The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.420 E Hopkins Ave.0102.2005.ASLU420 E. Hopkins Ave 0102.2005.ASLU ARE STATION COWOP 273707330851 r- 1_ h P Â»an-.0.Y 2 a THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0102.2005.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 273707330851 PROJECTS ADDRESS 420 E. HOPKINS AVE PLANNER JASON LASSER CASE DESCRIPTION FIRE STATION COWOP REPRESENTATIVE ALAN RICHMAN DATE OF FINAL ACTION 12/18/09 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY ON 1/8/10 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS STATION AND THE THRIFT SHOP COWOP PROJECT THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into this 13 day of October, 2009, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Citv"), the Aspen Fire Protection District and The Thrift Shop, Inc., a Colorado non-profit corporation, doing business as The Thrift Shop of Aspen (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Applicants"). WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the Applicants submitted to the City an application (the "Application") for land use approvals and granting of a development order to permit the redevelopment of certain real property owned by the City located at 420/422 East Hopkins Avenue, in Aspen, Colorado, said property being more particularly described as Lots 0, P, Q, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado (the "East Hopkins Property") which Property is leased by the City to the Aspen Fire Protection District pursuant to a long-term lease, and 540 East Main Street, a metes and bounds parcel, East of Aspen Addition, Block 19 City ofAspen (the "Zupancis Property") which Zupancis Property is also owned by the City; and WHEREAS, in connection with the Application and this Agreement, the Applicant has submitted to the City the Final PUD Plat and Plan ofthe Aspen Fire Protection District Headquarters and the Thrift Shop (COWOP) (the "Final PUD Development Plan") to be recorded in the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the Application, the Final PUD Development Plan, the proposed development and improvement of the East Hopkins Property and the Zupancis Property, and the effects of the proposed development and improvement of said properties on adjoining neighboring properties and property owners and on the Aspen community; and has determined that the development proposal set forth in the Application meetsÂ· or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the Application, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has imposed certain conditions and requirements in connection with its approval ofthe Application and its approval and recordation ofthe Final PUD Development Plan, such matters being necessary to promote, protect and enhance the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Applicants are willing to acknowledge, accept, abide by, and faithfully perform the conditions and requirements imposed by the City in approving the Application and the Final PUD Development Plan; and WHEREAS, contemporaneously with the execution and recording of this Agreement, the City and the Applicants have recorded the Final PUD Development Plan as Reception No. in the Office ofthe Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado. 564 01% 8 14 9 1- At 3/ RECEPTION#: 564087.10/29/2009 at {00266068.DOCX/ 6} 1 03:19:05 PM. 1 OF 9. R $46.00 Doc Code AGREEMENT Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and the approval and acceptance for recordation by the City of the Final PUD Development Plan, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 1.1 Purpose. The purpose ofthis Agreement is to set forth the complete and comprehensive understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the East Hopkins Property and the Zupancis Property and to enumerate all terms and conditions under which redevelopment of the East Hopkins Property and the related use o f a portion o f the Zupancis Property may occur (collectively, the "Proiect"). 1.2 Effect. It is the intent o f the parties that this Agreement shall effectively supersede and replace in their entirety all previously recorded and unrecorded subdivision, condominium, and other land use approvals and related plats, maps, declarations, and other documents and agreements encumbering the East Hopkins Property and the Zupancis Property in connection with the Project, including and without limitation those matters identified in Article II immediately below (collectively, the "Prior Approvals and Instruments"). ARTICLE II ZONING AND REGULATORY APPROVALS 2.1 Approval Resolutions and Ordinances. The Project is the subject ofthe following approved Resolutions and Ordinances: (El) Pursuant to Resolution No. 41 (Series of 2007), the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission approved an application for major development and commercial design review (conceptual) and demolition for the East Hopkins Property and the Zupancis Property (b) Pursuant to Resolution No. 98 (Series of 2007), the City granted a temporary use permit to allow for the placement of a shelter for one fire engine located on the Zupancis Property. (c) Pursuant to Resolution No. 99 (Series of 2007), the City included additional lands, the Zupancis Property, in the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP land use review process. (d) Pursuant to Resolution No. 2 (Series of 2008), the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission granted final approval of the Project.. (e) Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3 (Series of 2008), the City granted final land use approvals and approved a development order for the Project and the related use of a portion of the Zupancis Property. {00266068.DOCX / 6} 2 2.2 Dimensional Requirements. Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance 3, Series of 2008, the following approved dimensions ofthe Project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Development Plan: (a) Minimum Lot Size: Per Final PUD Development Plan (b) Minimum Lot Width: Per Final PUD Development Plan (c) Minimum Front Yard: Per Final PUD Development Plan (d) Minimum Side Yard: Per Final PUD Development Plan (e) Minimum Rear Yard: Per Final PUD Development Plan (f) Maximum Site Coverage: Per Final PUD Development Plan (g) Maximum Height: Per Final PUD Development Plan (h) Minimum Distance Between Buildings: Per Final PUD Development Plan (i) Minimum Percent Open Space: No requirement 0) Trash Access Area: Per Final PUD Development Plan (k) Allowable Floor Area: TOTAL: 22,980 sq. ft. Fire Station: 12,599 sq. ft. City/County IT Server: 600 sq. ft. Other Non-Program spaces: 6,402 sq. ft. (1) Maximum Height: 40' measured from existing grade depicted on Final PUD Development Plan with the following exceptions: Hose and stair tower: 50' Elevator enclosure: 54' Roof access hatches, chimneys, exhaust flues, solar panels, communication antennae, and skylights may extend up to 10' above the roof elements on which they are located. (m) Minimum Off-Street Parking: 3 spaces on the alley ARTICLE III DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS Redevelopment in Accordance with the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team Findings. 3.1 Use of Zupancis Property. Pursuant to Resolution 98, Series of 2007, the Aspen City Council granted the Aspen Fire Protection District a Temporary Use Permit to place a shelter for one fire engine on the Zupancis Property. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, the COWOP Task Force also approved the use ofthe Zupancis Property in connection {00266068.DOCX / 6} 3 with the Project. Accordingly, the Aspen Fire Protection District's use ofthe Zupancis Property for such purposes is subject to the following conditions: (a) The Aspen Fire Protection District must obtain a building permit from the City of Aspen before erecting a shelter on the Zupancis Property consisting of a tent. (b) The Aspen Fire Protection District's temporary use of the Zupancis Property is valid for a period of six months from the date of issuance of such building permit. (c) The tent must be completely disassembled six months from the date of issuance of such building permit, unless subsequent land use approvals from the City of Aspen have been executed. (d) Pursuant to Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, the use of the Zupancis Property for the essential service of a fire engine shelter is permitted for the duration of the reconstruction of the fire station headquarters on the East Hopkins Property. In the event that the Zupancis Property is redeveloped pursuant to the Zupancis/Galena Site Plan prior to the completion of the Aspen Fire Protection District's use ofthe Zupancis Property in connection with the Project, the City shall work with the Aspen Fire Protection District to find an appropriate alternative site for a temporary fire engine shelter, which would allow for such relocation ion a timely manner without compromising public safety. (e) The temporary use o f the Zupancis Property shall consist o f a one-story shelter of twenty six (26) feet by forty (40) feet. (f) During the building permit process, the Aspen Fire Protection District shall consult with the Aspen Historic Preservation Officer to ensure that no damage is done to the historic McCutchy Cabins at the rear of the Zupancis Property. (g) All material representations made by the Applicants and their representatives in connection with Resolution 98, Series of 2007 shall be considered conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 3.2 Estimated Construction Schedule. Pursuant to Section 8 of Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, the Applicants estimate that construction ofthe Project on the East Hopkins Property will commence on or about April 30,2008 and will be substantially complete on or about April 8, 2010. The Applicants estimate that any disruption ofthe use ofthe alley located to the north the East Hopkins Property will occur between May 4,2009 and May 22,2009, and that construction on the East Hopkins Property will not substantially affect the use of East Hopkins Avenue, to the south ofthe East Hopkins Property. ARTICLE IV NON-COMPLIANCE AND REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS OR EXTENSIONS In the event that the City Council determines that the Applicants are not acting in substantial compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the City shall notify the Applicants in writing specifying the alleged non-compliance and asking that the Applicants remedy the alleged non-compliance within such reasonable time as the City may determine, but not less than 30 {00266068.DOCX / 6} 4 days. I f the City determines that the Applicants have not complied within such time, the City may issue and serve upon the Applicants a written order specifying the alleged non-compliance and requiring the Applicants to remedy the same within thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of such order, the Applicants may file with the City Engineering Department either a notice advising the City that it is in compliance or a written request to determine any one or both of the following matters: (a) Whether the alleged non-compliance exists or did exist; or (b) Whether a variance, extension of time or amendment to this Agreement should be granted with respect to any such non-compliance which is determined to exist. Upon the receipt of such request, the City shall promptly schedule a meeting o f the parties to consider the matters set forth in the order of noncompliance. The meeting of the parties shall be convened and conducted pursuant to the procedures normally established by the City. Ifthe City determines that a non-compliance exists which has not been remedied, it may issue such orders as may be appropriate, including the imposition of daily fines until such non- compliance has been remedied, the withholding of permits an(For certificates of occupancy, as applicable; provided, however no order shall terminate any land use approval. The City may also grant such variances, extensions of time or amendments to this Agreement as it may deem appropriate under the circumstances. The parties expressly acknowledge and agree that the City shall not unreasonably refuse to extend the time periods for performance hereunder i f the Applicants demonstrate that the reasons for delay(s) which necessitate said extension(s) result from the acts of God or other events beyond the reasonable control of the Applicants, despite good faith efforts on its part to perform in a timely manner. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 Successors and Assigns. The provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Applicants and the City and their respective successors and assigns. 5.2 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. 5.3 Inconsistencv. If any ofthe provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section ofthe application thereof in any circumstance in invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder o f this Agreement, and the application of any such provision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section in any other circumstance shall not be affected thereby. 5.4 Integration. This Agreement and any exhibits attached hereto contains the entire understanding among the parties hereto with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder. The Applicants and their successors may on its own initiative petition the City Council for an {00266068.DOCX / 6} 5 amendment to this Agreement or for an extension of one or more of the time periods required for the performance hereunder. The City Council shall not unreasonably deny such petition for amendment or extension after considering all appropriate circumstances. Any such amendment or extension oftime shall only become effective upon the execution by all parties hereto that are affected by the proposed amendment. 5.5 Headings. Numerical and title headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only, and shall not be deemed determinative of the substance contained herein. As used herein, where the context requires, the use o f the singular shall include the plural and the use of any gender shall include all genders. 5.6 Notice. Notices to be given to the parties to this Agreement shall be considered to be given if delivered by facsimile, i f and delivered, or if delivered to the parties by registered or certified mail at the addresses indicated below, or such other addresses as may be substituted upon written notice by the parties or their successors or assigns: The City: City ofAspen City Manager, Community Development Director 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 The Applicants: Aspen Fire Protection District 420 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 The Thrift Shop, 1nc. d/b/a The Thrift Shop of Aspen 422 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 In witness whereof, the parties have hereto set their hands and seals as of the day and year first above written. [Signatures appear on the following page.] {00266068.DOCX / 6} 6 CITY: City of Aspen, Colgpdo j Colo~o municiLD.~orporation BT gr,gcmed"-10.09 /lk./ Flu~U A/1 â€ž J 4=2 1 _ Kathryn S. Ko~(City derk Approved as to form: 0 14 â‚¬ 6 1 '0 01Â£â‚¬b John Worcest@f, 'City Attorney f' APPLICANTS: By: 21 -----~~~~;:='f~------ Name< T)4Â·Any) CATDA , Fl AL / 4 rY Aspen Fire Protectlon District 420/422 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 By: ckaL__-3 43 p Name: Uta - Ortâ‚¬A..Ati 1 -14>pu>.3 /(*41 64 The Thrift Shop, Inc., doing business as Thrift Shop of Aspen 422 East Hopkins Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 {00266068.DOCX / 6} 7 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~~ day of 0,3)3~4% 2009 by John Worcester as City Attorney ofthe City ofAspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. : n N f of.1 My commission expires: 01-< 1 9- ~24/ Â· 9& . Â·Â·...._-.-Â·-5419 37'Il/E 05 347 :,r ~lotary Public Â·::t b: STATE OF COLORADO ) '472.2.f.*, ) SS. ~Â»=5 -CP-, COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisQ % day of OC*)62rg~ 2009 by Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal corporation. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: DAIll )1011 . 11 Â»1> *L * ~Iotary Public len STATE OF COLORADO ) NÂ©......../&9 ) SS. + - -I--ss>- COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /3*day of 0*Â·ro gâ‚¬ â‚¬ , 2009 by 0* Reli A Q.C. A as Ftet C rl, 6 F ofthe Aspen Fire Protection District. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 6. / s /40 /0 -67:,Slat* , , 2:likY '24*k 0 Ack 'Â£47 'jc-c-i . '708 / Notary Public < :f JANET : 9 : LEGERSKY ; 8 M*. ..6 {00266068.DOCX / 6} r4,3;V.Â·Â·Â· Â·Â·â€¢~'1* 8 STATE OF COLORADO ) 1 SS. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this j 5day of A e le-4,9 6 2009 by (*4Â»442> as VIG.Â¢13,644 of The Thrift Shop, Inc., doing business as The Thrift Shop of Aspen. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 0 7- 12 0 -AW (344-,-t J <uNt Notary rublic p.....V......9.:...V./VV./V-........./*. Â¢ AGUSTIN GONZALEZ ? NOTARY PUBLIC ~ STATE OF COLORADO t My Commission Expires 09/20/2011 {00266068.DOCX / 6} 9 Lamont Planning Services, LLC 725 Melissa Lane Carbonda/e, CO 8/623 June 12, 2009 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Aspen Fire Protection District - Extension of the Recordation Deadline Dear Chris, The purpose of this letter is to request an extension of the recordation date of the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) PUD Agreement and Final PUD Development Plan. The AFPD participated in a PUD review and COWOP process for the redevelopment of the headquarters station and Thrift Shop. City Council approved the redevelopment proposal at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 28,2008. Ordinance 3, Series of 2008 is attached for your review. One of the conditions of approval was to record the Final PUD Development Plan and PUD Agreement within 90 days of final approval by City Council. The recordation date has lapsed and the applicant requests an extension of that date to September 1, 2009. Pursuant to Section 26.445.070 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Director may extend the recordation deadline if "the request is within the vesting timeline and if there is a community interest for providing such an extension. " The final development plan is within the vesting timeline. The Ordinance states that the development approval shall be vested for a period of three years from the date of issuance of the development order. The Ordinance was approved April 28,2008. Several building permits have been issued and construction is well underway. A timely completion of the new headquarters is critical to the safety and well being of the citizens of Aspen. This significant improvement to a community service should not incur additional public funds to start the PUD review process over. Therefore the Aspen Fire Protection District seeks to extend the deadline for recording the final PUD Development Plan and PUD Agreement to September 1,2009. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. ,Eincerely, 1 40 0 A -2-11Â«j . firtuuy< Leslie Lamont AFPD Project Planner p:970.963.8434 e:llamont@sopris.net c:97().948.1357 If this extension request is approved please sign below and provide a copy for our projig files. L (Â»&2/ Â».t /5,22737 Chris Bendon, Director Date Aspen Community Development Department Attachment: Ordinance 3, Series of 2008 2 ORDINANCE NO. 3 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING FINAL LAND USE APPROVALS AND GRANTING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS STATION AND THE THRIFT SHOP COWOP PROJECT ON A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, LOTS O, P, Q, AND, R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND 540 EAST MAIN STREET, A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, EAST ASPEN ADDITION, BLOCK 19 CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 4, Series of 2006, determined eligible for the City's development for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) review process the redevelopment of certain real property (hereinafter the "Project") owned by the Aspen Fire Protection District and the City of Aspen, and successors and assigns, for the purpose of providing a new and expanded Fire District Headquarters and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, the Project includes the Fire Station Headquarters and the Thrift Shop. The City of Aspen owns the four lots and the Aspen Fire Protection District leases those lots from the City and owns the building. The Thrift Shop subleases from the Fire District and owns their own building; and, WHEREAS, the Project also includes 540 East Main Street (known as the Zupancis property) where a temporary shelter for one first-due response fire engine will be located while the Headquarters Station is being redeveloped; and, WHEREAS, the Project's design/development team was represented by Darryl Grob, the Fire District Chief, Nancy Gensch, Thrift Shop Board, Gilbert Sanchez and Joseph Spears of Studio B Architects, Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, Inc., Dick Fenton ofFenton Construction and John Kelleher an owner's representative; and, WHEREAS, the Fire District and the Thrift Shop, as a condition of their long term lease with the City of Aspen, seek final development approval from the City Council to construct and complete the Project subject to the COWOP process and the development approvals described herein; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City o f Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the City Council according to said Section, to involve an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest assembled as a formal reviewing authority of the City of Aspen Task Force Team providing recommendations directly to City Council; and, Ordinance 3,2008 Page 1 of 10 WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team was comprised of Thrift Shop and Fire District representatives, neighbors, representatives ofthe City of Aspen Community Development Department, representatives ofthe City of Aspen City Council, representatives of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, representatives of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, representatives of emergency services of Pitkin County, and members of the citizenry. The City of Aspen Community Development Director served as the chair of the Task Force Team, in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.500 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The composition of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team was approved by the City ofAspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, as amended by Resolution No. 99, Series of 2007; and provided the project with a broad range of expenise and awareness of community issues; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled the planning and design of the Project to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of-view from neighbors, land owners, citizens, and technical expertise from various professional staff of essential City, County, and quasi- municipal districts; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review procedure does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team met five (5) times to consider the Project; to identify the goals, objectives, and physical, financial, legal, and public policy issues and parameters of the project; and, to guide the programming, planning, and design of the project on the following dates: January 12, 2006; January 19, 2006; January 26, 2006; February 23,2006; and, December 18,2007; and, WHEREAS, Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team meetings were open to the public. Notice of the meetings in 2006 and the meeting in 2007 were published in The Aspen Times newspaper. Meeting summaries were produced and adopted by the Task Force; and, WHEREAS, the Project design/development team met with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) five (5) times on the following dates: January 11, 2006, January 25, 2006, February 22, 2006, November 14, 2007, and January 23, 2008 to review the Project because the Headquarters is within the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, the HPC granted Final HPC approval to the Project at their January 23,2008 meeting pursuant to Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the HPC granted a waiver to exceed the maximum 60' length of continuous element/roof height to 76' for this project; and, Ordinance 3,2008 Page 2 of 10 WHEREAS, on March 13,2006 City Council reviewed the progress of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Project during a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously endorsed the direction of the planning and recommendations of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, pursuant to City Council Resolution 15, Series of2006; and, WHEREAS, voters approved a bond issue election in May 2,2006, to fund a two part Fire District improvement program of which redevelopment of the Headquarters is one part; and, WHEREAS, on December 3, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved a temporary use permit for a temporary shelter for the first-due response fire engine at 540 East Main Street Pursuant to Resolution No. 99, Series of 2007 and City Council appointed new task force members to the Fire District COWOP Task Force Team; and, WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Fire Station Headquarters and the Thrift Shop will increase the square footage of each entity thereby enhancing their programs and operations and facilitate an overdue upgrade to the facilities; and, WHEREAS, the enhanced Headquarters will provide improved office space, a larger garage for the storage and maintenance of emergency vehicles, improved public space for community meetings and emergency management operations, and a museum for the display of Fire District memorabilia; and, WHEREAS, the Thrift Shop enhancements will increase the retail and display space and basement storage space, add offices and improve the drop-off and sorting areas; and, WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Civic Center Master Plan which recommends improvements for both entities so they may continue their traditional contributions to the community in their historic locations which add to the civic presence within the community and the commercial core of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Project has benefited from the COWOP Task Force Team's dialogue regarding community goals that could be achieved by this community project. The inclusion of affordable housing, free-market housing, public parking, and City offices were items discussed by the Task Force and for critical reasons related to security, space and the lack of employee generation by the Fire Station and Thrift Shop expansions, all four were deemed unsuitable for this project; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team determined that additional floors above the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop should not be designed or entitled as part of this project but the building shall be structurally designed and built to accommodate future floors when and if the organization(s) require more space for reasons to be determined as changed conditions in the community may dictate; Ordinance 3,2008 Page 3 of 10 and any such future additions will be subject to a land use review process defined at the time of review in the future; and, WHEREAS, Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team agreed that 540 East Main Street was an appropriate location for a temporary shelter for an emergency response engine for the duration of the redevelopment of the Headquarters; and, WHEREAS, during a publicly noticed meeting of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team on December 18, 2007, the Task Force Team recommended, by a vote of fourteen to zero (14-0), that City Council approve the Project as it was represented during the December 18,2007, meeting; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team adopted a recommended motion to City Council related to the Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.500 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny all requisite land use approvals necessary to grant a development order for a proposed development determined eligible for COWOP land use review upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and consideration of comments offered by the general public at a duly noticed public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of all necessary land use approvals for granting a development order for the proposed Project including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Final PUD Plan approval, Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility for the Project, a temporary shelter for a fire engine on 540 East Main Street, and vested rights; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on March 11, 2008, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposal and continued the public hearing until April 14, 2006; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 14, 2008, the Aspen City Council reviewed the proposal and continued the public hearing until April 28, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the ~ development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Ordinance 3,2008 Page 4 of 10 Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the first official community action for the Project will be a community celebration titled the "Wrecking Ball," sponsored by the Thrift Shop. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: The Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Project is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Final PUD Plan approval, Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility, the temporary use of 540 East Main Street, and vested rights subject to conditions of approval as described herein. . Section 1: Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team Findings The Aspen Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team recommends approval to the Aspen City Council for the redevelopment of the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop finding that: 1. The redevelopment is consistent with the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan in that both entities will be expanded and will remain downtown thus preserving their civic presence within the community. 2. The COWOP Task Force supports the mass, scale and dimensions of the redevelopment as presented to the COWOP at their meeting on December 18, 2007 clarifying that the square footage of the Thrift Shop is net square footage. 3. The COWOP Task Force approves of the use program for the site and the gross square footages as presented to the COWOP at their meeting on December 18, 2007 recognizing that from design to construction square footage does shift slightly. 4. The redevelopment is compatible with the immediate neighborhood and the downtown area. Ordinance 3,2008 Page 5 of 10 5. The COWOP Task Force approves of the design elements as described at the COWOP meeting of December 18,2007. 6. The Aspen Fire Protection District is an essential public facility. The expansion of both the Fire Station and the Thrift shop will not generate additional employees. Both entities depend upon volunteers to support their organizations. 7. The COWOP Task Force approves of the use of the Zupancis property for the essential service of a temporary fire engine shelter from March 2008 to December of 2010. In the event that the Zupancis/Galena Site Plan development of the Zupancis property should begin before the end of the shelter's term, the City shall work with the Fire District to find an appropriate alternative site that would allow the relocation in a timely manner without compromising public safety. 8. The COWOP Task Force understands and endorses the potential future need for an additional floor on the Fire Station and/or Thrift Shop. In the current plan, the structure will be designed to suppoM future development and the Fire District and/or Thrift Shop may seek additional land use approvals when a use program and design have been defined in the future, and according to land use requirements at that future time. 9. The design/development team explored the opportunity to provide a basement under the truck bays in the Fire Station and presented to COWOP that it is not feasible. The COWOP supported that conclusion. 10. The first official action for the commencement of destruction of the Thrift Shop is "The Wrecking Ball," to which the COWOP task force is invited to attend. Section 2: Adoption of Findings The City Council hereby adopts the findings of the Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force, as listed in Section 1. Section 3: Approved Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions ofthe project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans, as follows: Per Final PUD Plan ~ traNg,21,12:Ma,u:,1 riffe.. reÂ¥Â£DFUEJEW~MWY#Â¥r,1 Per Final PUD Plan Per Final PUD Plan Per Final PUD Plan Per Final PUD Plan Per Final PUD Plan ~~1~ 4.....1 0=,?. - 1.. ' . .=,f C~'9%3?fir.215,1LiIAM.,maWA~+~.~f*Â£ Per Final PUD Man 52Uiti'ill,Â·Â·V.i\- "tijjf1*Kiph2WPJSEEEQ A ., ,> /- .,r. :rn,-22 -,Â·-cle#~f/K-Â·5 -P':'-FY:rs:- - 'ew . it -:54 i:ir:1(â‚¬- 20, . L':Â·:*1 - 3 ;R..>,11 in.31; f' 9,~~~w~ Per Final PUD Plan ' 221)2634..,,6.6*122/6.1*bufi#,~24' No requirement Ordinance 3,2008 Page 6 of 10 Per Final PUD Plan 4 12:. 4.13-92'if#~ TOTAL: 22,980 sq. ft. 1....6 .1-4:#mau#411~Eef#12 Fire Station: 12,599 sq. ft. ~~~*%4&4ff City/County IT Server: 600 sq. ft Other Non-Program spaces: 6,402 sq. ft. ~j~EFFER22:Â¥*CANii*83 40' measured from existing grade depicted on Final PUD ~i:.14-227,2~.~*Ref:Jâ€ž, Plan with following exceptions: Hose and stair tower: 50' Elevator enclosure: 54' mz21;*ef#2:a,&*U;Wiia?Wi42Y*~!9:â€¢P,e!*f*m:e'6â‚¬941 Roof access hatches, chimneys, exhaust flues, solar panels, iRE'-,~687*~411~/t.604*~21;:lA*= communication antennae and skylights may extend up to ~ 10' above the roof clements onwhich they are located. 3 spaces on the alley Section 4: Temporarv Use of 540 East Main Street The City of Aspen City Council hereby approves the temporary use of 540 East Main Street (the former Zupancis property) for a shelter to house a first-due fire engine while the Headquarters building is being reconstructed. During reconstruction all operations of the Fire District will be relocated to the recently completed North Forty fire station. However, in order to effectively respond to a call in Aspen, east of Castle Creek, it is important to station a vehicle in downtown Aspen. Many of the volunteers work in Aspen and arriving at 540 East Main Street to prepare for a call will ensure a timely response to an emergency in downtown and the immediate vicinity. A temporary use for the shelter was granted by Aspen City Council pursuant to Resolution 99, Series of 2007. However a temporary use is only permitted for a maximum of six months, with one additional six-month period, if approved. This Ordinance approves the use of 540 East Main Street for the duration of the reconstruction of the Fire Station Headquarters unless the Zupancis/Galena Site Plan development ofthe Zupancis property should begin before the end of the shelter's term. In that event the City shall work with the Fire District to find an appropriate alternative site that would allow the relocation in a timely manner without compromising public safety. Section 5: Growth Management Approval as an Essential Public Facilitv The Aspen City Council hereby approves the Fire Station and Thrift Shop as Essential Public Facilities, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(D)3, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; that the expansions of these buildings will not generate new employees as both organizations operate with volunteers; that there is no free market residential or commercial component to this plan; and that the project generally adds to the overall capability ofthe public infrastructure. Section 6: Civic Center Master Plan The Aspen City Council finds that the proposed redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Protection District Headquarters and the Thrift Shop are consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan; and, Ordinance 3,2008 Page 7 0 f 10 k Section 7: Final PUD Plans Within 90 days after final approval by City Council, the applicant shall record a Final PUD Development Plan. The Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with dimensioned building locations. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species oflandscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department, this should include any movable planters/pots within pedestrian areas. 3. Building elevations demonstrating the general architectural character of the project, building materials, fenestration, projections, and dimensions and locations of elevator shaft head, skylights, mechanical equipment, etc. 4. A utility plan meeting the standards ofthe City Engineer and City utility agencies. 5. Construction details for improvements to the public rights-of-way, including the alley. 6. A grading/drainage plan with any off-site improvements specified. Any off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineering Department. 7. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150, 8. A table summarizing dimensional standards ofthe project. Section 8: PUD Agreement Within 90 days after final approval by City Council, the applicant shall record a PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. Agreements with the City of Aspen, as described above, regarding: use of the 540 East Main Street property. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction affecting city streets. Section 9: Building Permit Submission and Issuance The Community Development Department shall accept and process a building permit application upon adoption of this ordinance and prior to recordation of the necessary plats and agreements. The Community Development Department shall expedite the permit and issue an Access Infrastructure and Demolition Permit in an expedited fashion. Section 10: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. 2. A signed copy ofthe final Ordinance granting land use approval. 3. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental Health Department. Ordinance 3,2008 Page 8 of 10 4. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Section 11: Proiect Amendments Amendments to the Project within one year of the adoption of this ordinance shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department Director and, as applicable, the Historic Preservation Officer and Project Monitor. If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the amendment is substantial, the Community Development Director shall forward the request to the City Council for review and approval. Amendments to the project after this initial one-year period, shall be reviewed according to the procedures and limitations of the und Use Code. Section12: Vested Rights The development approvals granted herein shall be vested for a period ofthree (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described properties: 420 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots O, P, Q and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen; and 540 E. Main Street, a metes and bounds parcel, East Aspen Addition, Block 19, City o f Aspen, by Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008, of the Aspen City Council. Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Aspen Fire Protection District and Thrift Shop (the developer), pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein w awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 14: 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 15: Ordinance 3,2008 Page 9 of 10 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 sepatate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 16: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office ofthe Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 17: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 2801 day of April, 2008, at 5:00 in the Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was made according to the requirements of Section 26.304.06043)b-c. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBUSHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 a day of February, 2008. Attest jlti,u-,n -3 Â·;A KdLL Â»944 -26 68 Kathryn S. 1~6h, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22 day of A~ (A ~ , 2008. Attgt: Mitqj A-Â·6*W Kathryn S. *ch, City Clerk MicÂ¥;adi Â¢. Ireland, Mayo< Approved as to form: -7 /4 f J moack*\1916& dolin*drEAer, City Attorney Ordinance 3,2008 Page 10 0 f 10 .;lob, .. - 13 PUBLIC NOTICE 1......PVt.thâ„¢:A DATE n.1 PLACE PURPOsE i .. *d.. 0,0. - 4 .1 14 ** , 4 /4 . - *W - 4-4.4- 4. -1 1 -Â¥r:. 6 ..Vi r -. - -' .tâ„¢.FI~' t 9 0 - 1 â‚¬ '4 DY' Â· Â·Â·, '1:*ry MEMORANDUM TO: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development AL. - vv VVÂ¥ j FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner l~I>-- DATE OF MEMO: September 25,2008 RE: Waiver of fees for Thrift Shop, requirements for use change BACKGROUND: As part of the COWOP review of the Fire Station and Thrift Shop redevelopment, the Community development Department director found that both entities met the definition of Essential Public Facilities. This finding requires a case-by-case review under the Growth Management Quota System. DISCUSSION: In this case, staff found that both organizations are operated by volunteers, and there was to be no increase in employees at either redeveloped site, and therefore no housing mitigation was required. The staff review overlooked the question of Parks fees and TDM fees, but hereby finds that because these entities were found to be Essential Public Facilities, these fees are waived However, it should be noted that if the Thrift Shop at some point in the future leaves the site and the Aspen Fire Protection District chooses to sublease to a different organization, that organization will be required to proceed through a Growth Management Quota System review with regard to the net increase in square footage as part of the redevelopment project. The original Thrift Shop space included 1,877 square feet of net leasable commercial space, while the new Thrift Shop will have 2,962 square feet of net leasable commercial space - an increase of 1,085 square feet. Page 1 of 1 Exhibit B GROWTH MANAGEMENT: ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES Section 26.470.090(4), of the City Land Use Code gives City Council authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny a development application based on the following criteria. This section requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, a P&Z recommendation is not required under the COWOP process. a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. Staff Finding: The Community Development Director has determined the primary use of the Fire Station to be an Essential Public Facility due to its public safety mission. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use of The Thrift Shop to be an Essential Public Facility due to its provision of basic necessities to a significant segment of the local and working local population. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and -warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. C. City Council Review (Growth Management) Staff Finding: 1 he Community Development Director recommends waiving any affordable housing requirements due to the promotion of civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. In addition, neither the Aspen Fire Protection District nor The Thrift Shop anticipate hiring any new employees, as both organizations are primarily supported through volunteer workers. V "ic- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner 36- D THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director, Community Development~~ DATE OF MEMO: April 7,2008 MEETING DATE: April 14, 2008 RE: Continuation of Public Hearing, Second Reading, Ordinance No. 3: Fire Station COWOP Ordinance REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting that City Council continue the Public Hearing, Second Reading, regarding the Fire Station COWOP (Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008), to April 28,2008 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved Ordinance No. 3 at First Reading on February 11,2008, and scheduled Second Reading for March 11, 2008. Community Development staff erred in publishing the notice, and City Council continued the Second Reading to April 14,2008. Again, Community Development staff has erred in publishing the notice. DISCUSSION: Staff apologizes for this series of errors. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests that Council continue the Public Hearing, Second Reading, on the Fire Station COWOP (Ordinance No. 3, Series of 2008) to April 28. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 99 0 fi /40~kin_S (14 5-90 FF/a;,1, Aspen,CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: /71 4 r c.k / / , 200-2 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, Rt 4 +1 1 . 04, A (name, please print) being or repreUnting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting ofnotice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. ~ Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) , Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is iii any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. 4 96.1 / (-/4/6 Signature <57 The foISgoip g "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this ~2'day o f 31/610 n/lbl/Vl ,j , 2003, by /Pll*'j l.,0 Cla 1/012- WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Â»SU'.4. iÂ»\ My commission expires: 4 l -,6- l--100-1 RK: f * H i pt -4ULÂ· Â»#(4 0 :y) ' of; Notary Public My Commission Expires 09/25/2009 ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) ... ./~ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: FIRE STATION, 420 EAST HOPKINS; THE THRIFT SHOP, 422 EAST HOPKINS; AND ZUPANCIS PROPERTY, 540 EAST MAIN ST., COWOP ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing, 2nd Reading, will be held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, to review a COWOP Ordinance for the redevelopment of 420 and 422 East Hopkins Street, Lots O,P,Q & R, Block 87, Parcel ID#273707330851 (Fire Station and Thrift Shop), and for 540 East Main Street, a metes and bounds parcel, East Aspen Addition, Block 19, Parcel ID #273707324003 (Zupancis Property) for a temporary fire engine shelter. For further information, contact Ben Gagnon at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2755, (or by email at beng@ci.aspen.co.us). All written correspondence related to the application should be sent to the above e-mail or physical address. Applicants: Aspen Fire Protection District, 420 E. Hopkins Ave., Aspen, CO, 81611, and the City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO, 81611. s/Michael C. Ireland Aspen City Council Published in The Aspen Times on February 24,2008 City of Aspen Account La iÂ·<.4 j Â£1 219/.43 9 4.Yuu , u , Â·' _. 'Ull'],1,13 11.1.9 ll,994 19;411 23*, 3' les 62'D I -1 1=11 A,Ef'AV 41 (44?1:~el.â€¢ -'1 Â£;9 -â€¢31!6'I '1 &11113 1.3 54 .:- 01.; Â·Â·-~ , _ *~Ii'"'- ~~~~<,,5 ''?".~'~. 517 EAST HOPI<INS AVENUE LLC 530 HOPKINS LLC i~' 14 . A STAR RANCH FUND 1 LLC 517 E HOPKINS AVE 800 E HOPKINS AVE #B-5 89 VAGNEUR LANE ASPEN, CO 8161'1 ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 AEP FAMILY LLL 3.9389931% ALH HOLDING COMPANY INC ALLEN LEONARD A Ill C/O ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD & 435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 8316 HECHT PC ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 601 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER ASPEN PLAZA LLC ASPEN EXTREME LLC SAINT MARYS C/O STEVE MARCUS 03!> 3375 CRYSTAL CT 1300 S STEELE ST PO BOX 1709 COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133 DENVER, CO 80210 ASPEN, CO 81611 AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC AVH MEADOWS LLC 20% INT BALDWIN HARLEY A 11 532 E HOPKINS AVE 601 E HYMAN AVE 205 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M BLAU JEFF T 1616 ORCHARD AVE PO BOX 1365 181 E 65TH ST GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10021 BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224 BRAND BUILDING LLC 5411 KILAUEA PL 210 S GALENA ST #21 205 S GALENA ST HONOLULU, HI 96816 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CENTRE OF ASPEN LLC 54.6248989% CALDWELL CHARLES G & DEBRA H CICUREL CARY C/O KATIE REED MGMT 514 E BRYAN ST 2615 N LAKEWOOD â‚¬.99- 210 S MONARCH ST #B SAVANAH, GA 31401 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 COLORADO CABLE 75% CITY OF ASPEN nut COLLINS BLOCK LLC C/O S GOODMAN OR J M BARNEIT 130 S GALENA ST %/ 205 S GALENA ST 500 PRES CLINTON #310 - ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 DAVID DOGWOOD LLC 13.5Â°/0 DOLE MARGARET M DENSON JAMES D C/O LOWELL MEYER C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF PO BOX 1614 PO BOX 1247 CEDARIDGE TUBAC, AZ 85646 ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8455 ASPEN, CO 81612 DUVIKE INC GALENA PLAZA LLC 30.3845777% FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC C/O AERSCAPE LTD CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ 6601 US HIGHWAY 133 230 S MILL ST 601 E HYMAN AVE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Y [213 Ve.Inzes:i Ieed *sea .10# _... ieded peerly QFF:3 Â®0916 31VldVA131 Â®AleAÂ¥ esn ~ Â®0965Â®Akia,w~ RE@ i -NS Uolpnesill ees -IM 7 1 1,2-, S~8â‚¬181 18*d AS?221 AN@AV-05,-008Â·Â·8. UO"li j!,13% Uj, p 4.0--"01 1 ' Ha~ 3114?51 , 30'13'd. 9 t.j, tkltij\'11 .1,11-4-'â‚¬1 j ~" -~ ~''i .â€¢'7 .111 'Â·4 19 1 60..'\ 10,9:2",fj\AA&: 81,Mil/..9. el ': -)2,~i&;3111'.' 8 0/eil V um -Â·. GILBERT LEONE 2.7624071% GOLDEN ARTS CONNECTION LLC GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ DBA ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART 435 E MAIN ST 601 E HYMAN AVE 213 S MILL ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 8161'1 ASPEN, CO 8161'1 GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN HALL CHARLES L HANSEN CANTINA LLC 15.72% 150 METRO PK #2 PO BOX 1819 PO BOX 9343 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 HANSEN STEVE 11.8169824% HENDERSON JAMES C HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ KUCK KATHERINE M 170 E GORE CRK 601 E HYMAN AVE 4880 HARLEM RD VAIL, CO 81657 ASPEN, CO 81611 GALENA, OH 43021 HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST ISIS BUILDING LLC LLC PO BOX 1576 205 S MILL ST # 301A 290 HEATHER LN MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY JARDEN CORPORATION 03J KANDYCOM INC TRUST #1 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR 766 SINGING WOOD DR 216 SEVENTEENTH ST BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ARCADIA, CA 91006 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP LCP ELYSIAN ASPEN OWNER LLC LESTER JIM TRST C/O LODGING CAPITAL PTNRS/ DAVID 395 SOUTH END AVE #29N 2311 LA MESA DR SIMS NEW YORK, NY 10280 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 430 W ERIE ST #501 CHICAGO, IL 60610 LEVY LAWRENCE F & CAROL LOMA ALTA CORPORATION LUCKYSTAR LLC O ar 980 N MICHIGAN AVE #400 PO BOX 886 PO BOX 7755 J>/- CHICAGO, IL 60611 LANCASTER, TX 75146-0886 ASPEN, CO 81612 MAIN & MILL LLC 34.28% MARCUS STEPHEN J 20% INT MASON & MORSE INC C/O LOWELL MEYER 601 E HYMAN AVE 514 E HYMAN AVE - PO BOX 1247 . ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MILLENNIUM PLAZA LLC MILL & MAIN LLC C/O CAPMARK INC C/O MEYER LOWELL 2900 OCEAN BLVD 200 WITMER RD PO BOX 1247 CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625 HORSHAM, PA 19044-6657 ASPEN, CO 81612 MTN ENTERPRISES 80B OSA TRUST 50% MMWCRB LLC 3.93% C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG 595 S BROADWAY #200 170 GARE CRK DR 2311 LA MESA DR DENVER, CO 80209 VAIL, CO 81657 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 Â¥ 13179 Temjeeng imed Asea Aob ==eman Aeded peeaT 193 *09&5 3.1*lamlal *AgeAv esn 1 Â®09&5Â®AME'39#~ ~234 139*45 uolpru,sul ees Â®~ valj S!Â®[qf3-1 Meed ise~ hj li~ I ;:1!':Â£ I.'411 .,} 117,. 1,41'1911.,- 6,1-1,4.v ...+Pla'Â·, 2 11 17;41 1 'I 11 -C, 'f lei' I. P,U,>... 98*61'!Â· N.'~ '2 ,!lrl:,fl l,LiO- i 1 17h-'4 '~ 4-0Â·,1 SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LLC PITKIN COUNTY RUHNAU DAVID F & SHARON ENGEL C/O RELATED COMPANIES/JEFF BLAU 530 E MAIN ST #302 ,â€ž ~,,~ ~~ PO BOX 7209 ASPEN, CO 81611 3. & a 'J RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067 60 COLUMBUS CIR NEW YORK, NY 10023 SJA ASSOCIATES LLC 60% SMITH ASPEN QEAA LLC 11.5% SOUTHDALE ANESTHESIOLOGY PROFIT C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS C/O LOWELL MEYER SHARING TRUST FBO ROY G BRYAN PO BOX 1709 PO BOX 1247 5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 EDINA, MN 55439 STANTON LAVONE KAY TRUSTEE FBO US BANK NA & MCNULTY ZELPHA MARIE VAIL FINE ART GALLERY INC LYON HARRY.167% .083% PO BOX 1953 500 E MARKHAM STE 305 422 WHITE AVE, PO BOX 608 EDWARDS, CO 81632 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501 WARREN DOGWOOD LLC 13.5% WALL JANET & RICHARD A WALL JANET L C/O LOWELL MEYER 205 S GALENA ST #13 9762 BURNLEY PL PO BOX 1247 ASPEN, CO 81611 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 ASPEN, CO 81612 WELLS FARGO BANK WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC WENDELIN ASSOC C/O DELOITTE TAX LLP TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O 150 METRO PARK PO BOX 2609 1001 CHERRY ST STE 308 ROCHESTER, NY 14623 CARLSBAD, CA 92018 COLUMBIA, MO 65201 WILLIAMS DEXTER M WOODS FAMILY LP 82 W LUPINE DR PO BOX 11468 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 T Â©09&5Â®,Akla~11 @ZM 2 jeeqs &0013.-393:8>.sul weS wrip/N r.-*/0161 S]Â©q'Wl /54 ASEE EFF! Teenzeed leed *se@ Ao# r,-=â„¢m Aeded Pee:1Â¥ 0~~1 4DOgi.5 3Uyid,Mal Â®A,Â®AÂ¥ es'% V 13.:4=3 1-/.3 0 j. ~ 4- Al]21Ay:â‚¬09'5-fi,"Ii. 4 jt[,~#,~J';~1'~el'~,1~tLi#,t'' ~.:1 1;-?I:ic~'.'44]rc."t]'~ j}: +1.1-*j'' i Â£.W.F..4 f. e:At!3AV..1.11'21' Ciph ..11 ' 1-'Stli."1 '111Â·CO'jf.qâ‚¬'.24(2~Â£5,61Â·FF emat Ul 33446:,kit 5-4/arM i, :'.31; a.'.1 .n j. 1 ' 1 1Â¥ 1 ' 311 ASPEN LLC ALLEN CARROL A REV TRUST 530 HOPKINS LLC C/O BEAU VINTON ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST 800 E HOPKINS AVE #B-5 2317 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 50 SW 137TH AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 WILMINGTON, DE 19806 BEAVERTON, OR 97006 ALPINE BANK ASPEN ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER ASPEN LEGACY LLC ATTN GAYLE BEAN SAINT MARYS 17740 E HINSDALE AVE PO BOX 10000 1300 S STEELE ST FOXFIELD, CO 80016 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 DENVER, CO 80210 ATWOODSTANFORD H JR & PAMELA S ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC LIVING TRUST 14881 QUORUM DR #200 532 E HOPKINS AVE 16125 GREENWOOD LN DALLAS, TX 75254 ASPEN, CO 81611 MONTE SERENO, CA 95030 BARNETT JERALD M JR BERG KRISTOFOR BIEHL GERALD M 500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE 102 FOUNDERS PL #202 1201 GALAPAGOS LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 ASPEN, CO 81611 DENVER, CO 80201 BLUE PINTO LLC BOMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE 105 VILLAGE LN 5601 HIGH DR 1555 WASHTENAW CARBONDALE, CO 81623 MISSION HILLS, KS 66208 ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 BROUGH STEVE B BRANDON BETH BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J BROUGH DEBORAH A 101 N SPRING ST #107 PO BOX 450 599 TROUT LK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 RED OAK, IA 51566 SANGER, CA 93657 CALCOTT JOHN R CARVER JOHN & MARCIA L CICUREL CARY WIKE KAREN S PO BOX 991 2615 N LAKEWOOD 600 E MAIN ST #301 RAPIDS CITY, IL 61278 CHICAGO, IL 60614 ASPEN, CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN CLANCY J ANTHONY & DEBORAH COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 85% INT 130 S GALENA ST 3605 TUXEDO CT 2026 N MOHAWK ASPEN, CO 81611 ATLANTA, GA 30305 CHICAGO, IL 60614 CONCEPT 600 LLC COPPOCK RICHARD P CROUSEN GUINN D TRUST PO BOX 2914 PO BOX 44 4326 COCHRAN CHAPEL CIR BASALT, CO 81621 DEXTER, MI 48130 DALLAS, TX 75209 DORAIS GREGORY SCOTT DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC DONAHUE ELIZABETH HALL MOLLY O 1690 HOMESTAKE DR PO BOX 11865 PO BOX 588 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 [i]Fl Valmeed lead Ase3308 ....El .,eded pee,T (Sljrl Â®091,6 31Â¥1418~31 Â®K#eAV Â®511 i Â®05)tsÂ®AM-VO ~ ~ 3eeqs uÂ©:3381Ubsui ees R~miFENBi . 8~4~ 5$437 leed Asea .E 21,1 3 j voy"t,I,)?f j 2(ld,)8 1 401 ./383.-4'1169 :il:31.1:1:'1'111Â·'41. 1 1,1 3019 ,i,Of) ij 1 1.1, ' . 4 43/W tu 161493 6/ - T '1 0-11Â©01.1,-'fÂ·,01.-8691-4 800 jÂ·98 9 39,31,1 ]' Ni 'irl f P :13,13Â·1 '-~ 1-'t.2 : 0.42 tj: r n EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANY DORAN RALPH FELDMAN JONATHAN 1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D 2600 WOODWARD WAY 101 N SPRING ST#104 PENTHOUSE lID ATLANTA, GA 30305 ASPEN, CO 81611 MIAMI, FL 33129 FICKE CLARK FORTIER TIMOTHY FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 465 N MILL ST 3601 TURTLE CREEK BLVD APT 204 SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101 ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75219-5503 G & G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC GAGNON BEN GALANTER YALE & ELYSE 2520 S GRAND AVE PO BOX 4381 525 S ANDREWS AVE GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601 ASPEN, CO 81612 FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301 GILKERSON LINDA GOLDFEIN MICHAEL 85% GLATHAR KIMBERLY J UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO GOLDFEIN PAMELA J 15% PO BOX 12197 5640 ELLIS AVE 1724 BRAESIDE LN ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60637 NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 GRAHAM NARELDA GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC GWM PROPERTIES LLC 101 N SPRING ST #203 PO BOX 4491 PO BOX 4146 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 HIPPEAU ERIC HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K C/O SOFTBANK CAPITAL PTNRS 2495 ADARE 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 461 FIFTH AVE 15TH FLR ANN ARBOR, MI 48104 HONOLULU, HI 96822 NEW YORK, NY 10017 HOLLAND AND HART HORNBECK KIMBERLY E HUNTER ALEXANDER ATTN BRYAN DOWER 102 FOUNDERS PL #2101 PO BOX 1638 PO BOX 8749 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 DENVER, CO 80201 HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90% JARDEN CORPORATION JOSA LLC 2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE 2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR PO BOX 10147 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 BOCA RATON, FL 33431 ASPEN, CO 81612 JURINE LLC 10% K & J ENTERPRISES LLC KESSLER SEPP H & JANE 2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119 600 E MAIN ST #210 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-1417 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LAMB DON Q JR KLEIN JAMES J & SALLIE R LARSON KARL G & MARIA M UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PO BOX 12022 PO BOX 8207 5640 ELLIS AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60637 Â¥ 1~ Yamjeed leed *593 Â·'0# g:.rn=~r:w .~eded Pee:1! 1~ZIF] Â®0915 3.Dfiagi Â®41Â®Av *Stl 1 Â®09&5Â®AllajiNW~ ~ ~ 38@45 14Â©Bon,wbstoo ew'E N*#'#ri1 7 1 Ih22&1 Vege@ /94 Asep la Cl.>IMAÂ·Â«,01=01Â»3-2 f{.fLV:,29341*4*Â·OF 6 0 .:.11-,11424 'AL?.iJ.' 71!.' .i' 1: L Â· 40 6. i.i- ~J,1 D \:193.91.9.,1,6.2 ~461.H *11~' 9.] 14 1~Ji ~.' !1 Lt Â·1 ~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ ~ |~ ~ ' - 'f ~ ., 1 r LAZAR FAMILY TRUST LIEBOWITZ EDWARD LINDENAU SCOTT 5342 ALDEA AVE PO BOX 1811 215 S MONARCH ST ENCINO, CA 91316 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 LUCKYSTAR LLC LUNDGREN DONNA MAESTRANZIBART PO BOX 7755 PO BOX 6700 1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA MANN KATHLEEN A 99% MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446% 11.0446% PO BOX 2057 320 DAKOTA DR 21701 FLAMENCO ASPEN, CO 81612 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331% MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC MCCUTCHIN GENE P 653 26 1/2 RD 1526 FOREST DR 14833 MIDWAY RD GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506 GLENVIEW, IL 60025 ADDISON, TX 75001 MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC MCNANIE TRUST MILESI MITCHELL TRUST 12852 NW SHORELAND DR 14915 RANCHO REAL 325 SE ST LUCIE BLVD MEQUON, WI 53097 DEL MAR, CA 92014 STUART, FL 34996 MILNE SHEILA MOSCOE THOMAS D MOSHARI ALI PO BOX 8286 14700 ROCKSBOROUGH RD PO BOX 1875 ASPEN, CO 81612 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 MIDDLEBURG, VA 20118 MURPHY GEORGE W NIBLACK SCOTT NIILER BENJAMIN P PO BOX 4146 PO BOX 10869 100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR #4101 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 OBERMEHER PLACE SALES GROUP LLC OBP LLC ONE ONE SEVEN LLC OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GROUP 101 FOUNDERS PL #104 810 W SMUGGLER - LLC - ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 115 AABC ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING PITKIN COUNTY RAMOS WALTHER & MARJORIE CORP 530 E MAIN ST #302 133 TALL TREES DR 530 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004 ASPEN, CO 81611 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA SATTLER SANDRA A 5934 ROYAL LN #250 624 E HOPKINS AVE 101 NORTH SPRING ST #3204 DALLAS, TX 75230 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 Â¥ 57%4 Â¥ man,an u imm n ,Â£enes. M n mded peed @73 00916 31111,1,\131 *A.leaf Â®Sn a Â®09&5Â®AMELE#~ ~~ ~ #We)&15 u.Â©06291]3Â·0~ BeS itii#*08% 4 7 1 RPCM Fieq 97 Heed AseB 33.1~ q266Â©9~Qi!43Â·3=f :9.,;2 1/1 0.-JU B 1.11-9 1-1.1+U@*11 2 ; 4.-3 3. iâ‚¬â€¢S g ..... & 3 ,/ 411 9+3Â© 211 1:7127?1 9 j lar '~ 11Â·CO-: i. "i ti :.) 1.,J'::''~3~Â· ' ?iN--.6 .2 2 2.],i,1.4'307 ; ' -:AP 1. -,*u)-t-Â· i SCHWAB ROBERT SEAMAN ANGELA SEID MEL LEITCH B BRYAN Ill & JORGENSEN TED PO BOX 10363 1104 DALE AVE E ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 8161-1 906 SANTIAGO TR WYLIE, TX 75098 SEVERSON CHRISTOPHER SEYFFERT STEVEN J SHAPIRO FREDERIC M & SUSAN PO BOX 2957 PO BOX 9662 101 N SPRING ST #108 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SMITH GAILEN B & PAMELA WENDI SMITH H W 111 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 241 PO BOX 10914 PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253 SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81612 SMITH JAMES F&N LINDSAY SPRING STREET LLC STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446% 600 E MAIN ST #302 PO BOX 1112 12738 W 84TH DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 ARVADA, CO 80001 STEWART TITLE CO STEEL PARTNERS LTD TASTERS C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 590 MADISON AVE 455 RIO GRANDE PL -1ST FL PO BOX 133 NEW YORK, NY 10022 ASPEN, CO 81611 GYPSUM, CO 81637 TREDER CAROLE A TUSCANA LLC UNIT 103 OBERMEYER PLACE LLC 101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 UNIT 109 OP LLC VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1% VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC 106 S MILL ST #203 PO BOX 4913 0490 ASPEN OAK DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 WASKOW SUSAN A WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST WOODSON TOM PO BOX 4975 PO BOX 5950 101 NORTH SPRING ST #106 ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611 Â¥ 'embee=1 leed 803 JO# F..,y-*g'â€¢19..:~'1 Jecled pee:!1' @T~~ Â®09&Â§ aÂ£Wlidi/112=L IbleAV es,1 1 @0915Â®AMEI 38843 imMul ses *=*m*i 97 8~3 SIegel |eed ABleE ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE 540 E . tic fkâ€ž0 i 44 rk,ws ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 420 6.AsT 1-6 fkiNS Â«421Â£19' , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 4Â£,IDAN; Af,1,6 2r, e 5'00~el ,159.90 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. County of Pitkin ) 1, A N 9 6 8 54- 0 2%61,1 (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: v~ Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 200 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing ofnotice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26,304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signaturi 00 The foregoing "Affidavit ofNotice" was acknowledged before me this /4 day of AF,2 / L , 200_Â£ by A,17 e./4 Sc c/z--21 64 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL 51 Public Notice My commission expires: / 33 4 6 1 2 0 / b PUBLIC NOTICE RE: FIRE STATION, 420 EAST HOPKINS; THE THRIFT SHOP, 422 EAST HOPKINS: AND ZUPANCIS PROPERTY, 540 EAST MAIN ST. ~cuf- Act &6 10 2-624 COWOP ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, PUBLIC HEARING Notary Public NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing, -4553'*1 2*~ 2nd Reading, will be held on Monday, April 28, 2008, at a meeting to begin.at 5:00 p.m. before 5, 75 '000Â®40.7Â· 7, the Aspen City Council, in the Rio Grande Meeting Room, 455 Rio Grande Place, Aspen, CO, to review a COWOP Ordinance for the rede- velopment of 420 and 422 East Hopkins Street, Lots O,P,Q & R, Block 87, Parcel ID#273707330851 (Fire Station and Thrift Shop), and for 540 East Main Street, a metes and bounds 1, MEYER y , 1~ parcel, East Aspen Addition, Block 19, Parcel ID #273707324003 (Zupancis Property) for a tempo- ATTACHMENTS: .192:..........,5)fiwer dÂ» rary fire engine shelter. For furÂ·ther information, contact Ben Gagnon at the e OP,~f, City of Aspen Community Development Depart- ment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 429-2755, (or by email at beng@ci.aspen.co.us). COPY OF THE PUBLICATION My Commiss~Expires 08/10/2010 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED B Y MAIL Vt\ b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner DATE OF MEMO: February 4,2008 MEETING DATE: February 11, 2008 RE: Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Ordinance - Public Hearing, First Reading Ordinance No.3-, Series of 2008 APPLICANT: SUMMARY: Applicant requests approval of Ordinance No. Aspen Fire Protection District 23_, as the final step in a COWOP process that was initiated in January 2006. On Dec. 18, 2007, the Fire Station REPRESENTATIVE: Redevelopment COWOP Task Force voted unanimously to Leslie Lamont recommend this Ordinance to City Council. STAFF RECOIVIMENDATION: OWNER: City of Aspen Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance, which establishes the dimensions, FAR, programming and LOCATION: architecture of the redevelopment of the Fire Station and 420 and 422 East Hopkins The Thrift Shop. It also allows for the use of the Zupancis (Fire Station and Thrift Shop) Property for the temporary location of a fire engine shelter 540 East Main St. while redevelopment at Hopkins Street site is underway. (Zupancis Property) AF . CURRENT ZONING: ~0944 Â£. 2.6/ 420 and 422 East Hopkins: \IÂ«jEAT*$*-6446 4 y ... Commercial Core 2' h -4-444 al , + , 540 East Main: Commercial Core *3944*.: 4/ :, -i, and - 11*4. Â»*R. . ... 1 Service/Commercial/Industrial . 1 1 (S/C/I). - D .U, F 1 . i r K , f PROPOSED LAND USE: 420 and 422 East Hopkins: Redevelop Fire Station and Thrift . -r Shop . -t- 4Â· 1, 540 East Main: Downtown Headquarters M t.c Aspen Fire Piotection District Temporary shelter for fire engine A rendering of the new Fire Station. Please see Attachment 4 for full size renderings and additional information. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to grant approval of a COWOP- based Ordinance for the redevelopment of the Fire station and The Thrift Shop, while allowing the use of the Zupancis Property for a temporary fire engine shelter to be used during the construction at Hopkins Street. BACKGROUND: The redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station and The Thrift Shop has been proceeding through two land use reviews since January 2006, namely a COWOP review and a Historic Preservation Commission review. The Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP project was determined eligible for the City' s Convenience and Welfare o f the Public (COWOP) land use review process pursuant to Resolution 4, Series of 2006, approved by City Council on January 9,2006. The scope of the COWOP project was a redevelopment o f the Hopkins Street Fire Station and The Thrift Shop. On March 13,2006, City Council approved Resolution No. 15, endorsing the COWOP Task Force Team' s conceptual use program, site plan and building, massing and form plan for the Fire Station and Thrift Shop site. In May 2006, an election of voters within the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) was held, approving a bond issuance to fund the construction of a new substation at North 40 in Pitkin County, and for the ultimate redevelopment of the Hopkins St. Fire Station. After the May 2006 election, the COWOP Task Force Team suspended meetings while the AFPD focused on the design and construction of a new substation at the North 40 site, the completion of which is necessary prior to any redevelopment of the Hopkins Street Fire Station. In November 2007, with the North 40 substation substantially completed, the AFPD turned its attention back to the COWOP land use review for the Hopkins Street Fire Station. On Dec. 3,2007, the City Council approved Resolution No. 99 to include the Zupancis Property as additional lands under the Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP so the AFPD can use that property for a temporary shelter to house a fire engine while the Hopkins Street redevelopment is taking place. On Dec. 18, 2007, the Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force unanimously recommended that City Council approve an Ordinance that establishes the site plan, building massing and form, programming and architecture for the redevelopment of the Fire Station and Thrift Shop. The motion to approve with conditions, approved 14-0 by the COWOP Task Force, is incorporated in Section 1 of the Ordinance. MAIN ISSUES: Under Resolution No. 15, Series of 2006, City Council approved the site plan, as well as the conceptual building massing and form for the new Fire Station and Thrift Shop. The main task remaining was architectural treatment. 2 While the COWOP Task Force meetings were suspended for the balance of 2006 and most of 2007, the Aspen Fire Protection District worked through various architectural treatments, while closely involving volunteer firefighters in the effort. Once there was internal agreement on the architecture, the COWOP Task Force was reconvened on Dec. 18, 2007, when it unanimously approved the proposal by a vote of 14-0, and recommended Council approval. On Jan. 23,2008, the Historic Preservation Commission voted 6-0 to grant Final Approval to the project. (Please see Attachment D for an explanation behind the architectural treatment, and Attachment E for two [2-] visual renderings.) COWOP LAND USE REVIEW STANDARDS: Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006 identified the Standards of Review by which the project will be reviewed. They are: 4 Planned Unit Development (PUD); 4 Growth Management, to the extent determined necessary during project review; 4 Subdivision, to the extent determined necessary during project review; 4 The Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP); 4 The Civic Master Plan. Staff finds the project complies with the Standards of Review for PUD and Growth Management, and is consistent with the AACP and the Civic Master Plan. It was determined during review that Subdivision standards were not applicable for this project as the lease-holding interests will be unchanged. Staff findings with regard to Standards of Review for PUD and Growth Management are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B. A finding of consistency with the AACP is incorporated in the staff findings for PUD in Exhibit A, and findings of consistency with the Civic Master Plan are attached as Exhibit C. Staff is unsure why Resolution No. 4 did not require the project to be reviewed according to underlying Commercial Core Zone District requirements, and believes this was an oversight. However, the proposal not only complies with Commercial Core Zone District requirements as they existed when the application was made in January 2006, but also as updated in May 2007. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REVIEW: The COWOP land use review process requires applicants to comply with the procedures established in Section 26.415, Development Involving the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures or which Occur in an "H" Historic Overlay District. The Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual Approval for the project in 2006, but this approval lapsed in 2007. As a result, the proposal was required to comply with the Commercial Design Standards adopted in May 2007 as part of the HPC final approval process. The HPC found the proposal complied with the Commercial Design Standards, and established several conditions acceptable to the applicant, as outlined below. re On January 23,2008, the Historic Preservation Commission voted 6-0 to approve Major Development and Commercial Design Review for the Fire Station and Thrift Shop redevelopment. The following is an excerpt from the January 23 staff memo, followed by a list of conditions established as part of HPC Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008 (see Attachment I for a complete copy of HPC Resolution No. 2). "Staff finds that the project meets all relevant guidelines for Final and will be a significant improvement over the existing Fire Station and a great contribution to the downtown. The only aspect of the project that has not generated discussion previously is the proposed PV panels on the roof. Staff does not believe these will be visible from the street, however that must be verified with additional graphics and the panels should be moved back towards the alley as far as possible. We do have some concern with these panels in terms of the City roofscape when viewed from above. More information about the plans for a "green roof" must be provided." Conditions adopted by the HPC as part of Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008: 1. The aluminum storefront used on the Firestation structure will be clear anodized aluminum. On the Thrift Shop, the metal is to have a gray tone. 2. The East wall of the Thrift Shop requires restudy to create articulation/visual interest, to be reviewed by Staff and Monitor. 3. The Commercial Design Standard which would require an airlock for the Thrift Shop is waived because it is not necessary for this small retail space. 4. HPC supports the installation of a green roof on the building. 5. The PV panels on the Firestation are to be moved to the lower roof section, along the alley, as reviewed by HPC on January 23,3008. 6. The architects have represented the materials for the structure, but may make amendments to the textures selected for the precast concrete. Information is to be submitted for review by Staff and Monitor. There is particularly concern that the alley elevation be handled carefully so that the wall is not monolithic. 7. The paving/landscaping installed across the frontage of the site is to be as represented at the January 23, 2008 meeting and coordinated with proposed alterations to the Isis addition. 8. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 10. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 11. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter 4 addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes the COWOP land use review process was a comprehensive and appropriate tool to review this development, including representatives of relevant review agencies, neighbors and citizens. The redevelopment proposal reflects a substantial improvement to the operational function of the AFPD and The Thrift Shop, and is also a substantial improvement to the aesthetics o f the Fire Station and Thrift Shop. The addition of a museum inside the proposed Fire Station will be an outstanding public amenity, for locals and visitors alike. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends City Council approve the Ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No.3) , Series of 2008, approving the redevelopment o f the Aspen Fire Station and Thrift Shop, and allowing for the use of the Zupancis Property, with conditions, finding that the applicable standards of review have been met." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT A - Staff Findings: Planned Unit Development Review Standards EXHIBIT B - Staff Findings: Growth Management Review Standards EXHIBIT C - Staff Findings: Consistency with the Civic Master Plan EXHIBIT D - Historic Influences on the Design o f the New HQ Fire Station Faqade EXHIBIT E-Visual renderings of the new Fire Station + Thrift Shop EXHIBIT F - Council Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006 (COWOP Eligibility) EXHIBIT G - Council Resolution No. 15, Series of 2006 (Conceptual Endorsement) EXHIBIT H - Council Resolution No. 99. Series of 2007 (Addition of Zupancis Property) EXHIBIT I - Historic Preservation Commission Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008 (Final Approval) 5 ORDINANCE NO. ~ (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING FINAL LAND USE APPROVALS AND GRANTING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS STATION AND THE THRIFT SHOP COWOP PROJECT ON A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, LOTS 0, P, Q, AND, R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN AND 540 EAST MAIN STREET, A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, EAST ASPEN ADDITION, BLOCK 19 CITY OF ASPEN WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 4, Series of 2006, determined eligible for the City's development for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) review process the redevelopment of certain real property (hereinafter the "Project") owned by the Aspen Fire Protection District and the City of Aspen, and successors and assigns, for the purpose of providing a new and expanded Fire District Headquarters and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, the Project includes the Fire Station Headquarters and the Thrift Shop. The City of Aspen owns the four lots and the Aspen Fire Protection District leases those lots from the City and owns the building. The Thrift Shop subleases from the Fire District and owns their own building; and. WHEREAS, the Project also includes 540 East Main Street (known as the Zupancis property) where a temporary shelter for one first-due response fire engine will be located while the Headquarters Station is being redeveloped; and, WHEREAS, the Project's design/development team was represented by Darryl Grob, the Fire District Chief, Nancy Gensch, Thrift Shop Board, Gilbert Sanchez and Joseph Spears of Studio B Architects, Leslie Lamont of Lamont Planning Services, Inc., Dick Fenton of Fenton Construction and John Kelleher an owner's representative; and, WHEREAS, the Fire District and the Thrift Shop, as a condition of their long term lease with the City of Aspen, seek final development approval from the City Council to construct and complete the Project subject to the COWOP process and the development approvals described herein; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review process, Section 26.500 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, was created and adopted by the City of Aspen to allow the planning of projects of significant community interest, when determined necessary by the City Council according to said Section, to involve an iterative process considering input from neighbors, property owners, public officials, members of the public, and other parties of interest assembled as a formal reviewing authority of the City of Aspen Task Force Team providing recommendations directly to City Council; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team was comprised of Thrift Shop and Fire District representatives, neighbors, representatives o f the City of Aspen Community Development Department, representatives of the City o f Aspen City Council, representatives of the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, representatives of the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission, representatives of emergency services of Pitkin County, and members of the citizenry. The City of Aspen Community Development Director served as the chair of the Task Force Team, in compliance with the requirements of Section 26.500 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The composition of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team was approved by the City of Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, as amended by Resolution No. 99, Series of 2007; and provided the project with a broad range of expertise and awareness of community issues; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP review process enabled the planning and design of the Project to reflect essential community goals and values, taking into consideration various opinions and expressed points-of-view from neighbors, land owners, citizens, and technical expertise from various professional staff of essential City, County, and quasi- municipal districts; and, WHEREAS, the COWOP land use review procedure does not and has not lessened any public hearing, public noticing, or any critical analysis or scrutiny of the project as would otherwise be required; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team met five (5) times to consider the Project; to identify the goals, objectives, and physical, financial, legal, and public policy issues and parameters of the project; and, to guide the programming, planning, and design of the project on the following dates: January 12, 2006; January 19,2006; January 26,2006; February 23,2006; and, December 18, 2007; and, WHEREAS, Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team meetings were open to the public. Notice of the meetings in 2006 and the meeting in 2007 were published in The Aspen Times newspaper. Meeting summaries were produced and adopted by the Task Force; and, WHEREAS, the Project design/development team met with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) five (5) times on the following dates: January 11, 2006, January 25, 2006, February 22, 2006, November 14, 2007, and January 23, 2008 to review the Project because the Headquarters is within the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, the HPC granted Final LIPC approval to the Project at their January 23,2008 meeting pursuant to Resolution No. 2, Series of 2008; and, WHEREAS, the HPC granted a waiver to exceed the maximum 60' length of continuous element/roof height to 76' for this project; and, 2 WHEREAS, on March 13,2006 City Council reviewed the progress of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Project during a duly noticed public hearing and unanimously endorsed the direction of the planning and recommendations of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, pursuant to City Council Resolution 15, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, voters approved a bond issue election in May 2,2006, to fund a two part Fire District improvement program of which redevelopment of the Headquarters is one part; and, WHEREAS, on December 3, 2007, the Aspen City Council approved a temporary use permit for a temporary shelter for the first-due response fire engine at 540 East Main Street Pursuant to Resolution No. 99, Series of 2007 and City Council appointed new task force members to the Fire District COWOP Task Force Team; and, WHEREAS, redevelopment of the Fire Station Headquarters and the Thrift Shop will increase the square footage of each entity thereby enhancing their programs and operations and facilitate an overdue upgrade to the facilities; and, WHEREAS, the enhanced Headquarters will provide improved office space, a larger garage for the storage and maintenance of emergency vehicles, improved public space for community meetings and emergency management operations, a museum for the display of Fire District memorabilia and a central location for city and county IT Network servers: and, WHEREAS, the Thrift Shop enhancements will increase the retail and display space and basement storage space, add offices and improve the drop-off and sorting areas; and, WHEREAS, the Project is consistent with the Civic Center Master Plan which recommends improvements for both entities so they may continue their traditional contributions to the community in their historic locations which add to the civic presence within the community and the commercial core of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the Project has benefited from the COWOP Task Force Team's dialogue regarding community goals that could be achieved by this community project. The inclusion of affordable housing, free-market housing, public parking, and City offices were items discussed by the Task Force and for critical reasons related to security and space all four were deemed unsuitable for this project; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team determined that additional floors above the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop should not be designed or entitled as part of this project but the building shall be structurally designed and built to accommodate future floors when and if the organization(s) require more space for reasons to be determined as changed conditions in the community may dictate; 3 and any such future additions will be subject to a land use review process defined at the time of review in the future; and, WHEREAS, Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team agreed that 540 East Main Street was an appropriate location for a temporary shelter for an emergency response engine for the duration of the redevelopment of the Headquarters; and, WHEREAS, during a publicly noticed meeting of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team on December 18,2007, the Task Force Team recommended, by a vote of fourteen to zero (14-0), that City Council approve the Project as it was represented during the December 18,2007, meeting; and, 'Â·â‚¬24&1112111"/13**43%:*BL#'Milf 0. 7 i '8 4 , -44*~ ..,44 .~a , . lA; #:Ar?:L: -a 45* 0Â«9- \<F, .1,1 j * d k AD . A I./ iÂ·Â· . _91 I : 14 - 4.1 1 1 47. m : .:ci 2 ., I 1 1 1 1 r.~ il 4 A 1 , Aspen Fire Protection District B Downtown Headquarters ~ r eGIS WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team adopted a recommended motion to City Council related to the Project; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.304 and 26.500 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny all requisite land use approvals necessary to grant a development order for a proposed development determined eligible for COWOP land use review upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director and consideration of comments offered by the general public at a duly noticed public hearing; and, 4 ./.- . I lh, 4.' r.l WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed development in consideration of the recommendations of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, the requirements of the land use code, and comments from applicable referral agencies and has recommended approval of all necessary land use approvals for granting a development order for the proposed Project including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Final PUD Plan approval, Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility for the Project, a temporary shelter for a fire engine on 540 East Main Street, and vested rights; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan and the recommendations o f the Civic Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and wel fare; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the first official community action for the Project will be a community celebration titled the "Wrecking Ball," sponsored by the Thrift Shop. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: The Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Project is hereby granted a development order for a site specific development plan and granted all necessary land use approvals including Final approval of a COWOP Land Use Review, Final PUD Plan approval, Growth Management approval for an Essential Public Facility, the temporary use of 540 East Main Street, and vested rights subject to conditions of approval as described herein. Section 1: Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team Findings The Aspen Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team recommends approval to the Aspen City Council for the redevelopment o f the Fire Station and the Thrift Shop finding that: 1. The redevelopment is consistent with the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan in that both entities will be expanded and will remain downtown thus preserving their civic presence within the community. 5 2. The COWOP Task Force supports the mass, scale and dimensions of the redevelopment as presented to the COWOP at their meeting on December 18, 2007 clari fying that the square footage of the Thrift Shop is net square footage. 3. The COWOP Task Force approves of the use program for the site and the gross square footages as presented to the COWOP at their meeting on December 18, 2007 recognizing that from design to construction square footage does shift slightly. 4. The redevelopment is compatible with the immediate neighborhood and the downtown area. 5. The COWOP Task Force approves of the design elements as described at the COWOP meeting of December 18,2007. 6. The Aspen Fire Protection District is an essential public facility. The expansion of both the Fire Station and the Thrift shop will not generate additional employees. Both entities depend upon volunteers to support their organizations. 7. The COWOP Task Force approves of the use of the Zupancis property for the essential service of a temporary fire engine shelter from March 2008 to December of 2010. In the event that the Zupancis/Galena Site Plan development of the Zupancis property should begin before the end of the shelter's term, the City shall work with the Fire District to find an appropriate alternative site that would allow the relocation in a timely manner without compromising public safety. 8. The COWOP Task Force understands and endorses the potential future need for an additional floor on the Fire Station and/or Thrift Shop. In the current plan, the structure will be designed to support future development and the Fire District and/or Thrift Shop may seek additional land use approvals when a use program and design have been defined in the future, and according to land use requirements at that future time. 9. The design/development team explored the opportunity to provide a basement under the truck bays in the Fire Station and presented to COWOP that it is not feasible. The COWOP supported that conclusion. 10. The first official action for the commencement of destruction of the Thrift Shop is . the Wrecking Ball to which the COWOP task force is invited to attend. Section 2: Adoption of Findings The City Council hereby adopts the findings of the Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force, as listed in Section 1. 6 Section 3: Approved Proiect Dimensions The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans: Minimum Lot Size Per Final PUD Plan Minimum Lot Width Per Final PUD Plan Minimum Front Yard Per Final PUD Plan Minimum Side Yard Per Final PUD Plan Minimum Rear Yard Per Final PUD Plan Maximum Site Coverage Per Final PUD Plan Maximum Height Per Final PUD Plan Min. Distance between buildings Per Final PUD Plan Minimum percent open space No requirement Trash Access Area Per Final PUD Plan IOTAL: 22,980 sq. ft. Fire Station: 12.599 sq. ft. Allowable Floor Area City/County IT Server: 600 sq. ft. Other Non-lirogram spaces: 6.402 sq. ft. 40' measured from existing grade depicted on Final PUD Plan with following exceptions: Hose and stair tower: 50' Maximum Height Elevator enclosure: 54' Roof access hatches, chimneys, exhaust flues. solar panels. communication antennae and skylights may extend up to 10' above the roof elements on which they are located. Minimum Off-Street Parking 3 spaces on the alley Section 4: Temporary Use of 540 East Main Street The City of Aspen City Council hereby approves the temporary use of 540 East Main Street (the former Zupancis property) for a shelter to house a first-due fire engine while the Headquarters building is being reconstructed. During reconstruction all operations of the Fire District will be relocated to the recently completed North Forty fire station. However, in order to effectively respond to a call in Aspen, east of Castle Creek, it is important to station a vehicle in downtown Aspen. Many of the volunteers work in Aspen and arriving at 540 East Main Street to prepare for a call will ensure a timely response to an emergency in downtown and the immediate vicinity. A temporary use for the shelter was granted by Aspen City Council pursuant to Resolution 99, Series of 2007. However a temporary use is only permitted for a maximum of six months, with one additional six-month period, if approved. This Ordinance approves the use of 540 East Main Street for the duration of the reconstruction of the Fire Station Headquarters unless the Zupancis/Galena Site Plan development of the Zupancis property should begin before the end of the shelter's term. In that event the City shall work with the Fire District to find an appropriate alternative site that would allow the relocation in a timely manner without compromising public safety. 7 Section 5: Growth Management Approval as an Essential Public Facility The Aspen City Council hereby approves the Fire Station and Thrift Shop as Essential Public Facilities, pursuant to Section 26.470.040(D)3, finding that the proposed development is consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan; that the expansions of these buildings will not generate new employees as both organizations operate with volunteers; that there is no free market residential or commercial component to this plan; and that the project generally adds to the overall capability of the public infrastructure. Section 6: Civic Center Master Plan The Aspen City Council finds that the proposed redevelopment o f the Aspen Fire Protection District Headquarters and the Thrift Shop are consistent with the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan; and, Section 7: Final PUD Plans Within 90 days after final approval by City Council, the applicant shall record a Final PUD Development Plan. The Final PUD Plans shall include: 1. An illustrative site plan with dimensioned building locations. 2. A landscape plan showing location, amount, and species of landscape improvements with an irrigation plan with a signature line for the City Parks Department, this should include any movable planters/pots within pedestrian areas. 3. Building elevations demonstrating the general architectural character of the project, building materials, fenestration, projections, and dimensions and locations of elevator shaft head, skylights, mechanical equipment, etc. 4. A utility plan meeting the standards of the City Engineer and City utility agencies. 5. Construction details for improvements to the public rights-of-way, including the alley. 6. A grading/drainage plan with any off-site improvements specified. Any off-site improvements shall be done in coordination with the City Engineering Department. 7. An exterior lighting plan meeting the requirements of Section 26.575.150. Section 8: PUD Agreement Within 90 days after final approval by City Council, the applicant shall record a PUD Agreement binding this property to this development approval. The Agreement shall include the necessary items detailed in Section 26.445.070, in addition to the following: 1. Agreements with the City of Aspen, as described above, regarding: use of the 540 East Main Street property. 2. An estimated construction schedule with estimated schedules for construction affecting city streets. 8 Section 9: Building Permit Submission and Issuance The Community Development Department shall accept and process a building permit application upon adoption of this ordinance and prior tor recordation of the necessary plats and agreements. The Community Development Department shall expedite the permit and issue an Access Infrastructure and Demolition Permit by April 11, 2008. No permit shall issue prior to the effective date ofthis ordinance. Section 10: Building Permit Requirements The building permit application shall include/depict: 1. A letter from the primary contractor stating that the approving Ordinance has been read and understood. 2. A signed copy of the final Ordinance granting land use approval. 3. A fugitive dust control plan approved by the Environmental LIealth Department. 4. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City Building Department. Section 11: Proiect Amendments Amendments to the Project within one year of the adoption of this ordinance shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department Director and, as applicable, the Historic Preservation Officer and Project Monitor. If, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the amendment is substantial, the Community Development Director shall forward the request to the City Council for review and approval. Amendments to the project after this initial one-year period, shall be reviewed according to the procedures and limitations ofthe Land Use Code. Section12: Vested Rights The development approvals granted pursuant to Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 28, Series of 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution Number 20, Series of 2007, and herein shall be vested for a period of three (3) years from the date of issuance of the development order. No later than fourteen (14) days following the final approval of all requisite reviews necessary to obtain a development order as set forth in this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Aspen, a notice advising the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and creation of a vested property right pursuant to this Title. Such notice shall be substantially in the following form: Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a vested property right, pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described properties: 307 S. Spring Street and 625 E. Hyman Avenue, Lots D-I, Block 100, City and Townsite of Aspen, by Ordinance No. 49, Series of 2006, of the Aspen City Council. 9 Section 13: All material representations and commitments made by the Aspen Fire Protection District and Thrift Shop (the developer), pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Community Development Department, the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team, or the Aspen City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by other specific conditions. Section 14: This Ordinance shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue o f the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 15: I f 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 o f the remaining portions thereof. Section 16: That 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 17: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 11 th day of March, 2008, at 5:00 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, th by the City Council ofthe City of Aspen on the 11 day of February, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11th day of March, 2008. Attest: 10 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form: John Worcester, City Attorney 11 Exhibit A REVIEW STANDARDS: CONCEPTUAL, FINAL, CONSOLIDATED, AND MINOR PUD. Section 26.445.050, of the City Land use Code requires that a development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated Conceptual and Final, or Minor PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements. A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Building a stronger foundation for the Aspen Fire Protection District also builds a stronger foundation for the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, which is an important element of our year-round community. Including a museum within the new Headquarters Station promotes appreciation of our history and a unique experience for locals and visitors. The redevelopment of the Fire Station and Thrift Shop is: â€¢ Consistent with the 2000 Vision for the Aspen Area as follows: "Aspen needs more get-together places and public activities that naturally encourage an informal mix of our diverse population. The community must support and enhance such places, and not allow those precious to us to slip away." ' Consistent with the Community Themes of"Encouraging a more balanced permanent ,. community," and "Ensuring quality design and construction. â€¢ Consistent with the Economic Sustainability Philosophy as follows: "Essential to long-term viability is the unique, varied, high quality and welcoming experience Aspen offers to both residents and a diverse visitor population." â€¢ Consistent with the Historic Preservation Philosophy as follows: "The mission of the preservation community is based on two interlocking convictions; A desire to safeguard a broad representation of our region's cultural, natural and historical treasures; and, the belief that by promoting appreciate of our history we maintain a " 'sense of place' and a sense of community ... â€¢ Consistent with the Design Quality Goal of, "Making every public project a model of good development on alllevels, from quality design to positive contributions to the community fabric." 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The Fire Station has been an iconic presence at this site since the 1950s, and The Thrift Shop is a quasi-retail store in the downtown commercial core. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect thefuture development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This area is effectively fully developed, and the Fire Station is an essential part of the public safety infrastructure for a historic downtown. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt.from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with,.final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The Community Development Director has determined both the Fire Station and Thrift Shop to be Essential Public Facilities. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirementsfor all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expectedfuture land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposed height is 40 feet, or two feet below the maximum in place when this land use application was submitted. The proposal features a change in height from the fire station to the thrift shop, which reflects a traditional mixture in heights within the commercial core. b) Natural or man-made hazards. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, as there are no natural or man-made hazards in this area. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and signi.ficant vegetation and landforms. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, as this proposal is in a fully developed urban area. dj Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The PUD Amendment reflects a minimal change from existing conditions regarding these elements. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate andÂ®vorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The site coverage of this proposal is driven mostly by the requirements for an extra-wide sidewalk area allowing for maneuvering of fire engines. The design has retained elements of the existing "pocket park" outside The Thrift Shop and Fire Station entrance. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non-residential land Uses. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There is no change from existing conditions. Parking spaces reserved for volunteer firefighters are typically used to respond to the station as part of emergency response. b) The varying time periods ofuse, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, as the joint use of common parking is not proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportationÂ®cilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The site is located one block from a major transit route. dj The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The site is directly proximate to the commercial core and general activity centers. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud.flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 4 The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. dj The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural.features of the site. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The proposal does not request a reduction in density. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible -with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This proposal does not request an increase in density. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This proposal does not request an increase in density. 4 The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses. and characteristics. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This proposal does not request an increase in density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The existing concrete block design and materials used in the existing Fire Station and Thrift Shop buildings do not contribute to the identity of the town as much as the culture of the volunteer department itself. The AFPD is more about culture than masonry. The new design be an visual improved symbol of a fire station. The historic silver bell will be retained on site. 1. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Structures are aligned in the traditional mode found in the downtown core. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The site coverage of this proposal is driven mostly by the requirements for an extra-wide sidewalk area allowing for maneuvering of fire engines, establishing an urban context for a fire station. The design has retained elements of the existing "pocket park" outside The Thrift Shop and Fire Station entrance to ensure visual interest. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. There is appropriate access for emergency response vehicles. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. The proposal will comply with all relevant code requirements. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Site drainage is adequate and is not expected to change significantly. 1. For non-residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatictunctions associated with the use. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Buildings are aligned in the traditional form for the commercial core. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility ofthe proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply -with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment ofexterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety ofornamental plant species suitable.for the Aspen area climate. Staff Finding: Staff finds this proposal complies with this standard. Vegetation is planned to retain a portion of the existing "pocket-park," and the Parks Department must sign off on the Final PUD Plan. 1. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The historic silver bell will be retained on site. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape.features is appropriate. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. A Landscape Plan must be submitted and approved by the Parks Department prior to building permit issuance. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard is to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City -while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a buildingfor its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The architecture reflects the history of the department with direct references to 19th century downtown fire barns. The architecture is a marked improved from the existing 1950s concrete block structure. The Historic Preservation Commission has given Final Approval to this plan. 1. incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less-intensive mechanical systems. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This property has a north-south orientation. Many elements, including mechanical systems, are driven by the functional needs of a fire station. 3. accommodate the storage and shedding ofsnow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, as the proposal does not include pitched roofs. On-site snow storage will not be required. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference Of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site,features, structures, and access -ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The lighting will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up-lighting ofsitefeatures, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The development will comply with Section 26.575.150, Outdoor Lighting, of the Land Use Code. Compliance with said sections will provide consistency with this PUD review standard. Any lighting installed will not cause direct glare on or hazardous interference of adjoining streets or lands, and a lighting plan will be submitted for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual reliefto the properly's built.form, and is available to the mutual benefit ofthe various land uses and property users of the PUD. Staff Finding: This requirement does not apply as the proposal does not include common park, open space or recreational areas. 1. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. Staff Finding: This requirement does not apply as the proposal does not include common park, open space or recreational areas. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance Of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against.future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Staff Finding: This requirement does not apply as the proposal does not include common park, open space or recreational areas. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public thcilities associated with the development shall comply with the,following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. This development will improve the capability of public infrastructure due to the redevelopment of the fire station. Also, space is being provided as central location for the City/County IT System. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost Of the developer. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. Any adverse impacts on public infrastructure will be paid for by the AFPD. 3. Oversized utilities, publicfacilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. All utility improvement will be sized according to the requirements o f the respective utility companies. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose ofthis standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. The fire station is locate on East Hopkins. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no changes regarding vehicle access, parking or intensity of use. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections co, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no changes to historic pedestrian uses, there are no recreational trails or access to public lands. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no specific City o f Aspen plans regarding recreational trails, or pedestrian and bicycle paths in this area. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private o-wnership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no private streets in this PUD proposal. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots -within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard. There are no security gates, guard posts or entryway expressions proposed. J. Phasing of Development Plan. , The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property 0-wners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. Ifphasing ofthe development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Staff Finding: No phasing plan is proposed. 1. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants ofinitial phasestrom the construction of later phases. Staff Finding: No phasing plan is proposed. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment ofimpactfees andfees-in-lieu, construction ofanyfacilities to be usedjointly by residents ofthe PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding: No phasing plan is proposed. Exhibit B GROWTH MANAGEMENT: ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES Section 26.470.090(4), of the City Land Use Code gives City Council authority to approve, approve with conditions or deny a development application based on the following criteria. This section requires a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, a P&Z recommendation is not required under the COWOP process. a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public .facility project. Staff Finding: The Community Development Director has determined the primary use of tile Fire Station to be an Essential Public Facility due to its public safety mission. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use of The Thrift Shop to be an Essential Public Facility due to its provision of basic necessities to a significant segment of the local and working local population. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. C. City Council Review (Growth Management) Staff Finding: The Community Development Director recommends waiving any affordable housing requirements due to the promotion of civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. In addition, neither the Aspen Fire Protection District nor The Thrift Shop anticipate hiring any new employees, as both organizations are primarily supported through volunteer workers. Exhibit C CONSISTENCY WITH THE CIVIC MASTER PLAN Under Section 26.104.030 of the City Land Use Code, Comprehensive Community Plan and Other Plans, Guidelines, or Documents, the City Council may adopt supplemental plans as regulatory documents. The Civic Master Plan is a regulatory document adopted by Council and any land use application for the Fire Station and Thrift Shop site must demonstrate consistency with the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan. The Civic Master Plan recommended that, during the design process fbr the renovation of the Hopkins Street Headquarters Stations, the Aspen Fire Protection District should consider: â€¢ The civic nature and central location of the building; â€¢ The iconic quality of the AFP D and its members: â€¢ The value of pedestrian and public interaction. Staff Finding: Staff finds the application has demonstrated consistency with this recommendation. The new fire station will be located at the current site, the architecture reflects the iconic quality of the AFPD and its members and the sidewalk configuration and museum encourages pedestrian and public interaction. The Civic Master Plan found that: â€¢ The Thrift Shop is an Aspen institution that provides an important service for lower income residents and workers that no one else provides, while donating proceeds to local non-profits and student scholarships. â€¢ The central location of The Thrift Shop supports its overall mission, as many of its customers use public transit. â€¢ The Thrift Shop relies on subsidized rent and could not carry out its mission if it had to pay retail rental rates. â€¢ The simultaneous renovation Of the AFPD Headquarters Station and The Thrift Shop is an opportunity to create a vibrant mixed-use area. Staff Finding: In the absence of recommendations regarding The Thrift Shop, staff finds the application has demonstrated consistency with these findings. The AFPD has worked closely with The Thrift Shop to coordinate the redevelopment efforts and to create a vibrant mixed-use area. 'FY 11 \E IT P HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON THE DESIGN OF THE NEVV HQ FIRE STATION FACADE The design of the new HQ fire station for the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department is inspired by the values and traditions of the men and women who dedicate themselves to the protection of life and property in our community. The architecture of the new HQ fire station reflects the history of the th department with direct references to their 19 century downtown fire barn. The details of these references are interpreted in a contemporary way to accommodate modern construction materials and methods as well as current costs. The building connects the true 19th century history of the volunteers to their evolving mission and the technological -i advances of the 21St century. The resulting architecture is - - - Â·--~ I--7- - -19219Â«Â¢-> 159Â©,Â» C 'fl--124: i D -47. 1.- I . a bridge across the past to the present and onward to -I -: . ?0 4- .G~Uâ‚¬-Ii-2~426%29Â· the future ofthe AVFD. - - -:h f Z.7-Â«ti-4.22Â«-i:J~.4 .lu -Â·**St;ikÂ·Â·66.-Â«-v -4 5.--0/ 647l k i-'- - -24*â‚¬94*44 - In the 1890's, the fire . , - a . ;15 j â‚¬. I.â€¢- . department's hand-drawn b ..040{74. tr.J. iÂ» =. carts were stored on the I , 21 Â· 4166&77-, 4'f.*Alzl=, ground level of a building 154#i# -48*434 f.1021rl4 1 1*,111.1 1- that also housed the Aspen * ' 7- 1-*W,.1,~'1%W,;LZ- Â· r City Hall. This was located ~~ 4* - 32* at the intersection of Durant Â· and South Mill Streets just =.111- 1 A .4% Iuj-f-,F~~~â€¢R~~Â·~; ~-~-I-.: 2.- - z --. t north of the original fire tower from the 1880's. The combined City Hall/Fire Barn of 1892 and 1907 are pictured below. The proposed building program reintegrates the functions of the fire department with civic uses on the upper level. The apparatus bays were sized for the hand-drawn carts in the 1892 21*.:.:r:-2Â· Â£:c-1:---6-.:cy*21â‚¬*.-'2--+~'6=:-~ building at the far left. -G--&Â£.)(#ET';. =.=#Z-7~t. - - . t.%Â·AlÂ·Â·. A' 094'kn.feEM=t-29:il#$&4**0~ Later, when horse-drawn .... . 9 1.,1-*'t.'~:I:t~~0ti:~36Â·:,2#28*i.*1-:-.~--eÂ·- *52=.r: *1*< I,~ 44%~,~#*A~.*,*1~I~.9.-*0f941 34<55X0~44i*3~. -~ carts were introduced, ...~.-- +-F: j~~i~ .:-:1: Â· '.:Fil;~*i.FO.%%7*reti' 11 the structural columns 1.-- -4.-i~:-- ~I $--4-3. ~ ' were modified to 1 1.....1 :11 i 'FÂ¥1 1.-2-.2/ If* .... j :Â·.r.tlil:.L d 4.6 L _12Â£ provide bays that could -Li~jiÂ¥>1 -23~3â€¢~ J -0-L :<71 ij F ,1214 accommodate the larger - ' ~ apparatus. The photo at ~*2*j-<4&-ft#p : i Â·Â·Â· --, i Â£ k i.----...... . ......_ left also reveals that the ~1 4 '7-%,- *. ~1< ~~ ~ , bays were enclosed with 2 -- & 7 r rm .b 01 - ?. 0 41.01. 1* - C, 114 stairs were relocated --' -I.-I......./ 3 outside the original I. building's west wall. The proposed fagde of the new HQ fire station is derived from historical design elements of the fire department's 19th century downtown fire barn. These components refer to a true, documented physical history of Aspen rather than conjecture or models from other regions or cities. In this way, ~ 10/- 3-2-J. -iLL,-2-t--1--1- - : ...it-----[Tt-~ -1 - 23 - *t~*fgjm J - +Ime,-3/HA 2*0*%1 '0*.TI&1U1#~ !5~Z_ktar*,Enaf-- /1~iFIR/i~%/ ThWBBI ~ty . f Pie<WH."</44/61/ fE=it/Jitut.#Mijuicil"fimial/Ell/ â€ž. Â£ . _af Lifilife/.0/VME*HgiUy/filill'.2(1:ZS#*#Wn/1 2 91-1- 2% W* f 1 . 1 i ./ 6 ' I the new HQ fire station is an honest representation of the department's rich history while providing appropriate and functional spaces for the present and the future. Significant design features include the following: â€¢ The partnering of fire department and civic uses in one building. â€¢ Expression of the apparatus bays with exposed post and beam construction. 1.7 21 tk'.EirMS; 7728 .3.Miflir,71.- 10 1 i . 1 â€¢ Emphasis ofthe apparatus bays with recessed faeade and deep shadow lines. .m.1 orr*-1 8 M 4 1 1. ..9 %**MI Glass doors provide a visible connection between the department and the public. Arched apparatus bay doors. Volunteer's door enhances the identity of the department on the building fagade Masonry upper floor. â€¢N--6.h chÂ·a.Â· Â·. - , 1 lit... E-18 9.*--745!3:~~ Vertical, rectangular windows establish a rhythm on the upper floor. . mâ€¢ m Em mimi = Im - F 7 7 -1 4 1 2 .1 Masonry or precast concrete accents such as sills and lintels. Cornice detailing terminates the top ofthe building. A- u '7'*,i 1 1 " I, 1 t , 11 i ; d._4 STUDIO B architects ... . 9 . -L- B ~21 ~4414f: <> *b- ,~!41*11~/:f - -0 4 I - tri~,1?.1; @ 4jil:*1'.1-1,;. 1 :art.4 --7 &1 *HI ~!~~ifil~ ~i . 1 - 4 4 -, f .4. 1 =&4- , .4 4 , 414> 6 r 0 f-7.it~ L .1~ 44- U=1 - .. i. reN==jt//2-5/41 I Â· ffe/6:141;9/.I./1*,Fl'Mit)~ff / -1 ' ~ ' ~)~140,~A '107&54 -4 -AIW. It-.#10(. dI,-i.* h 'Ij;'IÂ·11.4 -ti:. Â·~1'~mil,9442,29; 4 I *il r. 1.., T '' 1% . 1-4. 162' A 2 - IF~ :14.I.1111,%-2 . 101/491 /4. 3.-4?*E ..te..... 2 - -1. m I 221+~ i , 4 . .lu.,> .2,2 I /1.f 1.-* 1 '117 12 - f -11 *- f t.4 1 K., Â» fla- L - . " I I . I. '1+8///44-*Iwi{ 91 24,. - , 11'EQI- - I e. .15Â». .... 1---~:I...f~ - 486 k -- - = 29% . Wei ...f .:.":.~~ ' . %41 A .- . 1 ; 1. 0 ..... 1 / 1.1. 101 4 **..---UM.55/2-L*..9-6 Way:.1 -hal.' /4 ./.,t /5 1 f ,/...~ -,1,4 4 i - /2*,LE 1 ... 4 --- --* . ..4 M .=121,4 1 PM~L~. f.&Al:ter 11 1; d 17 J .- 1 'f~,-Â·c i=z- ~_. 1 .. , I =--4 ' 1.. f...4...4 12 , 2, 4. t-:fr /~472+:01,./$- -- 1/ 4 i.4,?f'Â·....4.4& 4.~ jit~ 1)-% .t* 1 1< 4,4.2 Wi; 7 1--.;I,~ At:. R PPIRL,%{-er ki h 3",/~~,ijtj.3 1.2,1 = Lf , p 114'V fllk 1,4~1 KNLI~7 m 1911/i&*L216. 6%2/$51~'I .. 1 " 1 D. . .... 11 E YL, &,1 liz 4 RESOLUTION N0.4 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DETERMINING THE ELIGIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT RESONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC (COWOP) FOR THE ASPEN FIRE STATION REDEVELOPMENT ON A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN, LOTS O, P, Q, AND, R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. Parcel No. 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen for a determination of eligibility for development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare o f the public (COWOP) for the redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station on City of Aspen owned parcel known as Aspen Fire Station property, Lots O, P, Q, and R, City and Townsite o f Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property contains approximately 12,000 square feet and is zoned Public (PUB); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.500.050 of the Land Use Code, the City Council may make a determination whether a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.040 during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed development may be eligible for consideration as a project reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public, and notified in writing the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission, the date of the public hearing before the City Council at which time a determination is to be made concerning eligibility o f the proposed development; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the COWOP proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds the Standards for Determination, Section 26.500.040, for the following reasons: 1 1. The project would provide a much needed upgrade to the Aspen Fire Protection District's facilities; 2. The subj ect property is owned by the City of Aspen; 3. The project stands to be of higher quality through utilizing an interactive and multidisciplinary approach with a diverse COWOP task team, including neighbors of the project, and persons with special interest iii the property and its development. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion ofpublic health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the City Council approved, by a vote of four to zero (4-0) Resolution No. 4, Series o f 2006, on January 9,2006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 of the Land Use Code, the proposed redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station is determined to be eligible development necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public in that the project is a City project to redevelop the fire station, a type of development and land use that is necessary for the safety and welfare of the community. Section 2 Pursuant to Section 26.500.050(B)04 the procedure and standards for review of the project shall be: Process: 1. Task Force Team convenes and establishes its role, meeting schedule, meeting procedural protocol and meeting rules for the conduct of business o f the Aspen Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team. Site visit is conducted. 2. Task Force Team Chair shall be the City's Director of Community Development, or their designated representative. 3. Meetings shall be legally noticed as a public meeting and may be continued to additional meetings. 4. Task Force Team responsibilities shall include the following: â€¢ Determine and evaluate site opportunities and constraints. â€¢ Finalize specific elements of the development program. â€¢ Prepare a sample site plan including development layout, access, parking and other pertinent site components. 2 t â€¢ Prepare a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the above tasks. 5. Community Development and Interdepartmental Technical Staff Review. 6. Work sessions and a noticed public hearing shall be held with the Historic Preservation Commission to review the project against the conceptual HPC review standards. 7. Task Force Team develops and formulates recommendation to City Council. 8. Formal review and action by City Council (in public hearing). 9. City Council approves conceptual development plan for the project. Standards ofReview and Analysis: 1. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Planned Unit Development. 2. Section 26.310 Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map. 3. Section 26.470, Growth Management, to the extent determined necessary during proj ect review. 4. Section 26.480, Subdivision, if determined to be necessary during project development and review. 5. Any necessary technical design standards of utility providers shall be considered and the COWOP decision shall not supercede any non-city utility provider. 6. The Aspen Area Community Plan shall be considered a policy guide and the final recommendation shall include an analysis o f conformance with this adopted plan. 7. Asset Management Division "Affordable Housing Development Guidelines" if any affordable housing is incorporated into project. 8. City of Aspen Civic Master Plan Core Principles 1,3, and 6. Section 3 Pursuant to Section 26.500.050(B)(c), the Task Force Team shall be assigned by City Council no later than January 10, 2006. Section 4 Pursuant to Section 26.500.050(B)(d), the timeframe for the procedures to accomplish the tasks of the Task Force Team shall be March for a presentation of the initial findings and August for a final recommendation from the task force team to City Council. Section 5 The City shall pay for the cost of the COWOP task force team binders and for the City' s staff time spent in developing and reviewing the conceptual plan. The Fire District shall pay the cost ofthe remainder ofthe expenses related to the COWOP. RESOLVED, passed and approved this 9th day of January, 2006. 3 Attest: -10 5:efilic<-- I Kathryn S. l~ch, City Clerk Izfelen Kfalinki~tf3hqld, Mayor Approved as to form: /94 9 tner*6 (LJijliAVorcestbr, City Attorney 4 F A k I b '1 0 RESOLUTION NO. 15 (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE CONCEPTUAL USE PROGRAM, THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING MASSING AND FORM, AND THE COWOP TASK FORCE'S CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION AT 420 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS 0, P, Q, AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PARCEL NO. 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 4, Series of 2006, determined eligible for the City's development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare o f the public (COWOP) review process the redevelopment o f 420 E. Hopkins Avenue owned by the City of Aspen, as more fully described in said Resolution, for the purpose o f providing a new headquarters fire station and thrift shop facility; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.500.050 of the Land Use Code and the above referenced Resolution, the Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team has met four (4) times to consider the development opportunities and issues associated with developing a new headquarters fire station at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue and have, in conjunction with the Aspen Fire Protection District' s development team, developed a conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual massing and building forms for a new fire station and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, at the February 23,2006, meeting of the Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team, the Task Force unanimously recommended that City Council endorse the conceptual planning for 420 E. Hopkins Avenue that has been completed, as detailed in Section 1 of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, two (2) work sessions were held by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on the design, massing, and site planning for the proposed fire station and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission granted conceptual approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development on February 8, 2006, pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director believes direction from City Council, considering comments from the public, on the key elements of the plan, as described herein, will be beneficial to the plan and the planning process; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed and considered the conceptual planning for the proposed fire station, as more fully described in Section 1 of this Resolution, and has recommended City Council endorse the conceptual use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual building massing and form, and the COWOP task force's recommendations on the discussion issues identified in the Reso No. 15, Series of 2006 document entitled "Fire Station COW'OP- Task Force Issue Identification and Recommendations" included in City Council's packet for the regular meeting on March 13,2006; and, WHEREAS, providing input on the planning for these lands, through adoption of this Resolution, shall only be considered advisory in nature and shall not constitute entitlement of the property. Approval of a final development plan shall require adoption of an Ordinance after a public hearing and upon consideration of a recommendation from the Community Development Director and a final recommendation from the COWOP Task Force Team; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the progress of the planning for 420 E. Hopkins Avenue, as described herein, has taken and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, has taken and considered public comments at a public hearing, and endorses the planning direction, as described herein, of the Fire Station COWOP project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: City Council hereby endorses the conceptual use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's recommendations on the discussion issues identified in the document entitled "Fire Station COWOP- Task Force Issue Identification and Conceptual Recommendations" that were presented iii written, graphic, and model format at the March 13, 2006, regular City Council meeting, and hereby gives the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop direction to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final development entitlements. Section 2: Following endorsement of the direction for planning these lands described in Section 1 above, the Fire Station COWOP Task Force shall reconvene after the May bond election, if the bond is approved by the voters of the Aspen Fire Protection District, to consider final design parameters for the project and forward their final recommendation to the City Council. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of March, 2006. Attest: 11Kt. Â«Â»12Â»---~~-7 f IK~ Kathryn S. K~k, City Clerk HdfEn Kalin K.lagerkd Approved as to form: (74Lf Bugk OehIFIEWorcester, City Attorney Reso No. 15, Series of 2006 LE-9 6'6'18 RESOLUTION NO. ~~ (SERIES OF 2007) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL INCLUDING ADDITIONAL LANDS IN THE ASPEN FIRE STATION REDEVELOPMENT COWOP LAND USE REVIEW PROCESS, KNOWN AS THE ZUPANCIS PROPERTY, AT 540 EAST MAIN STREET, A METES AND BOUNDS PARCEL, EAST ASPEN ADDITION, BLOCK 19, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-24-003 WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006, the Aspen City Council determined that the redevelopment of certain lands owned by the City of Aspen at 420 East Hopkins, as more fully described in said Resolution, for the purpose of the redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station, was eligible for the City of Aspen's Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Wel fare of the Public (COWOP) review process; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Fire Protection District (COWOP co-applicant) has determined the need to include the Zupancis Property at 540 East Main St., owned by the City of Aspen, within the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP land use review, to accommodate the continuation of emergency services during the redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station at 520 East Hopkins Ave.; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.500.050 of the Land Use Code, the City Council may amend a determination whether a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of Section 26.500.040 during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering comments from the general public, and a recommendation from the Community Development Director; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team should have the authority to recommend temporary improvements to a portion of the Zupancis Property at 540 East Main St. to accommodate the continuation of emergency services during the redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station at 520 East Hopkins Ave, and recommended addition of said areas to the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP land use review; and, WHEREAS, the owner of said additional lands, the City of Aspen, has consented to the inclusion of the land to the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP land use review; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community 1 Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the inclusion of the additional described lands to the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP project meets or exceeds the Standards for Determination, Section 26.500.040, for the following reasons: 1. The temporary improvement of the additional lands at 540 East Main St. represents a phasing strategy for the continued provision of emergency services during the redevelopment of the Aspen Fire Station, at 420 East Hopkins, supporting the same basic project goals as the lands described in Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006. 2. The temporary improvement of the additional lands at 540 East Main St. would maintain a critical element of the public infrastructure, providing significant community benefit in the form of continued emergency services. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety. and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section One: Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 of the Land Use Code, the physical boundaries of the Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP land use review are expanded to include, in addition to the lands described in Resolution 4, Series of 2006, the Zupancis Property described as follows: East Aspen Addition, Block 19, Lot 9 & Lot 10, part of Lot 8 also M/B Section, Township, Range: 7-10-84, Parcel I.D. # 273707324003. Section Two: The Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team shall be augmented to include Alison Agley, a representative o f the City' s Historic Preservation Commission; Pam Cunningham, a representative o f the Aspen Fire Protection District; Courtney Lord, a representative o f neighboring properties; and Susie Krevoy, a representative of neighboring properties. ,-h RESOLVED, passed and approved this<~ day of /~~Â«Â·~C/'14~r 2007. Attest: 64 A ' ' ~ Michael C. Ireland -64 0/u f Kathryn S. I~dch, City Clerk Approved as to form: , / < //1/44-2 e : 0 i 2 EXHIBIT A Update: Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Roster Name Affiliation TeFFe City Council J.E. Devilbiss City Council Steve Skadron :12&0 City Council Dwayne Romero AFPD Board City Council Pam Cunningham AFPD Board Mike Haisfield Volunteer Firefighter Dylan Johns P&Z Sarah Broughton HPC Alison Agley HPC Nancy Gensch Thrift Shop ~ Jack Wilke Citizen Marcia Goshorn Citizen Cinthia Andrews Citizen Chris Kiley Citizen Tim Semrau Citizen Sam Houston Isis Courtney Lord Susie Krevoy Isis Rob Snyder Kandycom Building Rich Walker Ambulance Service Ellen Anderson Pitkin County Chris Bendon City Community Development ExtjifiT I RESOLUTION NO. 2 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420/422 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, THE ASPEN FIRE DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN HEADQUARTERS AND THE THRIFT SHOP, LOTS O, P, Q, AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen Fire Protection District/The Thrift Shop, represented by Studio B Architects, has requested Major Development and Commercial Design Review (Final) for the property located at 420/422 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots O, P, Q, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for approval of Commercial Design Review, HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine if the project conforms to the criteria of Section 26.412 of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated January 23,3008, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines had been met and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on January 23, 2008, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 6 to 0. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC hereby grants Major Development and Commercial Design Standards (Final) approval with the following conditions: 1. The aluminum storefront used on the Firestation structure will be clear anodized aluminum. On the Thrift Shop, the metal is to have a gray tone. 2. The East wall of the Thrift Shop requires restudy to create articulation/visual interest, to be reviewed by Staff and Monitor. 3. The Commercial Design Standard which would require an airlock for the Thrift Shop is waived because it is not necessary for this small retail space. 4. HPC supports the installation of a green roof on the building. 5. The PV panels on the Firestation are to be moved to the lower roof section, along the alley, as reviewed by HPC on January 23,3008. 6. The architects have represented the materials for the structure, but may make amendments to the textures selected for the precast concrete. Information is to be submitted for review by Staff and Monitor. There is particularly concern that the alley elevation be handled carefully so that the wall is not monolithic. 7. The paving/landscaping installed across the frontage o f the site is to be as represented at the January 23,2008 meeting and coordinated with proposed alterations to the Isis addition. 8. HPC staff and monitor must approve any changes with regard to the type and location of exterior lighting fixtures by reviewing a plan prior to wiring, purchasing, or installing the fixtures. 9. Information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available. 10. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor, or the full board. 11. The conditions of approval will be required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 12. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 23rd day of January, 2008. Approved as to Form: Jim True, Assistant City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Michael Hoffman, Chair ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk Fire Station COWOP Meeting #4 Agenda February 23,2006 Noon - 1:30 PM I. Welcome from the Chair- Chris Bendon (5 min.) II. Review and Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting- James Lindt (5 min.) III. Presentation of Updated Plan and HPC Conceptual Approval- Gilbert Sanchez (15 min.) 1 -' IV. 4-Bay vs. 3-Bay Scheme- Darryl Grob and Gilbert Sanchez (15 min.) 4 V. Public/Task Force Comment on 4-Bay Scheme and Consensus Vote- Chris Bendon (10 min.) VI. Review Written COWOP Recommendations- James Lindt (10 min.) VII. Public/Task Force Comment on Written COWOP Recommendations and Consensus Vote- Chris Bendon (10 min.) VIII. Wrap-Up Discussion- Chris Bendon, James Lindt (10 min.) IX. Adjourn Fire Statiori COV\/OP Meeting #3 Agenda January 26,2006 11 AM - 2 PM I. Welcome from the Chair- Chris Bendon (5 min.) Il. Review and Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting- James Lindt (5 min.) III. Presentation of Updated Plans and Clarifying Questions- Gilbert Sanchez (35 min.) IV. Public/Task Force Comment on Updated Plans- Chris Bendon (15 min.) V. Lunch Break (20 min.) VI. General Task Force Discussion/Public Comment on Conceptual Massing and Building Footprint- Chris Bendon (10 min.) VII. Recommendation to HPC on Conceptual Massing and Building Footprint- Chris Bendon (10 min.) VIII. Issue Follow-Up A. Feasibility of Basement under Fire Apparatus Bays for Emergency Service Personnel Parking or Other Use- Gilbert Sanchez, Darryl Grob, James Lindt (20 min.) Al.Public/Task Force Comment and Consensus Vote on Basement under Fire Apparatus Bays- Chris Bendon (15 min.) IX. General Task Force Discussion on Overall Use Program- Chris Bendon (10 min.) X. Public Comment on Overall Use Program- Chris Bendon (10 min.) XI. Wrap-Up Discussion- Chris Bendon, James Lindt (20 min.) XII. Adjourn Bouler ' 9)[UPLIL Â·epuabe 343 03 sabuewo IO 94116noul IeuoTUIPpe aAew noi JI MOU>[ OUI laI ageaId < VvvvVVVvvvVVV 'UVY. .3. LVVU 7. 3'tAm 41 I I VI nui . 1, A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMM[SSION (RPC) r APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420/422 E. HOPKINS AVENUE, THE ASPEN FIRE DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN HEADQUARTERS AND THE THRIFT SHOP, LOTS O, P, Q, AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 3, SERIES OF 2006 PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen Fire Protection District/The Thrift Shop. represented by Studio B Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for Ibe property located at 420/422 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots O, P, Q, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed. enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or di StIiCt until plans or sufficient information have been subtnitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review:" and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff reporl dated February 8,2006, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines had not been Inet, and recommended continuance, and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 8,2006, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 3 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at 420/422 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots O. P, O, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the following conditions: 1. Studythe setback relationship ofthe circulationspine voiume and the Thrift Shop volume with varying degrees of cantilevering, and study the setback of the Fire Department entry doors. f 3 .V T. JÂ· L v V V / , 7 13 11'1 .41 Vi L APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the Nth day of February, 2006. Approved as to Form: __21 1 JL DaviA Hoefer, Assistantitity Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Â«104--- Jeffr~'tiferly, Chair ArrES-hJ liaÂ« Fyti64Â« Kathy Strick}hnd, Chief Deputy Clerk Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 26,2006 Chris Bendon chaired meeting. James Lindt, Dwayne Romero, Rich Walker, Gilbert Sanchez, Darryl Grob, Jeremiah Dancy, Pat (Fenton Construction), John Keleher, Marcia Goshorn, Nancy Gensch, Cynthia Andrews, J.E. DeVilbiss, Anne Foster, Jack Wilkie, Jason Lasser, Dylan Johns, Sara Broughton, Amy Guthrie, Leslie Lamont present. Presentation of Updated Plans: Gilbert showed adjustment to program noting key change to 4th floor as future build out to retain potential for future (7500 square feet) and basement space from lot line to lot line (approx 7000 square feet). COWOP process added (underneath district office) museum educational component and community room emergency ops. Numbers now total gross area at 40,071 square feet and Gilbert asked for confirmation of programs today. Conceptual diagram represents 40,071 square feet to be further defined and adjusted. Gilbert showed diagrams with parking space underneath bays, without lower level parking but basement space; ground level 3 bays, circulation spine, thrift shop, parking spaces along back and loading drop off area for Thrift Shop; 2nd level has higher Volume Of apparatus bays and shift quarters behind, museum educational component and Thrift Shop and provides covered element over parking spaces; 3rd level accommodates district office, community room and emergency ops room; 3 levels accommodate current program and anticipated future needs would go on 4th level at 7000 square feet, Plaza COWOP discussion concluded some compromised location would provide best solution to retain street front, green space, rock and bell for generous public space. Gilbert showed he could provide textured pavement distinctive from sidewalk and street. Gilbert stated HPC desired front doors to face street. Location of Thrift Shop front door was changed to come off street. Gilbert indicated relationship with seating area in front of Zele, activity generated in fire station plaza, and ISIS plaza in front of stair tower addition. Gilbert studied 3 story and 4 story versions and asked for HPC comments. Jason commented 4 story issue was to think 10 years ahead and with no program going in there they asked Darryl's preference and Darryl indicated the smaller would be better. Jason stated HPC discussed what looked better and how plane of 4 story sat on top of second story and whether 4 story should sit stacked above cantilever 3rd story or back like ISIS does. Will that affect view plane? HPC didn't reach consensus as 4th story is make believe right now. Jason further stated HPC discussed urban space created below cantilever museum issue and people entry into new fire station and drawings today were different from last night. HPC discussed depth of doors and was that conforming to public space as COWOP desired. Looks like changes reflect 4 feet, and reduced depth of cantilever experience as you walk under museum piece entry. Thrift Shop door was moved in front and Jason thinks it's a good change and is successful solution. HPC discussed wall on ISIS and other side and no conclusion. HPC also discussed placing bell underneath cantilever inside museum. Sara added HPC open to idea of hitting middle ground with setback which is 100% against guidelines but were open to compromise. HPC looked at idea with 3 bays and band width of building narrower. Her personal feeling is (in terms of HPC guidelines) 4th story pulled out and aligned with cantilever is keeping with what HPC wants to see in urban historic core. If planning to structurally provide for the future, that is the direction she would ]ike to see it go and that is what is represented in the model right now. Not impacted by any view plane. Gilbert concurred. 4th floor is 43 feet high and stair tower at back serves circulation, roof access and siren. Back comes up to 54 feet high. Another element is 3rd floor above Thrift Shop. Sara commented exterior stair could be used. Gilbert some structure would have to hold siren up. James asked if tower on 3 story scheme would be shorter. Gilbert concurred and stated if 4th story was ever built stair would have to be extended and question of support for sirens. Gilbert added there was discussion of whether it was appropriate to comply with 4th floor up to base of 3rd floor. His argument was 4th floor being smaller and set back would have no visual impact from street scape. Amy added you need to engineer so however resolved in 10 years, have shutdown options, to handle lined up or set back. Dwayne commented it is possible. Jason thought easy to stack up with garage door below. Darryl stated provisions could be made in point loading. Chris asked Gilbert for direction of whether 4th floor is in future. Darryl stated merit in awareness of potential for use of 4th floor, not asking for approval. Jason added if we engineer building to support we have to make the decision of where we are going to put it or have idea where it's going to go. James stated (entitlement issue) its important COWOP provide discussion now for potential 4th floor. Could be need for 4th floor in future if Fire District has need for space and identified use program; maybe we should take consensus vote acknowledging there is possibility for 4th floor in future, it should be structurally developed for three floors so that it could accommodate additional level JE asked if there was an argument against not engineering building taking to 4th 9 floor. Chris asked if anyone has concern about looking at 4th floor regardless if in middle or up to fagade of building? Bruce responded from an economic perspective, the inclusion of additional structural engineering and stress for building structure is a cost FD has to incorporate into estimating. Today they don't have program that requires or needs 4th floor and are willing to entertain what additional costs the structural install means. Its good for public and FD to have flexibility and put in record today, and FD would be comfortable trying to absorb engineering and costs for super structure for the future but are stressed and tapped financially. Gilbert showed images illustrating 3 story scheme view from Galena down Hopkins. Chris questioned should FD stress building for potential 4th floor as part of this approval? Is there of opinion about 4th floor being up to front or recessed? Gilbert and Bruce agreed with those questions. Gilbert wants to know if FD is intent on being prepared for some future development. With no direction they would pay for entire footprint of structure to accept 4th floor, but if opinion not to fill out footprint, then potential to save money and only structure part of building that 4th floor seems reasonable for. Chris mentioned the risk is any board has concern about binding future Council. Sarn stated if COVJOP voted to stress back half of building today but not apply for 4th story today and save money today, he would vote for stressing it back. If vote would be to stress whole floor today, he would vote not to stress whole thing today. Jason commented if COWOP doesn't know what future needs are we can't decide how much program and have to maximize area and accommodate future needs and be covered, if setback, we are making design decision, if to front we will maximize whole thing. Chris questioned if Jason is in favor of saying structure it for maximum flexibility. Jason said we don't know now, so go the whole distance to be covered. Dylan questioned what the actual cantilever distance is right now. Gilbert responded about 5 feet. Dylan commented it makes sense to get visual relief and line up with bay doors because extra load of 5 feet will add costs to 4th floor. Dwayne stated we have to overlay financial realities of today and pointing out surcharge expense of cantilever and nominal benefit, there is a bit of a trade off. Darryl likes concept of maximizing potential to align with legacy vision, but is not sure that losing 5 feet with added expense would be significant detriment. Dylan added you can cantilever roof structure out and fill in walls around it and have flexibility. James questioned if there is a cost estimate of what difference would be now if you just reinforced the back. Jeremiah stated COWOP has to plan for mechanical and electrical requirements right now and everything in beginning should be oversized. It's not just the structure. Chris questioned if that is a big UJ numbers decision. Jeremiah stated it's a bigger number if set out. Sam and Sara stated the numbers aren't that big of a deal. Sam would agree to compromise structure above bay doors and not all way up to front. He paid for ISIS to be held back for aesthetics. This has exemption. Pat commented ISIS setback was about 20 feet. As a citizen and neighbor Sam votes for setback as free market ISIS apartments are. Marcia disagreed with idea of pushing back to same as free market as future needs and flexibility of ISIS apartment and fire department are different. Amy commented that it makes her anxious for COWOP to take firm position about where 4th floor should be as it doesn't meet HPC guidelines. Should the Fire District strive to/ be enabled to/ provide structure to accommodate a 4th floor in some independent configuration? THUMBS UP. Should this COWOP group limit where that structure is? THUMBS DOWN, Sam is Thumbs Up. Question rephrased - Should the structure be unlimited to provide for any configuration of a 4th floor? Keleher, Sam, and Rich are NO. Keleher commented his personal philosophy is he likes 3 story building a whole lot better than 4 story and HPC guidelines may be changed in 20 years and might not want buildings 20 feet tall. Rich feels it burdens fire department with having to structure 3rd story to come out over the bays and will cosi extra money From visual and cost standpoint he votes to move back 5 feet. Jason commented to change language to maximize within budget constraints and programmatic needs of fire department. Bruce added 'today" Chris agreed that enables district to do entire footprint, but this group will not make that decision. Dylan added they may still be able to bring all the way out. Chris stated The district would be enabled to structure entire floor with no lim jtation with this issue. James asked for clarification about how difficult it is to reinforce something after its built and what the difference in cost is. Pat added to go back and restructure is costly and to make use of top floor, structure should be done now. Gilbert stated the process would have to remove walls to get to structural columns, add on elements, and dig down into foundation to expand footings to support all of that. Sam disagrees and states that bringing point loads up to fire bay doors and whole rest of back is not argued and should be done no matter what. Sam stated this is a back door way to come in to do this much quicker than it's going to happen. COWOP voted affordable housing is inappropriate but foresees pressure from community. Sam stated you don't have to take loads to front of 5 feet. Pat commented it's not cost effective to do the cantilever. Sam replied you could do it later. When 4th floor comes forward it would have to prove its own merit and go through its own entitlement process for design and land use. Should Fire District provide structure in building to accommodate a 4th floor in any configuration, this vote enables them to do so. THUMBS UP (SAM) JOHN and RICH comments noted) 4 James stated COWOP should give HPC recommendation about public space in front of Thrift Shop and circulation space. HPC discussed how dark area was and whether it was quality public space. Jason concurred feedback is great. As a HPC officer now he could argue that with it pulled back that plane by the apparatus doors should be one consistent fagade and that third story should be projecting architectural elements. Gilbert balanced appropriate open space, reflecting image of park and program that Thrift Shop and Fire District require, compliance with HPC guidelines and COWOP meeting conversation for programs incorporated. Glass wall entry will have connection to pedestrian activity outside. Artifacts may be on main floor as introduction to educational components on upper floor. Hope to retain activity outside, congregate in public circulation, and provide generous access into building. Gilbert added Thrift Shop is not a true retail establishment and window display is not as important as retaining green space. Thrift Shop is more of a destination space. Nancy added it is important to recognize Thrift Shop as a store. They have dressed mannequins and wouldn't want it blocked with trees. Gilbert discussed low scale greenery Nancy wou!d want to have an inviting wide enough access with large windows as they have now so displays can be seen. Gilbert added they compromised based on conversations and modulated front to accommodate and seems to be good solution. Chris confirmed Gilbert wants guidance from COWOP to HPC about orientation of public space, setbacks, open space, green space. Gilbert added some agreement these are appropriate components to have (paved area, green space, generous entrance). Jason questioned the location of the bench underneath and where are people going to sit, sun or shade. HPC has purview over landscaping and Gilbert will continue dialogue with HPC. Is COWOP comfortable with concept, big picture? THUMBS UP James discussed seating wall on east side and discussion in HPC with its functionality and whether it would create issues with fire truck access. Darryl had no operational concerns at this point. Amy asked for clarification about green space to left or door as storage area which could theoretically be pulled forward. Jason clarified the point was to reduce overall length of apparatus door wall. Sara stated the plan shows storage closet but maybe it's a window. Chris asked HPC members if this is a big picture and response was no, it's a design for architects to look at. HPC didn't ask for direction from COWOP. HPC voted that they generally wanted open space and final formation is yet to be determined. Darryl concurred and COWOP can reconvene to fine tune design elements. James added the consensus was on general site plan and with street scape. Gilbert will have HPC conceptual review and approval about design on 5 February 8th and final review will detail elements. Sam thought previous conversation was that 4th bay was stressed so if it had to be apparatus bay it could be. Darryl said it will be addressed in fundamental engineering and have tremendous flexibility within those point loads. Gilbert stated it is narrow than full 22 foot bay. Leslie commented HPC and COWOP are informing each other in this process and firehouse is taking this to vote. What comes out of two groups is important and represents a variety of interests. Sara pointed out what was presented last night is in no way a 4th bay and questioned if we are planning for a 4th bay as it is narrow right now. Sam said first 2 meetings planned and voted yes. It would be a pity for all citizens if we didn't allow for that today and they need a totally separate site, so it should have preemptive right to get rid of the park. Darryl clarified 4 bays get awkward and have tried to make up space for what they need. Increasing depth to 56 feet gives tremendous flexibility in apparatus. Ambulances can access same egress diagonally through bay door. Fire District will always need a circulation area and have provided a maximum square footage front to rear and then side to side to give huge amount of flexibility in large open space. Darryl is not absolutely sure station should be designed to tear a segment out and add a 4th bay. Gilbert added earlier scheme with 4 bays were 18 feet wide and 3 generous bays were more flexible and adaptable than 4 substandard bays. It was determined 3 bays met any foreseeable need. JE commented May election issues does not bind City Council or suggest that he would vote the same way as he may be persuaded to vote in another fashion. Chris commented overhang above bay doors is issue for HPC conceptual review and overhang above pedestrian access is also an issue. Gilbert added circulation spine overhang issue was its effect on creating recessed entry and the response shown today addresses that. Sara would like COWOP feedback. Bruce commented it won't be cost effective. Darryl stated it serves program needs and he likes look of building. Bruce added aesthetics and program overrule and weight the costing of it. Chris added 2 overhangs should be different discussions and one doesn't dictate the other. Gilbert noted sections of guidelines and discussion of how does new building relate to historic building. Commercial Core typical building has identifiable store front and upper floors are generally distinguished from that lower floor in some way. Gilbert's modern interpretation of cornice line is to provide cantilever shadow line that is similar to deep cornice on ISIS and provides separation between street level (apparatus bays) and upper levels. Overhang is close to 18 feet as floor structure will cantilever out to support the floor. Over the pedestrian entryway right now are drawing 10 or 11 foot floors 6 and might relook at proportions. Sam stated that the cantilever of the upper public space is lower than a bay that would allow you to do anything in the future, and since future needs are unknown, stressing of 4th bay and possible 5th bay should be such that height is enough to accommodate future needs. Gilbert added there is some flexibility in approach which maximizes opportunity. Sam said it should be on record that the City, only based on the prompting of the Fire Department, should agree that condition understood is fire station has preemptive rights for future bays should they need it for community good. Chris summarized height, although lower than other bays, doesn't preclude the bay that would serve the smaller apparatus. Darryl confirmed and said that could be accommodated and respects point to have it on record. RECOMMENDATION OF SUPPORT TO HPC? THUMBS UP. Chris stated next item for discussion is feasibility of basements under fire apparatus. First half of COWOP process is giving competence for Fire Department that this program is what the program so they can put a number on it. Gilbert mentioned plan from alley lot line to front lot line and inserted parking in basernent spaces below apparatus bays and below driveway which requires ramp in from alley down. Width limits parking location and slots have specific requirements. Space is taken out for stairs, mechanical space to accommodate venti!ation equipment, and potential second means of egress along with ADA elevator makes maximum 14 to 15 spaces in 7000 square feet. In addition, negative impact on upper floor would have to carve away at support space and one of bays to provide head room for car or truck to come in or out. Contractor said $250 a square feet = $1.7 million. Darryl commented that parking spaces across street is currently landing zone for volunteer Fire Department and is a critical component of their ability to respond in timely fashion to emergencies. To eliminate that would require complete reorganization of department and eliminate need for volunteer to quickly access station to put apparatus or equipment into service. Darryl sees that discussion 20 years down the road with different department. Darryl can't argue against parking but difficulty is cost. Bruce added without accelerating or truncating discussion, this item hits budget constraints and what they can reasonably secure in what size bond to pursue. In analyzing bond size, they test to ensure volume is well supported and ties explicitly to Fire District mission. Candidly just like any public mission, there is concern about ability to succeed on mission, so it is a presented number with supporting evidence and purpose for the money. Bruce wants to ensure purpose is explicitly tied to and can be objectively supported in mission. It's clearly an order of magnitude difference of cost coupled with impact on base level program. It's discomforting what Gilbert stated about force of movement on apparatus bay area and head heights for ramping. He doesn't believe they have luxury to go to an open ended result with bond size. It's important not to overload community with perception of extravagance. Chris asked for commentary from Darryl about how trucks in alley affect 7 operation. Darryl confirmed that is service access to buildings. If parking is relied ' on, then people are "on shift" and that is different program. To eliminate immediate need for different landing zone, you have to have people on shift 24/7 and have luxury to park wherever you want. Sam and Torre spoke at last COWOP meeting that underground parking shouldn't be a burden of Fire District to finance if parking made sense. It shouldn't be part of bond issue. Sam thinks it should continue to be studied as you only get to go down once. Spots across street in small downtown are owned by City and to come up with financial solution may be beneficial. Other benefits are, if the City, who has easements under streets, agreed to extra bay under the street or alley, borders could grow under sidewalk and out. It's a rare opportunity here that might be a good idea not at Fire District expense. It might be a long term benefit to be able to have people parking underneath and to reclaim other spots. Marcia agrees with Sam's point. It's a missed opportunity if we don't dig down, but other concern is spaces out front need to stay for safety. To only have 4 parking spaces to take care of Thrift Shop and anybody in rooms upstairs doesn't cut it. City has always been short on parking spaces and won't ever find again, and agrees it doesn't need to be a part of the bond issue and there may be another way to help pay for it. This opportunity will never come again. Jason asked if elevator in garage was considered that goes down to basement and up to create parking space below and above. Marcia asked Ellen at last meeting about police and sheriff's cars parked in garage. If there are extra parking spaces they have problem of having to scrape windshields in emergency in unheated garage. From public safety point, it's a selling point for having additional space. Mike commented that being on the Fire Department he would never use spaces if he had parking across street. Alley is full 80% of time in a day and if emergency vehicles are down there and can't get out, by the time you can emergency could be done. He thinks parking is a waste of money. Jeremiah stated realistically 14-15 spaces and also losing 4 spaces up top, so really building for 12 spaces. Gilbert stated in current configuration they would not lose 4 spaces, but would lose program area. Darryl asked if function of preliminary COWOP is to establish working number, can he get a description or assurance of alternative funding sources. Chris responded that won't happen between now and when number is needed. Darryl's number was developed over time and think it is appropriate based on specific programs driven by desire to enhance ability to service mission. Darryl is struggling with merit to comments and how to integrate that to election calendar. 8 Chris responded from City's perspective there would be agreement with spaces freed up and become metered parking (value for the City) in exchange for spaces in garage. A metered space is approximately $4500 a year. If amortized, and you vacate that space, it's worth $25-30,000 to the City. Parking space in magnitude of 100-120,000 space gets 20% of parking space costs. Is that a luxury? Still have logistical issues. Darryl stated accessibility to spaces will be delayed because they are integral in way volunteer fire department delivers services. In order to vacate have to have different kind of fire department. Marcia asked where shift quarters will park since they can't park at night? Darryl agreed and said they will park in back. Dwayne said at Rio Grande presuming they are on station. Dwayne suggested with tight timeline and no financial commitment for basement program, it can be added or considered later as their need is to keep scope tight with crisp definition. Darryl concurred. North 40 is built first and officers will develop program. Inventory will be moved to North 40 and may have shift arrangement with volunteers there with first due engine still in town. During construction process, fire district intended to turn attention to town with funds in hand to pursue final configuration of headquarters. J.E. questioned necessity for having bond election in May as opposed to November. Bruce resnonded substation must be built and time is of the essence. Darryl's concern would be operationally as one of the fundamental reasons for substation is difficulty trying to deliver services to other side of Castle Creek certain times of the day and year. One reality is Fire District is not comfortable providing emergency services from Highlands to Burlingame to North 40 from Hopkins. J.E. questioned if this election will determine bond issue to build North 40 and Hopkins, whole thing? Darryl agreed. There is an Option Agreement on property triggered by election and intent is to fund construction drawings for station on own dime to facilitate its construction should bond pass. Sam agrees 100% with Dwayne and Darryl and likes fact they are open to idea if there was way to explore something with alternative funding source. Jason thinks we could vote on crisp clean idea of what we are doing, with language that says in next couple of years if that program comes up we can do that and if the City gives us money, great. Motion, if parking not in the program now, it can come back later, although funding can be from outside source. If not in program now, could be come back later. THUMBS UP. Gilbert commented they are providing 1,500 feet of basement space. Is COWOP okay with partial basement, the 1500 square feet not under the apparatus (already part of the existing program)? THUMBS UP. Sam stated the design now, the space sets it back so if ramp was in location you would be able to...small parking space doesn't go back to allow ramp to go behind it. Gilbert stated the ramp doesn't affect them. 9 Darryl commented this process has been worked internally for years and ' expressed gratitude as reality is this is a community station. Nancy added she supports program, is grateful and happy, and this has been an amazing opportunity for Thrift Shop. Program areas from bottom of list up: Utiljty areas, common, basement 1500 square feet = check Future build out 7500 square feet - 3rd floor above Thrift Shop, 4th floor above Fire Station = not part of bond issue. When take out basement parking and future build out that number will go down. 5% Include Future Build out * (*not in bond issue now) Basement parking 7000 * Program elements (Thrift Shop, District office, museum educational, community room emergency ops James asked if Fire District would be amenable for City to ask Council if they would be willing to put money towards fitting out Ops and Conference room for nice public meeting space. Darryl concurred and thinks that has huge merit. Marcia questioned the security. Sam added subject to 100% security and Ellen being happy. Darryl responded there are areas which will not have public access and ultimately entire facility has ability to escalate security depending on circumstances. Jason questioned oversized accommodations and Gilbert responded Excel takes 5% gross of building and may still want to use number to use full build out. Nancy and Jack questioned, for bond issue purposes, should footage for Thrift Shop be in. Bruce responded it won't be when budget estimates are assembled. 4,000 feet would come out. Gilbert does want to include that in COWOP though. Everybody agree with Thrift Shop number in program? THUMBS UP. 3 elements considered as one item: COWOP support for Fire District Program? THUMBS UP. Chris stated this is end of first phase of COWOP review. James stated after conceptual HPC, COWOP may want to meet beginning of April so staff can draft up recommendations and go to City Council for conceptual application review. Vote on entire program and status as presented - UNANIMOUS THUMBS UP. Congratulations given to Gilbert and Darryl for all their hard work. Gilbert has responded in a phenomenal manner and this has been great to visualize. l 0 Fire Station COWOP Meeting #2 Agenda January 19, 2006 11 AM - 2PM I. Welcome from the Chair- Leslie Lamont (5 min.) II. Review and Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting- James Lindt (5 min.) III. Update to Binder Information- James Lindt (5 min.) IV. Update from Architects on Conceptual Program Changes- Gilbert Sanchez (10 min.) V. Issue Follow-Up A. Discussion on Feasibility of Incorporating Affordable Housing into Development Program- Darryl Grob and Gilbert Sanchez (15 min.) Al.Public/Task Force Comment on Affordable Housing Issue and Consensus Vote on Affordable Housing- Leslie Lamont (10 min.) VI. Lunch Break (20 min.) VII. Issue Follow-Up Continued A. Discussion on Street Relationship of Thrift Shop and Circulation Component- Gilbert Sanchez (15 min.) Al.Public/Task Force Comment on Street Relationship and Consensus Vote on Street Relationship/Setback- Leslie Lamont (10 min.) B. Discussion on Feasibility of Incorporating a Basement- Gilbert Sanchez (5 min.) Bl.Public/Task Force Comment on Incorporating Basement and Consensus Vote on Basement- Leslie Lamont (10 min.) C. Discussion on Designing Thrift Shop for Possible Use as Apparatus Bays- Gilbert Sanchez and Darryl Grob (15 min.) Cl.Public/Task Force Comment on Designing Thrift Shop as possible Apparatus Bays- Leslie Lamont (15 min.) D. Discussion about Feasibility of Back Alley Parking- Gilbert Sanchez and Darryl Grob (10 min.) Dl.Public/Task Force Comment on Back Alley Parking and Consensus Vote on Back Alley Parking- Leslie Lamont (10 min.) VIII. Wrap-Up Discussion- James Lindt, Leslie Lamont, Joyce Allgaier (20 min.) IX , Acl J o 0001 Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 19, 2006 Fire District Leslie Lamont chaired meeting Cynthia Andrews, citizen appointee Scott Lindenau, Principal of Studio B (scottlindenaustudiob@sopris.net) Gilbert Sanchez, Studio B Darryl Grob, Aspen Fire Rich Walker, Aspen Ambulance Director Jeremiah Dancy, Fenton Construction Pat, Fenton Construction Marcia Goshorn, citizen, member of housing board Torre, City Council John Keleher Anne Foster, citizen (anneaspen@aol.com) Nancy Gensch, Thrift Shop Ellen Anderson Jack Wilkie Rob Schneider Dylan Johns, P&Z Chris Kiley, citizen (Steve Skadron, Sue Kolbe, Amy Guthrie, Sam Houston Jason Lasser, Linda McCarthy also present) Leslie Lamont (LL) welcorned everyone and James called for approval of January 12, 2006 minutes. Torre questioned task force's recollection of second half of meeting. Task force confirmed sentiments and no inaccuracies stated. Minutes approved. THUMBS UP COWOP task force list was updated. LL discussed issues team wanted Studio B to consider from last meeting. LL noted this is a public meeting and to keep discussion flowing public input time will be after discussion 5a, 7a and after 7d on agenda, then as we wrap up opportunity will be given to public for comment. Gilbert Sanchez (GS) his team further studied items from last week and met with DG and Fire District (FD) board to see what it meant from FD point of view; Dwayne was unable to join; Program sheet was revised to include museum educational component, community room, emergency opps room, additional basement space below apparatus bays which is about 5000 square feet and affordable housing (AH) 36,000 was mentioned as allowable FAR based on commercial zoning, but since four lots are publicly zoned and this is COWOP process, not restricted to FAR requirement. but GS wants to work within historical context of commercial core. Thrift Store (TS) is retail, so space changes to less than 36,000; public uses 3 tol ratio meaning FAR to square footage of property, but for retail it is 1.5 tol so half the amount of space; 31,000 square foot permitted to use under CC zoning. AH in CC zoning has no limitation in CC zoning. Using 31,000 square feet GS allowed 3,000 sq ft of housing on top of building; numbers will continue to adjust = 31,881 square feet includes program elements added in; Previous discussion was 4 bays, now 3 bays as FD future needs are already considered at North 40 currently under development. North 40 has 3 bays for future expansion that don't currently house equipment and FD has already considered things that could happen for the ABC which allows shuffling at headquarters to work better programmatically; GS showed sketch diagrams that identified how spaces would lay out three dimensionally on 4 floors of space Scott Lindenau (SL) showed layout of 4 bays; HPC work session last week agreed bays set back makes sense looking at plaza, community gathering spot; lower level would keep current TS basement, expand for mechanical storage for FD and have entertained large basement to be done later although storage and moving up and down stairs with fire equipment not pertinent; mechanical equipment and storage elevator serves both; Ground level TS wants store front and component differentiated from FD and be two story volume, FD up to three and perhaps four stories, -- 4 bays, 9 parking spots TS 3-4, FD 3-4 protected by canopy, egress at least 2 fire stairs and elevator; 2'ld level, because apparatus bays are 18 feet tall with 2 feet of structure this a double height space, TS has whole 2nd level, and in back are future dorm rooms for fireman; 3rd floor is open as museum, operations center, community gathering and offices for future; TS shows flat roof HPC suggest to step back from street and alley to put AH in 3000 square feet oil 4th floor. SL goes to HPC work session next week and this is massing, not into window materials or patterns at this point; GS discussed cardboard model with parking commodity. GS established working budget of $350 square foot, at 31,000+ square feet = $9.5-11 million dollars; basement space under apparatus bays is $1.2-1.5 million dollars calculated at smaller than $350 as its unfinished space, yet more costly because it has to support loads of trucks above. Construction of AH would be three-quarters of a million dollars to a million dollars. Big picture budget numbers Going to talk about AH, street relationship (should two elements be close to street or pushed back to reinforce street line of apparatus bays), and talking about basement and back alley parking LL asked for questions about changes and Rich Walker asked if EOC and meeting roorn are part of agenda. GS responded it is open for discussion and with confirmation will move ahead. LL added to agenda for discussion after AH. James questioned if program without AH and without reinforced bays would be $9.5 - 11 million and GS corrected it does include full 32,000 square feet of program space. Jack Wilkie questioned if GS drawing represented full depth of bays requested 52 feet and GS confirmed 56 feet deep. Jack further inquired if AH required parking and GS confirmed there is a parking requirement for each unit per bedroom. Marcia confirmed yes for each bedroom but noted exceptions in cases. GS indicated they would be seeking mitigation to resolve off site parking FLYOVER Sam asked about commenting on architecture and GS stated that will be another agenda but confirmed there will be that opportunity. GS noted HPC has interest in that topic will have conceptual and final review. AFFORDABLE HOUSING Sam questioned if we were going to hear from DG and LL confirmed we are hearing from DG and GS DG stated at last meeting his reservations about mixing public use on top of emergency services facilities and raised concerns about involving programmatic security issues that are consequence of 911; DG cited FEMA and Office of Preparedness and Security and recognized strategic process is a plan. Programs are driven by plan and goal of FD is to enhance ability to provide life safety emergency operations. Vision articulated by Dr. Ritzi at the national level is to be successful for 15 years and over time will evolve into emergency services organization. Ellen might be able to speak about issue, specifically about vision for future and concerns about evolving facilities descriptions for emergency services in future and programs fror-n federal and state level. E]len discussed compatibility of emergency operation center or housing and consensus is times have changed to plan something useful for years to come personally and professionally they are not compatible uses. She mentioned Summit County just built EOC and facility is secure and housing could be putting citizens in harms way. DG stated he considers those elements and also considers visioning process beyond plan to deliver emergency services, but is this recognition as dwindling resource of opportunity to develop? DG restated North 40 facility front half will be developed to retain development of back portion of property against the needs for next FD to determine. Inclination and indicators are that North 40 space will wind up being employee housing for FD. DG speculates on evolving mission of fire district organizations and from a visioning standpoint DG would respect ability and opportunity to retain potential developrnent opportunity at North 40 and headquarters. LL posed clarifying question about AH being in general community pool, strictly for staff, and dorm rooms in current proposal? DG responded shift quarters are common area for training. and to be successful over time, FD will move away from summoning volunteers to station because of increase in calls and risk bringing volunteer population in through traffic and crowds in commercial core and adjustment will be standing shifts. LL confirmed 2500 square feet are devoted to shift quarters as part of program. LL confirmed FD does not recommend AH for public, but that roof of 3rd floor be structural for future for FD staff housing or shift quarters. DG confirmed program includes roof engineered as a floor with utilities consolidated in a well that could be tapped into depending on needs, GS added that 4m floor space isn't part of program but design, structu:-e, and mechanical systems will anticipate 4th floor. Amy Guthrie questioned would it be possible to design 4m floor and GS confirmed. Amy stated it would be nice to see the project. GS confirmed he could use CC zoning restrictions and maximum build out of site was going to be 32,000 square feet take he could take leftover through approval process, although it is PUD zoned, and if nothing changes in future there would be flexibility to consider a bigger development. DG conceded it as an excellent suggestion and show it as a maximum build out. If it evolved into less, it could be addressed at appropriate time. Jack Wilkie asked about cost figure and what that includes or potentially includes with 4th floor. GS stated figures included housing element, but if twice that size, then numbers aren't relevant. Jack further questioned still don't know if money is there for piece and DG responded the figure trying to arrive at with bond issue is based on plan and plan is a short term program about enhancing service. Money FD is working toward is all about enhancing FD ability to provide service and beyond that is visioning project and that is where Amy's maximum build out comes into play. Torre clarified the program sheet allocates 3,000 square feet of AH so figure of $9.5-11 million would include 3,000 square feet of AH on top and would include 4th floor. That individual AH component is estimated at three-quarters to one million dollars as part of the $9.5-11 million Marcia stated her intention was for AH to be for emergency workers and mentioned Housing Board discussed how to bump up ambulance drivers on priority list. On behalf of Housing Board she indicated they would support helping and trying to find a way for FD to pay for it. John Keleher comrnented that design of 4t?. floor in year 2006 is counter productive if philosophy might change to a building we dont know what it will be in 20 years. Nancy questioned if AH on top of TS would that satisfy desire and GS responded the issue presented architecturally is providing access frorn street. Stairwells are shared by Theater and housing at ISIS. Separate stairwells eat up space and redundancy is not cost effective. Sam thinks it's a bad idea to have housing, other than dorm rooms, on top of fire station and stated his problems with housing above ISIS. Chris wanted to raise question AH above TS and believes worth exploring from design perspective because there are so few if any opportunities to provide housing for public or emergency workers, opportunity in the land of alrnost no opportunity. He remains intrigued with opportunity there even understanding operational logistical issues and safety concerns clearly paramount for this site but would like to collectively think about opportunity before taking out Ellen clarified her comments were about AH not shift quarters, her concern is shift quarters facility should be secure. 1. Is common general affordable housing appropriate above FS? THUMBS DOWN. Resolved. Off table. 2. Should GS explore opportunity of general AH housing above TS forgeneral public? James questioned DG with security concerns with AH above TS next door? DG reserved con-~ment but initial reaction is project parameters apply as a whole. TS might want to comment. SL added TS is only 24 feet wide, hallway and stair will compromise space. Nancy added shared elevator would be security issue and TS would not jump all over to have AH. Dylan stated at last meeting there was potential interest of expandability of facility for future needs which would include TS component and if still being considered we are back to issue of putting it directly over FS. Jason stated support of AH but inappropriate place especially after 9/11. Sam questioned if there is requirement to provide AH other than shift quarters and could it be done off site. James replied City Council could deem as essential public facility and there is possibility for waiver of em/ee housing mitigation, TS would expand sq footage through redevelopment and would be required to either show P&Z they are not expanding em/es or option of providing AH mitigation for additional sq footage either on site, through cash-in-lieu venue, or providing offsite unit. LL interjected this is a COWOP process and James concurred code js used as general guidelines, but City Council can waive AH mitigation requirements. LL stated iCs important for CO\NOP to consider and weigh in because recommendations are given to City Council. Nancy stated they have no employees and James confirmed they are a nonprofit organization. Nancy further questioned she is confused by possibility of firehouse going into TS as space because they are payjng for their building. LL stated that is further along agenda. 1. Expanding space above TS for general AH? THUMBS DOWN. Off table and recommendation and Council will consider recommendation. Marcia questioned if vote could state AH for just emergency services and not to general public? LL stated program structurally proposes design for ceiling of 3rd floor to accommodate staff AH in future. Ellen responded there is inherent difference between shift quarters where everyone who is in there should be there and having AH for families because you lose control of guests, children and is reluctant to say. LL questioned if that could be regulated by design of unit. Ellen responded it's a social thing and can solve architectural problems not social access. DG commented to maximize 4th floor potential for organizational needs in 20 years. LL asked from a structural design to we have a thumbs up? Torre questioned impact of costs? DG states achievable financially and is smart thing to do. Torre agrees, in light of Ellen 's comments it would never be deemed appropriate for AH for families, but offices or other utilization might be incorporated. Sam states he has stressed 4~11 floor component before and it was negligible in scheme of things. LL Concluded DG is stressing ability to plan for future legacy and could be additional shift quarters, housing. office space and would like to take housing question for 4th floor of firehouse off table and put in realm - can it be designed now and see what 4'11 floor looks like at this point for future COWOP and HPC review. DG thinks Amy's recommendation to look at massing is entirely appropriate. Jason commented as far as HPC, in 5 or 10 years jf space is needed it will help with approval process for FD. Ellen confirmed yes is for massing now not with associated uses imposed, LL confirmed. Sam questioned not designing it but would go back for future review and just a block rnass. Amy thought significant public buildings were one coherent beautiful piece of architecture and is concerned if we don't have idea right now what this might look like it ends an awkward 4111 story down the road. SL responded design should address both 3'~d and 4th floor. SL discussed function of 4th floor and stated traditionally buildings in downtown core are 1 lot wide, more significant buildings are wider. Will work with HPC for philosophy of designs and guidelines and be inventive in solution. GS questioned do we maximize footprint or design a building that will never see reality. DG stated his preference would be to maximize footprint and show community maximum impact of what mass would be. Could carry caveat with kiPC and designers that specifies this is not a blanket approval and architectural cornponents implemented in initial phase will be carried forward in some compatible fashion. 1. Design team to explore 4th floor maximum build outexpansion and come back to COWOP review and utilized in HPC as well. (without a specific use) Torre questjoned approvals at this point and stated in likelihood council would not tie a future council. DG stated point well taken. LL stated it could gain HPC approval at this point. Torre stated it could be folded into application but then eliminated at Council tables. Amy confirmed HPC could approve with condition that entitlements be granted in future. Sam commented Keleher's comrnents are right and by stressing it, it doesn't throw public in its mass without design. Amy questioned how it hurts fire station to get approval when it's only helping them in a way to preserve opportunities. Amy further confirmed HPC still wants it to maintain appearance and basic philosophies are going to be the same. James asked Amy jf she feels future design (if not entitled now as part of HPC process with Council) will be disjointed design process if not designed at this point? Amy confirmed. Marcia stated the reason for 4th floor concept now is because she's seen it happen and it should be stated as possibility for future. THUMBS UP = 1 no, 6 maybes and 9 yes. LL addressed issue of housing over TS with emergency staff. SL stated it's a fire separation, two rrieans of egress and an elevator. GS said it's more challenging than putting on bigger footprint and cost is not as efficient, but real issue is connection of ground to upper level. Without introducing two additional isolated stairs, we'll be using stair shared by fire station and something in back shared with TS, issue is how do you make vertical connection from ground to housing and maintain security that TS and FS have. Nancy commented TS issue of theft is enormous and would have concern with public access. Chris commented he understands applicability of AH for emergency services personnel and not public, but wants to know if FD thinks it should preserve (now or in the future) for additional space, future expansion and if so, it should be explored, or walk away if future program of FD space can be met elsewhere. DG responded that when TS was built this time, FD retained development right as part of the sublease in lease and reiterated that if possibility exists that potential exists for TS or FD, then should look at massing concept with HPC. DG thinks potential for additions should be looked at on top of short term 5 year plan and translate in some fashion to HPC with caveat that when it gets to Council, FD is retaining potential development 1. Design team explore another floor above thrift shop exterior fagade perspective? Nancy suggested maybe they TS will need another retail floor and possibilities might be retail, office, and some form of housing. SL stated with additional office or TS space it would be easy without the separation of stairs and elevators, but housing component adds separation. LL questioned if ceiling was designed to structurally withstand another floor, GS was not anticipating that. Torre asked Ellen if proximity of any type of housing on top of TS would be issue of concern, and Ellen opined as inappropriate for general AH but could envision for Emergency Management Coordinator's office or Fire Chief, office not residential. She would vote on concept of how to capture volume of space with understanding it would be used for people with security clearance. Torre stated his concern is it would not be appropriate for staff AH. Ellen would not extend, Torre agreed. Amy questioned office space security with public visitation, maintenance, cleaning, how can you have any use with security issue? Ellen responded she deals with it on a daily basis and there is a big difference of people who are in the business and deal with security and the general public. Rich commented ambulance quarters include shift space for 2 medics on 24 hours a day and you can't tell them the can't have friend, relative, friend or wife come by and people are in and out of building not secured and thinks shift quarters on 3fd floor will have Same problem with people coming in and out DG -- commented sliding scale of security and in normal course of operations. Guidelines state when level of activity ratchets up, then so do security procedures and facility adapts. Ellen commented Summit County has implemented this at EOC with swipe card and as dispatch can change access in seconds. LL stated goal is to give FD an understanding of what program elements are they have to build into budget forthis bond issue. 1. Explore possibility to utilize 3rd floor above TS for whatever future use it is determined works best for FD and/or TS, structurally designing that floor / ceiling to accommodate and for HPC review process 4th floor architectural design. (use to be determined in the future) General AH housing is NOT appropriate at this location. THUMBS have it, 2 sideways. Those sideways need to write up and will be included. No public comment. LU NCH. LL One item after AH is meeting room and potential museum incorporated in project. GS and SL talked about significant square footage on 3rd floor that could be Cl room and museum piece. Rich commented thumbs up. Marcia questioned of museum component would be flexible for command center. DG's vision is in reception area cohabitating with children's educational component. Torre confirmed for lower area and supported. LL addressed it has been programmed and discussed at HPC. THUMBS UP? Jason commented to approach as educational piece versus museum James questioned as to whether DG and Ellen are comfortable with square footage in program for these elements. GS confirmed 1300 for community room and emergency ops 30x45, just community room/emergency ops room = multipurpose room. Ellen commented Breckenridge's new facility is 20x40 so she feels comfortable with space and heartedly agrees sense of history, perspective and opportunity for education and should be design so visitor and space is secure. Torre asked for more clarification from program sheet 2 columns museum/educational at 1500 sq ft then below community room / emergency opps at 1300 sq ft. DG stated historical aspect will be community room, not museum like Stallard House. Torre questioned ground floor on east side of building is educational and museum and DG confirmed as part of reception area. LL added that is 1500 sq ft and community/special opps is 1300, 2 separate. Amy asked if that is room on 2nd floor and DG confirmed. GS confirmed 3rd floor above bays. THUMBS UP. UNANIMOUS STREET RELATIONSHIP OF FACADE OF THRIFT SHOP AND CIRCULATION COMPONENT GS stated HPC guidelines encourage new construction to be built right at property line and reinforces street frontage and fabric of downtown core, but issue is apparatus bays because of way trucks turn. They need to be pushed back from sidewalk and everybody was in agreement that made sense of and other options didn't work from function and life safety point of view. Apparatus bays could stay where they are now and provide apron or pad that becomes public plaza. Circulation element and whether TS should be pulled up to street in compliance with HPC or be pushed back to align with Zele was issue. On Mill Street Le Chef's has pit of open space on corner. Zele's open space is functional. Plan presented to HPC reflected in model maintains existing configuration of open space and pulls elements out to maintain public space which experiences pattern. Difference in existing scheme steps back FD offices and green space with bell and rock are taken away. Three elements along Hopkins are maintained. If pushed back a large open space becomes continuous along Hopkins which becomes urban planning and HPC guidelines question. GS illustrated 2 images with apparatus bays back and one public area so continuous wall is created open space stretches from Galena to ISIS. SL added in the 2nd model the TS is two stories and imagine 3rd floor in mass and scale. Model shows three floors at FD and imagine 4th floor. One thought was amazing Inuseum component with windows, conference table, glass, light element, overlooking plaza and TS has requested storefront. Architecturally they are looking at 2 or 3 different types of materials, GS added glass doors and nice lighting so fire trucks are visible from street. At other end of block, view shows elements proposed to street Zele space is enclosed and secluded and City Hall is visible in view. SL feels it's nice to have eroded fagade with interplay of light and shadows. Also HPC has asked to look at components to make special plaza with plantings or lights when trucks are out being washed it, becomes public plaza. GS discussed stained concrete has been discussed to create plaza look. LL gives Amy or Jason opportunity to weight in on HPC, Jason stated discussion about urban planning problem was guidelines state to maintain streetscape and typically all buildings pulled up to front to maintain street line and it to pull it back to firehouse and Zele, that maintains streetscape, but Sara (HPC) stated that Zele could go away and then what? If something reclaims that corner then that's not compliant. Basically HPC would be making a special exception to pull back and match the fire house door; guidelines read to pull to street; its a big community question as to how to interact with space, create a community plaza? Want to tie into existing pattern or historic pattern. Existing green space considered part of green space or not? Certainly gray area there and didn't see renderings at last meeting. From view accentuates bays and it looks like one humongous flat building. Undulating facade of upper image ties into historical aspects. Personal gut reaction is upper drawing ties in with scale. HPC didn't make any decision about it and wants to get read on this from CO\NOP. Amy agrees with Jason and that if one thing is important about downtown redevelopment to [1PC it is building up to sidewalk. Torre thanked HPC position and agrees with top image that in context the top is more representative of what space could be best utilized for. Had question for small landscaping and block line where TS and office are. SL confirmed green space is counted abutted up to street and is opportunity for entrance to TS and FD and relocate bell. DG commented space in U does not see much activity and is always in the shade but bell and garden at TS has people there all the time. Marcia commented it doesn't show there would still be bell. If bumping buildings to streetscape knocks out, don't want to see that happen. GS replied that is important as HPC guideline would elirninate those elements if we complied fully. Chris is proponent of little open space, small but important to maintain. Concept of fire station as community and reality of post 9/11 and inability to bring community inside leads to solutions outside walls of fire station. He recognizes intent of HPC guidelines and exception to move away and maintain consistent street back from sidewalk seerns to be good compromise. Sam echoed and feels strongly about functionality of fire department but likes idea of block party and community idea from Zele to ISIS. Bound by open space? James responded in PUD process Council has ability to waive or reduce open space requirements but in public zone district there is no specific open space requirement but surrounding properties have 250% requirement. Allowance has been put in code to review or reduce or provide value in another pedestrian manner. Torre stated it would be measured against a 25% requirement and sorne changes have been made to code to allow for flexibility. Ellen suggested keep in mind visual, social and sound implications. Undulating wall and coffee and fire trucks makes city exciting and dynamic and personally likes idea of surprise. Important that spaces encourage activities we want. Agrees FD is wonderful community asset and asks how big does area need to be and does it need big views. Overlay social and community service and gathering aspect of FD, how big a space do we need for that and would undulating give enough space? Ann commented on loss of trees. Understands relocation of bell but without trees and landscaping it would be very harsh without anything to soften or gather you in. GS commented opportunities still exist, would be a tree well like in front of ISIS. GS reminded there are increments with elements to provide best of both. Nancy suggests there should be some other creative solution as if pushed all the way back TS would lose retail footage space and TS would not be in favor of going all the way back, Jason stated HPC talked about keeping TS and bays part of needs for future and didn't know if that will affect turning radius. He sees issues as balance between green space, where future doors could be, creating urban space, satisfy HPC. Torre said large abutting block on that building didn't strike as historically in context or serving community plaza needs and reacted negatively. Jason added there was HPC discussion about cantilever and way to bring to forrn to ground or different architectural opportunity SL stated these drawings are to evoke discussion and are r-no means solutions. GS responded by drawing horizontal component on Hopkins starting to pick up street patterns which HPC requirements discuss but this is very abstract and conceptual at this point. James added maybe the pattern could be picked up without using the cantilever method. Amy stated picture of old fire station that was a wooden building with tall fire tower really stuck out as an element and maybe this building could have same presence that people notice from a distance. DG stated good point and bell tower actually had bell in there. SL added fire tower at ABC is one they will be repelling and practicing bring their ladders up. DG added this is a marvelous suggestion and this has got to be significant 1. COWOP recommends design team explore a balance between pulling these 2 building elements up to street versus maintaining historic setback (meaning Zele building setback) and explore balance between two primarily to preserve and enhance public space and to be able to incorporate more landscaping that typical, including the bell. THUMBS UP. 2 maybes Public comment: Linda McCarth-y form TS support DG comment that apron in front of FD is gathering place. but space in front of offices of FD between FD and TS is more of a gathering space in all other days and bet-~ches and shade - people eat lunch - would like to see this committee consider keeping that area as it's a day to day area where people gather if not sitting at Zele LL should we change language? Torre commented to add it. Nancy stated in some form a public space should be preserved for a function of gathering, waiting husbands, or dogs. THUMBS. You will see language again. Rich asked for clarification if you pulled up or moved back building js it still the same building size? GS stated square footage would be reduced with parking in the back and TS would be moving the front fagade but not the back. FEASABILITY OF BASEMENT DG prefaced two components to basement discussion, basement and alley parking. Structures required to support apparatus are exorbitant but if incorporate cantilever on second floor at alley side and covered parking for shifts will reduce load. Under circulation area the possibility is there. LL questioned if that is represented in the unfinished basement space 5,000 square feet in program: GS confirmed it is dotted area from front of apparatus bays to alley and ballparked partial basement size at 18 feet by 90 feet, 1800 square feet DG stated his board expressed reservations and no cost benefit to 5000 square feet basement program - GS added the basement program identified is 1400 square feet and could happen underneath sljver next to alley or underneath circulation space; SL added it will be primarily mechanical and storage, and could excavate for light wells which is expensive downtown Sam stated having done this at ISIS it was time consuming and costly but believes you only have one shot empty site, so might seem expensive now but its only opportunity and would hate to lose space. John replied you could do soil digging and go back and excavate but precluding that is to build floor structure that will carry trucks. DG did say this is difficult issue and from programmatic standpoint and visioning standpoint, and he doesn't think board and department could justify it. It's relatively easy to speculate, but to excavate entire site against vague criteria, his board is not ready to go but does recognize need for underground components and align those potential uses against areas within structure to achieve in relatively financially sound way. Sam stated a developer looks at cost of developer foot and total FAR. So those 5,000 feet in "AAA" location are worth a million dollars and its good value once you are doing it and would hate to see developable square foot evaporate forever. LL stated we do have potentially in program is 1800 square feet for fire station. GS responded program right now is 1500 square feet of below grade space. Jason said can add 1800 if below parking LL: 1500 plus 1800. Recommendation from FD board is they want to do a partial basement under cantilevered space and office and circulation area but do not want to go with full basement. Ellen questioned if there is any thought to devote all space to parking for firefighters. DG responded with grades they couldn't get there. SL added it's extremely expensive. Jererniah added $3000 a parking space. James asked if number of spaces turning radiuses were explored and SL responded never took it that far. Torre asked how 1-nany street surface spots does FD currently hold and DG responded 11 across the street and 3 from the corner. Torre's thought on dollar side is if FD could move parking needs underneath the City potentially could take some sense of revenue they would get back on 14 street side parking spaces. DG responded problem is way services are delivered but have to provide safe landing zone for firefighters and needs are set in stone. Sam asked DG if this wasn't a cost issue for FD and money was available from other exactions or was free would DG look at it slightly differently? If there was ability to have 18 parking spaces would FD think its possible to get a certain number of parking spaces, study and look at that, possibly Torre could look at rnoney available or not? DG responded his board has reputation for being fiscally conservative but answer to that inquiry would be yes. Ellen would like to explore and mentioned how Europeans get parking in small subterranean spaces and maybe there are creative ways to finance it. Ellen suggested in 20-30 years deliver service of FD maybe different. DG responded caveat would still be subject to security concerns and emergency services. DG senses over time organization will modify way it delivers emergency services. Jack suggested to throw option of going under the ramp for space. GS stated footprint available for parking is all way under street, but not TS basement. LL: Does anybody not support ability for FD to put into their program the additional 1800 square feet of basementspace (storage or mechanical) that DG said his board supports, underneath cantilever parking and includes office space which will not preclude access to rest of property. Is this a for? THUMBS. Does everyone support FD to continue to explore utilizing the entire property for below grade space? Particularly given Torre's comment about revenue sharing. Torre stated even if we were to build a parking garage under the structure today, it does not serve their program needs right now. Street side parking relies on that. Gated system for underground parking would not work. Possibility of future development and City revenue cost sharing and 14 spots might work. Does COWOP support FD exploring possibility of underground space, property line to property line, in conjunction with the City (not specific for parking) THUMBS UP. BACK ALLEY PARKING: Support cantilevered parking? THUMBS UP. GS stated anywhere from 7-8 spaces maximum. Sue Kolbe asked if that space goes to Zele wall. POSSIBLE USE OF TS SPACE AS APPARATUS BAY GS stated width is appropriate, but problem is 2 story TS would lose a floor in the future and floor would have to be strengthened. Ambulances can fit 10 foot clearance. DG's strategic vision sense is FD has ample apparatus for foreseeable future. Nancy stated TS is paying forthat building and they can't be on bond issue so don't know exactly where they begin to pay for all this, where ownership and boundaries are. Marcia added when TS discussion took place they were looking at future safety needs and made sense to design, not that TS would go away. Nancy added issue is TS is paying for the building. Jason questioned if scherne is still 4 bays. GS confirmed. DG stated its how you arrange footprint of apparatus. DG's board said public education, circulation and reception component are required and can't see issues that would trump. LL questioned original 4 bay but now 3 and GS responded because of museum component the circulation might get wider, it's all in flux. DG stated department has developed facilities description and that was premise on which GS & SL brought to HPC and COWOP process. SL said with 3 bays ground floor becomes wider. entry, and look at museum interactive col-nponent. Trucks are tighter with 4 bay scenario. Fire trucks open with parts out and 3 bays make more spacious with grander entry. Input will evolve. Sam still thinks public space should be stressed as potential bay. Jason stated reason for voting on item is to see if could expand from lot line to lot line including TS and now we are talking 3 doors, where are -- we? GS stated it is more complicated than presented and by reducing bay count and adding space, we pull program around, not just museum space. James stated if we come to point where you push both circulation corridor and TS up to medium setback you will still have turning radius issues unless its for an ambulance where you don't need turning radius. Ellen commented for EOC you need to have a raise floor for wiring. Nancy would need to go to TS board to see if they want to be in if there is possibility they will be gone in 10 years. DG didn't think it would come to eviction. Nancy said TS can't afford that. DG responded that is understood and now circulation provisions are under discussion to possibly be converted to operational motif if need should arise. Linda commented historically DF has let TS know about change and they trust FD guarantees- Does COWOP support concept of TS space designed as a future bay apparatus? NO THUMBS. With regard to circulation corridor and education program space, should that be designed to accommodate a future bay? THUMBS UP HAS IT. James stated next step is architects will take information, come back and design, HPC conceptual review, and question for task force is do you want to see developed design before HPC for conceptual? THUMBS UP Next COWOP meeting Thursday, January 26th Fire Station COWOP Meeting Agenda - January 12, 2006 A. Welcome from the Chair- Chris Bendon, Community Development Director (5 min.) B. Introductions - Chris Bendon (5 min.) C. What is COWOP process & how does it work - Chris Bendon and James Lindt (5 min.) D. Binders - James Lindt (5 min.) E. Project Background - James Lindt and Darryl Grob (10 min.) F. Schedule - James Lindt (5 min.) G. Rules of Engagement- Chris Bendon (5 min.) H. Question and Answer Session and Consensus on Rules bf Engagement (15 min.) 1. Lunch Break (20 min.) J. Tour of Existing Fire Station- Darryl Grob (15 min.) K. Fire District's Necessary Development Components- Gilbert Sanchez and Darryl Grob (15 min.) L. Presentation of City Council Goals for the Property- James Lindt and Council Reps. (10 min.) M. Presentation on Various Conceptual Development Scenarios- Gilbert Sanchez (30 min.) N. Task Force Team General Comments and Identification of Other Program Items for Site- Chris Bendon (20 min.) O. Public Comment - Chris Bendon (20 min.) P. Adjourn - Next meeting Thursday January 19th 11-2 p.m. Fire Station Meeting Room. Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force Meeting January 12, 2006 Fire District City of Aspen Community Development Planning Director Chris Bendon chaired the first meeting of the Aspen Fire Protection District COWOP Task Force. If he is absent for any future meetings, Deputy Director Joyce Ohlson will serve as chair. In attendance for the meeting were Chris Bendon (Planning Director City of Aspen) James Lindt (Senior Planner City of Aspen) Dwayne Romero (Board Director Aspen Fire District) Gilbert Sanchez (Architect Studio B Architects on behalf of the Fire District) Steve Skadron (P&Z) Darryl Grob (Aspen Fire) Mia Dancee (Fenton Construction) John Kelher (Owners representative for the construction for the project) Marcia Goshorn (Housing Authority) Sue Colby (Thrift Shop) Mike Haisfield (VP Fire Department) Dylan Johns (P&Z) Ann Foster (Interior Designer) Torre (City Council) Rich Walker (Aspen Ambulance District Director) Jack Wilkie (citizen appointee) Sam Houston (neighbor and developer) Amy Guthrie (Historic Preservation Officer) Jason Lasser (HPC) Sarah Broughton (HPC) Chris Kiley (Design Workshop, citizen appointee) Bridger Smith (on appointment on behalf of Conoco station at the AABC) Cynthia Andrews (citizen appointee) Tara O'Bradovich (City, records) Jim Lawrence (KSPN/KNFO news) Mike Hammond, President AVFD Rob Schneider, member of COWOP group Chris Bendon (CB) gave a brief explanation of what a COWOP is and what the COWOP process does. City of Aspen is not a statutory City, rather a home rule municipality. This process takes Council out of being owner and approver and takes a project to members of the community and stakeholders to decide what the project should be. James Lindt, principal planner for this COWOP project, discussed how the COWOP works in this specific project and how the review goes. James indicated this project would typically go through a regular land use review process if we didn't have the COWOP process. Regular land use review process would have multiple steps which would require review by P&Z commission, who would make recommendation to City Council in a conceptual manner and then Fire District would come back as applicant and go through final process to deal with details including P&Z recommendation to City Council. This COWOP process allows Task Force to be a recommending body to City Council in this scenario on the conceptual application. Actions of this COWOP are like a P&Z commission as P&Z will not review the conceptual portion of the application. This project will require review and approval by HPC as this site is located in commercial core historic district. James provided binders with background information, resolution passed by City Council identifying this project as a COWOP project, task force roster, procedural guidelines for this Task Force, Fire Station eligibility application that went to City Council, COWOP section of the land use Code, and description of the property zoning The property is zoned in the public zone district. It doesn't have dimensional requirements for buildings, basically all development that occurs in public zone district has to go through a PUD process. When someone is proposing to develop a PUD, P&Z and City Council look at character and context of neighborhood to see whether it is consistent with the context of the neighborhood and the dimensional requirements of the neighborhood. Because this is zoned public, it will eventually require entitlement as a PUD. Binders provided also include the surrounding zoning classification from the Code, which is the commercial core zone district, so this is important in figuring out what the context of the neighborhood is and what is allowed on these properties. Also included are Civic Center Master Plan excerpts. Civic Center Master Plan is an ongoing master planning committee for civic areas of town which includes library plaza, courthouse area, City Hall and the Fire Station. Fire District was major player in Civic Center Master Plan discussions through the past couple of years and it was determined, through that process, that this was the appropriate site to redevelop the fire station. Schedule: James indicated City Council reviewed conceptually and gave go ahead. Fire District has a February 1St date to have a conceptual idea and cost estimate of what the program would be. They are requesting a bond issue in the May election. City staff has provided a meeting agenda believed to get the Fire District to a conceptual program by the February 1St deadline. Staff suggests a checking back with City Council before February 1 St deadline to see if the COWOP is moving in the direction that they feel is appropriate. Torre indicated he would check with other Council members to see if they feel they should look at what the COWOP has done. CB stated we might look where we are at the end of next week regarding the level of issues and comfort level. Schedule suggests two COWOP meetings to begin with, Fire station will put out bond issue, then follow up with greater detail and more COWOP meetings later on. First two meetings in February and March and maybe into April then one or two COWOP meetings per month to look at the details of the project is timeline. Rules of Engagement: CB stated this is the 5th COWOP put together. Burlingame D, Burlingame Ranch project, Obermeyer, Visitor's Center, which failed on the ballot. COWOP has had relative success in its history. Procedural Guidelines: CB advised that procedural guidelines are general and pointed out that Fire District has been through extensive planning process to determine this is where their headquarters are going to be. The COWOP will not be determining where the headquarters should be. The determination has been made by the District, and is supported by the City, to redevelop their headquarters here. CB wants the COWOP to be comfortable with the history of that, but its not a question being asked to the COWOP. CBadvised to make sure you are present and to keep in mind that if you are representing constituent groups that you are soliciting that groups interest, not what you want personally. CB mentioned he can delegate his role as chairperson if he would like. Direct questions to staff member and project planner James Lindt, CB, or Gilbert Sanchez (GS) from Studio B. Ultimately City Council will make the final decision on this. City Council is expecting a final recommendation from the COWOP. It's up to them to make a final decision, which can be different from the COWOP recommendation. Consensus is the aim, but if consensus can't be reached, they will reach consensus with resignation, or even a minority report. Task Force will have formal votes and the vote will be recorded. CB explained his thumbs vote. Thumb up = I 'm okay, we can move on. Thumbs sideways = ambivalent, don't really have an opinion, not going to hold it up, we can move forward although I'm not necessarily for it. Thumbs down = I got something to say, I have a problem with moving forward. CB will address thumbs down issue, and won't move forward until issues are addressed. CB discussed ground rules by stating to make sure that opinions are on the table and make sure to give each person a chance to talk. With respect to media, discussions should be handled by CB or James or someone who is appointed. If you are on the Task Force and speak to the media, you should represent your opinion, especially at some point of divergence, but be cognizant that this is a group process; make sure you are soliciting your interest or representing the district if not a citizen; James will send out notices via email. THUMBS UP on procedurals. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE FIRE WHISTLE BLOWS: Darryl Grob discussed the operational arm of the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD); AFPD is 87 square miles, is bigger than the City, smaller than the County and spans essentially from Difficult Campground to Gerbazdale and up to ends of Woody Creek and Castle Creek, not including Lenado. AFPD is responsible for all fires, and have mutual aid agreements to be first aid responder for all wildfires in those 87 miles. Also maintain EMS component, Rich Walker and Aspen Ambulance District's role, provide first due advanced life support ambulance at the hospital. Members of the Volunteer Fire Department provide a second basic life support ambulance and a third if there is a multi-victim accident. AFPD also perform technical rescue which includes auto extrication, aircraft extrication, swift water rescue, collapse rescue, quite a large responsibility when it comes to technical rescue capabilities. Mountain rescue takes care of high angle. Currently AFPD baseline level of service is based on room and contents fire in a conventional structure. NFPA standards requires 2 pieces of apparatus and 15 to 18 firefighters depending on the circumstances. National statistics indicate you will get 1 out of 3 with a volunteer fire department. AFPD exceeds that national average by a substantial margin. AFPD membership maintains approximately 45 citizen firefighters all state certified, many EMS and HAZMAT certified as well. 6- 8 additional citizen firefighters will be recruited this Summer. AFPD force is summoned by radio pagers. 911 triggers electronics and all 45 firefighter pagers go off and receive basics of the call. Guidelines dictate which pieces of apparatus respond to what kinds of emergencies in what locations. AFPD is a special district and levy in property tax and are second highest property valued fire district in state of Colorado, second only to a major portion of Denver. AFPD has the 4th lowest mill levy for fire protection in the State of Colorado, largely due to property valuation and we field a volunteer fire force. Almost all AFPD are certified to drive apparatus. Response time is dictated by national standards. This is one of the components of station location analysis leading to the configuration trying to be developed with this bond issue. National Fire Academy has established the survivability within a structure to be approximately 5 minutes inside that structure after open burning begins, so that is a small window of opportunity at the front of the event. Siren is backup to electronics. In event of a catastrophic electronic failure, if siren goes off and haven't heard pager, report to fire barn. All firefighters are ICS qualified, now being converted into National Incident Management System to comply with the Homeland Security requirements and FEMA. AFPD works with Sheriff, Ambulance District, Police, and gas and electrical companies to control the emergency. Marcia Goshorn questioned out of 40 how many volunteer firefighters live in town? Dwayne commented 20-25Â°/0, Darryl stated majority. Mike said majority of them or at least two-thirds. Darryl stated residency requirement is minimum two years residing in the district before you can join. Volunteers are required to make 20% of all calls to remain members. AVFD (AVFD) is governed by bylaws and exists as an organization onto itself and the AFPD has identified them as the operational arm. Darryl estimated 400 calls for service in the course of a year. National trend shows a decline in structure fires and Darryl believes we reflect that in our community. Darryl discussed increase in urban interface fires and referenced Summit County beetle kill forest as a tinderbox. Prospect of that infestation and forest Â· around us is small to avoid. Climatologic is changing and we are drier. Darryl's suspicion is combining the beetle kill, with trend in climate and the component that all the flat spots in the valley are taken, will reflect our mission over 10,15, 20 years. Chris, citizen, asked about other facilities including North 40 and the relationship with the headquarters. Darryl has been involved in station location analysis since 1983. At that time they looked at the library location, Eagles, Obermeyer, and have been pursuing for a long time. Darryl attended National Fire Academy classes and came back to the district and performed that analysis and identified the Aspen Village and Woody Creek station as logical locations. Both serviced Highway 82. Rescue pumper and additional inventory located 10 miles out from Aspen and 10 miles out from Basalt. Woody Creek was located as close to Woody Creek and Upper River Road and is divided by the river. For decades, the premise was to serve from a consolidated headquarters station located adjacent to commercial core. Commercial Core sees bulk of calls for service. Civic Center Master Planning process prompted AFPD to look at facility and ensure success of mission (life safety and property conservation) that exceeded ability to achieve facility on 4 City lots. Apparatus was kept at Sardy Field crash fire rescue facility but was torn down, but replacement removed AFPD from Highway 82 and they declined and looked around. AFPD began to work with John McBride who has Lot 2, Block 2, of the North 40 at the Aspen Airport Business Center. Conceptual drawings are 65000 square feet, an acre and a half but will only develop front half of the lot. Ability to service everything beyond Castle Creek was being compromised and becoming risky. Resources were redistributed so downsized and relocated programs to the North 40 and this location will remein headquarters. Steve Skadron asked Darryl where they will be when they are under construction. Darryl responded they are in the process of developing that plan. They have a timeline mapped out and have met with met with DRC. Working with Fenton Construction as general contractor, they have identified the team that will carry them through with Studio B and Fisher Associates from Denver who are fire station technology specialists; Leslie Lamont has been enlisted as COWOP consultant and Alan Richman as land use consultant in the County land use application process; if concepts are in place, AFPD has an executed option agreement to purchase land (contingent on bond issue) and will buy land; construction will commence 12-14 months later and when that station is complete, they will strip the headquarters barn and leave first primary response within City of Aspen somehow; DRC will require plan to be mapped out very carefully for pedestrian and traffic control James Lindt explained the DRC is a Development Review Committee which is a series of City agencies that discuss technical portions of development applications. Marcia Goshorn: Does Darryl foresee having to expand the number of volunteers with the new facility(ies)? Darryl discussed how shift quarters will be put in place and there will be a rotation of staffing. Automatic aid agreement will be with Snowmass for allcalls. TOUR: Darryl and Sue gave tour of fire station and Thrift Shop. Back portion was remodeled in late 80's and offices were built 5 years ago. Offices, apparatus, storage, back lot and Thrift Shop were seen. Darryl indicated they want to have an 18 foot clearance in the bays SUE COLBY: Thrift shop is over 50 years old and have been in this location for 23 years. They own and have paid for the building, but sublease the land from the Fire Department lease from City. Thrift Shop is a grassroots organization that recycles everything and invests in 80-100 organizations. Meet every month and gives all money away every month. Don't have fund or foundation. Have a one page grant application and have many other methods of support. Thrift Shop mission statement is to sell goods and raise money to support community organizations and to provide affordable clothing for community. Thrift Shop has been participating over last three years in the Civic Master Plan and look forward to this process being finalized. Thrift Shop will be at end of process. CB Bendon clarified that the 4 City lots are owned by City and leased to AFPD and sublease with Thrift Shop is component of AFPD lease and one lease serves both Thrift Shop and Fire District - in exchange district agrees to be the fire district for the City of Aspen DISCUSSION: CB asked Darryl to discuss 2-3 year internal process about future. Darryl described station location analysis which was driven by impetus of Civic Center Master Planning process and opportunity that presented itself at Zupancis. Darryl recognized goals could be reached, enhance life safety, and continue cultural contributions at existing site. Station is tremendous center of vitality. Realized that circumstances in other locations were not better or worse, but simply different and a broader scale of contribution could be achieved logistically where they are now. CB added that a Council member might add that the Thrift Shop has been traditionally a desire of City Council and once the AFPD lease is up for renewal, the Thrift Shop should be a part of this process, CB discussed when the consolidated station was under discussion at the Zupancis property and was able to handle needs at a larger parcel, and now those needs are shifting to another site, which is making this more viable. CB reiterated that it is important to understand and be comfortable with background because it becomes building block. QUESTIONS: Sam Houston asked if this process is about Fire Station, not really about the Thrift Shop, today. CB responded that it is and this process includes the Thrift Shop but it is part of the Fire District planning. The Thrift Shop doesn't have the same level of logistical matters, but they have their own issues. Sam questioned if the design we were going to see incorporated the Thrift Shop? CB responded that yes, it has always been envisioned that the Thrift Shop would be incorporated. Gilbert Sanchez has included it in the design. Darryl commented they are recognizing this as one concept, although there is a clear line. Bonding money for AFPD can't be spent to develop Thrift Shop facilities. Thrift Shop will develop their own funding program and line financially will be drawn. THUMBS UP for background and understanding of District history. GILBERT SANCHEZ (GS) and STUDIO B ARCHITECTS: COWOP exists to explore possibilities of site and GS has been working with Darryl and his group to identify those needs and physical constraints are evident. GS has spoken with Thrift Shop and they wish to remain on the site. Thrift Shop has spatial needs and desire generous space to operate efficiently and facilitate the community. Those two development opportunities are what GS is coming to the table with right now. GS wants to hear opinions and explore ideas and identify those that make sense to pursue. Darryl passed out a sheet and identified the building program which shows 4 lots that compromise 12,000 square feet of lot area. With uses and zoning, GS is able to go up to 36,000 square feet of FAR. Present building represents around 8,000 square feet. Order of magnitude of what is here now and what could be if FAR is maxed out is significant. Chart identifies specific needs with apparatus bays and support spaces totaling 6,000 square feet (net areas); shift quarters and dayroom, kitchen, laundry, bathroom about 2,500 square feet; district offices up to 2,800 square feet; Thrift Shop close to 4,000 square feet. Adding all that up including circulation and structure is somewhere around 195500 square feet. At 20,000 square feet and we can go to 36,000 so there is room for more physical opportunities and there is room to do something else if desirable. GS showed model of block of Hopkins. Thrift Shop comes out or close to street line and aligns with ISIS. Isis is only historic building on this block. Scale of block. Zele Cafa is set back and is two stories, fire station is one, but with higher volumes with apparatus space actually one and a half, ISIS is three stories with its addition. Existing configuration has demarcation line between Thrift Shop and Fire Station and right now there is an architectural distinction. Physical differentiation has been discussed between the two buildings, and aesthetics and distinctions will evolve with discussion, but right now will be discussed as a general mass. Each bay is 22 feet wide by 52 feet long by 18 feet clear inside. Where it is now is the best way. Alley width is difficult and most of the time there are trucks present and apparatus space was quickly rejected in the alley. Activity in front of bays is special. Setback is an important guideline that relates to construction in the historic core. Buildings up to street make strong street front and pedestrian and building zone are clearly delineated which is a strong concept in an urban setting. Problem here is by pulling building back you could lose strong identity of street front. Texture, color, pattern were discussed to create more urban plaza when trucks aren't there. Break in street front allows something to happen with the unique qualities of this building, so it's a safe trade off to pull back from street front, foremost to satisfy life safety issues. - Thrift Store would have floor added on top of its current space to double its current space. There is a potential for a third floor space. Joining the two would be a circulation spine there would be public entrance with an elevator. Seems economical and beneficial to share some elements. Could be additional office space, memorabilia to display artifacts, gallery, or a hall of honor. GS discussed carving out the bottom and have a second and third floor to park underneath and provide trash or other elements. Program space can be fit in and Darryl has discussed passing on legacy of space for future needs not anticipated right now and this might happen on third floor. Modular and wider components show typical downtown core and functions of apparatus space which stack up to 20,000 square feet. In commercial core zone you can go up to 42 feet, 46 if setback a certain distance from property line. fourth floor would be at 42 feet exactly. CB asked GS about last box on top. GS responded part of represents program and then condition for future needs. Darryl intercepted that one of the concepts is a consensus in emergency services across country that future is in emergency management and managing large number of resources. One concept AFPD is looking at is community room to be transformed into emergency operations center with all of communications and wireless capabilities. The need for sophisticated emergency operation center is apparent. Chris, Design Workshop asked why isn't that on this program? Darryl responded it's a multipurpose room and its going to be there but are still flushing out details. Darryl stated it's a programmatic issue with input from HPC and community at large and will come back before his board next Tuesday. GS discussed guidelines HPC used to review and how he focused on setback, and building mass and form with scale. Detailing is down the road. Urban discussion of pushing building back to accommodate programmatic needs of apparatus bays yet HPC guidelines state that wherever possible the building should be up to the street front. GS stated that HPC agreed where apparatus bays are that wasn't possible, Circulation space and Thrift Store space were presented pulled up to the street line. Grassy area with trees and bell would be lost in order to satisfy HPC guideline. Block has a peculiar space and consideration was given to pushing elements back. Commentary and opinion stated it would create a stronger street line even though not on the street because of stronger relationship among all the buildings. GS would like more input as they are working hand in hand with HPC . Sarah (HPC): Clarified that HPC commission did not agree to consensus on the rnassing and its relationship with the street. She indicated that many of the commissioners felt it was important to maintain the zero lot line on this block, so not to steer judgment. GS responded that he meant there was a difference of opinion. He wants additional input. James Lindt added that the location of the bays was accepted by HPC. Sarah responded that there was a strong opinion that some of these buildings should be pushed forward to help define the historic street pattern. Amy Guthrie (HPC) added there was discussion at HPC that ambulance bay doesn't have same turning radius issues and there was debate about that Jason (HPC) stated weren't in agreement about all four doors being in the same plane and there was discussion about that being broke up. One bay is long this is truly for massing and discussion. Do we crowd the street and divide Zele Cafa from bays or pull back and make one continuous street facade, it's a community discussion. GS concluded presentation and opened up to talk about programs. CB asked for direction from GS as to how this committee relates to HPC and when he will need direction about the programs from this Task Force. GS references zone uses. CB mentioned not to worry about code, but to come up with the best idea. Marcia Goshorn asked about basement level. GS responded not planning on that now. Bruce Romero asked if that envelope anticipated for the Thrift Shop also anticipates a low grade program? GS confirmed. Bruce commented to revisit do we want to place a general community room general purpose room into the program today and secondly the notion of the back alley parking to ensure its recalculated for "x" parking spots at certain minimum depth. Darryl discussed difficulty with shift quarters and parking for staff. Apparatus weight, engineering and structure required for underground programs is extraordinary; shifts would be covered and off the street and you can tolerate mechanical rooms underground under rear portion of project. Chris, Design Workshop asked Darryl about the parking requirements for the trucks out back? Darryl stated there is uncertainty in the strategic plan and immediate goal is enhance goal to deliver mission, beyond that AFPD is out of sequence just a touch James asked how many firefighters are anticipated at one shift at one time? Darryl responded anywhere from two to six. During X-Games EMS demands on community are extraordinary and those events are increasing; Minimum of 2. Darryl confirmed quarters looks like dorm style housing and has workstations and a recreational component. Jason (HPC) questioned why wouldn't this be the place to have affordable housing? Darryl responded conditional housing will probably be a component of the program. Jason asked if volunteers were established or is there a need for housing? Darryl responded they would probably populate a couple of them. AFPD is specific in recruiting and looking for stable people. Goal is a 10 year volunteer. Don't want someone to volunteer because of housing. Sam Houston asked how wide is the Thrift Shop and the circulation space? Gilbert responded Thrift Shop is 28 feet wide and circulation space is about 20 feet. Bays are 20 feet deep. Sam commented having lived here for 21 years is happy for the fire department and thinks its great location is staying right here. As a developer it might not be the greatest investment, but he strongly supports its location from a community and social standpoint, and commented you never get a second shot at a property and suggests the Task Force consider, if economics make sense, look at going down a level now while they have chance; secondly Sam stated fire equipment has an important need to be at street level and circulation center bothers him that it could be a future need for a future bay. He suggests to stress it wide and big enough to use as alternate bay; Sam looks at the Thrift Shop as a potential future bay for the fire station and it should be managed and structurally built so it could be 6 bays and fire department can preempt. City should maintain that right on behalf of the community, Sam further commented that employee housing at the ISIS has transient use and suggests to save space as its emergency central. As a neighbor, Sam mentioned the ISIS has an elevator adjacent to fire station and is not speaking on behalf of his partners, but if that could help with access that might save space and expense. James asked where that elevator is located. GS summarized what has been said and Sam interjected he is not suggesting to reduce. Marcia added Sam's comments suggested flexibility for the future. GS responded he understands they do need to discuss other opportunities for programs at the Thrift Shop site. CB stated that the group should identify potential program elements to add to project and let GS as Designer and Darryl as policymaker and conduit to the district fetter those things out, then tell the City if those are true programs or not. After Darryl meets with his board it will be a feedback process. Sam's comments embody the fire districts concept about creating legacy for future needs. CB confirms this allows ideas to be put to the table. Potential program ideas are: 1 Affordable housing 2. Incident command emergency operating response center that has the technology to conform to an community meeting room to emergency operation center in a couple hours 3. Museum/history element Should affordable housing, apartment style, be looked at? A few no's. Marcia Goshorn commented that affordable housing works but would like to see flexibility in future so that if fire department needs change its use could shift. CB changed suggestion: 1. Should the Task Force give direction to Designer and Darryl to explore the idea of permanent affordable housing developed on the site and to have Darryl and GS respond to the Task Force from a physical design standpoint. Is it physically possible and is it consistent with vision of where the district sees this going? Report back yes on issues policy or design wise. THUMBS UP Rich Walker questioned whether affordable housing was for all employees or residents? CB responded that is part of the exploration and should be part of the discussion Fenton Construction commented it makes sense to really provide housing for fire volunteers and to think about quality of life for people living above fire station Sam mentioned his concern is idea of future needs of fire department and that is what site should be devoted to. Darryl is the right next step Darryl questioned modular or housing concept and CB responded both. Darryl sees public access and security concerns with FEMA and Homeland Security a parameter to this issue. They have promulgated increased security concerns because of link identified with people securing uniforms and using them for purposes. As a world class organization with world class personalities we are sensitive to issues and ADA requirements are going up Sarah (HPC) Due diligence requires every developer to provide affordable housing and as developers we need to put it through due diligence out of respect CB questioned 2. Should GS and Darryl explore possibility of affordable housing and temperance permanent ability and report back to Task Force so they can make decision? THUMBS UP 3. Should emergency central room be explored physically and what does it mean to other districts? THUMBS UP Darryl stated EOC room in Denver is probably 8 times size of today's meeting room with independent work stations all networked of 35-50 people with a media room that is secured from public; Ellen Anderson, County Emergency Management Coordinator is involved and Darryl would go to her to contact state and help flush concept out. Darryl guesses 2 or 3 times this size. This is a go vote. 4. Should museum, history, reference to past and district be explored? THUMBS UP - Darryl commented there will be a children's public education component to that concept 5. Should we explore back alley parking? THUMBS UP Chris, Design Workshop: what about functional requirements of Thrift Store? Sue responded we need increased or better designed storage to be addressed. Our input hasn't been explored. CB commented Sue needs to further explore with GS Sam thinks explore going down even if entirely unfinished. Darryl doesn't argue and will poll in the election. Romero stated to run it through constraints later. 6. Explore potential for basement? THUMBS UP Sam commented public space bay would go away before the Thrift Store went away. If you wanted expansion for another bay, an alternate should be discussed. 7. Should increments of building should be designed? THUMBS UP Darryl commented anything AFPD does is contingent upon Thrift Shop accommodation Jason (HPC) Urban space part of museum component? Do we want to have a pole and fire hose, hydrant out front? CB responded not an UP/DOWN on whether its forward or back, but to understand the feeling and character and urban design of the meaning of the buildings up front or pulled back. What does that really feel like? For everyone else we should walk through what is going to look/feel best. GS will explore that component for next time. Sue: Will people object to losing bits of greenery? CB said we should talk about that and it should be addressed Adjourned. Next meeting Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:00 AM. FIRE STAT1ON COWOP - ISSUE IDENTIFICATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE FOLLOWING ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED BY THE COWOP TASK FORCE IN DEVELOPING A USE PROGRAM FOR A NEW FIRE STATION AT 420 E. HOPKINS AVENUE. Location of-a New Station: The COWOP task force initially studied and received an explanation of the Fire Protection District's history and operational characteristics from the Fire Chief. The Fire Chief also explained to the COWOP task force why the existing fire station site was suitable for the development of a new fire station to meet the District's future needs. It was explained by the Fire Chief that the District needs to develop a substation out at North 40 on the west side of the Castle Creek Bridge to serve the development that has occurred in that area of the community. When it was realized that a new substation was needed west of the Castle Creek bridge, it was determined by the District that the size of the headquarters station in town did not need to be as large as had been previously envisioned to meet the District' s needs. Therefore, while the Zupancis property had been previously considered for the new development of a large, consolidated headquarters station, it was now considered to be inappropriate for the Fire District' s anticipated needs. To further support this finding, the District and the Civic Master Plan Committee agreed that the existing fire station site could accommodate the District's future needs. After hearing the explanation of the Fire District's assessment of their needs, the COWOP task force unanimously agreed not to discuss other sites for the fire station as was included in the COWOP's procedural guidelines that were adopted by the task force. General Affbrdable Housing above the Fire Station: The COWOP task force in developing a use program from the fire station asked the architects and the Fire District to look at whether it would be appropriate to include affordable housing units for rent or sale to the general public above the fire station. The Fire Chief and the Pitkin County Emergency Services Coordinator, Ellen Anderson. expressed security concerns about locating affordable housing of any type above the fire station. Mrs. Anderson expressed that she had recently been involved in Homeland Security meetings and that placing housing in public buildings like police and fire stations had been discussed at these meetings. She reported that it was concluded at these Homeland Security meetings that locating affordable housing over these public facilities that serve the safety of the community was not appropriate because of terrorist risks associated with unsupervised entry into these types of buildings. After discussing this issue at length, the COWOP task force unanimously agreed that affordable housing ' units for the general public on the roof of the fire station were inappropriate because of the security concerns that were raised. Aff(,rdable 1-Jousing for Eniergencv Service Personnel above the Fire Station: After dismissing the possibility of providing affordable housing for the general public on the roof of the fire station. the possibility of providing affordable housing for use by emergency services personnel was discussed because they are already screened when they are hired by the emergency service agencies. Once again, Ellen Anderson expressed concerns that guests of the emergency services personnel living on top of the fire station could potentially create security concerns. Additionally, the Fire Chief expressed that the Fire District did not have an immediate need to provide housing for their firefighters. The COWOP task force understood the security concerns that were expressed and agreed that if the Fire District did not have a need at this time for additional housing that it should not be included in the building program, but the task force agreed that the building should be designed in a manner that could support an additional floo])if the Fire District needed housing in the future. The COWOP task force also ide#tified that shift quarters would be appropriate for the redeveloped fire station. C /7 Affc,rdable Housing above the Thrift Shop: The COWOP task force also discussed the possibility of providing affordable housing over the Thrift Shop component of the building. Ellen Anderson felt that there would still be security concerns associated with locating afTordable housing above the Thrift Shop because of it's proximity to the fire station. The COWOP task force concurred that there should not be affordable housing above the Thrift Shop in the use program. Emergencv Operations Room/Public Meeling Room: Pitkin County has no real adequate facility to act as an eniergency command center during a regional emergency situation as was discussed during the COWOP meetings by the Fire Chief and the Pitkin County Emergency Services Coordinator. The Fire Chief and the Pitkin County Emergency Services Coordinator identified that a room of about 1,300 square feet would be of acceptable size to use as a command center in a regional emergency situation. Additionally. the City Staff asked the Fire District if they would be willing to partner with the City to finish the room out as a nice public meeting space with all of the amenities that would be required to hold goveninient meetings in the room. The Fire District indicated that they would be willing to allow it to be used for City meetiiigs and the City Staff will request funding from the City Council to make the room a good venue for public meetings. An emergency operations room/public meeting room was identified as a desired program element of the new fire station facility by the COWOP task force. Museum/Fire Historv Educational Element: The Fire District has a considerable amount of memorabilia from their extensive history of jighting fires and reacting to emergencies in our community. Additionally, the fire station is a favorite attraction of school groups, kids. and adults alike. who are enamored with the job that firefighters do and the equipment that they use. The District would like to provide an area to display this memorabilia for the public to view and would further like this area to serve as an educational component displaying their pride in serving the community and the community's pride in the protection provided by the Fire District. A fire museum/fire history educational area of approximately 1.500 square feet was deemed I Â· 1 M. â‚¬06**Awi to be of sufficient size to functighally accommodate school groups and to display the Districts memorabilia. A fire lighting museum/fire history education area of 1,500 square feet was identified as a/desired program element of the fire station facility by the COWOP task force. 6.,0 k /4 409-4 4. A-*.6.4. Structurally Designing Lower Floors to Accommodate Future Development: As was briefly described in the COWOP task force's recommendation related to constructing affordable housing for the use of emergency services personnel, the COWOP task force has recommended that the fire station be designed to structurally support an additional floor in the case that the Fire District would have future needs on the site. There were also discussions by the COWOP task force about whether the Fire District should go ahead and design an additional floor so that there would be architectural compatibility between the development that is going to take place now and the additional floor that could be added in the future. The architects reported that it would be very difficult to design an upper floor for future construction that there was not a use identified for. The COWOP task force decided that the lower floors should be structurally designed and developed to support an additional floor if needed at some time in the future, but that an additional upper floor should not be designed at this time because the Fire District's future needs and uses for an additional floor cannot be determined at this time. 73 SA.â€¢vil &*;4.eÂ£, ,;04~4 /2: 5/4.44 44 -4.619 Designing Circulation Corridor to Operate as a Fu.ture Apparatus Bav The COWOP task force explored the possibility of the designing the circulation corridor and the Thrift Shop portion of the building to be used as potential future apparatus bays i f the Fire District and the community ever needed additional bays. It was determined that because the Thrift Shop has to fund the construction of their portion of the building, it would not be cost effective for them to construct the Thrift Shop space to operate as a future bay. In subsequent program planning sessions with the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, it was recognized that a fourth bay should be included in the current development program. Emergency Medical Services clearly plays an increasingly important role in the mission scope of the Aspen Fire Protection District. That need should be addressed immediately. It was further recommended that the first floor of the circulation corridor should be designed at a width and a height that could allow it to serve as a future bay for smaller emergency service vehicles like an ambulance, if that can be achieved with the new four-bay apparatus configuration. .9&,0102 w/ 42ft. 6 ,Street Relationship (,f Thrift Shop and Circulation Component: The COWOP task force discussed whether the Thrift Shop space and the circulation component should be designed so that these elements meet the front property line along E. Hopkins as the Historic Preservation Commission's design guidelines encourage for development in the Historic District or whether these eleinents should be pulled back as they exist in the current fire station to maintain the existing pocket park. The COWOP task force concluded that it would be appropriate to bring the Thrift Shop space and the circulation component to an intermediate setback that still allows for a green space for the public to use, while still giving the structure more of a street presence than the existing fire station. The COWOP task force forwarded this recommendation to the Historic Preservation Commission for their consideration in reviewing the conceptual design. Allev Parking The COWOP task force considered whether the new fire station should include some pull-under alley parking. Unanimously, the COWOP task force supported providiiig 4-5 head-in parking spaces accessed from the alleyway given that a lack of parking is always a problem. Basement Under Apparatus Bavs: The COWOP task force discussed whether there should be a basement constructed under the fire apparatus bays. There was a contingent of task force members that felt the Fire District should go ahead and build a basement under the apparatus bays while they are constructing a new fire station. It was suggested that a possible use for the space under the fire apparatus bays could be parking for emergency services personnel. Another suggested use for this space was as parking for the general public. Once again. security concerns eliminated the possibility 01 using a space below the apparatus bays as a parking oaraue for the general public. It was also decided that providing parking spaces for U u einergency services personnel would not eliminate the need for firefighters to use the parking on E. Hopkins Avenue because of all the obstructions that exist in the alley. The Fire Chief expressed that in the case of an emergency, the fire fighters need to know that they can quickly park without running into an obstruction in the alleyway. The architects also studied how many parking spaces would really be created and it was determined that only about 12 spaces could be created after considering the space needed for raniping of vehicles. Price for reinforcing the space underneath the bays was also discussed and the Fire District indicated tllat they did not see the below grade parking as a necessity or something they could fund through a bond. The COWOP task force determined that a basemen4,nder the apparatus bays should not be included in the development program, butj*at if an alternative source of funding presented itself bet,veen now and the th istruction, the development~ba basenie8linder the apparatus bays should 1 ered. Mz /Acy f Ek VFWL 096 *Â«%- Overall Use Proiram: After three (3) COWOP task force meetings, the task force voted that the overall uNe program (attached as Exhibit "A") that has been established for the fire station was appropriate. The vote was unanimous. ATTACHIMENTS: FINAL USE PROGRAM PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM AGLy k (Vit A ASPEN E PROTECTION DISTRICT AND TI -T SHOP -- ASPEN HQ STATION & THRIFT REQUESTED PROGRAM COWOP CONFIRMATION SHOP LIST OF ROOMS SPACES FEBRUARY 23,2006 6 - .... U Z I Z . AVFD APPARATUS BAYS 5,698 Apparatus Bays 4~ 19x 56 1,064 4,256 EMT Storage 1 i 20, 20 Bio Decontamination Area 1~ i 20 20 Bunker Storage 1 1 200 2% Bunker\Nasher Area 1 I 25 Tool Room ll I 120 120 General Storage li | 600 600 SCBA 1 I 144' 144 Hose Drying Tower 1 100l 100 Backflow Preventer Area 1 ~ 35 I 35 Vestibules 2 I 49 ~ 98 Outdoor Storage Room 1 I 80I 80 AVFD LIVING QUARTERS AREAS 2,476 CONFIRMED 1/26/06 PRIVATE Dayroom ll | 320 J 320 Kitchent 1 ~ 240 ~ 240 Dining Area 1 I 192' 192 Shift/Guest Quarters 4 I 192 ~ 768 Quarters Bathrooms 2 I 128 256 Laundry 1 I 100 100 Bathroom 48 i 48 Weight Room 480 480 Janitor Closet/ Minor Storage 1 I 72 I 72 AFPD DISTRICT OFFICE 5,812 CONFIRMED 1/26/06 PUBUC Entry Vestibule ll I 80 80 Reception ll ~ 300 300 Training / Meeting Room 1< j 960 960 Officer's Office 1 I 192 192 Workstations 2'1 36 72 L.ibrary /Archives 11 I 144 144 General Offices 3 I | 144 432 Copy Room / Area ll I 96 96 Office Storage lI I 96 96 Public Restrooms 21 | 300 600 Janitor Closets 1 ~ | 40 40 Museum/Educational Component MI i 1,500 1,500 Community Room/Emergency Ops li i 1,300 1,300 THRIFT SHOP \ 3,940 CONFIRMED 1/26/06 Retail Space li I 2,000 2,000 Storage 15 5 80 80 ll I 1,600 1,600 Restroom Omce 1 L I 144 144 Drop-off Area 1 I | 100 100 Janitor Closet 1) )1616 1 BASEMENT/PARKING \ 7,000 PURSUE FUNDING PARTNER Addll Basement below Bays/Driveway 1 i 7,000 7,000 Not included in Current Program FUTURE BUILD-OUT \ 7,500 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Future Development of 3rd/4th Flrs 1 ~ MOO 7,500 Not included in Current Program UTILITY AREAS -COMMON \ 1 1,481 CONFIRME01/26/06 Mechanical Room 5% 125,6261 1,281 Sized for Future Build-Out Electrical Closet 1' | 100 100 Network Room 1 i I 100 100 TOTAL NET AREA 19,407 Gross To Net factor I I 120% Structure & Circulation GRAND TOTAL GROSS AREA 23,289 CURRENT PROGRAM Studio B Architects/Fisher Associates January 30,2006 Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team: Procedural Guidelines PURPOSE The purpose of the task force is to guide the preparation of a Comprehensive Development Program for the subject site. The COWOP pr6cess, is intended to yield a project of higher quality through utilizing an interactive and multidisciplinary approach early in the evolution of a development plan which will include representation from City Council, boards, commissions, department staff, special interests and neighbors of the site. It is felt that a cross-fertilization of ideas will assist in a greater understanding of all of the issues associated with a development and bring about a better balance of goals in achieving the desired outcome. ~However. this task force is not charged with discussing whether 420 E. Hopkins Avenue is the appropriate site for a new fire station. It has been determined through three (3) years of facilities planning by the Fire Protection District and through City discussions related to the Civic Center Master Plan that the 420 E. Hopkins Avenue property will be - the site of the fire station. The Task Force shall not get bogged down discussing whether this is the best site for a fire station. r j The Task Force serves in an advisory capacity to the City Council who makes final decisions on development proposals. ROLES/RESPONSIBILITES Task Force Each member of the Task Force is expected to: 1. Regularly attend and prepare for work sessions dfthe Task Force; 2. Clearly articulate and represent his or her interests and be clear when he or she is speaking for a constituency or organization; 3. Keep his or her constituent group(s) informed and solicit their individual input. 4. Listen to other points of view and try to understand the interests of others; 5. Openly discuss issues with people who hold diverse views and participate in a cooperative problem-solving procedure to resolve differences; 6. Generate and evaluate options to address the needs expressed by the Task Force; 7. Team members are responsible for keeping current. Meetings will continue regardless of absent Team members. Chairperson The Chairperson for the task force is, by ordinance, the Director of the Community Development Office, Chris Bendon. When needed. he may delegate this role to Senior Planner, James Lindt. The Chair of the Task Force Team shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates, and facilitate all meetings. The Chairperson will also be the Official Spokesperson for the Task Force Team for media requests. Staff The Staff of the Community Development Office, the City Attorney's Office, and City technical advisors will provide services to the Task Force by providing information on City policies and regulations, and provide planning, site plan, and financial expertise. Architectural services are being provided by Gilbert Sanchez and Studio B Architects. The City staff points of contact for the Task Force are Chris Bendon (429-2765) and James Lindt (429-2763). The Task Force members will direct their questions, concerns, and suggestions to these individuals. DECISION MAKING PROCESS The Aspen City Council will remain the ultimate decision-makers on this development, including the questions of whether the development should go forward and the final plans for the project if it is to go forward. The Task Force will make recommendations to the i City Council on the conceptual development plans for this site. Several design programs and scenarios will be developed and reviewed by the Task Force throughout this COWOP process. Ideally, the goal of the Task Force is to reach consensus on a development programt However, if the Task Force does not reach consensus through reasonable effort, then the Task Force will be asked to vote, and the results of the vote will be presented to the City Council along with a maj ority report describing the recommendation of a maj ority o f the Task Force and a minority report describing the reasons for dissent and any alternative recommendation. Another option available to the Task -Force is consensus-with-reservation. In this option. the Task Force would agree that the consensus reached by the group is the best recommendation possible, and the views of the minority who do not want to block consensus but want to express reservations, will be attached to the consensus recommendation. The Task Force agrees to apply the following principles in order to make a good-faith attempt at building consensus: 2 Principles â€¢ To achieve a full understanding of the participants' interests, concerns, and ideas, everyone in the group must actively participate. â€¢ To participate fully and freely, all group members must have a common base of information and keep up-to-date on the progress of the group. â€¢ A norm must be created in which everyone will feel comfortable to state his or her views and to disagree. â€¢ A disagreement can illuminate unrecognized problems and serve as a catalyst for new ideas; therefore voicing disagreements will be encouraged. â€¢ The goal of the group is to discover the unmet need that.has produced an objection and to find a way to meet that need, rather than to suppress the obj ection. â€¢ The focus will be on identifying underlying interests or needs and problem solving to meet individual and collective needs rather than on Fitting one favorite solution against another's favorite solution. A Consensus Building Procedure The meeting Chair will use straw voting to ascertain the Task Force' s degree of agreement or disagreement at any point in the discussion. The identification of disagreement will be used as an indicator of where the Task Force must focus some attention in order to overcome an objection, if possible. If an integrative solution has not been found after reasonable effort, the Task Force may choose to "agree to disagree" and move forward on the basis of maj ority support, duly noting the nature of the - disagreement and the minority view. Because consensus building provides for evolution i.:'. + 9:j of thinking, a give and take approach. and a consideration of the full range of issues, needs concerns, and options, no vote will be final until the end of each stage of recommendations to the City Council. GROUND RULES The following are a number of ground rules that have been found to encourage productive discussions. Members of the Task Force will cOmmit, to "best efforts" in following them and will give the facilitator and the chairperson the authority to enforce thern: â€¢ It is absolutely crucial that everyone have a chance to- be heard and to hear others. Therefore. side conversation or interruptions while someone is speaking should be avoided. â€¢ In order to give everyone a chance to talk, participants should be sensitive about the length and pertinence of their comments and the importance of encouraging participation from all members of the group. Time limits may be imposed. â€¢ In order to maximize the productive time available: 1. People should avoid repeating points that have already been adequately made by others, except to briefly indicate concurrence. 2. Discussion should always be kept to the agenda unless otherwise mutually agreed; digressive topics will be placed on a "future topics" list. CO â€¢ It is important to remain open-minded about proposals: ideas. concerns, etc., while different points of view are being presented and discussed. Rather than label particular proposals as "good" or "bad": it will be useful to be open to the underlying concerns that are expressed in a proposal. â€¢ Ali equal Status exists between all Task Force members. â€¢ Disagreement is inevitable, but should be focused on the issues involved rather than based on perceptions of motives or relationships and personalities. â€¢ The work sessions will begin and end promptly at the scheduled times, unless the Task Forces agrees to change the times. â€¢ To ensure that all group members contribute, the facilitator will elicit response from all participants. â€¢ A time will be established for the public to speak at the end of each meeting or at any time designated by the Chairperson, i.e. before critical decision points. â€¢ Task Force Team members are responsible for keeping themselves up to date. Meetings will not unnecessarily repeat information from previous meetings. â€¢ No cell phones or pagers shall be audibly on or in use during meetings. STRUCTURAL GUIDELINES Task Force i-nembers should make every effort to attend all work sessions. The group will not be obligated to backtrack in order to accommodate a Task Force member who has not been present at prior work sessions. Constituents The members of the Task Force will inform their constituents and/or internal hierarchy on an ongoing basis as to the issues under discussion and the progress being made in the Working Sessions. They will represent their own interests and may bring their constituent's concerns and ideas to the discussions. Work Session Summaries Summaries of each Task Force work session will be prepared. These will be disseminated to Task Force members. Following a Task Force work session, the members will have an opportunity to review, modify (if needed), and approve the prior work session summary. RELATIONS WITH THE 1MEDIA AND GENERAL PUBLIC Members of the Task Force agree to speak to the media about their own views and not speak on behalf of the Task Force, other persons or organizations. It is important to differentiate between discussions, opinions expressed. and decisions. Preliminary documer will be marked with "DRAFT' or "FOR DISCUSSION" t 4 MEETING TIMES AND LOCATION th th Regular meetings will be January 12 and January- 19 from 11 AM to 2 PM. in the fire ' station meeting room. Additional regular COWOP meetings may be necessary and will be scheduled as needed. In addition, one or more work sessions with City Council will be scheduled and task force members will be informed of those meetings. Meetings with the Historic Preservation Commission will also be scheduled and the task force will be advised ofthose meeting schedules. INFORMATION BY EMAIL Staff will use email to announce project updates, meeting times and places, distribute past meeting summaries. and distribute upcoming meeting agendas. t. 1- r h Fire Station COWOP Task Force Roster Name Affiliation E-mail Address Torre City Council ton'e@ci.aspen.co.us J.E. DeVilbiss City Council jed@ciaspen. co.us Darryl Grob Fire Chief darrylg@ci.aspen.co.us Dwayne Romero Fire District Board dromero@obermeyerplace.com Mike Haisfield Volunteer Fire Fighter Steve Skadron Planning and Zoning skadron@comcast.net Commission Dylan Johns Planning and Zoning dylanmj@hotmail.com V Commission 6 Sarah Broughton Historic Preservation sarah@rowlandbroughton.com Commission Jason Lasser Historic Preservation design@jasonlasser.com Commission Nancy Gensch Out- Thrift Shop ngensch@sopris.net Jack Wilkie Citizen Marcia Goshorn Citizen marciagoshorn@hotmail.com Cinthia Andrews Citizen candrwes04@law.du.edu Chris Kiley Citizen ckiley@designworkshop.com Tim Semrau Citizen tsemrau@sopris.net Sam Houston Isis samhoustonaspen@aol.com Rob Snyder Kandycom Building Rich Walker Ambulance Service Ellen Anderson Pitkin County ellena@co.pitkin.co.us v Chris Bendon City o f Aspen Community chrisb@ci.aspen.co.us Development Dept. j James Lindt City o f Aspen Community jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us Development Dept. F te<<Ke CEâ‚¬9 F Statement of Problems and Opportunities Fire Station Facility Planning 420 E. Ilopkins Ave., Aspen, Colorado The Aspen Fire Protection District, 2005 Over the past ten years the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department have diligently pursued strategic improvements aimed at keeping pace with the ongoing development in our 87 square mile fire district. We have successfully developed two new fire stations, one at Aspen Village and one at Woody Creek. and upgraded our fleet with six. new. state-of-the-art fire apparatus aimed at structure fires. urban-interface wildfires: and rescue operations. Over the past few years, the Aspen Fire Protection District and Aspen Volunteer Fire Department have continued to refine a strategic facilities development plan to the point where we have begun to lay the groundwork to realize the final stages of our facilities development and fire truck replacement schedule. We are working to develop a new station on a 65,000 square foot lot at the North 40/AABC. We are pursuing a significant upgrade at our existing site in town, 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. We have only just begun the strategic visioning that will result in an organized and logical refinement of our Human Resources program. For many years the underlying assumption regarding our faci]ities has been that our most active fire- demand-zones lay within the City of Aspen, and that those needs were best served from a consolidated headquarters station adjacent to the core. What has changed over time has been the configuration of the City as it has expanded to the West. The Highlands, the Hospital. the Marolt Housing. Cemetery Lane. the Schools, Assisted Living, Truscott Housing, the Burlingame development, the North 40, Tiehack: West Buttermilk, and the new, upgraded Saidy Field all combine to illustrate the expanding high-density development to the West of Castle Creek. which translates into an expanded risk and "fire demand zone- for our fire department. What has also changed has been a significant increase in traffic congestion on Highu,ay 82 heading out of Aspen. which can delay the response by volunteer fire fighters to an emergency or can compromise the operating safety of the responders. The development of a 'North 40" Fire Station. providing for improved emergency response to the surrounding areas and supporting programs such as training and a possible future fire district housing program. results in the reduction of the facility required in "downtown." This redistribution of our resources then enables us to configure a response in the core which is specific to the emerging needs of central Aspen and its immediate residential areas. The facility required to meet the needs of this new headquarters station can be achieved on the existing site. 420 E, Hopkins Ave. However: that facility has the following deficiencies which can best be resolved through a replacement of the downtown fire station: The existing apparatus bays are cramped, poorly lit. and poorly insulated[. The existing training/community room is 100 small and poorly equipped. â€¢ The existing office complex is inadequate. The existing equipment and storage facilities are inadequate. The addition of"shift quarters" is required to prepare for future volunteer staffing programs. The development of a Citv-orientated Emergency Operations Center potential should be pursued to facilitate implementation of the City-s disaster planning progra]11. Additionally. as referenced in the Civic Center Master Plan, considerable support continues to exist for the "social capital" values of community icons in the city core. City Hall. the Wheeler, the Thrift Shop, and the Volunteer Fire Department are classic examples of such assets. We believe that a new Headquarters fire station complex at the Hopkins site can be designed to make a significant contribution to the character and charm of our conimunity core, reflecting the community values and personal commitment so manifested within the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department. The Thrift Shop sublease is actually a component of the Fire District's lease and they are extremely- excited about the prospect of co- developing a second floor on their existing footprint in concert with the Fire District program. We expect that the COWOP process will provide the ideal opportunity for interaction among all of the affected parties to all-ive at a building solution that meets all of our needs and ensures our long term future presence in the downtown core. We have secured an option agreement on Lot 2, Block 2 ofthe North Forty, and will be submitting a Land Use Application to the County for that facility in the near future. We have developed a conceptual long range development plan for that property, designed to meet our immediate needs and future-proof potential long range needs ofthe Fire District. To that end we are restricting development of the site to the front half for now. to ensure a flexible program development option for our future fire department. We are seeking a long-term lease extension on our current lease at 420 E. Hopkins (which expires in 2021). This lease extension is intended to secure the property use in order to justi fy the several millions of dollars the Fire District is expecting to invest in the property. We are also looking to add a new aerial fire truck in town to accommodate the life safety needs reflected in the emerging scales of the new commercial core developments. The cost of this new truck will approach one million dollars. After the fashion of the N40 project, we intend to restrict the immediate development of the downtown site to immediate programmatic needs. Our intent is to leave a third floor undeveloped in order to provide a flexible legacy for the next iteration of our fire department. We look forward to Continlling in the spirit and tradition of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department, your fire department since 1881. Thank you, Aspen Fire Protection District Board of Directors The Thrift Shop of Aspen - Statement of Problem & Opportunity December 19, 2005 1. Mission Statement. The Thrift Shop of Aspen is an all-volunteer organization which has existed in the downtown core since 1948. It is incorporated under the state of Colorado and holds a 501 c3 tax exempt designation with the Internal Revenue Service. The Thrift Shop's Mission is lo serve our community and the Roaring Fork Valley in a two- fold manner: first, to sell donated goods in order lo financially support valley-wide non- profit organizations and provide scholarships and, second, to make clothing and goods available for sale to the community al affordable prices. To that end, the 100 volunteers o f the Thrift Shop have annually given the proceeds of their sales to a variety of non-profit groups. In 2005, 68 non-profit and educational organizations received $250,000. The volunteers of the Thrift Shop have also passed on over 1,000 "bags" of useable clothing to other charities throughout the region. 2. Problems/Opportunity Statement: The Thrift Shop's success over the years has created a special problem. As the community has grown, so have our donations as well as grant requests from an expanding array of non- profit organizations. Our current space limits our ability to serve the community. Problems include. > Insufficient space to accept, protect & process donated goods; > Limited storage of goods for later sale; > Inadequate retail space to display and sell inventory; > Lack of storage for goods to be passed on to other charities; and > Cramped, stuffy store that discourages customers. 3. Goals/Opportunity Statement. The volunteers of the Thrift Shop want to serve the growing needs of the community by increasing our space and our ability to process donations and thereby create more funds for non-profits in the valley. Goals include: > Accepting more donated goods; k Selling more and better quality donated goods; > Increasing the level of our monetary donations to non-profits; and > Continuing to nurture the historical spirit ofvolunteerism in Aspen. 4. Site Analysis: The Thrift Shop currently operates adjacent to the Aspen Fire Department at 422 E. Hopkins Avenue in a facility of less than 2000 square feet which is subleased from the AFD. The building was constructed by the 3 hrift Shop in the early 1980's. We serve the recycle/reuse needs of the entire Roaring Fork Valley. As a result of the proposed renovation of the Fire Department and with their support, the Thrift Shop has been presented with a unique opportunity for expansion at our current site in order to maximize our service to the community. 5. Time Line: The timeline for the Thrift Shop's proposed expansion would be directly linked to that of the Fire Department's renovation of their downtown Hopkins Ave. Fire Station. The support of the City of Aspen and extended community in ourjoint endeavor is greatly appreciated. Fire Station COWOP Zoning Analysis Allowable Dimensional Requirements: The property subject to this COWOP review is located in the Public (PUB) Zone District. As can be seen on the attached excerpt from the Land Use Code, the allowable dimensional requirements for a property in the PUB Zone District are to be set through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) review process. A PUD process allows for a site specific development plan to be developed that best fits the site given the context and character of the immediate surroundings. Permitted Uses: A fire station and accessory uses to a fire station are permitted uses iii the PUB Zone District. Public and private non-profit uses that provide a community service like the Thrift Shop are also a permitted use in the PUB Zone District. Other uses that may be contemplated for the redevelopment of the site like the development of affordable housing are conditional uses. A conditional use is a use permitted in the zone district subject to a review of the operational characteristics of the use on a specific site. Neighboring Commercial Core Zone District: The properties surrounding the fire station property are all zoned Commercial Core. The allowed dimensional requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District are important to consider in the COWOP Task Force's development of a program for the site because the PUD process needed to develop the site considers the character and size of the properties f in the immediate vicinity in determining whether a site specific plan is appropriate for the property. The Commercial Core Zone District allows for an overall allowable floor area ratio of 3:1 or three (3) times the property's size. An overall building height of 42 feet is allowed iii the Commercial Core on all areas of a property and areas of a property that are setback at least 15 feet from a property line adjoining a public right-of-way are allowed a building height of 46 feet. There are no setback requirements in the Commercial Core, The Commercial Core Zone District requirements are also attached to this analysis. 26.710.250 Public (PUB). A. Purpose. The purpose ofthe Public (PUB) zone district is to provide for the development of gov- ernmental, quasi-governmental and non-profit facilities for cultural, educational, civic and other non- profit purposes. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as of right in the Public (PUB) zone district: 1. Library; 2. Museum; 3. Post o ffice, 4. Hospital; 5. Essential governmental and public utility uses, facilities, services and buildings (excluding maintenance shops); 6. Public transportation stop; 7. Terminal building, and transportation related facilities; 8. Public surface and underground parking areas; 9. Fire station; 10. Public and private school; 11. Public park; 12. Arts, cultural and recreational activities, buildings and use-s; 13. Accessory buildings and uses; and 14. Public and Private non-profit uses providing a community service; 15. Childcare center. C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Public (PUB) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established iii Chapter 26.425. 1. Maintenance shop; and 2. Affordable housing. D. Dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Public (PUB) zone district shall be set by the adoption of a conceptual develop- ment plan and final development plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445, Planned Unit Development. (Ord. No. 42-2000 Â§ 2,2000) 26.710.140 Commercial Core (CC) A. Purpose. The purpose of the Commercial Core (CC) zone district is to allow the use of land for retail, service commercial, recreation, and institutional purposes within mixed-use buildings to support and enhance the business and service character in the historic central business core o f the City. The district permits a mix of retail, o ffice, lodging, affordable housing, and free market housing uses ori- ented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level o f vitality. Retail and restaurant uses are appropriate for ground floors of buildings while residential and office uses are not permitted on ground floors. B. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted as ofright in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district: 1. Uses allowed on Basement Floors: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Office Uses, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. 2. Uses allowed on the Ground Floor: Retail and Restaurant Usqs and uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors. Office Uses are prohibited on the Ground Floor except within spaces set back a minimum of 40 feet from a Street and recessed behind the front-most street-facing fagade. This prohibition shall not apply to Split-Level Buildings (see definition). Parking shall not be allowed as the sole use of the Ground Floor. 3. Uses allowed on Upper Floors: Retail and Restaurant Uses, Office Uses, Lodging, Timeshare Lodge, Affordable Multi-Family Housing, Free-Market Multi-Family Housing, home occupa- tions. 4. Uses allowed on all building levels: Retail and Restaurant Uses. Neighborhood Commercial Uses, Service Uses, Arts Cultural and Civic Uses, Public Uses, Recreational Uses, Academic Uses, child care center. accessory uses and structures, storage accessory to a permitted use, uses and building elements necessary and incidental to uses on other floors including parking acces- sory to a permitted use, farmers market provided a vending agreement is obtained pursuant to Section 15.04.350(B). C. Conditional uses. The following uses are permitted as conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district, subject to the standards and procedures established in Chapter 26.425: 1. Gasoline service station; 2. Commercial Parking Facility, pursuant to Section 26.515. D. Dimensional requirements. The following dimensional requirements shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district: - 1. Minimum lot size (square feet): No requirement. 2. Minimum lot area per dwelling unit (square feet): No requirement. 3: Minimum lot width (feet): No requirement. 4. Minimum front vard setback (feet): No requirement. 5. Minimum side vard setback (feet): No requirement. j 6. Minimum rear vard setback (feet):No requirement except trash/utility service area shall be re- quired abutting an alley, pursuant to Section 26.575.060. 7. Maximum height (feet): 42 feet for all areas of the property. 46 feet for areas setback 15 or more feet from lot lines adjoining a Street right-of-way. 8. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot (feet)' No requirement. 9. Pedestrian Amenitv Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030. 10. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to ~ses cumulatively up to atotal maximum FAR of 3:1 a. Commercial Uses: 1.5:l,which maybe increased to 2:1 ifaffordable housing equal to 60% of the additional commercial floor area is developed on the same parcel. (For example: a project with a commercial FAR of 2: 1 must also include affordable housing FAR of.3:1.) Existing (prior to redevelopment) commercial FAR may be replaced. subject to acl<nowl- edgement by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition. b. Lodging, Arts Cultural and Civic Uses, Public Uses, Recreational Uses, Academic Uses, child care center, and similar uses: 3:1. c. Affordable Multi-Family Housing: No limitation. d. Free-Market Multi-Family Housing: 1:1. Free-Market residential FAR shall be accompa- nied by affordable housing development or mitigation pursuant to the requirements of Sec- tion 26.470.040.B.4. Existing (prior to redevelopment) free-market residential FAR may be replaced. subject to acknowledgement by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition, with no commensurate affordable housing requirement. Requirements of the Multi-Family Housing Replacement Program. Section 26.530. may apply. (Ord. No. 56-2000, Â§Â§ 7 (part), 11; Ord. No. 25-2001. Â§ 5 (part); Ord. No. 1-2002 Â§ 20 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 21-2002 Â§Â§ 5 and 6 (part); Ord. No. 28a-2004 42,2002) MEETING TIMES AND LOCATION th th Regular nicetings will be January 12 and Januar> 19 from 11 AM to 2 PM. in the fire station nleeting room. Additional regular COWOP niectings may be necessary and will be scheduled as needed. In addition. one or more work sessions with City Council will be scheduled and task foi-ce members will be infornied of those meetings. Meetings with the 1 listoric Preservation Commission will also be scheduled and the task force will be advised of those meeting schedules. INFORMATION HY EMAIL Staff will use email to announce project updates. meeting tiines and places, distribute past nieeting summaries. and distribute upcoming meeting agendas- 5 â€¢ It is in-iportant to remain open-minded about proposals. ideas. concerns. etc.. while different points of view are being presented and discussed. Rather than label particular proposals as "good - or "had". it will be useful to he Open to tile linderlying concerns that are expressed iii a proposal. â€¢ An equal Status exists between all Task Force members. â€¢ Disagreement is inevitable. but should be focused on the issues involved rather than based on perceptions of niotives or relationships and personalities. â€¢ The work sessions will begin and end promptly at the scheduled times. unless the Task Forces agrees to change the times. â€¢ To ensure that al] group nienibers contribute. the facilitator will elicit response from al] participants. â€¢ A time will be established for the public to speak at the end of each meeting or at any time designated by the Chairperson. i.e. before critical decision points. â€¢ Task Force Team mellibers are responsible for keeping theinselves up to date. Meetings will not unnecessarily repeat information from previous meetings. â€¢ No cell phones or pagers shall be audibly on or in use during meetings. STRUCTURAL (; 1_JIDELINES Cask Force members should make every effort to attend all work sessions. Tlie group i will not be obligated to backtrack in order to accommodate a Task Force member who has not been present at prior work sessions. Constituents The members of the Task Force will inform their constituents and/or internal hierarchy on an oneoine basis as to the issues under discussion and the progress being made iii tile U L Working Sessions. They will represent their own interests and may bring their constituents concerns anc! ideas to the discussions. Work Session Summaries Summaries of each Task Foi-ce work session will be prepared. These will he disseminated to Task Force members. Following a Task Force work session. the menibers will liave an opportunity to review. modify (if 11eeded). and approve the prior work session summary. RELATIONS WITH THE MEDIA AND GENERAL PUBLIC Members of the Task Force agree to speak to the media about their own views and not speak on behalf of the Task Force. other persons or organizations. It is important to differentiate between discussions. opinions expressed. and decisions. Preliminary documer will be marked with "DRAFT" or "FOR DISCUSSION' t 4 P rincipus â€¢ To achieve a full understanding of the participants' interests. concerns. and ideas. even;one in the group must actively participate. â€¢ To participate fully and freely. all group members must have a common base of information and keep tip-to-date on the progress of the group. â€¢ A norin must be ci-eated in wliich everyone will feel comfortable to state his or her views and to disagree. â€¢ A disagreement can illuminate unrecognized problems and serve as a catalyst for new ideas: therefore voicing disagreements will be encouraged. â€¢ The goal of tile group is to discover the uninet need that.has produced an objection anc! to find a way to meet that need, rather than to suppress the objection. â€¢ The focus will be on identifying underlying interests or needs and problem solving to iiieet individual and collective needs rather than on pitting one favorite solution against anothers favorite solution. A Consensus Bilildine Procedure The meeting Chair will use straw voting to ascertain the Task Forces degree of agreement or disagreement at any point in the discussion. The identification of disaureement will be used as an indicator of where the Task Force must focus some attention in order to overcoine an objection. if possible. If an integrative solution has not been found after reasonable effort. the Task Force may choose to agree to disagree" and move forward on the basis of majority support, duly noting the nature of the disagreement and the minority view. Because consensus building provides for evolution of thinking. a give and take approach. and a consideration of the full range of issues, needs concerns. and options. no vote will be final until the end of each stage of recommendations to the City Council. GROUND RULES The following are a number of ground rules that have been found to encourage 55 Â· productive discussions. Members of the Task Force will commit. to "best efforts in following them and will give the facilitator and the chairperson the authority to eiiforce them: â€¢ it is absolutely crucial that everyone have a chance to be heard and to hear others. Therefore. side conversation or iiiterruptions while someone is speaking should be avoided. â€¢ In order to give everyone a chance to talk. participants should be sensitive about the length and pertinence of their comments and the importance of encouraging participation from all members of the group. Time limits may be imposed. â€¢ In order to maximize the productive time available: 1 People should avoid repeating points that have already been adequately made by others. except to briefly indicate coiicurrence. 2. Discussion should always be kept to the agenda unless otherwise mutually agreed: digressive topics will be placed on a "future topics" list. CO 7. Team members are responsible for keeping clirrent. Meetings will continue regardless of absent Team niembers. Chairperson The Chairperson for the task force is. by ordinance. the Director of the Community Development Office. Chi-is Bendon. When needed, he may delegate this role to Senior Plaillier. James Lindt. The Chair of the Task Force ream shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates. and facilitate all meetings. The Chairperson will also be the Official Spokesperson for the Task Force Team for media requests. Staff The Staff of the Community Development Office. the City Attorneys Office, and City technical advisors will provide services to the Task Force by providing information on City policies and regulations. and provide planning. site plan. and financial expertise. Architectural services are being provided by Gilbert Sanchez and Studio B Architects. rhe City staff points of contact for the Task Force are Chris Bendon (429-2765) and James Lindt (429-2763). Tlie Task Force members will direct their questions. concerns. and suggestions to these individuals. DECISION MAKING PROCESS The Aspen City Council will remain the ultimate decision-makers on this development. including the questions of whether the development should go forward and the final plans for the project if it is to go forward. The Task Force will make recommendations to the City Council on the conceptual development plans for this site. Several design programs and scenarios will be developed and reviewed by the Task Force throughout this COW'OP process. Ideally. the goal of the Task Force is to reach consensus on a development program, [loweven if the Task Force does not reach consensus through reasonable effort. then the Task Force will be asked to vote. and the results of the vote will be presented to the City Council along with a nia.lority 1-eport describing the recommendation of a niajority of the Task Force and a minority report describing the reasons for dissent and any alternative recommendation. Another option available to the Task Force is consensus-with-reservation. Iii this option, the Task Force would agree that the consensus reached by the group is the best reconunendation possible. and the views of the minority who do not want to block consensus but want to express reservations. will be attached to the consensus recomniendation. The Task Force agrees to apply the following principles in order to make a good-faith attempt at building consensus: ASPEN FIRE stated that the Hopkins St. site represents an, "Opportunity for a redeveloped fire PROTECTION DISTRICT station or a cultural facility." After the City Council purchased the Status: The Aspen Fire Protection Zupancis site on Main Street, the Fire Djstrict and the City of Aspen recent!y District established a Headquarters Station agreed to conclude their joint planning Steering Committee, whjch issued a final efforts regarding the potential relocation of report in Sept. 2003. While the committee the AFPD Headquarters Station from voted 10-7 in favor of relocating to the Hopkins Street to the Zupancis Property on Zupancis site, the vote did not reach the 2/3 Main Street. The AFPD staff and board are majority requjred by the recommendation currently engaged in preliminary discussions process. regarding the scope and timing of a remodel of the Hopkins Street Headquarters Station. Not long after the vote, the AFPD began to focus on a more fundamental, District-wide redistribution of equipment and apparatus. Site: The Aspen Fire Protectjon District The AFPD located a parcel adjacent to the has been located on Hopkins Street since North 40 development, and determined that 1961, and has served as the Headquarters it could accommodate a substation that Station for al! District functions. In could address the longstanding problem of conjunction with outlying satellite facilities, ensuring rapid response to the populated the Headquarters Station has served as the area west of the City. Adequate response base for all Aspen Volunteer Fire time from the downtown station across the Department operations. The AFPD leases Castle Creek Bridge during commuting this site from the City for a nominal fee, with hours has been a major AFPD concern. the lease contract extending through 2021. , At the same time, this potential redistribution of equipment and apparatus reduced the need for a significantly larger Headquarters Station in the downtown. Although the Headquarters Station Steering Committee did not reach agreement regarding - , relocation to the Zupancis Parcel, the ? #*u committee unanimously agreed that if the Zupancis relocation did not occur, the Hopkins Street site required renovation (8/20/03) The AFPD staff and board are currently engaged in preliminary discussions regarding the scope and timing of a Organization: The Aspen Fire renovation of the Hopkins Street Protection District was established in 1953 Headquarters Station. by an election of voters within the proposed district boundaries. It is an independent Relevant Core Principles: government district. funded primarily by a 1. Civic and arts & cultural uses belong property tax levy and operated by an elected in the heart of town. Boa.d of Directors. 3. Focus on creating great people places. Vision: The CMP Phase I 6. Public-private partnerships can be Report/Foundation Map stated that, "The very advantageous in achieving public goals. Fire District will outgrow the current facility (not the location) in the near future," and 4- -- - 1**1~-QjAC./4--6-2 7*222~3 - 7 : 4~ . Â·:p=Li~~~-~*.1.'..3145] 3 4./.....,1. 14Â© &, gAJ LL/*Ailm~I UÂ¥4223? 6// - ...99Â¥ =62-41. 1 4 Â·64. .dqu -1 f//RES'V t/ 120 -4 . 143*Â·22 6*'.Â«3, 3 .4 ./2 e -t....; ..... .....m"# I I.' i# 2~ Â· Findings: 1. The civic nature and iconic quality of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Depar'tment - and its location in the downtown core -- is an immeasurable asset to both the year-round community and visitors. OK 11.17 Recommendations: 1. The CMPAC recommends that during the design process for the renovation of the Hopkins Street Headquarters Stations, the AFPD considers: => the civic nature and central location of the building; Â» the iconic quality of the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department and its members, => the value of pedestrian + public interaction. OK 11.17 THE THRIFT SHOP make affordable clothing available to the community; it is a high-volume business that Es open from 9:30 am - 4 pm six days a Status: The Thrift Shop is interested in week. The Thrift Shop accepts clean building a second fbor to expand its clothing in good condition, preferable in- services. season, as well as small household appliances in workjng order, in-season sporting equipment, artwork and toys. Site: The Thrift Shop is located on Hopkins Street, adjacent to the AFPD Headquarters Station. The Thrift Shop leases its space from the AFPD for a ViSiOn: For many years, The Thrift Shop nominal amount per year. has been interested in expanding, based on the consistent high volume of business it enjoys. The Thrift Shop currently re- There is approximately 1,000 square-feet of distributes a substantial amount of clothing space on the ls' floor, and approximately to other groups, such as The Salvation 1,000 s.f, in the basement, which is used Army, because it has no room for additional partly for storage. The location in the displays. By adding a second floor, The downtown core is ideal, as many clients use Thrift Shop could keep a much larger public transit. The original Thrift Shop was inventory on-site, and believes it could located on Main Street, moved to S. Mill substantially increase its business -- and the Street and moved to its current location in amount it donates to local non-profits and the early 1980s. students. The staff and Board of Directors of - Â· the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD) CX--1,/El./....Illi. expect to discuss how a potential expansion of the Thrift Shop may be coordinated with a potential renovation of the adjacent Hopkins Street Headquarters Station. Relevant Core Principles: 2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use LAERPKWEALE_~ areas create vibrant, memorable places. 4. Affordable Housing and Affordable 7:Firrfilliwill"li'.*r functions and vitality of town. Commercial space ensures viability of civic 5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional traffic. $-:- C 6. Partnerships can be very advantageous in achieving civic goals. Organization: The Thrift Shop was established as a non-profit in 1949, and is run by a 5-member Board of Directors. Draft Findings: There are approximately 80 volunteers that put in more than 10,000 hours per year; all happen to be women. There are no paid 1. The Thrift Shop is an Aspen employees. In 2004, The Thrift Shop institution that provides an important donated $270,000 to local non-profits as service for lower income residents and workers that no one else well as college scholarships for those who embody the spirit of volunteerism. The Thrift p~ovides - while supporting local Shop also regularly donates materials to non-profits and students. (CP#4) OK 11.17 Indian reservations, Good Will Industries, the Salvation Army and disaster relief 2. The central locatjon of The Thrift efforts. The mission of The Thrift Shop is to Shop supports its overall mission, as many of its customers use public transit. (CP#5) OK 11.17 3. The Thrift Shop relies on subsidized rent and could not carry out its mission if it had to pay retail rental rates. OK 11.17 4. The simultaneous renovation of the AFPD Headquarters Station and The Thrjft Shop js an opportunity to create a vibrant mixed-use area. (CP#2)0Kll.17 Draft Recommendations: 1. The CMPAC recommends that The Thrift Shop remain in the downtown core, and remain a subsidized use. OK 11.17 2. The CMPAC supports the expansion of The Thrift Shop. OK 11.17 i.fi- 7- tj CIVIC MASTER PLAN CORE may result in extra traffic from cars circling the area and visitor frustration. PRINCIPLES 6. Public-Public, Public-Private & Private-Private partnerships can be very 1. Civic & Arts/Cultural uses belong in advanta-geous in achieving civic goals. heart of town. Many communitjes develop a Private enterprise may significantly extend the "big glass box" on the outskirts of town public's ability to reach public goals. While each surrounded by parking and a drainage feature circumstance needs to be individually and call it their Civic Center. Aspen has the considered, the possibility of "win-win" scenarios fortune of art integrated civic core in the heart of are woMh exploring. downtown and the substantial community character that has resulted. This planning effort builds on that tradition. 7. Pedestrian Orientation. The design, programming, and implementation of civic projects should focus on the pedestrian quality 2. Mixed-use buildings and mixed-use of the district. Connections to and through the areas create vibrant, memorable places. district should be enhanced. Single-use buildings, depending upon their use, can have periods of little activity. Repeated on a 8. Arts and Culture. The pursuit of large scale, whole single-use areas can see little excellence in the arts and culture is an integral activity. Civic Centers dominated by government part of Aspen's historical character. The display institutions, for example, are vacant during and presentation of arts and cultural events is a weekends. Integrating complimentary uses can core element of Aspen's identity as a unique result in a more active and more interesting community in a competitive resort environment, env Fonment. and Aspen should build upon this intrinsic asset at every opportunity. A sustained cultivation of 3. Focus on Creating Great People the arts and culture in Aspen will further enrich Places. Great public p<aces give identity to the Aspen community, reinforce its international cities and instill a sense of pride in the profile and strengthen its economy over the community. These public places become the long-term. backdrop for social interaction, memorable experiences, and can be a source of energy for - the district. 4. Affordable Housing and Affordable Commercial space ensures viability of civic functions and vitality of town. Each decision L.to I. concerning civic institutions should involve a 't zA RA7~ -1 1 k N UP discussion about affordable housing and the I 1.--74 i. long-term viability of the institution. Affordable %-TLEÂ·? 1...'.Â·d464 . / Commercial space addresses the continued 7 7 r, *wi, I .1.'r~LrM< viability of the local economy and contributes to . -2 -1 9.-1,,....2 44../:F* .-,=9;~ . 1774*PÂ¢Â¢20 3 D ' a vital mix of uses. Housing has the ability to .-L-â€ž-1....-Â·. J: 5-r,Â·:2,-'Â· 1.- !.-:~.Ill-.1 -2 increase vitality of an area and of the public . ~~ ~1 ~~ Â· ~ i' C Â·- ): 2-r# i-- - 11- pi spaces throughout the civic area. Affordable on-Cr:-112,4- 1 3*4 1 'r-- 7013 housing is also a topic of civic discourse and the L. _ E p' '32 7 community's efforts related to affordable housing should be reflected in the physical development of town. ,-.-, - Project area 5. Civic planning must address need for parking while not inducing additional traffic. The ability for the City to facilitate the convenient conversion of the driver to the pedestrian is extremely valuable to the character of the Civic area. ignoring the various parking demands Aspen Civic Master Plan 1/27/2005 Page 3 Chapter 26.500 DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC Sections: 26.500.010 Purpose. 26.500.020 Authority. 26.500.030 Applicability. 26.500.040 Standards for determination. 26.500.050 Procedure. 26.500.010 Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter to exempt certain types of development from all applicable sections, except as herein noted, of Title 26 and to establish an alternative process and standards for the re- view, analysis and approval of those types of developments determined to be eligible for such alter- native review and analysis. The purpose in identifying and applying alternative review standards for certain developments eligible for such treatment is to provide a more flexible, streamlined, thor- ough and coordinated review and approval process. and to allow for greater public participation iii the review process when it is determined by the City Council to be in the best interests of the city to do so. (Ord. No. 7-2000 Â§ 3) 26.500.020 Authority. As a home rule municipality organized and operating under Article XX of the Colorado Constitu- tion, the City of Aspen is vested with the authority and power to exempt certain types of develop- ment from the Aspen Land Use Code, Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. See Clark v Town of Estes Park, 686 P.2d 777 (Cob. 1984); City of Colorado Springs v Smartt, 620 P.ld 1060 (Colo. 1980). (Ord. No. 7-2000 Â§ 3) 26.500.030 Applicability. Only those development applications determined by the City Council to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public shall be eligible for review and approval in accordance with this chapter. Only those portions of Title 26 which are specifically incorporated in the ordi- nance granting final approval of a development order shall be applicable to a project determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public. (Ord. No. 7-2000 Â§ 3) 26.500.040 Standards for determination. A development may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public if the applicant for development is the City of Aspen, an agent of the City of Aspen author- ized by the City Council to proceed under this chapter of the Land Use Code, or the City of Aspen or agent of the City of Aspen is a co-applicant with a private party for the development of land which constitutes an essential public facility, provides essential services to the public, and which is in the best interests of the City of Aspen to be completed. By way of example and not limitation. the following types of developments may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the conven- ience or welfare of the public: (a) affordable housing projects developed by the City of Aspen by itself or in conjunction with an agent or private developer; (b) the development of public utilities; (c) park and recreational facilities development; (d) public infrastructure improvements: (e) public buildings and structures; or (f) transportation improvements. (Ord. No. 7-2000 Â§ 3) 26.500.050 Procedure. A. Coniniunity Development Director. The Community Development Director, upon determin- ing that the proposed development application may be eligible for consideration as a pro.ject rea- sonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public may consult with the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the proposed development's eligibility and shall thereafter prepare a memorandum for the City Council that: (a) outlines the reasons for consideration as an eligible pro- ject; (b) sets forth the conclusions of any referral comments received by the Community Develop- ment Director, if any; (c) includes the procedures the applicant would be required to follow if the project is determined not to be an eligible project; (d) includes a recommendation on the alternative procedure to be fol lowed should the project be determined to be an eligible project; and (e) includes a recommendation as to the appropriate City boards and commissions and other interested parties necessary for the review o f the proj ect. The Community Development Director, before preparing :.,:.p. such a memorandum for the City Council may convene a technical staff meeting consisting of the Â¢ - 1 applicant, the applicant's representative, city staff members, consultants, and any other persons for the purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of utili- ties and services, environmental constraints. site engineering, access and circulation. anticipated public concerns. and any other technical information which would assist the Community Develop- ment Director to prepare the initial memorandum to the City Council. The Community Develop- ment Director shall formally notify the Planning and Zoning Commission. the Historic Preservation Commission, and. if applicable, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, in writing, of the date of the hearing before the City Council at which time a determination is to be made concerning eli- gibility of the proposed development pursuant to this chapter. The Community Development Direc- tor shall provide notice to the public, including publication. posting and mailing, iii accordance with section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a((b)&(c) B. City Council determination of eligibility. Following a public hearing in accordance with see- tion 26.304.060(C). the City Council shall by resolution (a) make a determination whether the pro- posed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welke of the public by apply- ing the standards of section 26.500.040; (b) establish a procedure for review of the proposed project to include standards of review; (c) establish a Task Force Team to review the development proposal and identify members of city boards, commissions, and other interested parties. (including at least two (2) members of the public at large) to be included as members of the Task Force Team, which shall include representation by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and, (d) establish a time- frame for the procedures to be used to review the proposed development. If the proposed project proposes development subject to Chapter 26.415, Development involving the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures or Development in an H, Historic Overlay District, the City Council shall include in the review procedures the requirement for an application for review of the eligible project to the Historic Preservation Commission in accordance with the applicable sections of the Land Use Code. The City Council may, in appropriate circumstances. include as part of the review process it adopts a separate referral to the Planning and Zoning Commission, or any other city board and commission for their separate review and recommendation. Should the City Council determine that the proposed development is not reasonably necessary for the convenience and web fare of the public the application shall be reviewed in accordance with the applicable sections of this Land Use Code. The City Council may amend the resolution at any time upon the request ofthe applicant, the Community Development Director. or upon its own motion. Pursuant to Chapter 26.310 of the Municipal Code. the Aspen City Council hereby amends section 26.510.030 of the Aspen Municipal Code to read as follows. (Note that only the specific passage to be amended is indicated. All portions of these sections not listed below shall reiifain in effect). C. Community development technical staff review. Following a determination by the City Coun- cil that a proposed development is reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the pub- lie, the Community Development Director shall convene a staff level, interdepartmental develop- ment review committee meeting for the purpose of identifying and resolving any potential issues associated with the provision of utilities and services, environmental constraints, site engineering, access and circulation and for providing any other technical information to the applicant which would assist in the preparation of an application for further review. Following the technical staff review process, the Community Development Director shall assist the applicant in preparing a for- mal application and preparation for submission of the development application to the appropriate t boards, commissions and other interested parties identified by the City Council for such reviews. D. Review of application by task team. The members of the task team, composed of members of city boards and commissions, and interested parties identified by the City Council resolution shall meet and review the proposed development application using the standards of review identified iii the resolution adopted by the City Council in accordance with subsection (B). above. The chair of the Task Force Team shall be the Director of the Community Development Department. The chair o f the Task Force Team shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the Task Force Team, and facilitate all meetingl Following a review ofthe proposed development and at such time as the Community Development Director believes that further review would not signi ficantly im- prove the overall development proposal, the Community Development Director shall report to the City Council the recommendations of the boards, commissions: and interested members of the pub- Â· lie which participated in the review of the proposed project. The Community Development Direc- tor's report to Council shall include: (a) a recommendation as to whether the proposed development should continue to be considered to be reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare o f the public; (b) all of the land use decisions and approvals that need to be made for the proposed devel- opment; (c) a report of the deliberations and recommendations made by the Task Force Teams and (cl) any conditions of approval that may be necessary for the land use approvals. The Community Development Director shall present to the City Council a proposed ordinance that incorporates all of the applicable recommendations of the report. E. City Council adoption of ordinance. The City Council upon receipt of the report and proposed ordinance from the Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an ordinance granting a development order for the proposed development. The review shall be a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted, and mailed, pursuant to sec- tion 26.30.060(E)(3)(a)(b)&(c). (Ord. No. 7-2000 Â§ 3; Ord. No. 1-2002 Â§ 12,2002; Ord. No. 27-2002 Â§Â§ 20 and 21,2002) C. b Ala,t; 2.ic,6Kaut, Pt "1â‚¬09' Set'*aed 2032 3613 Ma*ex. 64(4446 %1612 'PAo-â‚¬,flam (970)920-1125 atuUa*t.Â©40#'ta.*i December 19. 2()05 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: REQUEST TO INITIATE COWOP FOR FIRE STATION/THRIFT SHOP PROPERTY Dear Chris, Please consider this letter to be a request, submitted on behalf of the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop, to initiate a COWOP process for the property located at 420/422 East Hopkins Avenue in Aspen. The lega] description of the property is Lots O, =- Â· P, O, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen. The owner of the property is the City of Aspen. The Aspen Fire Protection District leases the property from the Cjty and sub- leases a portion of the property to the Thrift Shop. Alan Richman Planning Services and Lamont Planning Services are the designated representatives of the Aspen Fire Protection District for this project (see Exhibit #1). This request is being submitted pursuant to Section 26.500 of the Aspen Land Use Code, Development Reasonably Necessary for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) and is based on the direction we received from you at the recent meetings held at the Fire Station on December 12 and December 15, 2005. Specifically, Section 26.500.040 of the Code establishes the standards for determining that a project is eligible to be processed as a COWOP. This project qualifies due to the fact that: It proposes the development of necessary public facility improvements; and + The City of Aspen is a co-applicant, since the City is the owner of the property, while the two tenants propose to make improvements to the property. It is our understanding that this application will be placed on City Council's regular agenda of January 9,2006. At that time, we will demonstrate that the necessary public notice has been accomplished and can discuss in greater depth the reasons for this proposed process. In support of this application, please find attached letters from the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop outlining their needs for improvements to the site and the opportunities they believe can be achieved through this process. Mr. Chris Bendon December 19, 2005 Page Two If there is anything else you require, please do not hesitate to contact me or to contact Darryl Grob, the Fire Chief. Thank you for your assistance with this very important community project. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES Ae- .2-1/ Alan Richman, AICP December 20,2005 Jaiiies Lindt .z.4..A ..44E Community Development Department ....MI'MA<Ma 130 S. Galena St ' Aspen: CO 81611 THE CnY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE CrrY AUORNEY RE: Ownership of Fire Station Parcel Dear Jaines I. am writing this letter to confirm that the City of Aspen owns the property commonly known as the Aspen Fire Station parcel located at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. The property is legally described as Lots O, P, Q, and R. Block 87. City and Townsite of Aspen. To the best of my" knowledge there are no mortgages, liens,.judgments. easements. contracts, or agreements that would adversely impact the City's ability to grant consent fo the Fire Protection District to apply for a land use application on this property. If there are any questions on this matter. I may be reached at 920-5055. Regards. John Worcester City Attorney 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET Â· ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5055 FAx 970.920.51]9 Pnnted on Rervcled Pager P42 December 20. 2005 James Lindt Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Consent to Apply for a Land Use Application Dear James: I am writing this ]etter as a representative of the City of Aspen, which owns the property located at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. The above mentioned property is legally described as Lots O, P. Q. and R. Block 87. City and Townsite of Aspen. Please let this letter serve as consent for the Aspen Fire Protection District to apply for a land use application to redeve]op a new fire station on the property described above. If there are any questions on this matter. I may be reached at 920-5085. Regards. 0 U < In 01) .4 ct-142.-tj- Ed Sadler Assistant City Manager/Asset Manager PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN FIRE STATION REDEVELOPMENT- ELIGIBILITY FOR COWOP PROCESS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday. January 9. 2006. at a ineeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council. City Council Chambers. City Hall. 130 S. Galena St.. Aspen, to consider a request submitted by the Aspen Volunteer Fire District. 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. requesting eligibilitv to go .. through the COWOP (Development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public) process as is set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.500. Development reasonably necessary Mr the convenience und welthre of the public, to redevelop the existing Aspen Fire Station and to make possible improvements to the surrounding right-of-ways. The property subject to the request is legally described as Lots O, P. Q. and R, Block 87. City and Townsite of Aspen and surrounding public right-of-ways. The property is commonly known as the Aspen Fire Station. For further information, please contact .James Lindt at the City of Aspen Community Development Dephrtment. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen. CO (970) 429-2763. (or by email at jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us). s/Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published iii the Aspen Times on December 25. 2006 ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: Project Name: Aspen Fire Protection District/Aspen Thrift Shop 420 & 422 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots O,P,Q,&R, Block 87 Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 273707330851 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Leslie Lamont,Lamont Planning Services, LLC 725 Melissa Lane, Carbondale CO 81623 Address: Phone #: 963-8434 email: 11amont@sopris.net PROJECT: Applicant Name: Aspen Fire Protection District - Darryl Grob, Chief 420 E. Hopkins, Aspen CO 81611 Address: 925-2690 email: darrylggci.aspen.co.us Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): Conditional Use E Conceptual PUD U Conceptual Historic Devt. Special Review U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Final Historic Development Design Review Appeal U Conceptual SPA D Minor Historic Devt. GMQS Allotment ~1 Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) U Historic Demolition GMQS Exemption U Subdivision U Historic Designation ESA - 8040 Greentine, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane U Lot Split C Temporary Use 9 Other: COWOP Eligibilzy D Lot Line Adjustment U Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) One story concrete block buildings; approximately 7,000 sq. ft. PROPOSAL: (description ofproposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) To enter into the COWOP process for the redevelopment of new facilities fcr for the downtown HQ Fire Station & Aspen Thrift Shop. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ waived E Pre-Application Conference Summary ~ Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement Gl Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form E Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that are larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. u El El El El m ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: First District Temporary Shelter for Engine Applicant: Aspen Fire Protection District Location: 540 Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 Zone District: SCI Lot Size: 16,500 square feet Lot Area: 16,500 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: NA Proposed NA Number of residential units: Existing: NA Proposed: NA Number of bedrooms: Existing: NA Proposed: NA Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): 0 DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed.~ 1040 sq. ft. Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: 18 ' Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed. On-Site parking: Existing. Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: 1040 sq. ft. % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: 4 .5 feet Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed. Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: 20 ft. Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Cik of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Aspen Fire Protection District (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for COWOP Eligibility (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment ofall processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope ofthe proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ zero which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing ofthe application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT Ct- ~-L>P--- By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: )51-lÂ£7-05 Bill To Mailing Address and Telephone Number: 420 East Hopkins Street Aspen, Colorado 81612 925-2690 RESOLUTION N0. (SERIES OF 2006) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ENDORSING THE CONCEPTUAL USE PROGRAM, THE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN, THE CONCEPTUAL BUILDING MASSING AND FORM, AND THE COWOP TASK FORCE'S CONCEPTUAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW HEADQUARTERS FIRE STATION AT 420 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE, LOTS O, P, Q, AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN. PARCEL NO. 2737-073-30-851 WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 4, Series of 2006, determined eligible for the City's development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare ofthe public (COWOP) review process the redevelopment of 420 E. Hopkins Avenue owned by the City of Aspen, as more fully described in said Resolution, for the purpose of providing a new headquarters fire station and thrift shop facility; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.500.050 of the Land Use Code and the above referenced Resolution, the Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team has met four (4) times to consider the development opportunities and issues associated with developing a new headquarters fire station at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue and have, in conjunction with the Aspen Fire Protection District's development team, developed a conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual massing and building forms for a new fire station and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, at the February 23,2006, meeting of the Fire Station COWOP Task Force Team, the Task Force unanimously recommended that City Council endorse the conceptual planning for 420 E. Hopkins Avenue that has been completed, as detailed in Section 1 of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, two (2) work sessions were held by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on the design, massing, and site planning for the proposed fire station and Thrift Shop; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission granted conceptual approval for a Certificate of Appropriateness for Major Development on February 8, 2006, pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director believes direction from City Council, considering comments from the public, on the key elements of the plan, as described herein, will be beneficial to the plan and the planning process; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed and considered the conceptual planning for the proposed fire station, as more fully described in Section 1 of this Resolution, and has recommended City Council endorse the conceptual use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual building massing and form, and the COWOP task force's recommendations on the discussion issues identified in the Reso No. _, Series of 2006 Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final entitlements for a new fire station and Thrift Shop at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2006, endorsing the conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's conceptual recommendations on the discussion issues considered during the task force's deliberations, and giving the Fire Protection District and Thrift Shop direction to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final entitlements for a new fire station and Thrift Shop at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A- Proposed Resolution Exhibit B- Approved COWOP Eligibility Resolution Exhibit C- HPC Conceptual Design Approval Resolution Exhibit D- Conceptual Use Program and Development Plans Exhibit E- COWOP Task Force's Recommendations Exhibit F- COWOP Task Force Meeting Minutes Exhibit G- Letter from Fire Chief 5 STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes that the COWOP task force has thoroughly considered the issues and opportunities involved with the possible development of a new headquarters fire station at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue and have developed in consultation with the Fire Protection District's development team, a conceptual use program, conceptual site plan, and a massing plan that is acceptable to both the COWOP task force and the HPC. Staff expects that HPC could request changes to the fenestration and materials as part of the final HPC review, but that the overall massing and site plan will likely not change significantly as part ofthe final HPC review process. The topics discussed by the COWOP task force during their deliberations included the following: â€¢ Providing affordable housing for the general public above the proposed fire station. â€¢ Providing affordable housing for emergency service personnel above the proposed fire station. â€¢ Providing affordable housing above the Thrift Shop. â€¢ Structurally designing the lower floors to accommodate a possible future fourth floor above the proposed fire station and a third floor above the proposed Thrift Shop. â€¢ Architecturally designing a future fourth floor above the proposed fire station and a third floor above the proposed Thrift shop. â€¢ Including an emergency operations room/public meeting room in the proposed fire station. â€¢ Including a firefighting museum and fire educational element in the proposed fire station. â€¢ The street relationship ofthe proposed fire apparatus bays. â€¢ The street relationship of the proposed Thrift Shop and entry to the proposed fire station. â€¢ Constructing four (4) apparatus bays rather than three (3) apparatus bays. â€¢ Including tuck-under alley parking. â€¢ Providing a basement under the apparatus bays for emergency service parking or other compatible uses. As was mentioned earlier in this memorandum, the COWOP task force's conceptual recommendations on the items discussed above and background for the task force's recommendations are represented in the document attached as Exhibit "IE". Many of the final recommendations from the task force on the topics of discussion were unanimous amongst the members of the task force. ENDORSEMENT: Staff has envisioned this as a formal check-in with City Council as to the COWOP process and the conceptual planning that has occurred thus far on the fire station. Staff would like to make it clear that City Council's endorsement of the conceptual planning 3 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Helen Klanderud and City Council Thru: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director From: James Lindt, Senior Planner RE: Resolution No._, Series of 2006, Aspen Fire Station, Endorsement of COWOP Recommendations- Public Hearing Date: March 13, 2006 BACKGROUND: The Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop received eligibility to go through the COWOP review process to develop a use program and conceptual development plan for a new headquarters fire station and thrift shop on the property at 420 E. Hopkins Avenue in January pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "B"). Since being deemed eligible for the COWOP review process, the COWOP task force that was assembled for this project conducted three (3) meetings of three (3) hours each and a fourth meeting of approximately an hour and a half. Additionally, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) conducted two (2) work sessions on the conceptual design and approved the conceptual development plan pursuant to HPC Resolution No. 3, Series of 2006 (attached as Exhibit "CD. Several additional meetings with the Fire Protection District's Board and Firefighters were also held to review the design. In conducting the four (4) task force meetings, the COWOP task force reviewed a variety of issues and opportunities related to the use program, the design, and the site plan for the proposed fire station and thrift shop. Out of the discussions that occurred at these four (4) meetings and the abovementioned HPC work sessions, the Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop developed a use program and conceptual development plan that the COWOP task force unanimously endorsed and recommended that City Council endorse. The use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual floor plans, and the conceptual massing plan and elevations are attached as Exhibit "D". Additionally, the written conceptual recommendations of the COWOP task force are attached as Exhibit "E" and the meeting minutes from the four (4) task force meetings are attached as Exhibit "F". Having developed conceptual plans that are acceptable to the COWOP task force, the Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop have requested endorsement of the fire station .5 COWOP process and conceptual plans (proposed resolution is attached as Exhibit "A ). There is also an item on the agenda for an extension of the Fire Protection District's lease of the City owned property subject to this COWOP. Staff would recommend 1 document entitled "Fire Station COWOP- Task Force Issue Identification and " Recommendations - included in City Council's packet for the regular meeting on March 13. 2006; and. WHEREAS, providing input on the planning for these lands, through adoption of this Resolution, shall only be considered advisory in nature and shall not constitute entitlement of the property. Approval of a final development plan shall require adoption of an Ordinance after a public hearing and upon consideration of a recommendation from the Community Development Director and a final recommendation from the COWOP Task Force Team; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the progress of the planning for 420 E. Hopkins Avenue, as described herein, has taken and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, has taken and considered public comments at a public hearing, and endorses the planning direction, as described herein, ofthe Fire Station COWOP project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: City Council hereby endorses the conceptual use program, the conceptual site plan, the conceptual building massing and form, the COWOP task force's recommendations on the discussion issues identified in the document entitled "Fire Station COWOP- Task Force Issue Identification and Conceptual Recommendations" that were presented in written, graphic, and model format at the March 13,2006, regular City Council meeting, and hereby gives the Aspen Fire Protection District and the Thrift Shop direction to proceed towards developing and submitting an application for the review of final development entitlements. Section 2: Following endorsement of the direction for planning these lands described in Section 1 above. the Fire Station COWOP Task Force shall reconvene after the May bond election, if the bond is approved by the voters of the Aspen Fire Protection District, to consider final design parameters for the project and forward their final recommendation to the City Council. FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 13th day of March, 2006. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Reso No. _, Series of 2006 AJ (D 2737- 07- 5-30 - ?s/ 0102.200-Â· ASLU .ga, Elle adit Record blavigate Farm Reports Format Iab Belp !@ U) 'X ' '/ 4 81! 8 6 -3 26 J' li 14 4 ' N O Â£1 Qk lump 1 : *mol GA i 2 e W 13 1 J ./i". j.1 0 j# 0 ~ ~ Yaluation 1 Custom Flelds |actions | Feei | ParceD ~ Fee SimmarY | Sub Dmits ~ Attachments I Ro~Ing Status |Routing tlistory I IE) ~; Permit Type - ~ -6Â£41 Permit # ~0102,2005.ASLU - Address f420 E HOPKINS AVE .g~ Apt/Suite ~ City |ASPEN State @6-3 Z# |81611 ~I Permit Information Master Permit ~ .4 Routing Queue |aslu Applied |12/23/2005 ~ i ProJect ~ â‚¬~ Status ~pending Approved I Description ~ FIRE 5TATION COWOP ELIGIBILITY Issued | anal i J - Submitted ~ALAN RICHMAN 920-1125 clock IJIEUR Days [-6- Expires |12/18/2006 ~ 1 Owner ------ Last Name |ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION C.~i~ First Name ~ 420 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611 Phone I P Owner Is Applicant? Applicant -7 Last Name ~ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION C .~ First Name ~ 420 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611 Phone ~ Cust # |26615 - Lender Last Name ~ 2| First Name | Phone ~ Asper601*b] ~11~ ~ ~Record 23 of 33 0 1 07 & 9-0 y fe to 6 f/1 24 4/t' 79 tif