HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.420 E Hopkins Ave.0102.2005.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN
City of Aspen Community Development Department
CASE NUMBER
PARCEL ID NUMBER
PROJECTS ADDRESS
PLANNER
CASE DESCRIPTION
REPRESENTATIVE
DATE OF FINAL ACTION
0102.2005.ASLU
273707330851
420 E. HOPKINS AVE
JASON LASSER
FIRE STATION COWOP
ALAN RICHMAN
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 a day of October, 2009, by and between the City of Aspen, Colorado, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Cl_yt "), 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 ").
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 O, 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 of Aspen
(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 of the 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 meets -
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 of the Application and its approval and recordation of the 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.
Sb O� in the Office of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado.
/-Z�c D / RECEPTION #: 564087,10/29/2009 at
/J I0026W68.DOCx /61 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 of this 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 of a portion of the
Zupancis Property may occur (collectively, the "Project ").
1.2 Effect. It is the intent of 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 11
ZONING AND REGULATORY APPROVALS
2.1 Approval Resolutions and Ordinances. The Project is the subject of the following
approved Resolutions and Ordinances:
(a) 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 Dimensional Requirements. Pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance 3, Series of 2008,
the following approved dimensions of the Project shall be reflected in the Final PUD
Development Plan:
(a) Minimum Lot Size:
(b) Minimum Lot Width:
(c) Minimum Front Yard:
(d) Minimum Side Yard:
(e) Minimum Rear Yard:
(1) Maximum Site Coverage:
(g) Maximum Height:
(h) Minimum Distance Between Buildings:
(i) Minimum Percent Open Space:
0) Trash Access Area:
(k) Allowable Floor Area:
(m)
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
Per Final PUD Development Plan
No requirement
Per Final PUD Development Plan
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.
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.
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 Findines.
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 of the Zupancis Property in connection
(00266068.DOCX / 6)
with the Project. Accordingly, the Aspen Fire Protection District's use of the 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 of the 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 of the Zupancis Property shall consist of 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 of the 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 of the use of the 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 of the 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.D0C%/ 6)
days. If 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 of 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. If the 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 and/or 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 if 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 Inconsistency. If any of the provisions of this Agreement or any paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase, word, or section of the application thereof in any circumstance in
invalidated, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remainder of 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
(00266D68.DOCx / 6)
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 of time shall only become effective upon the execution by all parties hereto that are
affected by the proposed amendment.
5.5 Headin¢s. 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 of 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, if 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 of Aspen
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, Inc.
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.]
{00266D68.DOCX / 6}
CITY: City of Aspen,
Attest:
Kathryn S.
Approved as to form:
John orcest r, City Attorney
APPLICANTS: By: ) -
Name:
Aspen Fire Protection District
420/422 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
By:
Name: r s{ Sly
The Thrift Shop, Inc., doing business as Thrift Shop of
Aspen
422 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611
100266068.DOCX / 6}
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of (0ai) C
2009 by John Worcester as City Attorney of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a municipal
corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
to,
My commission expires: (`% �
otary Public
STATE OF COLORADO ) � ",?A` " """f c°
TE 0
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisZ day of
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: OA Ull
o"
-;
v
otary Public Ji
Y� 't
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
K
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this L "day of r s
2009 by �)a , ey I r, ec� ra as F, e E C io c F of the Aspen Fire Protection District.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: T/ s go I U
rLEtGERSKY) PNotary Public
JANET
{00266068.DOCX / 6}
{
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The fore goin instrument was ackn wl dged before me this J_:�) day of
2009 by '— as ` copfas &kk of The Thrift Shop, Inc., doing business as The
Thrift Shop of Aspen.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: C7
N
AGUSTIN GONZALEZ
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
My rommission Expires 0 912 012 01 1
100266068.DOCx J 61 9
Lamont Planning Services, LLc
725 Melissa Lane
Carbondale. CO 81623
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.
,Sincerely,
i
Leslie Lamont
AFPD Project Planner
p:970.963.8434 e:IIamont @sopris.net c: 970.948.1357
If this extension request is approved please sign below and provide a copy for our
prof files.
Chris Bendon, Director Date / J
Aspen Community Development Department
Attachment:
Ordinance 3, Series of 2008
c
R""
\. J
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 $40 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 Daryl
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,
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
of the City of Aspen Community Development Department, representatives of the 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 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 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 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, 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 Fora 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 of public 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
1-1
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 alterative 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
r
feasible. The COWOP supported that cgnclusion.
10. The fast 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 Findbw
The City Council hereby adopts the findings of the Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP
Task Force, as listed in Section 1.
Section 3: Approved Project Dimensions
The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans,
as follows:
Ordinance 3, 2008
Page 6 of 10
ry
Section 4: Temporary Use of $40 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 Credo, 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
alldw the relocation in a timely manner without compromising public safety.
Section S: Growth Manaeement 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: CMc 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 of 10
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.
8. A table summarizing dimensional standards of the 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 Issuancg
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 Per=k Reanirem
The building permit application shall include/depict:
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 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: Protect 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
Iimitations of the Land Use Code.
Seetioa12: Vested Rights
The development approvals granted 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: 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 of 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
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
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.
Sec-fion 1S:
Ordinance 3, 2008
Page 9 of 10
4 f �
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 of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 17:
A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 28s' 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 26.304.060E(3)b -c.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11>h day of February, 2008.
AttaFsiZ✓�
Kathryn S.
pr
, City Cleric Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 29 day of 2008.
Approved as to form:
dx
401 , City Attorney
Ordinance 3, 2008
Page 10 of 10
,y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development
FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner v t
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 I 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 26470.100,
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.
x'11 G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council CC��
FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner v�
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 I of 1
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: y,� Q E &P 5 _'/6 G. &!J, Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: M&f �_k / 200_L
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
County of Pitkin )
r
(name, please print)
being or repre ting 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 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 of notice. 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.
-Q
Signature �
The for g "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 22 day
of 200B, by- lyi
p LFA� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
My commission expires:
p Notary Public
9'••. F
My Commission Er. res 0912512009
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
✓ LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
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
bens @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
517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
517 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
AEP FAMILY LLL 3.9389931%
C/O ANDREW V HECHT GARFIELD &
HECHT PC
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN. CO 81611
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER
SAINT MARYS
1300 S STEELE ST
DENVER, CO 80210
AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC
532 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BANKERS MORTGAGE CORP
1616 ORCHARD AVE
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
BOHNETT MARSHA ANN TRUST
5411 KILAUEA PL
HONOLULU. HI 96816
CALDWELL CHARLES G & DEBRA H
514 E BRYAN ST
SAVANAH,GA 31401
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST V
ASPEN, CO 81611
DAVID DOGWOOD LLC 13.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
DUVIKE INC
C/O AERSCAPE LTD
230 S MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 61611
T 009LSOAMBAV
I
530 HOPKINS LLC Q?i A STAR RANCH FUND i LLC
800 E HOPKINS AVE #B' -5 89 VAGNEUR LANE
ASPEN, CO 81611 BASALT, CO 8162'1
ALH HOLDING COMPANY INC ALLEN LEONARD A III
435 E MAIN ST PO BOX 8316
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN EXTREME LLC
ASPEN PLAZA LLC
3375 CRYSTAL CT
C/O STEVE MARCUS
COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133
PO BOX 1709
ASPEN, CO 81611
AVH MEADOWS LLC 20% INT BALDWIN HARLEY A II
601 E HYMAN AVE 205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M BLAU JEFF T
PO BOX 1365 181 E 65TH ST
ASPEN, CO 81612 NEW YORK, NY 10021
BPOE ASPEN LODGE #224 BRAND BUILDING LLC
210 S GALENA ST #21 205 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
CENTRE OF ASPEN LLC 54.6248989% CICUREL CARY
C/O KATIE REED MGMT 2615 N LAKEWOOD 1%L�
210 S MONARCH ST #B CHICAGO, IL 60614
ASPEN, CO 81611
COLLINS BLOCK LLC COLORADO CABLE 75%
205 S GALENA ST C/O S GOODMAN OR J M BARNETT
ASPEN, CO 81611 500 PRIES CLINTON #310
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
DENSON JAMES D DOLE MARGARET M
PO BOX 1614 C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
TUBAC, AZ 85646 CEDARIDGE
PO BOX 8455
ASPEN, CO 81612
FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC GALENA PLAZA LLC 30.3845777%
6601 US HIGHWAY 133 CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
CARBONDALE, CO 81623 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
®Taanleed 188d Ase3 aol waded PaadT ®O93S 301dffli @fdeAV 9Sn
laa9S uoipnilsul eaS ® T ; slegel lead Ase3
GILBERT LEONE 2.7624071%
CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESO
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN
150 METRO PK #2
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
HANSEN STEVE 11.8169824%
CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST
PO BOX 1576
MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040
JARDEN CORPORATION
2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR
OVf-
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP
TRST
2311 LA MESA DR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
LEVY LAWRENCE F & CAROL
980 N MICHIGAN AVE #400
CHICAGO, IL 60611
MAIN & MILL LLC 34.28%
C/O LOW ELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
MILL & MAIN LLC
2900 OCEAN BLVD
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
MMWCRB LLC 3.93%
595 S BROADWAY #200
DENVER, CO 80209
T ®09L5®AM3AVR3
HALL CHARLES L HANSEN CANTINA LLC 15.72%
PO BOX 1819 PO BOX 9343
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
HENDERSON JAMES C HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC
KUCK KATHERINE M 170 E GORE CRK
4880 HARLEM RD VAIL, CO 81657
GALENA, OH 43021
HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS ISIS BUILDING LLC
LLC 205 S MILL ST # 301A
290 HEATHER LN ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY
KANDYCOM INC TRUST #1
766 SINGING WOOD DR 216 SEVENTEENTH ST
ARCADIA, CA 91006 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
LCP ELYSIAN ASPEN OWNER LLC LESTER JIM
C/O LODGING CAPITAL PTNRS/ DAVID 395 SOUTH END AVE #29N
SIMS NEW YORK, NY 10280
430 W ERIE ST #501
CHICAGO, IL 60610
LOMA ALTA CORPORATION
LUCKYSTAR LLC u�
PO BOX 886
PO BOX 7755 /
LANCASTER, TX 75146 -0886
GOLDEN AF:'1' iI lEi Yl+ ,N IJ l;
GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC
DBA ASPEN INTERNATION,?�L ART
435 E MAIN ST
213 S MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
HALL CHARLES L HANSEN CANTINA LLC 15.72%
PO BOX 1819 PO BOX 9343
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
HENDERSON JAMES C HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC
KUCK KATHERINE M 170 E GORE CRK
4880 HARLEM RD VAIL, CO 81657
GALENA, OH 43021
HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS ISIS BUILDING LLC
LLC 205 S MILL ST # 301A
290 HEATHER LN ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY
KANDYCOM INC TRUST #1
766 SINGING WOOD DR 216 SEVENTEENTH ST
ARCADIA, CA 91006 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
LCP ELYSIAN ASPEN OWNER LLC LESTER JIM
C/O LODGING CAPITAL PTNRS/ DAVID 395 SOUTH END AVE #29N
SIMS NEW YORK, NY 10280
430 W ERIE ST #501
CHICAGO, IL 60610
LOMA ALTA CORPORATION
LUCKYSTAR LLC u�
PO BOX 886
PO BOX 7755 /
LANCASTER, TX 75146 -0886
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARCUS STEPHEN J 20% INT
MASON & MORSE INC
601 E HYMAN AVE
514 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC MILLENNIUM PLAZA LLC
C/O CAPMARK INC C/O MEYER LOWELL
200 WITMER RD PO BOX 1247
HORSHAM, PA 19044 -6657 ASPEN, CO 81612
MTN ENTERPRISES 80B OSA TRUST 50%
C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG
170 GARE CRK DR 2311 LA MESA DR
VAIL, CO 81657 SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
kpTamlead lead fse3 AO; jaded paajT 009L5 31b IdIN31l 1894 seR
110945 uolAnalsul aaS ♦ sla4e7 lead r<se3
PITIiIN COUN-11,
530 E MAIN ST #302
ASPEN, CO 61611
SJA ASSOCIATES LLC 60%
C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS
PO BOX 1709
ASPEN, CO 81612
STANTON LAVONE KAY TRUSTEE FBO
LYON HARRY .167%
500 E MARKHAM STE 305
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
WALL JANET & RICHARD A
205 S GALENA ST #13
ASPEN. CO 81611
WELLS FARGO BANK
C/O DELOITTE TAX LLP
PO BOX 2609
CARLSBAD, CA 92018
WILLIAMS DEXTER M
82 W LUPINE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
RUHNAU DAVID F & SHARON ENGEL
PO BOX 7209
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
SMITH ASPEN QEAA LLC 11.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
SILVER, SLAIV, Lb
C/O RELATED COMPANIES.' JEFF 131i.11
60 COLUMBUS CIR
NEW YORK, NY 10023
SOUTHDALE ANESTHESIOLOGY PROFIT
SHARING TRUST FBO ROY G BRYAN
5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD
EDINA, MN 55439
US BANK NA & MCNULTY ZELPHA MARIE VAIL FINE ART GALLERY INC
.083% PO BOX 1953
422 WHITE AVE, PO BOX 608 EDWARDS, CO 81632
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
WALL JANET L
9762 BURNLEY PL
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
WENDELIN ASSOC
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
WOODS FAMILY LP
PO BOX 11468
ASPEN, CO 81612
WARREN DOGWOOD LLC 13.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O
1001 CHERRY ST STE 308
COLUMBIA, MO 65201
T Taan;eaj load �tse3 ao} waded paaj4 ®®965 3— ivmw31 �aAtl asn
®0965 ®A213Ab� 1 tea45 uoj misul ea5 v ; slagel load Ase3
319 ASPEN LL-0 'L GARROL A i J T T= 7U _' I.
C/U BEAU VIIdTON 530 HOPKINS LLC ALLEN RONALD Vi' REV T RUS T
2317 PENNSY ASPEN, CO 8LVANIA AVE 800E , GO 8 1611 S AVE #B -5 50 SW 137TH AVE
WILMINGTON, DE 19806 BEAVERTON, OR 97006
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
ATTN GAYLE BEAN
PO BOX 10000
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER
SAINT MARYS
1300 S STEELE ST
81602 DENVER, CO 80210
ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP
14881 QUORUM DR #200
DALLAS, TX 75254
BARNETT JERALD M JR
500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
BLUE PINTO LLC
105 VILLAGE LN
CARBONDALE,CO 81623
BRANDON BETH
101 N SPRING ST #107
ASPEN, CO 81611
CALCOTT JOHN R
WIKE KAREN S
600 E MAIN ST #301
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CONCEPT 600 LLC
PO BOX 2914
BASALT. CO 81621
DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC
1690 HOMESTAKE DR
ASPEN. CO 81611
ATWOODSTANFORD H JR & PAMELA S
LIVING TRUST
16125 GREENWOOD LN
MONTE SERENO, CA 95030
BERG KRISTOFOR
102 FOUNDERS PL #202
ASPEN, CO 81611
BOMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST
5601 HIGH DR
MISSION HILLS, KS 66208
BROUGH STEVE B
BROUGH DEBORAH A
599 TROUT LK DR
SANGER, CA 93657
CARVER JOHN & MARCIA L
PO BOX 991
RAPIDS CITY, IL 61278
CLANCY J ANTHONY & DEBORAH
3605 TUXEDO CT
ATLANTA, GA 30305
COPPOCK RICHARD P
PO BOX 44
DEXTER, MI 48130
DONAHUE ELIZABETH
PO BOX 11865
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN LEGACY LLC
17740 E HINSDALE AVE
FOXFIELD, CO 80016
AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC
532 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BIEHL GERALD M
1201 GALAPAGOS
DENVER, CO 80201
BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE
1555 WASHTENAW
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J
PO BOX 450
RED OAK, IA 51566
CICUREL CARY
2615 N LAKEWOOD
CHICAGO, IL 60614
COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 85% INT
2026 N MOHAWK
CHICAGO, IL 60614
CROUSEN GUINN D TRUST
4326 COCHRAN CHAPEL CIR
DALLAS, TX 75209
DORAIS GREGORY SCOTT
HALL MOLLY O
PO BOX 588
ASPEN, CO 81612
T Tajnyead lead Rse3 jo3 ® jaded PaadT 00965 3MdW31 ®RjanV asfl
@09LSOAMHAV i W845 u0pnjlsul "S fi v ; 4Y7 sla4el lead &e3
DORAN RALPH
2600 WOODWARD WAY
ATLANTA, GA 30305
FICKE CLARK
15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
G & G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC
2520 S GRAND AVE
GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601
GILKERSON LINDA
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
5640 ELLIS AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60637
GRAHAM NARELDA
101 N SPRING ST #203
ASPEN, CO 81612
HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE
2495 ADARE
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
HOLLAND AND HART
ATTN BRYAN DOWER
PO BOX 8749
DENVER, CO 80201
HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90%
2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903
JURINE LLC 10%
2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 -1417
KLEIN JAMES J & SALLIE R
PO BOX 12022
ASPEN, CO 81612
s-.
EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPAiNY"
1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D
PENTHOUSE11D
MIAMI, FL 33129
FORTIER TIMOTHY
465 N MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
GAGNON BEN
PO BOX 4381
ASPEN, CO 81612
GLATHAR KIMBERLY J
PO BOX 12197
ASPEN, CO 81612
GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC
PO BOX 4491
ASPEN, CO 81612
HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K
3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL
HONOLULU, HI 96822
HORNBECK KIMBERLY E
102 FOUNDERS PL #2101
ASPEN, CO 81611
JARDEN CORPORATION
2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
K & J ENTERPRISES LLC
601 RIO GRANDE PL #119
ASPEN, CO 81611
LAMB DON Q JR
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
5640 ELLIS AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60637
FELDMAN JONATHAN
101 N SPRING ST „''904
ASPEN, CO 816'i'i
FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST
3601 TURTLE CREEK BLVD APT 204
DALLAS, TX 75219 -5503
GALANTER YALE & ELYSE
525 S ANDREWS AVE
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
GOLDFEIN MICHAEL 85%
GOLDFEIN PAMELA J 15%
1724 BRAESIDE LN
NORTHBROOK, IL 60062
GWM PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 4146
ASPEN, CO 81612
HIPPEAU ERIC
C/O SOFTBANK CAPITAL PTNRS
461 FIFTH AVE 15TH FLR
NEW YORK, NY 10017
HUNTER ALEXANDER
PO BOX 1638
ASPEN, CO 81612
JOSA LLC
PO BOX 10147
ASPEN, CO 81612
KESSLER SEPP H & JANE
600 E MAIN ST #210
ASPEN, CO 81611
LARSON KARL G & MARIA M
PO BOX 8207
ASPEN, CO 81612
T Tajn3ead lead Ase3 jo} jaded PaaiT ®09 &5 31V1dW31t�aAV esn
®09&5 ®J1213Ad� 118945 IJOP lsul9a5 T ; 4U sle9el laed Asea
id
LAZ.AR FAMILY TRUST
5332 ALDEA AVE
ENC:INO, CA 91316
LUCKYSTAR LLC
PO BOX 7755
ASPEN, CO 81612
MANN KATHLEEN A 99%
PO BOX 2057
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331 %
653 26 1/2 RD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
MCGAFF£Y FAMILY & CO NO C LLC
12852 NW SHORELAND DR
MEQUON, WI 53097
MILNE SHEILA
PO BOX 8286
ASPEN, CO 81612
MURPHY GEORGE W
PO BOX 4146
ASPEN, CO 81612
LIEBOWITZ EDWARD
PO BOX 1811
ASPEN, CO 81612
LUNDGREN DONNA
PO BOX 6700
SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446%
320 DAKOTA DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC
1526 FOREST DR
GLENVIEW, IL 60025
MCNANIE TRUST
14915 RANCHO REAL
DEL MAR, CA 92014
MOSCOE THOMAS D
14700 ROCKSBOROUGH RD
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
NIBLACK SCOTT
PO BOX 10869
ASPEN, CO 81612
OBERMEHER PLACE SALES GROUP LLC OBP LLC
OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GROUP 101 FOUNDERS PL #104
LLC ASPEN, CO 81611
115 AABC
ASPEN, CO 81611
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST #302
ASPEN, CO 81611
RKJR PROPERTIES LTD
5934 ROYAL LN #250
DALLAS, TX 75230
PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING
CORP
530 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA
624 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
LINDENAU SCUT "i"
215 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 8161'1
MAESTRANZIBART
1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA
11.0446%
21701 FLAMENCO
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692
MCCUTCHIN GENE P
14833 MIDWAY RD
ADDISON, TX 75001
MILESI MITCHELL TRUST
325 SE ST LUCIE BLVD
STUART, FL 34996
MOSHARI ALI
PO BOX 1875
MIDDLEBURG, VA 20118
NIILER BENJAMIN P
100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR #4101
ASPEN, CO 81611
ONE ONE SEVEN LLC
810 W SMUGGLER
ASPEN, CO 81611
RAMOS WALTHER & MARJORIE
133 TALL TREES DR
BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004
SATTLER SANDRA A
101 NORTH SPRING ST #3204
ASPEN, CO 81611
T g ® Twn3eaj lead Ase3 ao} waded poeiT ®09ts 3'v1dw31 �aAg es8
®091,90AHMV ieag5 uolpnusul aas v i slegEq load Ase3
I^
Vu/
SCHWAB ROBERT SEAMAN ANGELA
LEITCH B BRYAN III & JORGENSEN TED PO BOX 10363
E ASPEN, CO 81612
906 SANTIAGO TR
WYLIE, TX 75098
SEVERSON CHRISTOPHER SEYFFERT STEVEN J
PO BOX 2957 PO BOX 9662
ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612
SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY SMITH GAILEN B & PAMELA WENDI
5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PO BOX 241
PARADISE VALLEY. AZ 85253 SNOWMASS, CO 81654
SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY SPRING STREET LLC
600 E MAIN ST #302 PO BOX 1112
ASPEN, CO 81611 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224
STEEL PARTNERS LTD STEWART TITLE CO
590 MADISON AVE C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER
PO BOX
NEW YORK, NY 10022
GYPSUM, , CO C 81637
TREDER CAROLE A TUSCANA LLC
101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
UNIT 109 OP LLC VAN WALRAVEN EDWARD C 1%
106 S MILL ST #203 PO BOX 4913
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
WASKOW SUSAN A WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST
PO BOX 4975 PO BOX 5950
ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
T Taan1881 lead RSa3 AN
@09LSOAUBAV i;aagS uoi nigul 80S
a
SEID MEL
1104 DALE AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
SHAPIRO FREDERIC M & SUSAN
101 N SPRING ST #108
ASPEN, CO 81611
SMITH H W III
PO BOX 10914
ASPEN, CO 81612
STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446%
12738 W 84TH DR
ARVADA, CO 80001
TASTERS
455 RIO GRANDE PL -1 ST FL
ASPEN, CO 81611
UNIT 103 OBERMEYER PLACE LLC
601 RIO GRANDE PL #119
ASPEN, CO 81611
VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC
0490 ASPEN OAK DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
WOODSON TOM
101 NORTH SPRING ST #106 —
ASPEN, CO 81611
jaded paajT @09LS 31VIdW31 okaw asn
® ; Slagel Iaad 6Sa3
El
x j V-5i 440-
4"
MEMORANDUM
I
TO: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development
FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner
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 26470.100,
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.
X11 G
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council
FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner gG
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 I
ATTACHMENT
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: y tl C , JyodA;nS aw 5-'/6 d G• & Ya, Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: m r c_k 1i , 200L
STATE OF COLORADO )
) Ss.
County of Pitkin )
h a + +N C IA r K (name, please print)
being or repre nting 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 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 of notice. 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.
Signature
The for g "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befo e me this 'L2 a y
of 200B, by _ �a�i Q
WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
P,iA;�f,• r My commission expires:
V •
.: 0 Notary Public
_OF C0t-0
My Commission Erpires 0912512009
ATTACHMENTS:
COPY OF THE PUBLICATION
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
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
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER
ASPEN EXTREME LLC
ASPEN PLAZA LLC
SAINT MARYS 3375 CRYSTAL CT
C/O STEVE MARCUS
1300 S STEELE ST COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133
PO BOX 1709
517 EAST HOPKINS AVENUE LLC
i `ll
530 HOPKINS LLC V
A STAR RANCH FUj,ID 1 LLC;
517 E HOPKINS AVE
800 E HOPKINS AVE #B -5
89 VAGNEUR LANE
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
BASALT, CO 81621
AEP FAMILY LLL 3.9389931%
ALH HOLDING COMPANY INC
ALLEN LEONARD A III
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 EXTREME LLC
ASPEN PLAZA LLC
SAINT MARYS 3375 CRYSTAL CT
C/O STEVE MARCUS
1300 S STEELE ST COCONUT GROVE, FL 33133
PO BOX 1709
DENVER, CO 80210
ASPEN, CO 81611
AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC AVH MEADOWS LLC 20% INT BALDWIN HARLEYA II
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
CALDWELL CHARLES G & DEBRA H CENTRE OF ASPEN LLC 54.6248989% CICUREL CARY
514 E BRYAN ST C/O KATIE REED MGMT 2615 N LAKEWOOD i� I C
SAVANAH, GA 31401 210 S MONARCH ST #B
ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60614
CITY OF ASPEN COLLINS BLOCK LLC COLORADO CABLE 75%
130 S GALENA ST 205 S GALENA ST C/O S GOODMAN OR J M BARNETT
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 500 PRIES CLINTON #310
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
DAVID DOGWOOD LLC 13.5% DENSON JAMES D DOLE MARGARET M
C/O LOWELL MEYER PO BOX 1614 C/O FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF
PO BOX 1247 TUBAC, AZ 85646 CEDARIDGE
ASPEN, CO 81612 PO BOX 8455
ASPEN, CO 81612
DUVIKE INC FOOTLOOSE MOCCASIN MAKERS INC GALENA PLAZA LLC 30.3845777%
C/O AERSCAPE LTD 6601 US HIGHWAY 133 CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
230 S MILL ST CARBONDALE, CO 81623 601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
T ®Taan;eai laad (sea j01 jaded PaadT ®096s u i1dwn 6jand asn FA ®09L5 ®A21�d� !U
11084S uOlPnAsul aas ® 9 i slegel land dseq
GILBERT LEONE 2.7624071%
CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESO
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
GOLDSTEIN PETER & ALAN
150 METRO PK #2
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
HANSEN STEVE 11.8169824%
CO/ RONALD GARFIELD ESQ
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
HINDERSTEIN FAM REV TRUST
PO BOX 1576
MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040
JARDEN CORPORATION /y
2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR ✓
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
KREVOY SUSANNE SEPARATE PROP
TRST
2311 LA MESA DR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
LEVY LAWRENCE F & CAROL
980 N MICHIGAN AVE #400
CHICAGO, IL 60611
MAIN & MILL LLC 34.28%
C/O LOW ELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
MILL & MAIN LLC
2900 OCEAN BLVD
CORONA DEL MAR, CA 92625
MMWCRB LLC 3.93%
595 S BROADWAY #200
DENVER, CO 80209
GODIVA HOLDINGS LLC
435 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
HALL CHARLES L
PO BOX 1819
ASPEN, CO 81612
HENDERSON JAMES C
KUCK KATHERINE M
4880 HARLEM RD
GALENA, OH 43021
HYMAN MALL COMMERCIAL CONDOS
LLC
290 HEATHER LN
ASPEN, CO 81611
KANDYCOMINC
766 SINGING WOOD DR
ARCADIA, CA 91006
LCP ELYSIAN ASPEN OWNER LLC
C/O LODGING CAPITAL PTNRS/ DAVID
SIMS
430 W ERIE ST #501
CHICAGO, IL 60610
LOMA ALTA CORPORATION
PO BOX 886
LANCASTER, TX 75146 -0886
MARCUS STEPHEN J 20% INT
601 E HYMAN AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
MILL STREET PLAZA ASSOC LLC
C/O CAPMARK INC
200 W ITMER RD
HORSHAM, PA 19044 -6657
MTN ENTERPRISES BOB
C/O HILLIS OF SNOWMASS
170 GARE CRK OR
VAIL, CO 81657
GOLDEN ARTS GuNiJECT11--�N 1__�_
DBA ASPEN INTERNATIONAL ART
213 S MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 8161.1
HANSEN CANTINA LLC 15.72%
PO BOX 9343
ASPEN, CO 81612
HILLIS OF SNOWMASS INC
170 E GORE CRK
VAIL, CO 81657
ISIS BUILDING LLC
205 S MILL ST # 301A
ASPEN, CO 81611
KANTZER TAYLOR MICHAEL FAMILY
TRUST #1
216 SEVENTEENTH ST
MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266
LESTER JIM
395 SOUTH END AVE #29N
NEW YORK, NY 10280
LUCKYSTAR LLC uP
PO BOX 7755
ASPEN, CO 81612
MASON & MORSE INC
514 E HYMAN AVE r
ASPEN, CO 81611
MILLENNIUM PLAZA LLC
C/O MEYER LOWELL
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
OSA TRUST 50%
C/O KREVOY SUSANNE BELZBERG
2311 LA MESA DR
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402
T � Taimeai lead Ase3 ao; ® waded P981T ®09L5 31Vislagal l ad s%l1 OJOAV
! .09L5 ®AN3At/nv 110045 WI13n4sul aa5 i , s a �(se3
PITKIIV COUN I t
530 E MAIN St #302
ASPEN, CO s1Gi1
SJA ASSOCIATES LLC 60%
C/O STEPHEN J MARCUS
PO BOX 1709
ASPEN, CO 81612
STANTON LAVONE KAY TRUSTEE FBO
LYON HARRY .167%
500 E MARKHAM STE 305
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
WALL JANET & RICHARD A
205 S GALENA ST #13
ASPEN, CO 81611
WELLS FARGO BANK
C/O DELOITTE TAX LLP
PO BOX 2609
CARLSBAD,CA 92018
WILLIAMS DEXTER M
82 W LUPINE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
�e
RUHNAU DAVID F & SHARON ENGEL
PO BOX 7209
RANCHO SANTA FE, CA 92067
SMITH ASPEN QEAA LLC 11.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
SILVER SLAM COMMERCIAL LI_C;
C/O RELATED COMPANIES/ JEFF BLALI
60 COLUMBUS CIR
NEW YORK, NY 10023
SOUTHDALE ANESTHESIOLOGY PROFIT
SHARING TRUST FBO ROY G BRYAN
5836 LONG BRAKE TRAIL RD
EDINA, MN 55439
US BANK NA & MCNULTY ZELPHA MARIE VAIL FINE ART GALLERY INC
.083% PO BOX 1953
422 WHITE AVE, PO BOX 608 EDWARDS, CO 81632
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501
WALL JANET L
9762 BURNLEY PL
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210
W ENDELIN ASSOC
150 METRO PARK
ROCHESTER, NY 14623
WOODS FAMILY LP
PO BOX 11468
ASPEN, CO 81612
WARREN DOGWOOD LLC 13.5%
C/O LOWELL MEYER
PO BOX 1247
ASPEN, CO 81612
WHEELER BLOCK BUILDING LLC
TKG MANAGEMENT INC C/O
1001 CHERRY ST STE 308
COLUMBIA, MO 65201
TairUead load �tse3 jo; ® aacled paajT ®09ts 3'ywvd3l @fuaAv asn
T 009ss®AMAtl) {ways uOf4mwul 985 v slogel load Rse3
3'i'I ASPEN LLC
C/O BEAU VINTON
23'17 PENNSYLVANIA AVE
WILMINGTON, DE 19806
ALPINE BANK ASPEN
ATTN GAYLE BEAN
PO BOX 10000
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO
530 HOPKINS LLC
800 E HOPKINS AVE #B -5
ASPEN, CO 81611
ARCHDIOCESE OF DENVER
SAINT MARYS
1300 S STEELE ST
81602 DENVER, CO 80210
ASPEN MAIN STREET PROPERTIES LP
14881 QUORUM DR #200
DALLAS, TX 75254
BARNETTJERALD MJR
500 PRESIDENT CLINTON AVE
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201
BLUE PINTO LLC
105 VILLAGE LN
CARBONDALE, CO 81623
BRANDON BETH
101 N SPRING ST #107
ASPEN, CO 81611
CALCOTT JOHN R
WIKE KAREN S
600 E MAIN ST #301
ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN
130 S GALENA ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CONCEPT 600 LLC
PO BOX 2914
BASALT, CO 81621
DIXIE DOG VENTURES LLC
1690 HOMESTAKE DR
ASPEN, CO 81611
ATWOODSTANFORD H JR & PAMELA S
LIVING TRUST
16125 GREENWOOD LN
MONTE SERENO, CA 95030
BERG KRISTOFOR
102 FOUNDERS PL #202
ASPEN, CO 81611
BOMBA LAURIE A REV TRUST
5601 HIGH DR
MISSION HILLS, KS 66208
BROUGH STEVE B
BROUGH DEBORAH A
599 TROUT LK DR
SANGER, CA 93657
CARVER JOHN & MARCIA L
PO BOX 991
RAPIDS CITY, IL 61278
CLANCY J ANTHONY & DEBORAH
3605 TUXEDO CT
ATLANTA, GA 30305
COPPOCK RICHARD P
PO BOX 44
DEXTER, MI 48130
DONAHUE ELIZABETH
PO BOX 11865
ASPEN, CO 81612
ALLEN CARROL A REb' TRU l
ALLEN RONALD W REV TRUST
50 SW '137TH AVE
BEAVERTON, OR 97006
ASPEN LEGACY LLC
17740 E HINSDALE AVE
FOXFIELD, CO 80016
AUSTIN LAWRENCE CONNER LLC
532 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
BIEHL GERALD M
1201 GALAPAGOS
DENVER, CO 80201
BORCHERTS HOLDE H TRUSTEE
1555 WASHTENAW
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J
PO BOX 450
RED OAK, IA 51566
CICUREL CARY
2615 N LAKEWOOD
CHICAGO, IL 60614
COHEN NANCY C REV TRUST 85% INT
2026 N MOHAWK
CHICAGO, IL 60614
CROUSEN GUINN D TRUST
4326 COCHRAN CHAPEL CIR
DALLAS, TX 75209
DORAIS GREGORY SCOTT
HALL MOLLY 0
PO BOX 588
ASPEN, CO 81612
aad¢d peeiT ® Go96S 31V'1d1A131®fieAV asp
T Tam3ead lead Ase3 AO; �� slagal lead Rse3
! x,0915 mANHAV 1XTH� en 14984S uolpntisul 89S
LYp
DORAN RALPH
2600 WOODWARD WAY
ATLANTA, GA 30305
FICKE CLARK
15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
G & G CORPORATE OFFICES LLC
2520 S GRAND AVE
GLENWOOD SPGS, CO 81601
GILKERSON LINDA
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
5640 ELLIS AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60637
GRAHAM NARELDA
101 N SPRING ST #203
ASPEN, CO 81612
HEYS MARIE L TRUSTEE
2495ADARE
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
HOLLAND AND HART
ATTN BRYAN DOWER
PO BOX 8749
DENVER, CO 80201
HUNTER SQUARE LLC 90%
2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE
SAN RAFAEL,CA 94903
JURINE LLC 10%
2900 LOS BALLINAS AVE
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 -1417
KLEIN JAMES J & SALLIE R
PO BOX 12022
ASPEN, CO 81612
4 y/
EMPHASYS SERVICE COMPANI'
1925 BRICKELL AVE BLDG D
PENTHOUSE11D
MIAMI, FL 33129
FORTIER TIMOTHY
465 N MILL ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
GAGNON BEN
PO BOX 4381
ASPEN, CO 81612
GLATHAR KIMBERLY J
PO BOX 12197
ASPEN, CO 81612
GRW RIO GRANDE PROPERTY LLC
PO BOX 4491
ASPEN, CO 81612
HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K
3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL
HONOLULU, HI 96822
HORNBECK KIMBERLY E
102 FOUNDERS PL #2101
ASPEN, CO 81611
JARDEN CORPORATION
2381 EXECUTIVE CENTER DR
BOCA RATON, FL 33431
K & J ENTERPRISES LLC
601 RIO GRANDE PL #119
ASPEN, CO 81611
LAMB DON Q JR
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
5640 ELLIS AVE
CHICAGO, IL 60637
FELDMAN JONATHAN
101 N SPRING ST 410
ASPEN, CO 81611
FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST
3601 TURTLE CREEK BLVD APT 204
DALLAS, TX 75219 -5503
GALANTER YALE & ELYSE
525 S ANDREWS AVE
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
GOLDFEIN MICHAEL 85%
GOLDFEIN PAMELA J 15%
1724 BRAESIDE LN
NORTHBROOK, IL 60062
GWM PROPERTIES LLC
PO BOX 4146
ASPEN, CO 81612
HIPPEAU ERIC
C/O SOFTBANK CAPITAL PTNRS
461 FIFTH AVE 15TH FLR
NEW YORK, NY 10017
HUNTER ALEXANDER
PO BOX 1638
ASPEN, CO 81612
JOSA LLC
PO BOX 10147
ASPEN, CO 81612
KESSLER SEPP H & JANE
600 E MAIN ST #210
ASPEN, CO 81611
LARSON KARL G & MARIA M
PO BOX 8207
ASPEN, CO 81612
T Tajn;eaj load Ase3 A01 ® jaded PaaiT ® ®09Ls 31V1d w9 ®ti a1/ SSn
! 0091,5®AHMV 1 J I P84S OOpnAlsul aa5 v s tr/ s e oo 3
LAZAR FAMILY TRUST LIEBOW ITZ EDWARD
5342 ALDEA AVE PO BOX 1811
ASPEN, CO 81612
ENCINO, CA 91316
LUCKYSTAR LLC LUNDGREN DONNA
PO BOX 7755 PO BOX 6700
ASPEN, CO 81612 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615
MANN KATHLEEN A 99%
PO BOX 2057
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARASCO FAMILY TRUST 33.4331%
653 26 1/2 RD
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C LLC
12852 NW SHORELAND DR
MEOUON, WI 53097
MILNE SHEILA
PO BOX 8286
ASPEN, CO 81612
MURPHY GEORGE W
PO BOX 4146
ASPEN, CO 81612
MARASCO BERNARD R 11.0446%
320 DAKOTA DR
GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81506
MARCHETTI FAMILY LLC
1526 FOREST DR
GLENVIEW.IL 60025
MCNANIE TRUST
14915 RANCHO REAL
DEL MAR, CA 92014
MOSCOE THOMAS D
14700 ROCKSBOROUGH RD
MINNETONKA, MN 55345
NIBLACK SCOTT
PO BOX 10869
ASPEN, CO 81612
OBERMEHER PLACE SALES GROUP LLC OBP LLC
OBERMEYER PLACE RENTAL GROUP 101 FOUNDERS PL #104
LLC ASPEN, CO 81611
115 AABC
ASPEN, CO 81611
PITKIN COUNTY
530 E MAIN ST #302
ASPEN, CO 81611
RKJR PROPERTIES LTD
5934 ROYAL LN #250
DALLAS, TX 75230
PITKIN COUNTY CAPITAL LEASING
CORP
530 E MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
ROTHBLUM PHILIP & MARCIA
624 E HOPKINS AVE
ASPEN, CO 81611
1
LINDENAU SCOTT
215 S MONARCH ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
MAESTRANZIBART
1736 PARK RIDGE POINTE
PARK RIDGE, IL 60068
MARASCO EMILY A AK MEYER EMILYA
11.0446%
21701 FLAMENCO
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692
MCCUTCHIN GENE P
14833 MIDWAY RD
ADDISON, TX 75001
MILESI MITCHELL TRUST
325 SE ST LUCIE BLVD
STUART, FL 34996
MOSHARI ALI
PO BOX 1875
MIDDLEBURG, VA 20118
NIILER BENJAMIN P
100 OBERMEYER PLACE DR #4101
ASPEN, CO 81611
ONE ONE SEVEN LLC
810 W SMUGGLER
ASPEN, CO 81611
RAMOS WALTHER & MARJORIE
133 TALL TREES DR
BALA CYNWYD, PA 19004
SATTLER SANDRA A
101 NORTH SPRING ST #3204
ASPEN, CO 81611
T Tajn;ea3 laad Rse3 AO} ® jaded PaaAT 809 5 31°J IdlNa el lead WE
1 m09L5nAZ13/�H1�1'N1 13aa4su0(.pnysYlea5 v i 5 as /656
SMITH GAILEN B & PAMELA WENDI SMITH H W III
SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY PO BOX 241 PO BOX 10914
5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81612
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
SPRING STREET LLC STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446%
SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY PO BOX 1112 12738 W 84TH DR
600 E MAIN ST #302 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 ARVADA, CO 80001
ASPEN, CO 81611
STEWART TITLE CO TASTERS
STEEL PARTNERS LTD C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 455 RIO GRANDE PL -1ST FL
590 MADISON AVE PO BOX 133 ASPEN, CO 81611
NEW YORK, NY 10022 GYPSUM, CO 81637
TUSCANA LLC UNIT 103 OBERMEYER PLACE LLC
TREDER CAROLE A 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119
101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOOX X 4O
UNIT 109 OP LLC VAN 4913 EN EDWARD C 1% 0490 ASPEN OAK DR
106 S MILL ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST WOODSON TOM
WASKOW SUSAN A PO BOX 5950 101 NORTH SPRING ST #106 J
PO BOX 4975 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
waded paadT ®0965 31YIdW31 QNany esg
� Taan ;eai lead Asa3 Jo; ® i slaclel lead Asa37
T mnotC�A?I�Alinv 149845 uoliPna3sul 805
i
SCHWAB ROBERT
SEAMAN ANGELA
SEID MEL
1104 DALE AVE
LEITCH B BRYAN III & JORGENSEN TED
p0 BOX 10363
ASPEN, CO 81611
E
ASPEN, CO 81612
906 SANTIAGO TR
WYLIE, TX 75098
SHAPIRO FREDERIC M & SUSAN
SEVERSON CHRISTOPHER
SEYFFERT STEVEN J
101 N SPRING ST #108
PO BOX 2957
PO BOX 9662
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
SMITH GAILEN B & PAMELA WENDI SMITH H W III
SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY PO BOX 241 PO BOX 10914
5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN SNOWMASS, CO 81654 ASPEN, CO 81612
PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
SPRING STREET LLC STARMER MARY JOSEPHINE 11.0446%
SMITH JAMES F & N LINDSAY PO BOX 1112 12738 W 84TH DR
600 E MAIN ST #302 CRESTED BUTTE, CO 81224 ARVADA, CO 80001
ASPEN, CO 81611
STEWART TITLE CO TASTERS
STEEL PARTNERS LTD C/O JENNIFER SCHUMACHER 455 RIO GRANDE PL -1ST FL
590 MADISON AVE PO BOX 133 ASPEN, CO 81611
NEW YORK, NY 10022 GYPSUM, CO 81637
TUSCANA LLC UNIT 103 OBERMEYER PLACE LLC
TREDER CAROLE A 501 RIO GRANDE PL STE 105 601 RIO GRANDE PL #119
101 N SPRING ST BOX 3205 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
VECTOR ENTERPRISES LLC
PO BOOX X 4O
UNIT 109 OP LLC VAN 4913 EN EDWARD C 1% 0490 ASPEN OAK DR
106 S MILL ST #203 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612
WHITNEY FAMILY TRUST WOODSON TOM
WASKOW SUSAN A PO BOX 5950 101 NORTH SPRING ST #106 J
PO BOX 4975 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, CO 81615 ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
waded paadT ®0965 31YIdW31 QNany esg
� Taan ;eai lead Asa3 Jo; ® i slaclel lead Asa37
T mnotC�A?I�Alinv 149845 uoliPna3sul 805
ATTACHMENT 7
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE
'!° o F- i*rk'NS
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: T Zo GAT f'�P` //✓$ V'" Zz t'95 , Aspen, CO
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: oNt) � ,elL 2r Q' l 200
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
County of Pitkin )
I, 14/yl` � 6 fi -1-5 C_ 012-t_�-/ (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 of notice. 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 Pltkin 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.
Signatu
The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this /4t day
of fi�e2 /L 2002 by Sco/1-
65 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL
51 Public Notice: My commission expires: OAS / b� a O i b
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE'. FIRE STATION, 420 EAST HOPKINS'. THE
THRIFT SHOP, 422 EAST HOPKINS; AND p Cy U Y (�
ZUPANCIS PROPERTY, 540 EAST MAIN ST.. ,Cn
COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARNGTHE ASPEN CITY Notary Public
East
lock
ATTACHMENTS:
LAURA
MEYER
Galena op cn_ bala em®LasPaousl COPY OF THE PUBLICA TION
My Commisawn rxplroe 0811012010
PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN)
LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED
BYMAIL
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:
Aspen Fire Protection District
REPRESENTATIVE:
Leslie Lamont
OWNER: City of Aspen
LOCATION:
420 and 422 East Hopkins
(Fire Station and Thrift Shop)
540 East Main St.
( Zupancis Property)
CURRENT ZONING:
420 and 422 East Hopkins:
Commercial Core
540 East Main: Commercial Core
and
Service /Commercial/Industrial
(S /C/I).
PROPOSED LAND USE:
420 and 422 East Hopkins:
Redevelop Fire Station and Thrift
Shop
540 East Main:
Temporary shelter for fire engine
SUMMARY: Applicant requests approval of Ordinance No.
3 ' as the final step in a COWOP process that was initiated
in January 2006. On Dec. 18, 2007, the Fire Station
Redevelopment COWOP Task Force voted unanimously to
recommend this Ordinance to City Council.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance, which
establishes the dimensions, FAR, programming and
architecture of the redevelopment of the Fire Station and
The Thrift Shop. It also allows for the use of the Zupancis
Property for the temporary location of a fire engine shelter
while redevelopment at Hopkins Street site is underway.
A rendering of the new Fire Station. Please see Attachment 4 for full size
renderings and additional information.
O O
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 of 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 of 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.
FA
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 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
of the City of Aspen Community Development Department, representatives of the 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 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 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,
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;
K
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,
Downtown Headquarters > r ^ ^ ' ' • ^ ' '
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, 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 of 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 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.
G
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.
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.
E.
Section 3: Approved Project Dimensions
The following approved dimensions of the project shall be reflected in the Final PUD Plans:
MiDtllflllli�o"t >e
Per Final PUD Plan
Minimum )C b W dth
Per Final PUD Plan
Ml hhum Front Yard
Per Final PUD Plan
Afmimara Side Yard
Per Final PUD Plan
Aftw l*RCa1' Yard
Per Final PUD Plan
Per Final PUD Plan
Per Final PUD Plan
Per Final PUD Plan
No requirement
Trash 31- S Y�t a ' `
Per Final PUD Plan
TOTAL: 22,980 sq. ft.
AIloWO Floor Area
Fire Station: 12,599 sq. ft.
City /County IT Server: 600 sq. ft.
Other Non-Program s aces: 6,402 sq. ft.
40' measured from existing grade depicted on Final PUD
Plan with following exceptions:
_
-
Hose and stair tower: 50'
ImIhHelgL
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.
Mhahat m Off- Street Parkin -
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 of 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.
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 for 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 of this 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 Health Department.
4. A construction management and parking plan meeting the specifications of the City
Building Department.
Section 11: Project 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 Land Use Code.
Sectionl2: 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.
W
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 of the ordinances
repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded
under such prior ordinances.
Section 15:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion
shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 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 l ls' 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,
by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 m day of February, 2008.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 11"' day of March, 2008.
Attest:
10
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
Michael C. Ireland, Mayor
11
P'`
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:
• 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."
• 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."
• 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 ..."
• Consistent with the Design Quality Goal of, "Making every public project a model of
good development on all levels, from quality design to positive contributions to the
community fabric."
2. 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 the future development of the
surrounding area.
M
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 requirements for 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 expected future 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 significant vegetation and landforms.
Staff Finding: Staff finds the proposal complies with this standard, as this proposal is in
a fully developed urban area.
10
d) 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 and favorable 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 of use, 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 ofpublic transit and other transportation facilities, 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.
d) 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 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 ofground instability or
the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls 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.
c) 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.
d) 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 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
149
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.
c) 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.
2. 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
-1
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.
7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to
accommodate any programmatic functions 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 of the 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 of exterior spaces, preserves
existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental
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.
2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and
interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner.
`rte
4 4
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 building for 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 19`h 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.
2. 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 of snow, 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 of site features,
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 relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the
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.
l
2. 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 facilities 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, public facilities, 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 of the respective utility
companies.
L Access and Circulation.
The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not
unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and
f'^n
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
to, 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 of 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
ownership 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.
I Phasing of Development Plan.
4 !
The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an
unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an
individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the 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.
2. The phasing-plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical,
occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases.
Staff Finding: No phasing plan is proposed.
3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to
publicfacilities, payment of impact fees andfees -in -lieu, construction ofanyfacilities to
be used jointly by residents of the 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 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: 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 for the renovation
of the Hopkins Street Headquarters Stations, the Aspen Fire Protection District should
consider:
• The civic nature and central location of the building;
• The iconic quality of the AFPD and its members;
• The value ofpedestrian 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:
• 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.
• The central location of The Thrift Shop supports its overall mission, as many of its
customers use public transit.
• The Thrift Shop relies on subsidized rent and could not carry out its mission if it had to
pay retail rental rates.
• 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.
HISTORICAL INFLUENCES ON
THE DESIGN OF THE NEW 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
department with direct references to their 19`h 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 19`h century history of the volunteers
to their evolving mission
and the technological
advances of the 21s` century.
The resulting architecture is
a bridge across the past to
the present and onward to
the future of the AVFD.
In the 1890's, the fire
department's hand -drawn
carts were stored on the
ground level of a building
that also housed the Aspen
City Hall. This was located
at the intersection of Durant
and South Mill Streets just
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
building at the far left.
Later, when horse -drawn
carts were introduced,
the structural columns
were modified to
provide bays that could
accommodate the larger
apparatus. The photo at
left also reveals that the
bays were enclosed with
clerestory glazing and
wood barn doors. The
stairs were relocated
outside the original
omiatng s west wall.
The proposed facade of the new HQ fire station is derived from historical design elements of the fire
department's 19`h 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,
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:
0
The partnering of fire department and civic uses in one building.
Expression of the apparatus bays with exposed post and beam construction.
Emphasis of the apparatus bays with recessed facade and deep shadow lines.
mI
0
0
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.
Vertical, rectangular windows establish a rhythm on the upper floor.
Masonry or precast concrete accents such as sills and lintels.
Cornice detailing terminates the top of the building.
a r c h i t e c t s
o�
o
.. c
o =
d c
o
I.� c
c 3
0 0
a0
Q
w
T
R\F,
7-1
'Illllliillllltllllllllllllllill I (�i �,'.I Ial''a >'� "6 =�
IIIIIIilllllll � __ _ W J �_
lillllllllllll ' I ��� � � �_�►��►����� �_ I
f��j l
V'� "AN
n IN
tA
RESOLUTION NO.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 of 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 of 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
of 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
C
1. The project would provide a much needed upgrade to the Aspen Fire Protection
District's facilities;
2. The subject property is owned by the City of Aspen;
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 in the property and its
development.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 -0)
Resolution No. 4, Series of 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)(b), 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 of 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:
• Determine and evaluate site opportunities and constraints.
• Finalize specific elements of the development program.
• Prepare a sample site plan including development layout, access, parking and
other pertinent site components.
2
• 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 of Review and Anal:
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
project 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 of 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 of the remainder of the expenses related to the COWOP.
RESOLVED, passed and approved this 9th day of January, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. h, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
L-Jolin—Worcesit6r, City Attorney
RESOLUTION N0. 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 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 of the 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 I
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 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, 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 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. K City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Worcester, City Attorney
Reso No. 15, Series of 2006
RESOLUTION N0. fl
(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 Welfare 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
MB 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 of the City's Historic Preservation Commission;
Pam Cunningham, a representative of the Aspen Fire Protection District; Courtney Lord,
a representative of neighboring properties; and Susie Krevoy, a representative of
neighboring properties.
RESOLVED, passed and approved this day of /�tli1- }2007.
Attest:
Kathryn S. K ch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Michael C. Ireland
2
EXHIBIT A
Update: Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Roster
Name Affiliation
�'erre
Steve Skadron
P &Z City Council
Dwayne Romero
A) gB Beard City Council
Pam Cunningham
AFPD Board
Mike Haisfield
Volunteer Firefighter
Dylan Johns
P &Z
Sarah Broughton
HPC
Alison A ley
HPC
Nancy Gensch
Thrift Shop
Jack Wilke
Citizen
Marcia Goshorn
Citizen
Cinthia Andrews
Citizen
Chris Kiley
Citizen
Tim Semrau
Citizen
Safn 1lauste
Courtney Lord
Isis
Susie Krevoy
Isis
Rob Snyder
Kandycom Building
Rich Walker
Ambulance Service
Ellen Anderson
Pitkin County
Chris Bendon
City Community Development
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 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 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.)
`, /IV. 4 -Bay vs. 3 -Bay Scheme- Darryl Grob and Gilbert Sanchez (15 min.)
V. Publicfrask Force Comment on 4 -Bay Scheme and Consensus Vote— Chris
Bendon (10 min.)
VI. Review Written COWOP Recommendations - James Lindt (10 min.)
VII. Publicfrask 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
C Fire Statiori COWOP
Meeting #3 Agenda
January 26, 2006
11 AM — 2 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 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.)
A1.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
rawer <
'sxueus <
<
•epua6e <
ayl oZ sa6uec{o io sgy6n0yq TeuoTIzppe ane4 noA ;T MouN aw 4aT aseaTd <
'�V Y. ] LVUU I JYAffl b t t VI MOt UY- - - "' - rev. JITJ 1. 1
r
j. A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
.,'.' APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420/422 E. HOPIONS AVENUE, THE ASPEN
FIRE DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN HEADQUARTERS AND THE THRIFT SHOP,
LOTS O, "AND AND R, BLOCK 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 3, SERIES OF 7006
PARCEL ID: 2737.073 -30 -851
WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen Fire Protection District%c Thrift Shop, represented by
Studio B Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) 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 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 die 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 report 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 met, 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 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 0, P, Q, and R, Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the
following conditions:
Study the setback relationship of the circulation spine volume and the Thrift Shop volume
with varying degrees of cantilevering, and study the setback of the Fire Department entry
doors.
IYV V. J. L'VVV ). lTnrtl bill VI nvl ur
rma
1'
'�— APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of February,
2006.
Approved as to Form:
Davt Hity Att��
Approved as to content:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
��
Kath Stric ad Chief Deputy erk
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; 3`d level accommodates district office, community room and
emergency cps 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) 4 th 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 like 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 3`d 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
I
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.
Sam stated if COWOP 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
r�.
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 3'd story to come out over the bays and will
cost 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 limitation 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 into 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
4.s
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 would 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
1..
February 8m and final review will detail elements.
Sam thought previous conversation was that 41h 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 AO"k
floor. Over the pedestrian entryway right now are drawing 10 or 11 foot floors
Nw
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 basement 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
ventilation 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
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 reed 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 overtime and think it is appropriate based on
specific programs driven by desire to enhance ability to service mission. Darryl is AW^l
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 responded 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:
Utility areas, common, basement 1500 square feet = check
Future build out 7500 square feet - 3'd 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 cps
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.
El
e
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. PubliciTask 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.)
B1.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.)
C1.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.)
D1.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.)
'/ '- Ad, 6vco
f
V
`R
\ ,I
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(absopris .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(a�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) welcomed 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
tot ratio meaning FAR to square footage of property, but for retail it is 1.5 tot 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; 2nd 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; 3`d 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 on
4'h 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
C 0
meeting room 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 from federal and state level.
Ellen 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 development 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 consolidaf -4 in a well that could
be tapped into depending on needs. GS added that 4`h floor space isn't part of
program but design, structure, and mechanical systems will anticipate 4th floor.
Amy Guthrie questioned would it be possible to design 4th floor and GS e could
confirmed. Amy stated it would be nice to see the project. GS confirmed h
use CC zoning restrictions and maximum build out of site was going to be caul
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
• bigger development. DG conceded it as an excellent suggestion and show it as
time.
• maximum build out. If it evolved into less, it could be addressed at appropriate
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
4 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.
C 0
John Keleher commented that design of 4`h floor in year 2006 is counter
productive if philosophy might change to a building we don't 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 from 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 almost 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
for general public?
James questioned DG with security concerns with AH above TS next door? DG
reserved comment 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
is used as general guidelines, but City Council can waive AH mitigation
requirements. LL stated it's important for COWOP 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 paying 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 3'd
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 4th
negligible in scheme of things. floor component before and it was
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 4`h floor of firehouse off table and put in realm - can it be designed
now and see what 4th 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 if 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 mass. 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 adwkward 4th story down the road. SL responded design should
address both 3 and 4 th 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 HPC and
C
0
designers that specifies this is not a blanket approval and architectural
components implemented in initial phase will be carried forward in some
compatible fashion.
1. Design team to explore 4th floor maximum build out expansion and
come back to COWOP review and utilized in HPC as well. (without a
specific use)
Torre questioned 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 comments 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 if 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 4`h 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 means 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
r^
1. Design team explore another floor above thrift shop exterior
facade 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 3`d 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 for this bond issue:
1. Explore possibility to utilize 3`d 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 4`h 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. LUNCH.
LL One item after AH is meeting room and potential museum incorporated in
project. GS and SL talked about significant square footage on 3`d floor that could
be CI 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 cps 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 3`d 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 3`d floor in mass and
scale. Model shows three floors at FD and imagine 4th floor. One thought was
amazing museum 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 fapade 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; it's 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 COWOP. Amy
agrees with Jason and that if one thing'is important about downtown
redevelopment to HPC 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 eliminate 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 seems 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 25 -0/o 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
some 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
form to ground or different architectural opportunity
SL stated these drawings are to evoke discussion and are mo 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 McCarthy 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 benches 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 is 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 basementiprogram
GS added the basement program identified is 1400 square feet and could
happen underneath sliver 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
� J
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. Jeremiah 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 many 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
money 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 basement space (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
� n
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 for that 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 scheme
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 component. 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 26 `h
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 of Engagement (15 min.)
I. 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 IONWA
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 15t 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.
? '^ , N
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 -25 %, 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
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 remain 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
e� ,--.
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 19,500 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 Cafe 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
M
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
massing 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 Cafe 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 110
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 STATION 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 Affordable 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.
Affordable Housing for Emergency 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 floor 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.
Affordable 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 affordable 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.
'___'t*Enzer encv Operations Room/Public Meeting Room
Pitkin County has no real adequate facility to act as an emergency command center
\ tv_ 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 government meetings in the room.
The Fire District indicated that they would be willing to allow it to be used for City
meetings 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 History Educational Element
The Fire District has a considerable amount of memorabilia from their extensive history
of fighting 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
0
to be of sufficient size to functi ally accommodate school groups and to display the
District's memorabilia. A fire ghting 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. ` i►- rtwi .t A4-`
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. 75 5"/1 " .wd re: sA� 4-%�e 1p ' 4.4;s
Designing Circulation Corridor to Operate as a Future Apparatus Bay'
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 if
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. L y,
'7.
Street Relationship of 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 elements 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.
Alley Parking
The COWOP task force considered whether the new fire station should include
some pull -under alley parking. Unanimously, the COWOP task force supported
providing 4 -5 head -in parking spaces accessed from the alleyway given that a lack of
parking is always a problem.
Basement Under Apparatus Bays
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 of using a space below the apparatus bays as a parking
garage for the general public. It was also decided that providing parking spaces for
emergency 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 ramping of vehicles. Price for reinforcing the space underneath the bays was also
discussed and the Fire District indicated that 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 basemen nder the apparatus bays should not be included in the
development program, but at if an alternative source of funding presented itself
between now and the time onstruction, the development of a baserim Sunder the
apparatus bays should be sidered.
Overall Use Pro rg am
After three (3) COWOP task force meetings, the task force voted that the overall
use program (attached as Exhibit "A ") that has been established for the fire station
was appropriate. The vote was unanimous.
ATTACHMENTS:
FINAL USE PROGRAM
7
PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM_ 'r� b/
ASPEN "`E PROTECTION DISTRICT AND TF. :FT SHOP — —�—
Apparatus Bays
4 19 x 56
p eaa
! 1,064 4,256
EMT Storage
11
20, 20
pip Decontamination Area
1
20 20
Bunker Storage
1
200
200
Bunker Washer Area
1
25
25
Tool ROOM
11
120;
120
General Storage
11
6001
600
SCBA
1
144
144
Hose Drying Tower
1
100
100
Bactome, Preventer Area
1
35,
35
-
Vestibules
2
49
98
Outtloor Storage ROOM
1
80.
80
AVFD OV/NG QUARTERS AREA5
PRIVATE
2,476
CONFIRMED I 126/06
Da room
1
320
320
Kitchen
1
240
240
Dimn Area
1
192
192
Shlfl/Guest Quarters
4,
192.
768
Quarters Bathrooms
2
128
256
Launtl
1
100'
100
Bathroom
1
48
48
Weight Room
1
480;
480
Janitor Closet /Minor Stom a
1.
72
72
AFPODISTRICTOFFICE
PUBLIC
5,812
CONFIRMED I 126106
Entry Vestibule
1
801
80
Rece tion
1
300
300
Trainin /Meeting Room
1
960
960
Officers OKcs
1'
192
192
Workstations
2
36
72
Libra /Archives
_
ii
144
144
General Offices
3
144
432
Co Room /Area
1!
96
96
Omoc Smra e
1
96.
96
Public Restrooms
2.
300
600
Janitor Closets
40.
40
Museum /Etlucational Component
—1
it
1,500
1,500
Commuml Roam /Emer envy 0 s
1
1,300
1,300
THRIFT SHOP
Retail Space
1
J940
2,000 2,000
CONFIRMED I 126106
Storage
1:
1,60 1,600
Restmom
1
80 80
Office
1
144
144
Dro pa
1
10 0
100
Janitor or Closet
1
16
i6
BASEMENT /PARKING
Atltl'I Basement below Ba s /Drivewa
11
7 000
7,000 7,000
PURSUE FUNDING PARTNER
Not mooned in Current Pro ram
FUTUREHUILD -OUT
Future Development of 3rd/4th Firs
1
!
1 7500
7,500 7,500
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
Not included in Current Pro ram
UTILITYAREA$- COMMON
Mechanical Room
Electncal Closet
5%1
1
1481
1,281
100 100
CONFIRMED I /26106
Sized for Future Builc Out
_
tw
Neork Room
I
100 100
TATAbWkTAREA
Gri ss To Net factor
120%
Structure S Circulation
GR7tY1R- 7oT.71lRbs5 a:
Stutllo 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 process, 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 lmderstanding 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.
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 of the 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.
Sta
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 plarning, 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
Jaynes 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
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 program.
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 majority report describing the recommendation of a majority 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. 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
l r
Principles
• To achieve a full understanding of the participants' interests, concerns, and ideas,
everyone in the group must actively participate.
• 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.
• A norm must be created in which everyone will feel comfortable to state his or her
views and to disagree.
• A disagreement can illuminate unrecognized problems and serve as a catalyst for new
ideas; therefore voicing disagreements will be encouraged.
• The goal of the group is to discover the umnet need that.has produced an objection
and to find a way to meet that need, rather than to suppress the objection.
• The focus will be on identifying underlying interests or needs and problem solving to
meet individual and collective needs rather than on pitting 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 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
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
them:
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
3
• 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.
• An equal Status exists between all Task Force members
• Disagreement is inevitable, but should be focused on the issues involved rather than
based on perceptions of motives or relationships and personalities.
• The work sessions will begin and end promptly at the scheduled times, unless the
Task Forces agrees to change the times.
• To ensure that all group members contribute, the facilitator will elicit response from
all participants.
• 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.
• Task Force Team members are responsible for keeping themselves up to date.
Meetings will not unnecessarily repeat information from previous meetings.
• No cell phones or pagers shall be audibly on or in use during meetings.
STRUCTURAL GUIDELINES
Task Force members 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 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 docume - will be marked with "DRAFT" or "FOR DISCUSSION"
4
MEETING TIMES AND LOCATION
Regular meetings will be January 12" and January 19`x' 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 of those 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.
E
Fire Station COWOP Task Force Roster
Name
Affiliation
E -mail Address
Tone
City Council
torre@ci.aspen.co.us
J.E. DeVilbiss
City Council
jed(&,ci pen.co.us
V Darryl Grob
Fire Chief
darrylg ci.aspen.co.us
✓ Dwayne Romero
Fire District Board
dromero@obermeyerplace.com
V Mike Haisfield
Vohmteer Fire Fighter
Steve Skadron
Planning and Zoning
Commission
skadron @comcast.net
V Dylan Johns
Planning and Zoning
Commission
dylanmj@hotmail.com
Sarah Broughton
Historic Preservation
Commission
sarah @rowlandbroughton.com
Jason Lasser
Historic Preservation
Commission
design @jasonlasser.com
Nancy Gensch SVe.
Thrift Shop
ngensch sopris.net
V Jack Wilkie
Citizen
Marcia Goshom
Citizen
marciagoshorn hotmail.com
Cinthia Andrews
Citizen
candrwes04 law.du.edu
✓ Chris Kiley
Citizen
ckiley desi nworksho .com
Tim Semrau
Citizen
tsemrau so ris.net
✓ Sam Houston
Isis
samhoustonaspen aol.com
Rob Snyder
Kandycom Building
Rich Walker
Ambulance Service
Ellen Anderson
Pid in County
eIlem_@co.pitIin.co.us
✓ Chris Bendon
City of Aspen Community
Development Dept.
chrisb @ci.aspen.co.us
James Lindt
City of Aspen Community
Development Dept.
jarnesl @ci.aspen.co.us
C 3
Statement of Problems and Opportunities
Fire Station Facility Planning
420 E. Hopkins 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 facilities 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 Sardy 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
Highway 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 too small and poorly equipped.
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 City- orientated Emergency Operations Center potential should be pursued
to facilitate implementation of the City`s disaster planning program.
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 community core, reflecting the community values and personal
commitment so manifested within the Aspen Volunteer Fire Department. The Thrift Shop sublease is
actualh 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 arrive 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 of the 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 of the 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 justify 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 continuing in the spirit and uadiiioa of the Aspen Volunteer Fare Depa Lmen:, year
fire department since 1881.
Thank you,
Aspen Fire Protection District Board of Directors
ell
The Thrift Shop of Aspen — Statement of Problem & Opportunity
December 19, 2005
I. 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 to serve our community and the Roaring Fork Valley in a two-
fold manner: first, to sell donated goods in order to financially support valley -wide non-
profit organizations and provide scholarships and, second, to make clothing and goods
available for sale to the community at affordable prices. To that end, the 100 volunteers of
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;
Selling more and better quality donated goods;
Increasing the level of our monetary donations to non - profits; and
Continuing to nurture the historical spirit of volunteerism 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 Thrift 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.
S. 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 our joint 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 in 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
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 in 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 of the Public (PUB) zone district is to provide for the development of gov-
ermnental, 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 office;
4. Hospital;
5. Essential governmental and public utility uses, facilities, services and buildings (excluding
maintenance shops);
6. Public transportation stop;
7. Tenninal building, and transportation related facilities;
S. 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 uses;
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 in 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 § 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 of the City. The
district permits a mix of retail, office, lodging, affordable housing, and free market housing uses ori-
ented to both local and tourist populations to encourage a high level of 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 of right 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 Uses 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 - Fancily 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 apermitted 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'. Minimrun lot width (feet): No requirement.
4. Minimum front yard setback (feet): No requirement.
5. Minimum side yard setback (feet) 7 No requirement.
6. Minimum rear yard 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 Amenity Space: Pursuant to Section 26.575.030.
10. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The following FAR schedule applies to uses cumulatively up to atotal
maximum FAR of'): 1.
a. Commercial Uses: 1.5:1, which maybe increased to 2:1 if affordable 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 acknowl-
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.
I 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 maybe
replaced, subject to acknowledgement by the City Zoning Officer prior to demolition, with
no connmensurate affordable housing requirement. Requirements of the Multi- Family
Housing Replacement Program, Section 26.530, may apply.
(Ord. No. 56 -2000, §§ 7 (part), 11; Ord. No. 25 -2001, § 5 (part); Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 20 (part), 2002;
Ord. No. 21 -2002 §§ 5 and 6 (part); Ord. No. 28a -2004 §2, 2002)
MEETING TIMES AND LOCATION
Resular meetings will be January 12" and January 19° from l 1 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 of those 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.
5
• 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 "eood" or "bad ", it will be useful to be open to the underlying
concerns that are expressed in a proposal.
• An equal Status exists between all Task Force members.
• Disagreement is inevitable, but should be focused on the issues involved rather than
based on perceptions of motives or relationships and personalities.
• The work sessions will begin and end promptly at the scheduled times, unless the
Task Forces agrees to change the times.
• To ensure that all group members contribute, the facilitator will elicit response from
all participants.
• 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.
• Task Force Team members are responsible for keeping themselves up to date.
Meetings will not unnecessarily repeat information from previous meetings.
• No cell phones or pagers shall be audibly on or in use during meetings.
STRUCTURAL GUIDELINES
Task Force members 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 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 docume.�'- will be marked with "DRAFT" or "FOR DISCUSSION"
4
Principles
• To achieve a full understanding of the participants' interests, concerns, and ideas,
evervone in the group must actively participate.
• 'fo 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.
• A norm must be created in which everyone will feel comfortable to state his or her
views and to disagree.
• A disagreement can illuminate unrecognized problems and serve as a catalyst for new
ideas: therefore voicing disagreements will be encouraged.
• 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 objection.
• The focus will be on identifying underlying interests or needs and problem solving to
meet individual and collective needs rather than on pitting 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 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
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
them:
• 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.
• In order to give everyone a chance to talk, participants should be sensitive about the
length and pertinence of their continents and the importance of encouraging
participation from all members of the group. Time limits may be imposed.
• 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-
3
1
r.
7_ Team members are responsible for keeping current. Meetings will continue
reaardless of absent Team members.
Chair person
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.
29ff
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
.lames 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
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
COW011 process.
Ideally. the --oal of the Task Force is to reach consensus on a development program`.
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 majority report describing the recommendation of a majority 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. 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
r.�
ASPEN FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
Status: The Aspen Fire Protection
District and the City of Aspen recently
agreed to conclude their joint planning
efforts regarding the potential relocation of
the AFPD Headquarters Station from
Hopkins Street to the Zupancis Property on
Main Street. The AFPD staff and board are
currently engaged in preliminary discussions
regarding the scope and timing of a remodel
of the Hopkins Street Headquarters Station.
Site: The Aspen Fire Protection District
has been located on Hopkins Street since
1961, and has served as the Headquarters
Station for all District functions. In
conjunction with outlying satellite facilities,
the Headquarters Station has served as the
base for all Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department operations. The AFPD leases
this site from the City for a nominal fee, with
the lease contract extending through 2021.
Organization: The Aspen Fire
Protection District was established in 1953
by an election of voters within the proposed
district boundaries. It is an independent
government district, funded primarily by a
property tax levy and operated by an elected
Board of Directors.
V1SiOt1: The CMP Phase I
Report/Foundation Map stated that, "The
Fire District will outgrow the current facility
(not the location) in the near future," and
stated that the Hopkins St. site represents
an, "Opportunity for a redeveloped fire
station or a cultural facility."
After the City Council purchased the
Zupancis site on Main Street, the Fire
District established a Headquarters Station
Steering Committee, which issued a final
report in Sept. 2003. While the committee
voted 10 -7 in favor of relocating to the
Zupancis site, the vote did not reach the 2/3
majority required by the recommendation
process.
Not long after the vote, the AFPD began to
focus on a more fundamental, District -wide
redistribution of equipment and apparatus.
The AFPD located a parcel adjacent to the
North 40 development, and determined that
it could accommodate a substation that
could address the longstanding problem of
ensuring rapid response to the populated
area west of the City. Adequate response
time from the downtown station across the
Castle Creek Bridge during commuting
hours has been a major AFPD concern.
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
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
renovation of the Hopkins Street
Headquarters Station,
Relevant Core Principles:
1. Civic and arts & cultural uses belong
in the heart of town.
3. Focus on creating great people
places.
6. Public- private partnerships can be
very advantageous in achieving
public goals.
�^ n
a�
Findings:
The civic nature and iconic quality of
the Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department — 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:
7z> the civic nature and central
location of the building;
the iconic quality of the
Aspen Volunteer Fire
Department and its
members;
=> the value of pedestrian +
public interaction.
OK 11.17
N
THE THRIFT SHOP
Status: The Thrift Shop is interested in
building a second floor to expand its
services.
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
nominal amount per year.
There is approximately 1,000 square -feet of
space on the 1� floor, and approximately
1,000 s.f, in the basement, which is used
partly for storage. The location in the
downtown core is ideal, as many clients use
public transit. The original Thrift Shop was
located on Main Street, moved to S. Mill
Street and moved to its current location in
the early 1980s.
Organization: The Thrift Shop was
established as a non -profit in 1949, and is
run by a 5- member Board of Directors.
There are approximately 80 volunteers that
put in more than 10,000 hours per year, all
happen to be women. There are no paid
employees. In 2004, The Thrift Shop
donated $270,000 to local non - profits as
well as college scholarships for those who
embody the spirit of volunteerism. The Thrift
Shop also regularly donates materials to
Indian reservations, Good Will Industries,
the Salvation Army and disaster relief
efforts. The mission of The Thrift Shop is to
`.s
make affordable clothing available to the
community, it is a high - volume business that
is open from 9:30 am - 4 pm six days a
week. The Thrift Shop accepts clean
clothing in good condition, preferable in-
season, as well as small household
appliances in working order, in- season
sporting equipment, artwork and toys.
Vision: For many years, The Thrift Shop
has been interested in expanding, based on
the consistent high volume of business it
enjoys. The Thrift Shop currently re-
distributes a substantial amount of clothing
to other groups, such as The Salvation
Army, because it has no room for additional
displays. By adding a second floor, The
Thrift Shop could keep a much larger
inventory on -site, and believes it could
substantially increase its business -- and the
amount it donates to local non - profits and
students. The staff and Board of Directors of
the Aspen Fire Protection District (AFPD)
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
areas create vibrant, memorable places.
4. Affordable Housing and Affordable
Commercial space ensures viability of civic
functions and vitality of town.
5. Civic planning must address need for
parking while not inducing additional traffic.
6. Partnerships can be very advantageous in
achieving civic goals.
Draft Findings:
1. The Thrift Shop is an Aspen
institution that provides an important
service for lower income residents
and workers that no one else
provides — while supporting local
non - profits and students. (CP#4) OK
11.17
2. The central location of The Thrift
Shop supports its overall mission,
r�
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 Thrift Shop is an opportunity to
create a vibrant mixed -use area.
(CP #2) OK 11.17
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
s-�
CIVIC MASTER PLAN CORE
PRINCIPLES
1. Civic & Arts /Cultural uses belong in
heart of town. Many communities develop a
"big glass box" on the outskirts of town
surrounded by parking and a drainage feature
and call it their Civic Center. Aspen has the
fortune of an integrated civic core in the heart of
downtown and the substantial community
character that has resulted. This planning effort
builds on that tradition.
2. Mixed -use buildings and mixed -use
areas create vibrant, memorable places.
Single -use buildings, depending upon their use,
can have periods of little activity. Repeated on a
large scale, whole single -use areas can see little
activity. Civic Centers dominated by government
institutions, for example, are vacant during
weekends. Integrating complimentary uses can
result in a more active and more interesting
Ient.
3. Focus on Creating Great People
Places. Great public places give identity to
cities and instill a sense of pride in the
community. These public places become the
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
concerning civic institutions should involve a
discussion about affordable housing and the
long -term viability of the institution. Affordable
Commercial space addresses the continued
viability of the local economy and contributes to
a vital mix of uses. Housing has the ability to
increase vitality of an area and of the public
spaces throughout the civic area. Affordable
housing is also a topic of civic discourse and the
community's efforts related to affordable housing
should be reflected in the physical development
of town.
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 (Vaster Plan
1!27i2005
may result in extra traffic from cars circling the
area and visitor frustration.
6. Public - Public, Public- Private &
Private - Private partnerships can be very
advanta -geous in achieving civic goals.
Private enterprise may significantly extend the
public's ability to reach public goals. While each
circumstance needs to be individually
considered, the possibility of "win -win" scenarios
are worth exploring.
7. Pedestrian orientation. The design,
programming, and implementation of civic
projects should focus on the pedestrian quality
of the district. Connections to and through the
district should be enhanced.
8. Arts and Culture. The pursuit of
excellence in the arts and culture is an integral
part of Aspen's historical character. The display
and presentation of arts and cultural events is a
core element of Aspen's identity as a unique
community in a competitive resort environment,
and Aspen should build upon this intrinsic asset
at every opportunity. A sustained cultivation of
the arts and culture in Aspen will further enrich
the Aspen community, reinforce its international
profile and strengthen its economy over the
long -term.
t
Project area
Page 3
f ^�
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 in
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 § 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.2d 1060 (Colo.
1980). (Ord. No. 7 -2000 § 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 § 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 § 3)
26.500.050 Procedure.
A. Community Development Director. The Community Development Director, upon determin-
ing that the proposed development application may be eligible for consideration as a project 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 followed 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 of the project. The Community Development Director, before preparing
such a memorandum for the City Council may convene a technical staff meeting consisting of the
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, enviromnental 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, in accordance with
section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a((b) &(c).
B. City Council determination of eligibility. Following a public hearing in accordance with sec-
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 welfare 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 wel-
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 of the
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 remain 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-
lic, 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
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 in
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
of the Task Force Team shall prepare meeting agendas, coordinate meeting dates for the Task Force
Team, and facilitate all meetings. Following a review of the proposed development and at such time
as the Community Development Director believes that further review would not significantly 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 -
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 of 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 Team; and
(d) 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 § 3; Ord. No. 1 -2002 § 12, 2002; Ord. No. 27 -2002 §§ 20 and 21, 2002)
"4eaf-t ,Re4f,11 � C
PQutucq Seuicec
b"ax 3613 .4d#e c, (�JaCazada 81612 ;D4o -z /7� (970)420 -112-5
December 19, 2005
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 legal description of the property is Lots O,
P, Q, 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 City 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
#� poo-'j
Alan Richman, AICP
December 20, 2005
James Lindt
Community Development Department
130 S. Galena St
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Ownership of Fire Station Parcel
Dear James:
THE C17Y OF ASPEN
OFHCE OF THE CM Al mOR
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. 0, 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 to 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,
Jobn Worcester
City Attorney
130 SovrH GALENA S= ASPEN, COLORADO 82611 -1975 PHONE 970 °20.5055 Fax 970.920.5119
rdmea o� eP -y�aa Paon
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:
0
I am writing this letter 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
redevelop 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, �n
" ^JCS
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 meeting 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 eligibility 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 for the convenience and welfare 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 Department, 130 S. Galena
St., Aspen, CO (970) 429 -2763, (or by email at jamesl@ci. aspen. coms).
s /Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Aspen City Council
Published in the Aspen Times on December 25, 2006
ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION
APPLICANT: Prniaat
Name: Aspen Fire Protection District /Aspen Thrift Shop
420 & 422 East Hopkins Avenue, Lots O,P,Q, &R, B ock 87
Location:
(Indicate street address lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Parcel ID #(REQUIRED) 273707330851
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Leslie Lamont,Lamont Planning Services, LLC
Address: 725 Melissa Lane, Carbondale CO 81623
Phone #: 963 -8434 email: llamont@sopris.net
Name: Aspen Fire Protection District - Darryl Grob, Chief
Address: 420 E. Hopkins, Aspen CO 81611
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
❑
Conditional Use
❑
Conceptual PUD
❑
Conceptual Historic Devt.
❑
Special Review
❑
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
❑
Final Historic Development
❑
Design Review Appeal
❑
Conceptual SPA
❑
Minor Historic Devt.
❑
GMQS Allotment
❑
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
❑
Historic Demolition
❑
GMQS Exemption
❑
Subdivision
❑
Historic Designation
❑
ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream
❑
Subdivision Exemption (includes
❑
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff
condominiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
IN
Other: COWOP Eligibil
❑
Lot Split
❑
Temporary Use
Lot Line Adjustment
Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDMONS• (description of existing buildings uses, previous approvals etc.)
One story concrete block buildings; approximately 7,000 sq. ft.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses modifications, etc.
To enter into the COWOP process for the redevelopment of new facilities f t
for the downtown HQ Fire Station & Aspen Thrift Shop.
Have you attached the following' FEES DUE: $ waived
❑ Pre- Application Conference Summary
® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form
Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards
All plans that are larger than &5" x 11° must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written
text (Microsoft Word Format) mast be submitted as part of the application.
ATTACHMENT
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
Buildings
Existing non - conformities or encroachments:
Variations requested:
Required: Proposed: 2 0 ft.
so
CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Aspen Fire Protection District
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for COWOP Eligibility
(hereinafter, THE
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 of all 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 of the 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 he 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 S 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 of the 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
Chris Bendon
Community Development Director
APPLICANT
raJ
r
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 of the 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 I 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
.1-*N
A
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
F1
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 of the final HPC review process.
The topics discussed by the COWOP task force during their deliberations included the
following:
• Providing affordable housing for the general public above the proposed fire
station.
• Providing affordable housing for emergency service personnel above the
proposed fire station.
• Providing affordable housing above the Thrift Shop.
• 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.
• Architecturally designing a future fourth floor above the proposed fire station and
a third floor above the proposed Thrift shop.
• Including an emergency operations room/public meeting room in the proposed
fire station.
• Including a firefighting museum and fire educational element in the proposed fire
station.
• The street relationship of the proposed fire apparatus bays.
• The street relationship of the proposed Thrift Shop and entry to the proposed fire
station.
• Constructing four (4) apparatus bays rather than three (3) apparatus bays.
• Including tuck -under alley parking.
• 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 "E ". 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 "C "). 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
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
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, 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 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
Approved as to form:
John P. Worcester, City Attorney
Reso No. , Series of 2006
Helen Kalin Klanderud
Eft Flit R=d tW';m Fgm Rv" F &m* lob loop
i0C4 A!° Ike�' �1 '.�i�ill�..,k�,��p�p�,..l:.N../ / N
'• � !,� 1�..� to �0 ,! ®� � s.�.�;13. "� V Ai
1
Val
0102.2oc�- •Act
L
°mmi Type -
Pacm2 t 0102.2005.ASLU
Address 1420 EHOPKINS AVE
AWSiite
Cty ASPEN
Pant lgwmabDn
Rate Co--.] zip 81611 J -
Nader Peet F— A
R.AN Queue aslu
AppYed 12(20)2005 J
Project
J SW. ding
Approved
Descrption
FIRE STATION COWOP ELIGIBILITY
Issued
FmA F—
ab'ded JALANRICH 920-1125
Chdt PF� pays F—a
Eswes 12j1srm6 J
Lest N.. ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION C J W Name F 420 E HOPKINS AYE
F— ASPEN CO81611
A Ome, is Ap*aad7
Lad Neee ASPEN FIRE PROTECTION C J F A Name) HOPKAIS AVE
26615 1 420 420 E E COKINS
Ph. F- CLA
Led Nara F- J Feet Name
Phvk
C�
�J\
RESOLUTION NO.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 of 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 of 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
of 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 subject property is owned by the City of Aspen;
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 in the property and its
development.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved, by a vote of four to zero (4 -0)
Resolution No. 4, Series of 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)(b), 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 of 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:
• Determine and evaluate site opportunities and constraints.
• Finalize specific elements of the development program.
• Prepare a sample site plan including development layout, access, parking and
other pertinent site components.
2
r^
V./
-~
~J
• 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 of Review 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
project 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 of 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 1 Q, 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 of the remainder of the expenses related to the COWOP.
RESOLVED, passed and approved this 9th day of January, 2006.
P°~
Attest:
J ~~~~~_
Kathryn S. h, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
n Worcestor, City Attorney
.-.
,,
4~
RESOLUTION N0. 15
(SERIES OF 2006)
~~: ~xti~l~~} ~
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 HOPHINS
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 of the 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
Thrifr 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. I5, Series of 2006
'~ --~
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, 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 in written,
graphic, and model format at the March 13, 2006, regulaz 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 Mazch, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. K ,City Clerk H en Kalin 1 e d
Approved as to form:
. Worcester, City Attorney
Reso No. 15, Series of 2006
«.~; ~~~,~~~N
C~
RESOLUTION N0. c~ 1
(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 Welfaze 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
.-~
~~ . i'
Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public heazing;
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
Standazds for Determination, Section 26.500.040, for the following reasons:
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 redeve]opment 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.
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 boundazies of the
Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP land use review aze 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 LD. # 273707324003.
Section Two•
The Aspen Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Team shall be augmented to
include Alison Agley, a representative of the City's Historic Preservation Commission;
Pam Cunningham, a representative of the Aspen Fire Protection District; Courtney Lord,
a representative of neighboring properties; and Susie Krevoy, a representative of
neighboring properties. ~~ JJ
RESOLVED, passed and approved this day of ~ u~'}~2007.
Attest:
~~~~ ~
Kathryn S. K ch, City Clerk
Michael C. Ireland
Approved as to form:
G %! %7C~~~` Zv
,-•.
EXHIBIT A
Update• Fire Station Redevelopment COWOP Task Force Roster
Name Affiliation
e'er-re
TT C
Steve Skadron ~Z City Council
Dwa ne Romero A~RB-heard City Council
Pam Cunningham AFPD Board
Mike Haisfield Volunteer Firefighter
D lan Johns P&Z
Sarah Broughton HPC
Alison A ley HPC
Nancy Gensch Thrift Shop
Jack Wilke Citizen
Marcia Goshorn Citizen
Cinthia Andrews Citizen
Chris Kiley Citizen
Tim Semrau Citizen
$ani-I-Ie~,teri
Courtney Lord Isis
Susie Krevoy Isis
Rob Sn der Kandycom Building
Rich Walker Ambulance Service
Ellen Anderson Pitkin County
Chris Bendon City Community Development
-,
~,
RESOLUTION N0.2
(SERIES OF 2008)
..~~ xr~~a~-r T
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 standazds, 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 Standazds (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
cazefully 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 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.)
`,'IV. 4-Bay vs. 3-Bay Scheme- Darryl Grob and Gilbert Sanchez (15 min.)
~`V. Publiclrask Force Comment on 4-Bay Scheme and Consensus Vote- Chris
Bendon (10 min.)
VI. Review Written COWOP Recommendations- James Lindt (10 min.)
VII. Publiclrask 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 Station COWOP `~
Meeting #3 Agenda
January 26, 2006
11 AM-2 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 Plans and Clarifying Questions- Gilbert Sanchez (35 min.)
IV. PubliGTask 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. )
R1.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
s aiuer <
,s,~~eyy ~
•epua6e <
aye o~ sa6uey~ so s~c{bnoy~ Teuot~zppe aney noR ;z Moux aui ~aT aseaTd <
'~V Y. ]~ LUVU ). JYl11YI V1l I VI f1Jl LIY' --" """" - IY V. JJY/
~~,
`~~
,.., A RESOLUTION OF TILE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC)
'~,,, APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR MA70R DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL)
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420/422 E. HOPIQNS AVENUE, THE ASPEN
FIRE DEPARTMENT DOWNTOWN HEADQUARTERS AND THE THRIFT SHOP,
LOTS O, P, Q, AND R, BLOCIC 87, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO
RESOLUTION N0.3, SERIFS OF 2006
PARCEL ID: 2737-073-30-851
WHEREAS, the applicant, the Aspen Fire Protection District/Ihe Thrill Shvp, represented by
Studio B Architects, has requested Major Development (Conceptual) for the property located at
420/422 E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots O, P, Q, and R flock 87, City and Townsite of Aspen,
Colorado; and
WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structwe
shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a
designated historic property or district until plans or stdlicicnt information have been subtrtltted
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 report 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 met, and recommended continuance; and
WHEREAS, az their regular meeting on February 8, 2006, the Historic Preservation Commission
considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and
`Y;ity of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote
oF3 to 1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That HPC hereby approves Major Development (Conceptual) for the property loeazed at 420/422
E. Hopkins Avenue, Lots 0, P, Q, and R Block 87, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado with the
following conditions: '
1. Study the setback relationship of the circulation spine volume and the Thrift Shop volume
with varying degrees of cantiieveritrg, and study the setback of the Fire Department entry
doors.
IYU\. l~ LVVV ~ lYnlll b l l l vI nvl In -
~~
(`Jl
V
~'
''~- APPROVED IIY TFTE COMMISSION at its regular meeting oa the 8th day of February,
200G.
Approved as to Form:
Davie Hoefer, Assistant ity Attorney
Approved as to content:
IIISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
Kathy Stric nd, Chief Deputy irk