneer and mortar,
will be reviewed on a case by case basis and
should be compatible with the palette used on the
historic structure.
1.23 Re-grading the site in a manner that
changes historic grade is generally not allowed
and will be reviewed on a case by case basis.
A restored historic retaining wall located at 320 W. Main Street.
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn P235
X.b
48 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
Cultural and Designed Landscapes
In addition to architectural landmarks, Aspen has
historical landscapes. Historic landscapes are just
as important to preservation goals as buildings. All
alterations to cultural and designed landscapes
are considered on a case-by-case basis. Some
architectural landmarks include designed landscapes
and hardscapes that blend the building into the
surrounding environment. These features are integral
to the preservation of the historic site.
1.24 Preserve historically significant
landscapes with few or no alterations.
• An analysis of the historic landscape and an
assessment of the current condition of the
landscape should be done before the beginning of
any project.
• The key features of the historic landscape and its
overall design intent must be preserved.
1.25 New development on these sites should
respect the historic design of the landscape
and its built features.
• Do not add features that damage the integrity of
the historic landscape.
• Maintain the existing pattern of setbacks and
siting of structures.
• Maintain the historic relationship of the built
landscape to natural features on the site.
• All additions to these landscapes must be clearly
identifiable as recent work.
• New artwork must be subordinate to the designed
landscape in terms of placement, height, material,
and overall appearance. Place new art away from
significant landscape features.
• Avoid installing utility trenches in cultural
landscapes if possible.
1.26 Preserve the historic circulation system.
• Minimize the impact of new vehicular circulation.
• Minimize the visual impact of new parking.
• Maintain the separation of pedestrian and vehicle
which occurred historically.
Red Butte Cemetery, one of the three historic cemeteries in
Aspen.
Herbert Bayer’s 1955 Marble Garden at the Aspen Meadows.
P236
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 49
cHapter 1: sIte plannIng & landscape desIgn
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.
• Maintain and preserve any historic landscape
elements.
In 1976, several downtown streets were redesigned as
pedestrians malls.
P237
X.b
P238
X.b
D esign g uidelines :r e HA bilitAtion
P239
X.b
52 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 2: BuIldIng MaterIals
This chapter addresses the treatment of primary
historic building materials—those that compose the
dominant exterior surfaces of historic buildings. The
treatment of materials used for architectural trim is
addressed in a separate chapter.
In Aspen, wood siding and masonry have been the
typical primary building materials for both Aspen
Victorian and AspenModern landmarks. For Aspen
Victorian properties, horizontal clapboard is the most
common material for residences. Most downtown
buildings are brick or stone. AspenModern often
used stucco, concrete block and brick. In each case,
the distinct characteristics of the primary building
material, including the scale of the material unit, its
texture and finish, are key features that contribute to
the historic character of a building.
The best way to preserve historic building materials is
through well-planned maintenance. It is important to
inspect a historic building regularly.
Horizontal building surfaces such as chimneys, caps,
sills, railings, and parapet copings are likely to show
the most wear because they are more exposed and
may retain water for longer periods of time.
When deterioration occurs, repairing the material
rather than replacing it is preferred. It is important that
the extent of replacement materials be minimized,
because the original materials contribute to the
authenticity of the property as a historic resource. Even
when the replacement material exactly matches that
of the original, the integrity of a historic building is to
some degree compromised when extensive amounts
are removed. This is because the original material
exhibits a record of the labor and craftsmanship of
an earlier time and this is lost when materials are
replaced.
It is also important to recognize that all materials
weather over time and that an aged finish, or patina
does not represent an inferior material, but simply
reflects the longevity of the building. Preserving
original materials that show signs of wear is therefore
preferred to replacement.
AspenModern properties which exhibit deterioration
may require more substantial material replacement
in order to preserve the original design intent. For
example, CMU block that has been damaged over
time may need to be entirely replaced in order to
preserve the monochrome coloring or crisp edges
indicative of the style. Approval of replacement
materials on AspenModern properties is handled on
a case by case basis.
Treatment of Materials
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.
c HApter 2: b uilding MAteriAls
Policy: Historic building materials should be
preserved in place whenever feasible. When the
material is damaged, then limited replacement
that matches the original in appearance
should be considered. Primary historic building
materials should never be covered or subjected
to harsh cleaning treatments.
P240
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 53
cHapter 2: BuIldIng MaterIals
2.2 The finish of materials should be as it
would have existed historically.
• Masonry naturally has a water-protective layer to
protect it from the elements. Brick or stone that
was not historically painted shall not be painted.
• If masonry that was not painted historically was
given a coat of paint at some more recent time,
consider removing it, using appropriate methods.
• Wood should be painted, stained or natural, as
appropriate to the style and history of the building.
Replacement of Materials
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.
2.4 Do not use synthetic materials as
replacements for original building materials.
• Original building materials such as wood siding
and brick should not be replaced with synthetic
materials.
Covering Materials
2.5 Covering original building materials with
new materials is inappropriate.
• Regardless of their character, new materials
obscure the original, historically significant
material.
• Any material that covers historic materials may
also trap moisture between the two layers. This
will cause accelerated deterioration to the historic
material which may go unnoticed.
2.6 Remove layers that cover the original
material.
• Once the non-historic siding is removed, repair
the original, underlying material.
Monitor the condition of horizontal surfaces that collect snow
and water.
Repair of historic siding in preparation for new paint.
P241
X.b
54 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
Before: Building prior to alteration.After: A cornice has been installed over the original brick.
cHapter 2: BuIldIng MaterIals
Before: A sign was installed overtop of the original decorative
molding.
After: The molding after restoration.
After: The same house after non-historic siding materials were
removed to expose original clapboard.
Before: The original siding on this house was covered with
asbestos shingles.
P242
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 55
cHapter 3: wIndows
Background
Windows are some of the most important character-
defining features of historic structures. They give
scale to buildings and provide visual interest to the
composition of individual façades. In fact, distinct
window designs help define many historic building
styles. For example, AspenModern properties in
the Wrightian/Organic style typically have mitered
windows that blur the line between the outside and
the inside. The treatment of a historic window and
the addition of a new opening to a historic structure
requires careful consideration.
Key Features of Windows
The size, shape, location, and proportions of historic
windows are among their essential features. Many
Aspen Victorian windows were “double hung” with two
sliding vertical sashes. These windows were usually
sparsely placed around the structure. In contrast,
a key defining feature of the Modern Chalet is large
areas of glazing spanning from floor to roofline. The
design of window casings, the depth and profile of
window sash elements and the materials of which
they were constructed are also important features.
Window Types
Window types typically found on Aspen landmarks
include:
• Casement - Hinged windows that swing open
typically to the outside.
• Double Hung - Two sash elements, one above the
other; both upper and lower sashes slide within
tracks on the window jambs.
• Single Hung - Two sash elements, one above the
other; only the lower sash moves.
• Fixed - The sash does not move.
• Mitered - Also called butt glazed windows, two
windows joined together create a 90 degree
corner.
Casement windows.
Double hung windows.
Policy: The character-defining features
of historic windows and their distinctive
arrangement on a wall should be preserved.
This is especially important on primary façades.
New windows should be in character with the
historic building.
c HApter 3: windows
P243
X.b
56 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 3: wIndows
Deterioration of Historic Windows
Properly maintained, original windows will provide
excellent service for centuries. Most problems that
occur result from a lack of proper maintenance.
Water damage and the ultra-violet degradation caused
by sunlight are major concerns, specifically for wood
windows. If surfaces fail to drain properly, water may
be introduced which quickly begins to cause material
damage. In most cases, windows are protected if a
good coat of paint or stain is maintained.
Repair or Replacement of Historic Windows
Whenever possible, repair a historic window, rather
than replace it. In most cases it is in fact more
economical to repair the existing frame and glass
rather than to replace them. Even when replaced with
an exact duplicate window, a portion of the historic
building fabric is lost when new windows are installed,
and therefore such treatment should be avoided.
Inspect historic windows to determine their condition.
Distinguish superficial signs of deterioration from
actual failure of window components. Peeling paint,
dried wood, or a rotted sill, for example, are serious
problems, but often do not indicate that a window is
beyond repair. Patching and splicing in new material
for only those portions that are decayed is preferred.
Complete window replacement will only be approved
when unavoidable, on a case-by-case basis.
While replacing an entire window assembly is
discouraged, it may be necessary in some cases.
When a window is to be replaced, the new one
should match the appearance of the original to the
greatest extent possible, including the material, size
and proportion of window elements, glass and sash
components, the original profile, and the original
depth of the window opening.
Energy Conservation
In some cases, owners may be concerned that an older
window is inefficient in terms of energy conservation.
In winter, for example, heat loss associated with an
older window may make a room uncomfortable
and increase heating costs. In fact, most heat loss
is associated with air leakage though gaps that are
the result of a lack of maintenance, rather than loss
of energy through the single pane of glass found in
historic windows. The glazing compound may be
cracked or missing, allowing air to move around the
glass. Sash members also may have shifted, leaving
a gap for heat loss. Adding a storm window, which
Fixed windows.
Mitered windows.
P244
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 57
cHapter 3: wIndows
Before: Window and door openings filled in with non-historic
materials.
was typical practice in the 19th century, or weather
stripping successfully addresses air leakage while
preserving the historic window.
Treatment of Windows
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.
Replacement of Windows that are
Beyond Repair, or Have Been Removed
3.3 Match a replacement window to the original
in its design.
• If the original is double-hung, then the replacement
window must also be double-hung. If the sash
have divided lights, match that characteristic as
well.
3.4 When replacing an original window, use
materials that are the same as the original.
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.
3.6 Match, as closely as possible, the profile
of the sash and its components to that of the
original window.
• A historic window often has a complex profile.
Within the window’s casing, the sash steps back
to the plane of the glazing (glass) in several
After: Restored storefront.
P245
X.b
58 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 3: wIndows
After: Restored windows.
Before: Look for evidence of original openings and restore.
increments. These increments, which individually
only measure in eighths or quarters of inches, are
important details. They distinguish the actual
window from the surrounding plane of the wall.
• The historic profile on AspenModern properties is
typically minimal.
Adding Windows
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.
• 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.
Energy Conservation
3.8 Use a storm window to enhance energy
conservation rather than replace a historic
window.
• Install a storm window on the interior, when
feasible. This will allow the character of the
original window to be seen from the public way.
• If a storm window is to be installed on the exterior,
match the sash design and material of the original
window. It should fit tightly within the window
opening without the need for sub-frames or
panning around the perimeter. A storm window
should not include muntins unless necessary for
structure. Any muntin should be placed to match
horizontal or vertical divisions of the historic
window.
Exterior mounted wood storm windows.
P246
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 59
cHapter 4: doors
Background
Doors are important character-defining features
of historic structures, which give scale to buildings
and provide visual interest to the composition of
individual façades. Many historic doors are noted for
their materials, placement and finishes.
Door Features
Important features include the materials and details
of the door itself, its frame, sill, head, jamb and any
flanking windows or transoms.
Door Types
Door types found on historic structures in Aspen
include:
• Doorway with transom - Typically a wooden
door topped with a rectangular transom with
glass.
• Half-lite door - This type of door has a wide sash
of glass in the upper portion of the door. Many
early Aspen houses have half-lite doors.
• Full-lite door - This type of door is predominantly
glass.
• Paneled door - Wooden door with raised panels.
• Slab door - A door without panels or glass.
Full-lite door.
Policy: The character-defining features of a
historic door and its distinct materials and
placement should be preserved. A new door
should be in character with the historic building.
c HApter 4: doors
Doorway with transom.
Half-lite door with double arched windows.
Slab door.
P247
X.b
60 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 4: doors
Deterioration
A typical Aspen Victorian door is sheltered by a
porch, which extends the life of the door. However,
deterioration can still occur due to water damage,
weathering, and constant use. AspenModern
properties typically have minimal roof overhangs or
porches. As a result of deterioration, some historic
doors do not properly fit their openings and allow
moisture and air into the building.
Repair of Historic Doors
A problem door sometimes just needs to be re-hung
in order to properly work. If is often easier and more
economical to repair an existing door rather than
to replace it. This is preferred because the original
materials contribute to the historic character of the
building. Even when replaced with an exact duplicate,
a portion of the historic building fabric is lost and such
treatment should be avoided.
When rehabilitating a historic door it is important to
maintain original doors, jambs, transoms, window
panes and hardware. Surfaces may require cleaning
and patching and some components may be
deteriorated beyond repair. Patching and splicing in
new material for only those portions that are decayed
should be considered in such a case, rather than
replacing the entire door.
Replacement Doors
Replacing an entire door assembly is discouraged.
When a door must be replaced, the new one should
match the original. A frequent concern is the material
of the replacement door. Using the same material as
the original is required. If the historic door was wood,
then use a wood replacement. It is important to
preserve the original jamb when feasible.
Door Function
The historic front door on a primary façade must be
the main entrance into the building. Aspen Victorians
with two front doors are permitted to fix one of
the doors in place so that it does not operate. The
procedure to fix the door must be reversible.
Energy Conservation
Owners may be concerned about the energy efficiency
of old doors that seem to leak cold air during the
winter. Most heat loss is associated with air leakage
through the space below the door.
The most cost-effective energy conservation measure
for a typical historic door is to install weather stripping
Door at 827 dean street.
P248
X.b
Caption
Caption
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 61
cHapter 4: doors
along the door, to fit the door to the jamb and threshold
and to caulk any window panes. These measures
will dramatically reduce heat loss while preserving
historic features. If additional energy savings are a
concern, consider installing a storm door. This may be
applied to the exterior of the door. If a storm door is to
be installed, it should match the design and materials
of the original door.
Treatment of Existing Doors
These guidelines for the treatment of doors apply to
all existing and proposed exterior doors, and screen
doors.
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.
4.3 When a historic door or screen door is
damaged, repair it and maintain its general
historic appearance.
Replacement Doors
4.4 When replacing a door or screen door, use
a design that has an appearance similar to the
original door or a door associated with the style
of the building.
• A replica of the original, if evidence exists, is the
preferred replacement.
• A historic door or screen door from a similar
building also may be considered.
• Simple paneled doors were typical for Aspen
Victorian properties.
Many Victorian era homes in Aspen had two front doors; one
for receiving guests and one for family use.
A new screen door.
An original screen door must be preserved.
P249
X.b
62 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 4: doors
• Very ornate doors, including stained or leaded
glass, are discouraged, unless photographic
evidence can support their use.
Adding Doors
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.
Energy Conservation
4.6 If energy conservation and heat loss are
concerns, use a storm door instead of replacing
a historic entry door.
• Match the material, frame design, character, and
color of the primary door.
• Simple features that do not detract from the
historic entry door are appropriate for a new
storm door.
• New storm or screen doors should be in character
with the primary door.
Door Hardware
4.7 Preserve historic hardware.
• When new hardware is needed, it must be in scale
with the door and appropriate to the style of the
building.
• On Aspen Victorian properties, conceal any
modern elements such as entry key pads.
A decorative door knob.
P250
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 63
cHapter 5: porcHes & BalconIes
Background
In the 19th century, front, side and rear porches
were popular features in residential design. A porch
protects an entrance from snow and provides shade
in the summer. It also provides a sense of scale and
aesthetic quality to the façade of a building. A porch
often connects a house to its context by orienting the
entrance to the street. Because of their importance as
character-defining features, porches should receive
sensitive treatment during exterior rehabilitation and
restoration work.
Some AspenModern styles employed recessed entries
and roof overhangs as porches. Open balconies are
common on Chalet and Modern Chalet buildings.
Key Features
Porches and balconies vary as much as architectural
styles. They differ in height, scale, location, materials
and articulation. A porch or balcony may be cut in,
project or wrap around a corner and it may have
elaborate details and finishes. Although they vary in
character, most Aspen Victorian porches have these
elements in common:
• Balustrades or railings
• Posts/columns
• Architectural details
• Hipped/shed/flat roofs
These elements often correspond to the architectural
style of the house and therefore, the building’s design
character should be considered before any major
rehabilitation or restoration work is done.
AspenModern properties sometimes feature
traditional porches, but may have balconies which
run the full width or length of a structure and sit 1/2
story of a full story above the ground. The balustrade
may be decorative or simple squared rails.
Policy: An original porch or balcony should
be preserved. In cases where the feature has
been altered, it should be restored to its original
appearance.
c HApter 5: p orcHes & bAlconies
An entry porch on a Pan Abode building.
A Victorian porch.
A balcony on a Chalet.
P251
X.b
64 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 5: porcHes & BalconIes
Deterioration
Because of constant exposure to sun and rain and the
fact that a porch or balcony is open to the elements,
it decays faster than other portions of a building.
Furthermore, if water is not channeled away from the
foundation of a porch, its footings may be damaged.
Peeling paint is a common symptom. In some
cases a porch or balcony may experience sagging or
detachment from the main structure due to settling.
Repair of Porches
After discovering structural or cosmetic problems,
a porch or balcony should be repaired rather than
replaced. Repair is preferred to replacement because
the original materials contribute to the historic
character of the porch. Even when replaced with an
exact duplicate, a portion of the historic building fabric
is lost; therefore, such treatment should be avoided
when feasible.
Reconstructing a porch or balcony that is
beyond repair or has been removed
When reconstruction is necessary, research the
history of the building to determine the original design
of the feature. Look for physical evidence including
“ghost lines” on walls that indicate the outline of
the features as it once existed. Reference similar
buildings for guidance if needed.
Treatment
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.
5.2 Avoid removing or covering historic
materials and details.
• Removing an original balustrade, for example, is
inappropriate.
5.3 Enclosing a porch or balcony is not
appropriate.
• Reopening an enclosed porch or balcony is
appropriate.
Before: A historic porch where the original posts and details
were replaced with an inaccurate design.
Handrails are susceptible to deterioration.
After: A restored porch based on historic documentation.
P252
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 65
cHapter 5: porcHes & BalconIes cHapter 5: porcHes & BalconIes
Reconstruction
5.4 If reconstruction is necessary, match the
original in form, character and detail.
• Match original materials.
• When reconstructing an original porch or balcony
without historic photographs, use dimensions and
characteristics found on comparable buildings.
Keep style and form simple with minimal, if any,
decorative elements.
Steps, Handrails, and Guardrails
5.5 If new steps are to be added, construct
them out of the same primary materials used
on the original, and design them to be in scale
with the porch or balcony
• Steps should be located in the original location.
• Step width should relate to the scale of entry
doors, spacing between posts, depth of deck, etc.
• Brick, red sandstone, grey concrete, or wood are
appropriate materials for steps.
5.6 Avoid adding handrails or guardrails where
they did not exist historically, particularly
where visible from the street.
• If handrails or guardrails are needed according
to building code, keep their design simple in
character and different from the historic detailing
on the porch or balcony.
Before: An enclosed porch significantly changes the character
of the historic structure.
After: The porch is restored, based on historic documentation.
P253
X.b
66 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 6: arcHItectural detaIls
Background
Architectural details play several roles in defining the
character of a historic structure. They add visual
interest, distinguish certain building styles and types,
and often showcase superior craftsmanship. While
architectural details on many styles are ornamental in
nature, some are very simple. In both cases, the
character of the details contributes to the significance
of historic properties. Features such as window
hoods, brackets and posts exhibit materials and
finishes often associated with particular styles.
Treatment & Repair
Preserving original architectural details is critical to
the integrity of the building. Where replacement is
required, one should remove only those portions that
are deteriorated beyond repair. Even if an architectural
detail is replaced with an exact copy of the original,
the integrity of the building as a historic resource is
diminished. Therefore, preservation of the original
material is preferred.
Replacement
Using a material to match the historic material is
always the best approach. In unique circumstances,
a substitute material may be considered when it
appears similar in composition, design, color, and
texture to the original. Substitute materials may be
considered when the original is not available, where
the original is known to be susceptible to rapid decay,
or where maintenance access may be difficult.
Treatment of Architectural Features
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
Policy: Architectural details help establish a
historic building’s distinct visual character and
should be preserved. If architectural details are
damaged beyond repair, replacements should
match the original detailing.
c HApter 6: Arc HitecturA l detAils
An ornate Queen Anne home.
Simple miner’s cottage with ornate details.
P254
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 67
cHapter 6: arcHItectural detaIls
integrity of the original design intent, such as crisp
edges, rather than to retain heavily deteriorated
material.
6.2 When disassembly of a historic element is
necessary for its restoration, use methods that
minimize damage to the original material.
• Document its location so it may be repositioned
accurately. Always devise methods of replacing
the disassembled material in its original
configuration.
6.3 Remove only the portion of the detail that
is deteriorated and must be replaced.
• Match the original in composition, scale, and
finish when replacing materials or features.
• If the original detail was made of wood, for
example, then the replacement material should
be wood, when feasible. It should match the
original in size and finish.
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or
deteriorated features are required to be based
on original designs.
• The design should be substantiated by physical
or pictorial evidence to avoid creating a
misrepresentation of the building’s heritage.
• When reconstruction of an element is impossible
because there is no historical evidence, develop
a compatible new design that is a simplified
interpretation of the original, and maintains
similar scale, proportion and material.
6.5 Do not guess at “historic” designs for
replacement parts.
• Where scars on the exterior suggest that
architectural features existed, but there is no
other physical or photographic evidence, then
new features may be designed that are similar in
character to related buildings.
• Using ornate materials on a building or adding
new conjectural detailing for which there is no
documentation is inappropriate.
Broken balusters within this railing were carefully replicated.
The Health Club at the Aspen Meadows features a simple, but
carefully detailed fascia.
A portion of the metal crown on the Elks Building was missing
and needed to be replicated.
The restored dome on the Elks Building.
P255
X.b
68 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 7: rooFs
Background
The character of the roof is a major feature for most
historic structures. In each case, the roof pitch,
materials, size and orientation are all distinct features
that contribute to its character. Aspen Victorian
properties have a range of gabled, hip, shed, and flat
roof forms depending on building type. AspenModern
properties typically have a range of gable, parabolic,
butterfly or flat roof forms depending on the
architectural style. Although the function of a roof is
to protect a structure from the elements, it contributes
to overall architectural character of the building.
Characteristics Most Associated with Aspen
Architectural Styles
• Deep Overhangs - Chalet, Modern Chalet, Rustic,
Wrightian
• Flat roof, minimal eaves - Modern
• Gables, shed - Victorian
Deterioration
The roof is the structure’s main defense against the
elements. Over time all components of the roofing
system are vulnerable to leaking and damage. When
the roof begins to experience failure it can affect other
parts of the structure by no longer acting as a barrier
from water, wind, and exposure. Common sources of
roof leaks include:
• Cracks in chimney masonry
• Loose flashing around chimneys and ridges
• Loose or missing roof shingles
• Cracks in roof membranes caused by settling
rafters
• Water backup from plugged gutters
• Ice dams
Policy: The character of a historical roof,
including its form and materials, should be
preserved.
c HApter 7: roofs
Deep overhangs on a Chalet.
An A-Frame roof form on a Fritz Benedict designed home.
P256
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 69
cHapter 7: rooFs
Repairing a Historic Roof
When repairing a historic roof it is important to
preserve its historic character. It is not appropriate
to alter the pitch of a historic roof, or to change the
orientation of the roof to the street. Eave overhangs
are extremely important to the style of the house and
should be preserved.
Gutters, Downspouts, Snowstops, and Snow
Fences
Gutters and downspouts are used to divert water
away from a structure. Without this drainage system,
water may splash off the roof onto exterior walls and
run along the foundation of the building. Snowstops
and snow fences are used to protect inhabitants and
the building from the sudden snow avalanches that
rip off architectural details and can cause serious
injury. Gutters can be seen in some 19th century
photos of historic buildings and are more common on
AspenModern structures. Overall, the visual impact
of these functional elements should be minimized.
Dormers
Historically, a dormer was sometimes added to create
more head room and light in an attic. It typically had
a vertical emphasis and was usually placed as a
single element or in a pair on a roof. A dormer did not
dominate a roof form. A new dormer should always
read as a subordinate element to the primary roof
plane. A new dormer should never be so large that
the original roof line is obscured. It should also be set
back from the roof edge and located below the roof
ridge. In addition, the style of the new dormer should
be in keeping with that of the building. Dormers are
generally foreign to some architectural styles, such
as Modernism.
Roof Materials
Exterior roof materials like shingles are usually not
original on Aspen Victorian properties due to age
and replacement over time. Periodic replacement
of roofing is accepted. However, roof sheathing
and structure is typically original on most of these
buildings should be preserved. When repairing or
altering a historic roof, do not remove significant
materials that are in good condition. Always repair
materials when feasible. For example, sister beams
when roof rafters need more structural integrity
rather than removing and replacing the element.
Where replacement is necessary, use a material that
is similar to the original in style and texture. Some
AspenModern styles exposed roof rafters under deep
overhangs as part of the architectural style. These
character defining features must be preserved.
Preserve original roof cresting, as found on the Sardy House.
P257
X.b
70 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 7: rooFs
Additions to Roofs
Many Aspen residences have original chimneys.
Wood burning appliances are no longer allowed in the
City of Aspen, which means that historic chimneys
are being retrofitted to accommodate other vents.
New venting of any type added to a roof should be low
profile, carefully located, and painted a matte black or
dark color to not detract from the historic chimney.
Treatment of Roofs
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.
• 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.
7.3 Minimize the visual impacts of skylights
and other rooftop devices.
• Skylights and solar panels are generally not
allowed on a historic structure. These elements
may be appropriate on an addition.
7.4 New vents should be minimized, carefully,
placed and painted a dark color.
• Direct vents for fireplaces are generally not
permitted to be added on historic structures.
• Locate vents on non-street facing facades.
• Use historic chimneys as chases for new flues
when possible.
7.5 Preserve original chimneys, even if they
are made non-functional.
• Reconstruct a missing chimney when
documentation exists.
7.6 A new dormer should remain subordinate
to the historic roof in scale and character.
• A new dormer is not appropriate on a primary,
These new chimney vents are consistent with the building
type, located behind the ridgeline, and a dark color.
This non-historic chimney is overscaled for the miner’s
cottage.
Before: Skylights are inappropriate on a miner’s cottage.
After: The historic resource after the skylights were removed.
P258
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 71
cHapter 7: rooFs
character defining façade.
• A new dormer should fit within the existing wall
plane. It should be lower than the ridgeline and set
in from the eave. It should also be in proportion
with the building.
• The mass and scale of a dormer addition must be
subordinate to the scale of the historic building.
• While dormers improve the livability of upper floor
spaces where low plate heights exist, they also
complicate the roof and may not be appropriate
on very simple structures.
• Dormers are not generally not permitted on
AspenModern properties since they are not
characteristic of these building styles.
Materials
7.7 Preserve original roof materials.
• Avoid removing historic roofing material that is in
good condition. When replacement is necessary,
use a material that is similar to the original in both
style as well as physical qualities and use a color
that is similar to that seen historically.
7.8 New or replacement roof materials should
convey a scale, color and texture similar to the
original.
• If a substitute is used, such as composition
shingle, the roof material should be earth tone and
have a matte, non-reflective finish.
• Flashing should be in scale with the roof material.
• Flashing should be tin, lead coated copper,
galvanized or painted metal and have a matte,
non-reflective finish.
• Design flashing, such as drip edges, so that
architectural details are not obscured.
• A metal roof is inappropriate for an Aspen
Victorian primary home but may be appropriate
for a secondary structure from that time period.
• A metal roof material should have a matte, non-
reflective finish and match the original seaming.
7.9 Avoid using conjectural features on a roof.
• Adding ornamental cresting, for example, where
there is no evidence that it existed, creates a false
impression of the building’s original appearance,
and is inappropriate.
Before: A historic resource before dormers were added.
After: New dormers that are too large can change the massing
of the original building.
Preserve original roof material when possible.
P259
X.b
72 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 7: rooFs
7.10 Design gutters so that their visibility
on the structure is minimized to the extent
possible.
• Downspouts should be placed in locations that
are not visible from the street if possible, or
in locations that do not obscure architectural
detailing on the building.
• The material used for the gutters should be in
character with the style of the building.
These simple gutters are in character with a miner’s cottage.
P260
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 73
cHapter 8: secondary structures
This chapter addresses the treatment of secondary
structures. These guidelines apply in addition to
the guidelines for treatment of doors, windows,
roofs, materials, additions and architectural details
presented in the preceding chapters.
Secondary structures include detached garages,
carriage houses, and sheds. Traditionally, these
structures were important elements of 19th
century residential sites in particular. Secondary
structures help interpret how an entire site was used
historically. Most secondary structures are simple in
form, materials, and detailing, reflecting their more
utilitarian functions. Because secondary structures
are subordinate to a primary building, greater
flexibility in their treatment may be considered, but
their preservation is a priority.
Secondary Structures
8.1 If an existing secondary structure is
historically significant, then it must be
preserved.
• When treating a historic secondary building,
respect its character-defining features. These
include its materials, roof form, windows, doors,
and architectural details.
• If a secondary structure is not historically
significant, then its preservation is optional.
The determination of significance is based
on documentation of the construction date of
the outbuilding and/or physical inspection. A
secondary structure that is related to the period
of significance of the primary structure will likely
require preservation.
8.2 Preserve a historic secondary building as a
detached structure.
• Any proposal to attach a secondary structure is
reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
• The position and orientation of the structure
• should be maintained except when HPC finds that
an alternative is the best preservation option.
• Some AspenModern properties incorporated
garages and carports into the architecture. This
pattern should be maintained.
This carriage house illustrates how Victorian secondary
buildings were typically placed along alleys.
Policy: When a secondary structure is
determined to be historically significant, it must
be preserved. This may include keeping the
structure in its present condition or, rehabilitating
it or adapting it to a new use so that the building
continues to serve a useful function.
Note: Outbuildings often encroach into the
alleys or at least into setbacks. The owner
should be aware of variances or encroachment
licenses that may be required to renovate these
buildings. Typically an outbuilding that is over a
property line must be moved entirely onto one
lot during a major redevelopment.
c HApter 8: s econdAry structures
P261
X.b
Policy: An original porch should be preserved.
In cases where the porch has been altered, it
should be restored to its original appearance.
74 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 8: secondary structures
8.3 Do not add detailing or features to a
secondary structure that are conjectural and
not in keeping with its original character as a
utilitarian structure.
• Most secondary structures are basic rectangular
solids, with simple finishes and no ornamentation.
8.4 When adding on to a secondary structure,
distinguish the addition as new construction
and minimize removal of historic fabric.
• Additions to a secondary structure must be
smaller in footprint than the original building and
lower in height. Maintaining the overall mass and
scale is particularly important.
• Do not alter the original roof form.
• An addition must be inset from the corners of the
wall to which it attaches.
8.5 Preserve the original building materials, or
match in kind when necessary.
8.6 Preserve original door and window
openings and minimize new openings.
• If an original carriage door exists, and can be made
to function for automobile use, this is preferred.
8.7 If a new garage door is added, it must be
compatible with the character of the historic
structure.
• The materials and detailing should be simple.
8.8 Adaptation of an obsolete secondary
structure to a functional use is encouraged.
• The reuse of any secondary structure should be
sensitive so that its character is not lost.
After: The same outbuilding, after restoration, contributes to
the collection of small structures along the alley.
Before: Outbuildings can fall into disuse and disrepair.
When converting an outbuilding for vehicular use, install a
simple garage door.
This former barn has been adapted for residential use, with
character defining features preserved.
P262
X.b
d esign g uidelines : n ew c onstruction
P263
X.b
76 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 9: excavatIon, BuIldIng relocatIon, & FoundatIons
This chapter presents guidelines for constructing
basements, relocating historic structures and
installing new foundations. The guidelines apply to
primary and secondary structures.
The original placement of a building on its site is an
important aspect of history, contributes to integrity
and authenticity, and should be preserved.
Historic records indicate that structures have been
occasionally moved within the City reaching back into
the Victorian era, therefore, some precedent exists.
Today, however, such relocation must be considered
carefully.
Installing a foundation that meets modern standards
can be very beneficial to the long term condition of the
building. Ideally the structure will not be permanently
repositioned as part of this process.
It may be acceptable to reposition a structure
on its original site if doing so will accommodate
other compatible improvements that will assure
preservation. For example, if a house straddles two
parcels, shifting it to one side may accommodate
construction of a new, detached structure. Doing so
may better protect the scale of the original structure,
as opposed to erecting a large addition in close
proximity to the landmark.
Preserving Building Locations and
Foundations
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.
9.2 Proposals to relocate a building will be
considered on a case-by-case basis
• In general, on-site relocation has less of an impact
on individual landmark structures than those in a
historic district.
• In a district, where numerous adjacent historic
structures may exist, the way that buildings were
placed on the site historically, and the open yards
visible from the street are characteristics that
should be respected in new development.
• Provide a figure ground study of the surrounding
parcels to demonstrate the effects of a building
relocation.
• In some cases, the historic significance of the
structure, the context of the site, the construction
technique, and the architectural style may make
on-site relocation too impactful to be appropriate.
It must be demonstrated that on-site relocation
is the best preservation alternative in order for
approval to be granted.
• If relocation would result in the need to reconstruct
a substantial area of the original exterior surface
of the building above grade, it is not an appropriate
preservation option.
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
Policy: Moving a historic structure is discouraged;
however, in some instances it may be the most
appropriate option. Generally, buildings must
be relocated within the boundaries of their
original site. Permanent off-site relocation is
detrimental and will only be allowed when no
other preservation alternative is available.
c HApter 9: e xcAvAtion , b uilding r elocAtion & foundAtions
P264
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 77
cHapter 9: excavatIon, BuIldIng relocatIon, & FoundatIons
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.
• 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”
The original sandstone was used as a veneer on this foundation
after a new basement was built.
Storing the historic resource on site during construction of the
new foundation is strongly preferred.
P265
X.b
78 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 9: excavatIon, BuIldIng relocatIon, & FoundatIons
in the landscape except where they are screened,
or on an AspenModern site.
9.7 All relocations of designated structures
shall be performed by contractors who
specialize in moving historic buildings, or can
document adequate experience in successfully
relocating such buildings.
• The specific methodology to be used in
relocating the structure must be approved by the
HPC.
• During the relocation process, panels must be
mounted on the exterior of the building to protect
existing openings and historic glass. Special care
shall be taken to keep from damaging door and
window frames and sashes in the process of
covering the openings. Significant architectural
details may need to be removed and securely
stored until restoration.
• The structure is expected to be stored on its
original site during the construction process.
Proposals for temporary storage on a different
parcel will be considered on a case by case basis
and may require special conditions of approval.
• A historic resource may not be relocated outside
of the City of Aspen.
9.8 Proposals to relocate a building to a new
site are highly discouraged.
• Permanently relocating a structure from where it
was built to a new site is only allowed for special
circumstances, where it is demonstrated to be the
only preservation alternative.
Temporary off-site storage of a structure requires special
efforts to protect historic features.
P266
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 79
cHapter 10: BuIldIng addItIons
Background
This chapter presents guidelines for the construction
of additions to historic structures. They apply to
primary and secondary structures. Some special
references are made to additions planned in historic
districts.
Many historic buildings in Aspen, including secondary
structures, were expanded over time as the need
for more space occurred. Typically the addition
was subordinate in scale and character to the main
building. The height of the addition was usually lower
than that of the main structure and was often located
to the side or rear, such that the original building
retained its prominence.
The addition was often constructed of materials that
were similar to those used on the original structure.
This tradition of adding onto buildings is appropriate to
continue. It is important, however, that a new addition
be designed in such a manner that it preserves the
historic character of the original structure.
Existing Additions
An existing addition may have taken on historic
significance itself. It may have been constructed to
be compatible with the original building and it may
be associated with the period of historic significance,
thereby meriting preservation in its own right. Such
an addition should be carefully evaluated before
developing plans that may involve its alteration.
In some cases, an early alteration that has taken
on significance actually contrasts with the original
building, for example, a Modernist addition that
was constructed on a Chalet style structure. The
change reflects the evolution of the property. This
type of addition could be significant and worthy of
preservation.
The majority of more recent additions usually have
no historic significance. Some later additions in
fact detract from the character of the building, and
may obscure significant features. Removing such
noncontributing additions is encouraged.
Basic Principles for New Additions
When planning an addition to a historic building,
minimize negative effects to the historic building
fabric. Alterations and additions should reflect their
own time while being subordinate and supportive of
the historic resource.
The addition shall not affect the architectural character
of the building. In most cases, loss of character can
be avoided by locating the addition to the rear. The
overall design of the addition must be in keeping with
the historic structure and be distinguishable from
the historic portion. This philosophy balances new
and old construction and allows the evolution of the
building to be understood.
Keeping the size of the addition small and subordinate,
in relation to the main structure, helps minimize its
visual impacts. An addition must be set apart from
the historic building, and connected with a one story
linking element. This creates a break between new and
old construction and will help maintain the perceived
scale and proportion of the historic resource.
In historic districts, consider the effect the addition
may have on the character of the area, as seen from
the public right-of-way. For example, a side addition
may change the sense of rhythm established by side
yards in the block. Locating the addition to the rear
c HApter 10: building A dditions
Policy: A new addition to a historic building
must be designed such that the character of
the original structure is maintained. It shall
also be subordinate in appearance to the main
building. Previous additions that have taken on
significance must be preserved.
P267
X.b
80 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 10: BuIldIng addItIons
would be a better solution in such a case.
When designing an addition to a building, it is also
important to remember that the maximum potential
floor area in the Land Use Code is not guaranteed
if it cannot be appropriately accommodated on
the site. In some cases, smaller additions may be
necessary. Approval for Transferrable Development
Rights may be sought if unbuilt floor area cannot be
accommodated on the site.
Existing Additions
10.1 Preserve an older addition that has
achieved historic significance in its own right.
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.
Before: An addition extended the length of the cross gable and
porch on this house, significantly altering its character.
After: The same house after the non-historic addition was
removed and the building was restored using historic photos.
After: The same building after restoration.
Before: Additions on the front of this structure, and an
application of stucco masked the architectural significance of
the building.
P268
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 81
The rear addition varies from the form of the resource, but
addresses the materiality and fenestration.
New Additions
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:
• The proposed addition is all one story.
• 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.
• The project involves the demolition
and replacement of an older addition that
is considered to have been particularly
detrimental to the historic resource.
• The interior of the resource is fully utilized,
containing the same number of usable floors
as existed historically.
• The project is on a large lot, allowing the
addition to have a significant setback from the
street.
• There are no variance requests in the
application other than those related to historic
conditions that aren’t being changed.
cHapter 10: BuIldIng addItIons
An addition that does not provide a transition between old and
new, and imitates the original building is no longer allowed.
A side and rear addition that uses materials to differentiate
between new and old construction.
P269
X.b
82 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
• The project is proposed as part of a voluntary
AspenModern designation, or
• The property is affected by non-preservation
related site specific constraints such as trees
that must be preserved, Environmentally
Sensitive Areas review, etc.
10.5 On a corner lot, no portion of an addition to
a one story historic resource may be more than
one story tall, directly behind that resource,
unless completely detached above grade by a
distance of at least 10 feet
HPC may consider exceptions to this policy if two or
more of the following are met:
• The connector element that links the new and
old construction is a breezeway or transparent
corridor, well recessed from the streetfacing
side(s) of the historic resource and the area of two
story construction that appears directly behind
the one story historic resource is minimal
• 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
• The project involves the demolition and
replacement of an older addition that is considered
to have been particularly detrimental to the
historic resource
• The interior of the resource is fully utilized,
containing the same number of usable floors as
existed historically
• There are no variance requests in the application
other than those related to historic conditions that
aren’t being changed
• The project is proposed as part of a voluntary
AspenModern designation, or
• 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
cHapter 10: BuIldIng addItIons
This addition to this Victorian is clad entirely in brick to
distinguish itself from the original clapboard sided Victorian.
This addition is taller than the resource, but setback on the lot
and scaled in a sympathetic manner.
P270
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 83
cHapter 10: BuIldIng addItIons
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.
• 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.
The side addition and connecting element on a lot with no
alley use simple forms and contemproary materials. A low
profile flat roof rear addition hides the new construction
behind the landmark.
An addition that uses traditional forms with contemproary
architectural details and materials.
P271
X.b
84 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 10: BuIldIng addItIons
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.
Rooftop Additions on Flat Roofed
Buildings
10.13 When constructing a rooftop addition,
keep the mass and scale subordinate to that of
the historic building.
10.14 Set a rooftop addition back from the
street facing façades to preserve the original
profile of the historic resource.
• Set the addition back from street facing façades a
distance approximately equal to its height.
10.15 The roof form of a rooftop addition must
be in character with the historic building.
This rooftop addition is subordinate to the architecture of the
original historic resource.
This lot could not accomodate a rear addition. This side addition is
successful because of simplicity, scale & separation.
P272
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 85
cHapter 11: new BuIldIngs on landMarked propertIes
The City provides several incentives for residential
property owners to divide the square footage that
could be built on a landmark parcel into two or more
separate structures, to reduce the size of an addition
made to a historic house and to reinforce the original
character of many of Aspen’s neighborhoods, which
had small buildings on 3,000 square foot lots. To
determine if a property is eligible for a historic lot split
to subdivide ownership of such structures, refer to the
Aspen Municipal Code.
Designing a new building to fit within the historic
character of a landmarked property requires careful
thought. Preserving a historic property does not
mean it must be “frozen” in time, but it does mean that
a new building should be designed in a manner that
reinforces the basic visual characteristics of the site.
The new building should not look old: imitating historic
styles is inappropriate. It is appropriate to convey
the evolution of the property and neighborhood,
discerning the apparent age of each building by its
style, materials, and method of construction.
A new design must relate to the fundamental
characteristics of the historic resource (site,
location, mass, form, materials, details) and be
“of it’s own time.” For instance, a traditional form
may have contemporary materials and windows
to balance new and old construction. On the other
hand, a contemporary form may have traditional
materials that relate to the resource to maintain a
strong dialogue between new and old construction.
Simplicity and modesty in design are encouraged.
Building Orientation
Aspen Victorian buildings are usually oriented with
the primary entrance facing the street. This helps
establish a pedestrian-friendly quality. AspenModern
buildings have a range of orientations depending on
the design philosophy of the architect. For example, a
Chalet style building is often sited at an angle to face
mountain views.
Building Alignment
A front yard serves as a transitional space between
the public sidewalk and the private building entry. In
many blocks, front yards are similar in depth, resulting
in a relatively uniform alignment of building fronts
which contributes to the sense of visual continuity.
Maintaining the established range of setbacks is
therefore preferred.
Mass and Scale
A new building must be compatible in mass and
scale with its historic neighbor and not overwhelm
it. At the same time, minimizing any addition to the
historic resource and shifting square footage to the
new structure is generally desired.
Building Form
Most historic buildings in Aspen are composed of
simple forms - a simple rectangular solid is typical.
In some cases, a building consists of a combination
of simple forms. A new building should respect these
traditions.
c HA pter 11: n ew b uildings on l A nd MA rked p roperties
Policy: New detached buildings may be
constructed on a parcel that includes a
landmarked structure. It is important that the
new building be compatible and not dominate
the historic structure.
Note: The Residential Design Standards
described in the Aspen Municipal Code apply in
addition to these guidelines.
P273
X.b
86 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 11: new BuIldIngs on landMarked propertIes
This new home is strongly related to the scale and forms of the
adjacent Victorian.
This new structure uses Victorian inspired forms and materials,
but a contemporary approach to fenestration.
Building Placement
11.1 Orient the new building to the street.
• Aspen Victorian buildings should be arranged
parallel to the lot lines, maintaining the traditional
grid pattern.
• AspenModern alignments shall be handled case
by case.
• Generally, do not set the new structure forward
of the historic resource. Alignment of their front
setbacks is preferred. An exception may be made
on a corner lot or where a recessed siting for the
new structure is a better preservation outcome.
Mass and Scale
11.2 In a residential context, clearly define the
primary entrance to a new building by using a
front porch.
• The front porch shall be functional, and used as
the means of access to the front door.
• A new porch must be similar in size and shape to
those seen traditionally.
11.3 Construct a new building to appear
similar in scale and proportion with the historic
buildings on a parcel.
• Subdivide larger masses into smaller “modules”
that are similar in size to the historic buildings on
the original site.
• Reflect the heights and proportions that
characterize the historic resource.
11.4 Design a front elevation to be similar in
scale to the historic building.
• The primary plane of the front shall not appear
taller than the historic structure.
11.5 The intent of the historic landmark lot
split is to remove most of the development
potential from the historic resource and place
it in the new structure(s).
• This should be kept in mind when determining how
floor area will be allocated between structures
proposed as part of a lot split.
11.6 Design a new structure to be recognized
as a product of its time.
• Consider these three aspects of a new building;
form, materials, and fenestration. A project
must relate strongly to the historic resource in
P274
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 87
at least two of these elements. Departing from
the historic resource in one of these categories
allows for creativity and a contemporary design
response.
• When choosing to relate to building form, use
forms that are similar to the historic resource.
• When choosing to relate to materials, use
materials that appear similar in scale and finish to
those used historically on the site and use building
materials that contribute to a traditional sense of
human scale.
• When choosing to relate to fenestration, use
windows and doors that are similar in size and
shape to those of the historic resource.
11.7 The imitation of older historic styles is
discouraged.
• This blurs the distinction between old and new
buildings.
• Overall, details shall be modest in character.
This new home reinterprets the roof form and balcony found
on the Chalet home next door.
The adjacent Chalet.
cHapter 11: new BuIldIngs on landMarked propertIes P275
X.b
P276
X.b
d esign g uidelines : g ener A l
P277
X.b
90 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
cHapter 12: accessIBIlIty, arcHItectural lIgHtIng, MecHanIcal equIpMent, servIces areas, & sIgnage
Accessibility
In 1990, the passage of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated that all places
of public accommodation be made accessible to
everyone. This includes historic structures that are
used for commercial and multifamily purposes. While
all buildings must comply, alternative measures may
be considered to ensure the integrity of a historic
resource.
Lighting
The character and intensity of outdoor lighting is a
concern in the community. Exterior lighting should be
shielded in keeping with “Dark Skies” inspired policies.
The City of Aspen has lighting standards which must
be met in addition to HPC guidelines.
Mechanical Equipment & Service Areas
New technologies in heating, ventilating and
telecommunications have introduced mechanical
equipment into historic areas where they were not
seen traditionally. The visual impacts of such systems
should be minimized such that one’s ability to perceive
the historic character of the context is maintained.
Locating equipment such that it is screened from
public view is the best approach.
Awnings
Large fabric awnings were common on commercial
buildings in the 19th century, helping to cool the
interior and providing shelter for storefronts. They
are not typical of AspenModern buildings, where a
brise soleil or similar cantilevered element served the
purpose of an awning.
Signs
Signs should not detract from character defining
elements of a historic structure. Where possible,
free standing signs, rather than signs mounted on
buildings are preferred. Sign lighting should be
minimized or concealed. The City of Aspen has a sign
code that must be met in addition to HPC guidelines.
Accessibility
12.1 Address accessibility compliance
requirements while preserving character
defining features of historic buildings and
districts.
• All new construction must comply completely
with the International Building Code (IBC) for
accessibility. Special provisions for historic
buildings exist in the law that allow some
flexibility when designing solutions which meet
accessibility standards.
c HA pter 12: A ccessibility , A rc H itectur A l l ig H ting , M ec HA nic A l e quip M ent , s ervice A re A s , & s ign Age
A subtle ramp eliminates the need for a step onto this historic
porch and therefore meets accessibility requirements.
P278
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 91
A reconstruction of the original light fixture that once existed
on an AspenModern building.
cHapter 12: accessIBIlIty, arcHItectural lIgHtIng, MecHanIcal equIpMent, servIces areas, & sIgnage
Lighting
12.2 Original light fixtures must be maintained. When there is evidence as to the appearance of original fixtures that are no longer present, a
replication is appropriate.
12.3 Exterior light fixtures should be simple in
character.
• The design of a new fixture should be appropriate
in form, finish, and scale with the structure.
• New fixtures should not reflect a different period
of history than that of the affected building, or be
associated with a different architectural style.
• Lighting should be placed in a manner that is
consistent with the period of the building, and
should not provide a level of illumination that is
out of character.
• One light adjacent to each entry is appropriate
on an Aspen Victorian residential structure. A
recessed fixture, surface mounted light, pendant
or sconce will be considered if suited to the
building type or style.
• On commercial structures and AspenModern
properties, recessed lights and concealed lights
are often most appropriate.
Mechanical Equipment & Service Areas
12.4 Minimize the visual impacts of utilitarian
areas, such as mechanical equipment and
trash storage.
• Place mechanical equipment on the ground where
it can be screened.
• Mechanical equipment may only be mounted on
a building on an alley façade.
• Rooftop mechanical equipment or vents must
be grouped together to minimize their visual
impact. Where rooftop units are visible, it may be
appropriate to provide screening with materials
that are compatible with those of the building
itself. Use the smallest, low profile units available
for the purpose.
• Window air conditioning units are not allowed.
• Minimize the visual impacts of utility connections
and service boxes. Group them in a discrete
location. Use pedestals when possible, rather
than mounting on a historic building.
• Paint mechanical equipment in a neutral color to
minimize their appearance by blending with their
backgrounds
• In general, mechanical equipment should be
A simple sconce is
appropriate for the front door
of this Victorian.
Concealed lighting is
appropriate for this
AspenModern landmark.
Wrightian influenced flush mounted fixtures suit the
Hearthstone Lodge.
P279
X.b
92 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
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.
Awnings
12.5 Awnings must be functional.
• An awning must project at least 3 feet, and not
more than 5 feet from the building façade.
• An awning may only be installed at a door or
window and must fit within the limits of the door
or window opening.
• Awnings are inappropriate on AspenModern
properties unless historic evidence shows
otherwise.
Signs
12.6 Signs should not obscure or damage
historic building fabric.
• Where possible, install a free standing sign that
is appropriate in height and width. Consolidate
signage for multiple businesses.
• Mount signs so that the attachment point can be
easily repaired when the sign is replaced. Do not
mount signage directly into historic masonry.
• Blade signs or hanging signs are generally
preferred to wall mounted signs because the
number of attachment points may be less.
• Signs should be constructed of wood or metal.
• Pictographic signs are encouraged because they
add visual interest to the street.
12.7 Sign lighting must be subtle and
concealed.
• Pin mounted letters with halo lighting will not be
approved on Aspen Victorian buildings.
• The size of a fixture used to light a sign must be
minimized. The light must be directed towards
the sign. If possible, integrate the lights into the
sign bracket.
12.8 Locate signs to be subordinate to the
building design.
• Signs should be located on the first floor of
buildings, primarily.
• Signs should not obscure historic building
details.
12.9 Preserve historic signs.
cHapter 12: accessIBIlIty, arcHItectural lIgHtIng, MecHanIcal equIpMent, servIces areas, & sIgnage
Historic awnings on Cooper Avenue.
Awnings at the Wheeler Opera House
Historic blade signs.
P280
X.b
A ppendix
P281
X.b
94 • City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines
appendIx
The Secretary of the
Interiors’ Standards for the
Rehabilitation of Historic
Buildings.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings are general
rehabilitation guidelines established by the National
Park Service. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or
process of making possible a compatible use for a
property through repair, alterations, and additions
while preserving those portions or features which
convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
These standards are policies that serve as a basis for
the design principles presented in this document. The
Secretary’s Standards state that:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or
be given a new use that requires minimal change
to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and
spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be
retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces, and
spatial relationships that characterize a property
will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development,
such as adding conjectural features or elements
from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic
significance in their own right will be retained and
preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be
preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired
rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive
feature, the new feature will match the old
in design, color, texture, and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features will
be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,
will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to
historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and
preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related
new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work will be
differentiated from the old and will be compatible
with the historic materials, features, size, scale and
proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of
the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new
construction will be undertaken in such a manner
that, if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
P282
X.b
City of Aspen • Historic Preservation Design Guidelines • 95
P283
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
5
Gretchen agreed with Staff and Willis regarding the mass and site planning.
This project doesn’t meet 75% of the guidelines in terms of preservation in
Aspen. The addition overwhelms a significant building for the community
that is not only an historic resource but also important members of our
community have lived here. The site is over developed. You are asking for
variances at the back of the building which could be avoided by re-designing
the space. The two story massing wrapping around the building is
unsuccessful from a preservation standpoint. Small cabins are not deemed
to have large additions. The lot split ordinance was adopted to try to prevent
this exact type of development. The site plan coverage needs restudied. The
bonus is not worthy in the current form. If the massing was taken down to a
one story structure next to the historic building and pushed back on the site
that might work. Setbacks should only be for historic resources not
additions when you have this much land to work with.
Willis said he would support a 6’10“combined side yard setback. Five foot
on the east and 1’10” for the resource. Willis said Jim and Mary Hayes were
a legacy and possibly a plaque could be done in memory of them.
MOTION: Patrick moved to continue 209 E. Bleeker until Nov. 11th with
guidance that the board has given; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapter 2-7
Amy Simon, Sara Adams, Sarah Rosenberg are the team working on the
guidelines.
Amy said they are changing the guidelines to be simplified. All the
photographs are from Aspen.
Sara mentioned that the goal is to make the guidelines more user friendly
and more concise. Below are the proposed changes.
Chapter 2 – Building Materials
Victorians have clapboard siding and Aspen Modern has other materials.
The section on aluminum siding has been pulled out.
Also pulled out was information on building maintenance and a chapter at
the end of the guidelines will be added about painting and maintenance.
P284
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
6
2.5 Alternative materials: Added: you can’t replace wood siding with
synthetic materials.
2.2 Finish of materials. Added: Finish of materials should be as it would
have existed historically.
Patrick suggested putting the original pictures up first and then the altered
photographs.
Chapter 3 – Windows
3.1 Preserve the original glass. If Victorian era glass is broken consider
using restoration glass for the repair.
3.4 Replacing of a historic window. Use materials that are the same as the
original.
3.7 New guideline: Adding new openings on a historic structure are
generally not allowed.
3.8 Use storm windows exterior or interior as an option.
Chapter 4
4.4 If you are replacing a door on a historic building you could use a
salvaged door.
4.5 Adding doors are generally not allowed.
4.8 New guideline: Preserve historic hardware.
Chapter 5
Porches and balconies
Back porch can’t be demolished.
5.5 If new steps are constructed construct them out of the same primary
materials used on the original and design them to be in scale with the porch
or balcony.
5.6 Avoid handrails and guardrails on steps where they did not exist
historically, particularly where visible from the street.
P285
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
7
Chapter 6
Architectural details
6.4 Repair or replacement of missing or deteriorated features are required
based on original designs.
Chapter 7
Roofs
Amy said more information has been added about vents and they should be
minimal and painted a dark color.
7.3 Skylights – Skylights and solar panels are generally not allowed on a flat
roof on an historic structure.
Gretchen said she would not support any skylights on a historic structure. Is
it preservation or not. Skylights and solar panels are not acceptable on any
portion of an historic structure.
7.4 New vents should be minimized carefully placed and painted a dark
color and toward the back of the building. You can’t do direct vent
fireplaces on historic structures.
7.6 Dormers cannot be added on a front primary façade. Not every building
will be allowed to have a dormer.
7.8 Flashing – We are looking for a gray finish, tin, galvanized lead coated
copper, painted metal. Cooper flashing is too fancy. Metal roofs are not
appropriate for an Aspen Victorian home but maybe for a secondary
structure.
7.12 New guideline: Gutters should be minimized and not use copper for a
Victorian.
MOTION: Willis moved to adjourn; second by Jim. All in favor, motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P286
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015
5
Mr. Whipple said there is some effort being made to justify the second
lightwell.
Ms. Greenwood replied why grant the variance when they can clearly work
within the law. There is a solution to make it. Variances should be granted
when there are extraordinary circumstances. I can’t see a reason to grant a
variance when there is an obvious solution.
Ms. Golden asked for a comment why staff is supportive.
Ms. Adams replied it mitigates an adverse impact. The variance is an either
or. They can find that criteria B is met. It is a somewhat constrained site
plan. The architecture is compatible with the building. The light wells
minimizes the above grade mass. There is no attachment to the landmark. It
provides more breathing room to the landmark. The requested variation is
similar and or mitigates an adverse impact.
Mr. Whipple said if the square foot was allocated above grade you would
see it.
Mr. DeFrancia stated he is supportive of the Staff recommendation. It is a
good application and addressed the key issues.
Mr. Brown said the second light well removes floor area that could be added
back to the historic structure.
Ms. Greenwood noted that the minutes for this item the first time it came to
HPC noted that she voted yes and she voted no.
MOTION: Mr. DeFrancia moved to approve Resolution #28, Series of 2015;
seconded by Mr. Whipple.
Roll call vote. Commissioners Blaich, yes; Whipple, yes; Golden, yes;
Berko, yes; DeFrancia, yes; Pember, yes; Greenwood, yes. Motion carried.
Draft revisions to HPC guidelines, Chapters 8-11
Ms. Simon stated this is the second meeting about the updates. The
guidelines are 15 years old and need updated. They talked about the
technical issues last time. Tonight is the design chapters, additions to new
structures and sheds. What hasn’t been taken care of is the introduction,
architecture descriptions and landscape issues. That will be the focus of the
10-28 meeting. There have been seven meetings with various architecture
P287
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015
6
firms in last few days. There was a meeting open to the general public today
that was well attended. The goals are to be more concise. They want better
illustrations and more clarity. Staff met with Roland & Broughton, Pass,
Cunniffe, Studio B and CCY where we went to their offices.
Chapter 8 - secondary structures. This mostly pertains to Victorian
structures. There are only 20 left in town and not really huge policy changes
here. It is a priority to preserve them when we can. The feedback we
received is people would like it to be clearer. The structure will need to be
pulled completely onto the site.
Commissioner comments
Ms. Greenwood asked if they are generally getting torn down. Ms. Simon
replied no but there have been times when they are and gave the example of
the Connor Cabins. Mr. Whipple said some are on the Sandborn maps. Ms.
Simon replied the map is gospel. We preserve if it has some value.
Ms. Golden said since there are only 20 properties could you do an
inventory. Ms. Simon said we don’t want to pre determine what should
happen to them. Ms. Greenwood said she does not see an issue with the way
it has been going.
Chapter 9 – moving buildings and replacing foundations.
Added 9.1 – caveat in bullet 2 – don’t assume you can move the building. If
you have to demo more than 50 percent of the exterior of a building the
board will think twice.
It talks more specifically about the kinds of foundation that can be built.
More information about light wells. They added information about how the
building should be moved. It will be expected to keep the building on the
property.
The feedback from meetings. Be careful how to word requirement about
destroying more than 50 percent of exterior materials. Asked to provide
more specific examples of when a building cannot be moved. What are
Parks requirements about moving buildings close to trees.
9.3 moving building that trigger other issues that are needed to bring a
building up to code. Comments about street wells. Comment about
suspending building at all and maybe should not allow it.
Commissioner Comments.
Mr. Brown asked what is the reason for not allowing floating light wells in
yards. Ms. Simon replied it may not be out of place in modern properties
P288
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015
7
but could be in Victorian. Ms. Greenwood asked if there should be different
rules for Victorian and modern. Mr. Brown said there could be instances
where it could be ok. He asked if there have been instances with moving
building offsite where they came back in a bad condition. Ms. Simon
replied yes. We are sensitive that when the building is onsite it is looked at
every day. Mr. Brown said to place that burden on everyone rather than
create harsh penalties because of one bad actor is harsh.
Ms. Berko said she would rather see them not move. Floating light wells is
a pandoras box. Mr. Pember asked when does something become a light
well versus an underground court yard. Ms. Simon said they can define that
a little better. Ms. Greenwood said suspending a building is not out of the
realm of possibilities.
Chapter 10 Adding on to historic building.
Ms. Simon showed examples of bad additions.
10.3 always had the word subordinate. This adds deferential, modest and
secondary.
10.4 threw out the idea that the addition would not be allowed to double the
size of the historic resource. The extra amount would need to be detached, a
TDR or not built. They are not trying to say you can’t build what you are
allowed, but trying to redirect it.
For a corner lot, 10.5, the addition must be one story or detached.
10.6 - distinguishing new from old. For form, materials and fenestration
need to nail two of the three.
The new guidelines for connectors says no deck .
Feedback – negative feedback about no deck. Comments that if they are so
strict about no more than doubling the size, those with bad projects will
cling to them. Ought to have some exceptions like recognizing site specific
constraints. More examples of how a larger addition could work, well
designed connectors, no variances, one story additions. Proposal that the
issue may not be the square footage but the foot print. Consider for corner
lot if not so happy about big addition what if the new could be pushed back.
Provide more pictures to illustrate new from old.
Commissioner comments.
Ms. Golden said for decks on connectors especially if you don’t see the deck
it helps keep the addition away from the resource. That outdoor space
relieves the tension.
P289
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015
8
Ms. Greenwood said proportionally they don’t work with standard Victorian
roofline. For the 50 percent rule we are getting too many two story addition
on small lots. The two story additions have to be dealt with. They
overwhelm the Victorian. Ms. Berko agrees and they have been the most
difficult thing. The size is a real problem. She stated she does not think we
have a problem on Victorians for encouraging people anymore. Why do we
need an FAR bonus anymore. She understands for a voluntary designation it
is an incentive. Mr. Whipple said 10.4 in the west end are large lots and
there is no one would do a one story addition. There will be some serious
hot water there. There is no where to put the detachment and they would
lose FAR. Ms. Berko and Ms. Greenwood disagree.
Ms. Simon said the properties most hard hit would be a 3,000 square foot
corner lot. Mr. Whipple said there needs to be some alternative compliance.
Mr. Pember said connectors are a visibility issue. Hot tubs are ok if you
can’t see them. Ms. Berko replied a connector is a connector not an outdoor
room. 10.4 and 10.5 is an attempt to reduce scale.
Mr. Whipple said corner lots should have their own chapter.
Mr. DeFrancia said we are here more for historic character than historic
preservation.
Ms. Simon said it has been a few years since the board has given an award
for an addition. We have not quite solved the problem. Sometimes the
board struggles for justification to say no.
Mr. Pember said in 10.6 there is something beautiful and succinct. But
what is troubling, particular in the commercial core, is something that looks
like it is from another period. Don’t be borrowing from history that is
outside from our windows.
Ms. Simon said we are not editing the chapters for Main Street and the
Commercial Core.
Ms. Berko said she appreciates hearing that feedback. We don’t have to say
yes to everything. Being given those tools is helpful.
Ms. Simon said they may change the format. There has been some
discussion about what the guidelines are. They are guidelines not rules.
When can we make exceptions and when can we stray. They are thinking
about saying the residential design standards don’t apply to historic
properties.
Ms. Berko said it looks great and is very positive wording.
P290
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2015
9
Mr. DeFrancia moved to adjourn at 7:15 p.m.; seconded by Mr. Brown. All
in favor, motion carried.
Linda Manning, City Clerk
P291
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
2
and clean up the space and make it more functional. We suspects that the
door leading to the interior mechanical room are historic but we are not sure.
We aren’t going to insist that they be restored. We recommend that HPC
approve the application as designed including the waiver of the rear-yard
setback. The rear yard setback is ten feet. The church and the entry canopy
already sit in the setback.
Jim Curtis, represented the Church
Dave Ellis, Trustee of the Church
Jim said the back of the church is in shambles. In 2013, 2014 we did major
work to the roof. We want to make it a nice appearance and safe and
functional.
Amy said they are matching the existing materials and there will be a
retaining wall that is a colored concrete. All the materials are compatible.
You are also asked to make a finding that the variation standards are met.
Vice-chair, Jim DeFrancia opened the public hearing. There were no public
comments. The public comment section of the hearing was closed.
Sallie said the back of the church has always been a little messy and this is a
great improvement.
Jim DeFrancia said the motion should read to approve 200 E. Bleeker, minor
review and variations including a finding that the variation standards are
met.
MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve 200 E. Bleeker, second by Sallie.
Roll call vote: Michael, Sallie, Jim and Gretchen. Motion carried 4-0.
Draft revisions of HPC guidelines
Sallie recused herself.
Nora was seated.
Chapter I – Site Planning & Landscape Design
Site planning - Amy said we wanted applicants to think about the character
of the site carefully. How buildings sit on the lots; try to create useful street
P292
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
3
facing spaces; traditional gardens in residential neighborhoods instead of
setback to setback consuming the lot and leaving nothing.
We talk at more length about planting design and landscape lighting.
A lot of landscapes are installed without permits and we tried to make it
clear that the guidelines apply whether you are in the HPC review process or
not. We will try to make it easier to find maps and identify where they can
be found.
Gretchen suggested adding a section on properties being on the National
Register and what that means or entails.
Michael said it would be helpful having a red line version. We need to see
where we are coming from and where we are going.
Jim suggested highlighting the meaningful changes in the new version.
Ask people to organize their open space and usable space. Provide more
information and consider the impacts of a design decision.
1.1 Amy said we want to preserve the system and character of historic
streets and alleys. In general HPC believes that alleys in some places should
not be paved. There should not be curb cuts off the street. No pull in
parking on the side streets unless it is historic.
1.4 Amy said there are some carriage houses that face the side street and
come off the street. We want that to be maintained but maybe the driveway
can be downplayed with gravel or tracks or use something that is not hard in
character. Design a new or existing driveway in a manner that minimizes its
visual impact.
Walkways and Patios
Amy said we see over scaled pathways and non-native materials. We have
provided examples of appropriate walkways and the appropriate materials.
Aspen modern properties are on a case by case basis.
Hot tubs and fire pits need to be screened.
Sara said the way plants are arranged can be more contemporary and that is
not what we are looking for. Use of a cone area in front. Simplicity and
modesty should be used in the front for landscaping.
P293
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
4
Landscape lighting
Amy said Aspen Modern might have low lighting but not so much on
Victorians. The only exception is if there is a safety issue. An example
would be if the front door is a long distance from the street.
Fences
Amy said where there are historic fences we want to see them preserved.
Where fences are added we want to see something designed close to that
period of time. A wood picket fence is appropriate. A wrought iron fence
would need discussion because that is a fancy fence for most of the buildings
we have in town.
1.17 Amy said we do support a twisted wire fence. It is a type of fence that
showed up in the 1900 in the rural parts of Colorado. There are lots of
examples of it in Aspen.
1.19 Amy said this deals with privacy fences. A low fence in the front and a
privacy fence in the back. Fences should avoid blocking public views.
There are a few guidelines regarding walls.
Amy said there are a few guidelines about unique landscapes. We have
basically stressed to leave them alone and don’t alter them.
Amy said we would also like add a guideline about storm water. Retention
ponds etc. should be placed away from the building.
Sara said we could request a conceptual landscape plan or something that
shows the direction they intend to go.
Gretchen said we need a conceptual drawing of the entire property. Nora
agreed.
Chapter 12 is the catch all chapter.
Exterior lighting should be simple. Most historic buildings did not have
outside lighting.
Original light fixtures must be maintained.
P294
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2015
5
Amy said there is also a guideline that states minimizing the visual impact of
lights and we might want to eliminate that.
Michael and Gretchen felt that the guideline should remain but should be
discouraged.
Gretchen said light pollution needs to be balanced if it is on a Victorian
property.
Nora said light spills from one property to another is a concern.
Jim suggested that the guideline be softened.
Amy said the mechanical equipment should be neat and not visible if
possible, make it go away.
Amy said awnings should only be used on doors and windows.
Amy said signs should not obscure or damage the historic building fabric.
MOTION: Jim moved to adjourn; second by Michael. All in favor motion
carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:20
Kathleen Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P295
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 12:00 Noon.
Commissioners in attendance were Patrick Sagal, Nora Berko, Jim
DeFrancia, Bob Blaich and Michael Brown. Absent were Sallie Golden,
John Whipple and Gretchen Greenwood.
Staff present:
Jim True, City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of Nov. 11, 2015; second by
Jim. All in favor, motion carried.
Public: Brent Gardner-Smith introduced himself as a reporter.
Nora said the work session with City Council was great. The Aspen Modern
Ordinance #28 section 6 specified that there are five properties owned by the
city that should be designated. In 2016 we should get those five properties
protected; Red Brick, Yellow Brick, Mountain Rescue, mall and Hildur
Anderson Park. We need to lead by example.
Amy said there would be a hearing before HPC and City Council.
MOTION: Nora made the motion that HPC recommends that staff take steps
to designate the 5 properties in 2016, motion second by Bob. All in favor,
motion carried.
Guidelines
Amy summarized the memo in the guidelines. We have tried to improve the
guidelines with better clarity. This is basically a re-write of the entire
document.
We have dropped the glossary. In the introduction we have trimmed out
anything that refers to the code because the code could change tomorrow.
We tried to be more general. We want passion behind the design and a good
explanation of what the proposal is.
Bob suggested that there be a link to the National Register on page 20.
P296
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015
2
Amy said there are about 25 properties on the register from Aspen.
Patrick suggested that the purpose and intent of preservation from the land
use code be added to the guidelines so that there is a natural transition.
Patrick discussed adding when the guidelines should be revised.
Jim said you could say that the guidelines can be reviewed every so many
years. They are an advisory document.
Nora said the guidelines give us the ability to say no. We need to know how
the next generation gets protected.
Historic Overview
Amy said we replaced the images to show different aspects of the town’s
history.
Bob said he particularly liked the incorporation of the International Design
Conference in the guidelines.
Architectural styles
Willis suggested that applicant write a description or narrative of how their
project contributes to the sense of place of Aspen.
Amy said this could be added to page 25.
Chapter I is more of a perspective as to how the project fits into the town
and neighborhood looking at maps, diagrams and site planning.
1.1 talks about setback to setback with nothing left.
1.2 Consider the value of unpaved alleys in residential areas.
Amy said we will add a corner diagram including the front diagram.
1.25 discusses art work
1.8 is the addition of storm water
Chapters 2-8 are chapters on rehabilitation
P297
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 2, 2015
3
9.4 avoid making design decisions that require code related alternations
which could have been avoided.
Amy said the dormer statement should be moved to 7.6 guideline
Chapter 9 is the relocation chapter
9.1 was added to address where people are underpinning and excavating .
Proposals to relocate a building to a new site are highly discouraged.
Chapter 10 building additions
Amy said this addresses that the addition can’t be doubled in size. We also
talk about corner lots and heights of the addition on a corner.
Chapter 11
Amy said the only change is design a structure to be a product of its own
time.
Chapter 12
Amy said this chapter is the catch all chapter.
MOTION: Bob moved to adjourn; second by Nora. All in favor, motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Kathleen J. Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
P298
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
1
Chairperson, Willis Pember called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
Commissioners in attendance were Nora Berko, Gretchen Greenwood,
Patrick Sagal, Sallie Golden, Bob Blaich and Jim DeFrancia. John Whipple
and Michael Brown were absent.
Staff present:
Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Amy Simon, Preservation Planner
Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk
MOTION: Gretchen moved to approve the minutes of December 2nd as
amended; second by Bob. All in favor, motion carried.
MOTION: Bob moved to approve the minutes of December 9th, second by
Willis. All in favor, motion carried.
Nora said she will recuse herself on 211 E. Hallam
Resolution endorsing Council adoption of new historic preservation
design guidelines
Amy commented that the purpose statement was added; a website address
where people can find out which properties are on the National Register and
we added a comment about sense of place. Diagrams were updated
regarding landscapes and height of plantings. A lot of the projects coming up
will be under the old guidelines. We ran an article in the paper and the
guidelines are on the city website.
MOTION: Willis moved to approve resolution #1, adopting the guidelines.
Motion second by Jim.
Patrick said he found it disconcerting that no one responded about the
guidelines. We need to find a way to get people involved because this is a
significant document. Regarding simplicity and modesty in design are we
dictating what people should be building too much.
Nora said simplicity and modesty gives us a tool to work with.
P299
X.b
ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 2016
2
Jim reminded the board that these are only guidelines and we can’t mandate
the public to participate and there is a defined process in the code. We did
the outreach the best we can.
Sallie said we are an appointed board and we spend hours and hours as
professionals to look at the guidelines.
Roll call vote: Nora; Gretchen; Patrick; Sally; Bob; Jim and Willis. Motion
carried 7-0.
211 E. Hallam – Final Major Development, Public Hearing
Nora recused herself.
Affidavit of postings – Exhibit I
Sallie disclosed that she is work with Gyles Thornely, landscape architect
for the 211 E .Hallam project and has no financial interest etc. in this project.
Amy said conceptual review was held about a year ago. It is about a 6,000
square foot lot that contains the Berko studio which sits back along the alley.
The board agreed to the voluntary designation, moving the studio to the front
of the property and rotating it and adding a second dwelling unit along the
west property line. HPC granted conceptual with the condition that there be
a follow through for the solar heating plan that was submitted. City council
approved the proposed designation, incentives; TDR’s; permit fee waivers;
removal of the large tree and a number of other things. Council did approve
HPC’s request for the solar system.
Amy said what is being preserved of the studio is the wood frame portion. It
will be lifted up and moved to the front of the site. The chimney and CMU
will be reconstructed to match the existing conditions. The applicant is
asking to replace doors and windows which on Victorians can be debated.
Staff does not find that there is any particular craftsmanship or a need to
preserve the units that are in place now. They will be replicated. There will
also be a small addition to the studio with a basement level window opening
and staff is supportive of that. There is also a change which is a walk out
basement at the back of the building toward the interior courtyard. Staff also
finds that is an appropriate alteration. We have had several projects that
have had below grade expansion which allows a more livable area and not
have an appendage added to the back of the building. There are existing
skylights on the studio with a bubble shape. The applicant would like to
P300
X.b
P301
X.b