HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.joint.20090303MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
Board of County Commissioners
Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City of Aspen Long Range Planner
Ben Gagnon, City of Aspen Special Projects Planner
Ellen Sassano, Pitkin County Long Range Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, City of Aspen Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, Pitkin County Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: February 26, 2009
MEETING DATE: March 3, 2009, 5:30 in Council Chambers
RE: Review of Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area
Request of Council and P&Z: No formal action is requested of BOCC or the Planning and
Zoning Commission. This work session is intended to give both BOCC and the Planning and
Zoning Commission an opportunity to provide comments and feedback on the draft Community
Vision document. The City Council and City Planning and Zoning Commission are having a
similar meeting at 5:30 on March 3`d in Council Chambers.
Background: Almost a year ago, the Aspen City Council and the Board of Pitkin County
Commissioners agreed to build a Community Vision for the Aspen Area in a way that had never
been attempted before. The theme of this effort was Direct Democracy, and the idea was to
include as many people as possible in a community goal-setting exercise. We asked for feedback
from people who "live, work and play in the Aspen Area."
The Community Vision for the Aspen Area is a draft document that is the culmination of a six-
month public process that focused on getting direct community input. Staff wrote the document
based on the extensive community feedback received as part of the Small Group Meetings, the
Community Survey, as well as the large Community Vision Meetings. The next step is for the
City and County elected and appointed officials to review the document to ensure the Vision
Statements adequately express and reflect the community feedback, to ensure the document's
suggested implementation steps (i.e. Policy Themes) are clear and comprehensive, and to ensure
the document clearly articulates the Aspen area's overall vision.
On Tuesday, February 24, the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions met to begin
review of the draft document. The two commissions worked extremely well together, and were
very productive in this first session. Although there is no scheduled date yet, the two
commissions said they want to meet together again at least one more time to review the sections
on Transportation and the AABC.
The two commissions gave staff important feedback regarding two of the most difficult sections
"~ in the document: Managing Growth and Affordable Housing. Attachment A is a summary of the
main points the Commissions agreed upon and would like to see added to the document.
Several members of the commissions expressed strong concern that the Vision Statements and
Policy Themes should be more precise. There was also concern that the document's goals would
or could not be implemented. Others wanted to see an overarching vision that ties the different
topics into a general community vision for the future. Finally there was concern that the current
timeline for adoption may be too aggressive to allow for adequate review and necessary changes.
Discussion: The Community Vision for the Aspen Area is intended to be the long-range
planning document for the Aspen area. As discussed at the February 3`d joint work session with
the BOCC, City Council, and the City and County Planning and Zoning Commissions, the name
change is intended to reflect the nature of what the Aspen Area Community Plan has become. It
has moved from being a more physical planning tool, to one that is aspirational in nature; one
that sets long-term goals for the community. In other words, it is critical to identify our ultimate
destination as a community before we start focusing out exactly how to get there.
While containing Vision Statements for each topic, the draft Community Vision for the Aspen
Area also contains "Policy Themes" that include extensive suggestions on how the long-term
vision can be reached. Based on the progress already made in one meeting with both Planning
and Zoning Commissions, staff believes that consensus on more precise Vision Statements can
be attained -along with more directive Policy Themes. The hard work on implementing the
`" ~ Community Vision can begin immediately after it's adopted.
The City Council and Board of County Commissioners can use the goals and policy directions
right away to explore land use code changes, to collaborate with other local agencies and the
private sector on new programs and initiatives, to direct budget priorities and adopt regulations.
Once agreement is reached on long-term goals, there will be plenty of hard work and discussion
on using the right tools and methods to make the vision into a reality. This could include the
City's Kids First program working on a strategic plan for child care, the County's Senior
Services department studying a potential long-term senior care facility, or the City and County
jointly working on implementing a Renewable Energy Mitigation program for commercial
buildings.
The drafting of the 2000 AACP took two years, with much of the work spent on agreeing to a list
of 99 "Action Items." Once it was completed, many of these items were addressed and
implemented. Some were not. As part of this process, staff has suggested that we should adopt a
Community Vision that sets strong long-term goals -and bring it directly to the Council and
Commissioners for immediate discussion on how to implement the goals.
The alternative of listing Action Items within this process can be done, but it will certainly
extend the process for some substantial period of time. And when it's completed, the document
will still be guiding in nature -the Council and Commissioners will still need to take specific
action on implementation.
Also, we cannot know the exact nature of the issues that will face the community next year, or in
three, five or seven years. Listing a set of "Action Items" in the plan today will not necessarily
help us reach our ten yeaz vision. The Community Vision is intended to articulate where we
want to "go" as a community. After the plan is adopted, the City, County, businesses, non-
profits, and the public will start the work of "getting us there" in the most practical way possible.
Because this is a first draft, staff anticipates significant changes to this document before it is
complete. Certain Vision Statements or Policy Themes might be altered, deleted, improved or
expanded. At the joint work session with the Planning and Zoning Commissions, a number of
items were suggested to strengthen the Housing and Managing Growth sections, including:
• A stronger statement about controlling the rate of development;
• Making the limitation of house sizes a Vision Statement that addresses how size of home
impacts the quality of life in neighborhoods;
• Specifically outlining different types of growth, and making a strong statement about
which types we want to encourage;
• Clearly stating that we cannot build our way out of the affordable housing challenge, that
innovative solutions aze needed using current housing;
• Explore job generation and getting a better handle on how many jobs aze generated by
different uses;
• Trying to define an ideal balance of the different populations that make up the Aspen
azea.
.. • (A complete list is in Attachment A)
Another expected change is related to the overall vision that is expressed in the plan. As written,
there aze a number of Vision Statements for each topical chapter. The introductions to both the
1993 and 2000 plans include an overarching vision for the Aspen area. In 1993, one of the
overarching themes was preserving a sense of "messy vitality." The 2000 plan said, "The success
of Aspen the Resort depends on the success of Aspen the Community." Staff purposely did not
write this section yet because staff wanted the elected and appointed officials to have an
opportunity to weigh in on this issue. However, we do plan to draft an overazching theme that
would be adopted as part of the Community Vision document.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Meeting notes from 2/24 joint Planning and Zoning Commission work session
Attachment B: E-mail comments from public
~xHtCS~T ~1
Joint P&Z meeting, February 24tH
Attendees and there abbreviations:
County P&Z
• Paul Rudnick (PR)
• Marcella Larson (ML)
• Mirte Mallory (MM)
City P&2
• U Erspamer, Chair (L1)
• Stan Gibbs (SG)
• Michael Wampler (MW)
• Bert Myrin (BM)
• Cliff Weiss (CW)
• Jim DeFrancia (JD)
Staff
• Jessica Garrow (JG)
• Ben Gagnon(BG)
• Cindy (CH)
• Ellen (ES)
• Drew
Opening:
Jessica gave a background on the steps that have been taken so far. Covered items that are in the 'HOW
DID WE GET HERE?' section.
- Two critical questions posed
o Clear relationships between community comment and vision statements
o Do the policy themes give you enough guidance for next steps
- Do you see any overall themes emerging?
Staff gave explanation of the four topics to be discussed: Managing Growth, Housing, AABC and
Transportation.
**(The following comments arose from Jessica's Managing Growth intro, but had more to do with
general process)**
PR: I would urge to assume that we have read the material
Staff: Absolutely.
Staff Response: When we looked at the statistics and we looked at the numbers of people responding
there was a 60% agreement that generally became a vision statement. However, when something was
in the SOs, or that area, it was possibly a policy theme and something the community wanted to
examine.
ML: Statistical percentages are from all methods of data gathering?
PR: You are determining whether or not to put something into a vision statement only if it gets a 50%
or higher vote? I don't hold much faith in the results in this information. Just base it on the survey and
make a vision statement. Why are we here? I think selection of the people that were chosen to
participate can skew the results. I think there are a lot of conflicting responses in the same survey. If
we are basing the goals and vision statements just based on the data, then it becomes a statistical
document. (JG and CH response)
SG: Does the 60% factor rely on just one method of data, or does it all get addressed?
Staff comment: Yes
,..w„
CW: A question to do with growth. In the beginning you're talking about how the AACP vision will affect
future versions of the code. How does this chapter and the resulting changes to land use relate to the '"°
County, being that it is such a small part of the area under study. Are you going to rewrite the code? `-
Staff Comment: This is our overarching document to help us when we are looking at other
neighborhood plans in the county.
MW: I'm not sure that 60% makes it a mandate. Why don't we make it a little higher? Do we split
commercial and residential anywhere in this document? (All response)
U: I think we should meet as separate commissions and have formal discussions after this meeting with
our own groups. (Not accepted by groups)
MANAGING GROWTH
(Jessica Garrow gave an explanation of the Chapter and group decided to go chapter-questions-
chapter)
PR: There was a strong favor in the county for rationing building permits. Building pace should be
controlled and GMQS is not operating effectively in that respect. There are financial benefits in pacing
the volume of construction, area by area, or neighborhood by neighborhood. It would reduce cost,
transportation, and quality of life in people in the area. If there is a similar feeling with the City P&Z, I
would hope we could put some stronger vision statements in this document, because the problem I
have is these vision statements are so general and non-specific that they don't give direction to
anybody.
ML: Rate of growth, we've been talking about this as a community this since the last AACP. Back in
2000 there was actually an action plan with 99 to-do items, this is not new for the community, we bring
this up alt the time concerning controlling the rate of growth, but clearly that to-do list has not been
accomplished. It's useful to think of the history of this and to think about how long we have been at
this.
Staff response: The 2000 plan did have a statement on controlling growth with a quota on controlling
growth, but it wasn't implemented
PR: There was a proposal in the city that would have given permits on a lottery basis, I don't this work,
and it's got to be afirst-come-first-serve basis so there can be some predictability on when your permit
will be issued
CW: I work in generalities when it comes to growth. We have lost 27% amount of our resort bed base,
so I am for lodging growth. We're short on affordable housing, and where I come in on that is sort of in
the middle. I am not for limiting scrape and replace, that is my retirement and my neighbors'
retirement. We should build what we need -we need more lodging and we need more affordable
housing for that growth. Transportation is growth. We need to get specific
PR: For purposes of the vision statements, this is so bland that it doesn't mean anything. IF we want to
control the pace of growth we should say that. And, maybe even provide some options for the
legislative bodies which we are not.
JD: We could grant greater levels of specificity if we did create vision statements on certain types or
categories of growth. Those vision statements would support a more active approach, rather than the
mom and apple-pie statements that exist.
PR: I would disagree with one element of that (Jim's point). The main element of the economy here is
not tourism, it's construction.
BM: We have converted a lot of our lodging to affordable housing. We haven't lost the lodging, we've
swapped it. The document seems that we are saying we want development. What I saw was that if
there was development, where would you want it? It wasn't "we have to have development." This was
captured well in the 2000 AACP which said, "We endeavor to make our community better without
getting better."
MW: It seems to me that you have different areas of potential growth problems that we do -
commercial vs. residential. We are pretty much built out as far as that goes. We need to identify the
different growth issues than County. We are pretty much built-out.
MW: A lot of our residential growth in the county would affect the City
MM: Growth has to do with all of the other topics. If we don't address this issue first, all of those
interconnections will fall apart. We need to be clear and concise, from a layman's standpoint about
what managing growth is. We have a consensus that growth needs to be slowed, but no one wants to
suffer the consequences of what that means. And, so how can weall as -what are some of the creative
options we can come up if they want to sell their home, and we don't want growth at the same time.
Inconsistencies frustrated me on this chapter.
JD: Growth is the overlying template that dictates the others. We need clear definitions of what growth
is. We need refinement of what types of growth means and the types.
SG: Has GMQS been effective (directed at city staff)?
Staff response: The very basic answer is that our growth management system pretty strongly regulates
certain types of development (commercial, lodging, mixed-use, multi-family), but not as strongly on
residential developments of single family homes. There is real no regulation on scrape and replace.
SG: Has GMQS been successful for those other uses? Have we ever run out of annual allotments?
Staff response: We had a surplus last year...sometimes we run out, sometimes we don't. Some
allotments that were granted sometimes fall through. It has in the past regulated the number of new
free market units in mixed used building in the commercial core. Allotments have run out there.
It's also important to recognize that there is no pacing control in GMQS. The boom and bust periods
dictate a lot.
CW: Why don't we ask the question based on FAR?
SG: Why don't we ask when the issue is floor area? This gets at the growth issue.
Commission consensus: There needs to be clarity in these questions if you are just asking for pacing on
the SIZE of the growth or the AMOUNT of growth. Most were fine with a house being replaced with
something similar or slightly larger, not with the massive increases.
JD: This discussion here gets at the complexities of this issue (1800 sq. ft. house with children, were
there 12 months out of the year and used all services, and that gets replaced with a 6,000 sf house with
someone form LA that is here 6 weeks out of the year, where is the growth??).
PR: We need to understand the purpose of limiting growth. It seems to me that one, livability. When
you have five houses under construction at the same time, which is not livable. Two, is transportation.
When there is no pacing, you have all of those laborers and tradesmen driving into town and that puts a
further burden on transportation.
MM: It's the final impact that we are talking about. Once the house is built, there might be more
employees for that 6,000 sq. ft. house, what are the impacts? To me that is the crux.
BM: (Passed out a Daily News article) Growth -it's more the use rather than the growth. The article is
about losing essential businesses. It's the WHY that concerns me the most. It's what it ends up being.
JD: The point was made as well that when you are in the West End and there is all of that construction,
it is stressful, irritating, etc., but it is for a defined period at a time. There is a preference is some sort of
sequencing. Do you get it all out of the way at once, or do you do it over time?? There is no perfect
solution, there is a balance though.
PR: The cost of construction has gone down at least 20% or more, due to the decreased volume of
work. That will make it better for everyone. It will be cheaper to build affordable housing and make the
community more affordable.
cW: Isn't that growth?
PR: Absolutely.
JD: There needs to be a definition of growth and then some subsets on that point. Controlling the
number of lodges in one area is different than controlling the number gas stations in another.
U: What is our infrastructure and do we know this? Our growth needs to meet our infrastructure. The
point is that when we make our growth paragraph or statement, it come out with a general statement
or two that encompasses all of our ideas and then you can go into a little bit of detail or definitions of
about how we can handle the capacity because every item we agree upon has a peripheral issue and is
affected.
Staff response: Cindy showed the commissions the 1976 Growth Management Plan. Suggested to
inspect the plan and that most of the points are still very relevant. It gets at the quality of life issues.
(Cindy showed the diagram she presented at our brief). What is Quality of Life?
PR: The specifics of a pacing program are beyond our role at this time, but I think that vision statements
should say something to the effect that the pacing programs that were in place 10 years ago were
successful in controlling transportation, improving quality of life, controlling costs etc.
ML: I hope we don't get stuck looking at this (draft) in the format it was presented. We can make a firm
statement about controlling the rate of growth and how we can accomplish that, and show how this
MIGHT work...is that house 5,000 sq. ft. on one block and x on another?
JD: Do we have consensus on favoring or controlling the pace of development and growth?
All: Yes.
PR: But, I think we should say WHY, and what it will accomplish for the community.
Staff Response: Does that include all types of growth?
PR: I think that question gets into a lot of detail and I think that is going beyond where we should be
.v headed. Although, I do think this should be done on a neighborhood basis.
JG: Is everyone in disagreement with that statement or are we all in agreement?
ALL: Yes, agreement.
BM: I think we need to still go into the WHY more than the HOW.
Staff response: We can certainly put together one that goes into the whys.
ML: I think we will have to come up with some generalities here, but we are going to have to spend
some quality time making sure this is quality material with the appropriate language. I think this plan
can and should be as specific as previous plans, and less general -something with more teeth in it.
MM: I would like use to have an Aspen Bill of Rights, that say we, the people, are committed to
managing growth because we recognize the impacts that it makes. We can explain that concern and
also how we get to a solution.
PR: Do we want to deal with house size here? (Group shared the same concern)
Cindy: (Why would we want to limit house size?)
JD: We would want to limit house size to sustain the historical character of the community
BM: If Fox Crossing was all affordable housing, (U) would there be such a desire to leave the
neighborhood?
..,,.
CM: You need to look at sub-grade; scrape in replace is about the incentive of doing so. If you give sub-
grade anexemption, then you are incentivizing scrape and replace more.
HOUSING
MW: The make-up of the people in the meetings was a lot of old people! We need to not forget this.
These people are going to go for quality. Younger crowds would much rather prefer the quantity. They
just want to live here.
CW: I think we need to elevate this vision and goal higher. We are not just housing people in quality
units. Where is the balance of the population that is going to be here? I'm concerned that we have lost
a lot of that balance. I don't have a problem with quality places, but they don't need 3,000 sf affordable
housing units. If we are going to promote the tourist economy, we are going to need seasonal, part-
time housing. I am interested in the commission, in wondering WHAT ARE WE?
JD: All of the above. We need to cater to all seasons, and all workforces. The affordable housing you
need should service all of the above. However, there needs to be a broader understand of the
affordable housing scheme and that scenario (gave example).
U: Can we all talk about that issue? Retiring in affordable housing?
BREAK (6:00)
~a 6:OS,reconvened
U: Can we all talk about that issue? Retiring in affordable housing?
ALL: What is the current policy?? You can stay and you can give it to your children if you die.
MM: I think it is important to have affordable housing for my generation, but I am very attached to
those that are in it now. I think you can bring in a younger base if you have more rental base available. I
think if we focus more on our community members that contribute year-round than just the basic
workforce.
MW: It seems that younger couples have a lack of patience.. If they can't buy in three years, they are
out. I had to wait fifteen years. In rental housing, maybe we should prioritize them into getting into
affordable housing ownership units.
JD: If you qualify for the purchase of an affordable housing purchase, you can stay there forever. But
once they retire, they have no equity to leave. Why not go to the affordable retirees and tell them that
we will buy them out far more than the appreciation? It looks like a loss, but it is a gain to the public in
the long term. We are talking about broad visioning, and that seems like the first thing that we could
do. We need that strategy particularly for firemen, police, teachers, etc. It's disgraceful that at times
these crucial employees cannot stay in the community.
„~ BM: I would take a entirely different approach. No prioritization. If those special districts want to build
housing for their employees, then that is fine, then their goal would be to get out of that pool of housing
and into city employee housing. (a little unclear on what Bert's strategy was). For the renting, there
needs to be more security.
SG: I understand where you are coming from (Bert). But all it does is transfer individuals from one pool
to the next. It seems that Aspen is really at the crux of the problem. The bulk of the population (baby
booming ski bums) are going to retiree, and are not dying off yet. When that generation is gone, this
problem could possibly be much less significant, and we could have those essential employees live here.
Once we get to that capacity, then we really don't have a future problem, since once that old bubble
bursts, there will be a return to a "norm" and quality of life.
JD: I want to back up (to Bert's comment). I think the essential employee issue is an "implementation
issue' because we need to understand how we do it. I think there is a lot of merit in tying some jobs to
housing. It's similar to a military model, once you are out of that position or area, you are out and move
on to the next position and related housing.
CW: We were talking about balance. Of the 1100 houses that converted to upscale housing, they
expect 1/3 of those people to retire here. That's only 300 individuals. Igo back to this balance, because
I have concern in lodges. I am worried about the people that come to man the mountain, etc. These
people need to come in and have a reasonable place to rent that doesn't just provide bunk beds. A
short term guests spends differently in this community than a 2nd homeowners (gave examples). I do
want more members of the community, but also feel that the resort economy is taking a terrible hit.
MM: We are a community in denial -aging, needs for senior services, etc. I think what should be
explored is affordable senior housing. They were once a family of four, and now the kids are gone, and
there is only one bedroom being used. We need to figure out alternatives to get those rooms full again.
(Buying people out...)
CH: We have spent millions and millions of dollars in this community, and still have only housed 200
more (??) people in this community. We need to address the issue that we are not going to have the
money to continue the housing and the locations are getting tougher and tougher. At some point we
have to call it-jobs are what are creating the needs for affordable housing.
BM: People that are in too large units should have the HIGHEST priority to get into smaller units. There
is the option of having historical housing... How about staying in touch with owners that are retired and
convincing them with a fund to stay and once they are gone to have the unit for affordable.
ML: I agree with everything that has been said. I am concerned that we are going in the narrow
direction. The step-back is very important. This is supposed to be a plan for the next ten years. Pretty
much everyone agrees we cannot build ourselves out of this problem. What concepts are we going to
look at? Should there be 100% on-site mitigation in the city? Should affordable housing be rate
controlled (the pace that it comes online)? Which brings me back to what are we doing? What is the
right plan?
U: There has been such a waste of money in the housing area on affordable housing. The issue is that
we need to be careful about purchasing these properties. What is the capacity of the community, and ~''
what are the employee numbers that will support that. We need to define that in this plan.
MW: If we are going to figure out that capacity. We are going to have to work backwards. Who and
what and we going to talk about and consider for that number? (All agreed)
PR: How often are the hotels and lodges at peak capacity? Now I know we are nowhere near it, but two
years ago, how was that? (Ben answer) But, are we at capacity more than just two weeks a year? Is
there a need for more lodges?
CW: You have to understand that the nature in the market in hospitality is different now than it used to
be.
sG: "The cheapest watt is the one you don't have to build the power plant for."
PR: Going back to the waste of money. This is completely absurd. I think we should look more towards
manufactured homes.
MM: I think the concept ofjob generation is important to this topic and it should be explored as a policy
theme. Are we a luxury community with 8 people open the door for us, or in 10 years do we only have 1
person open the door for us? (Group was in agreement that this was not under our control. The market
is the deciding factor in this area).
JD: I think the statements in the previous plan that declared how many workers were housed in the
community are important to retain.
BM: We shouldn't slide backwards. We cannot mitigate the past.
ML: I would like everyone know that this document is a significant departure from the ones in the past.
These vision statements seem to be a first chapter vision for a comprehensive plan. The second is
proposing that this document would not be used as enforceable criteria for any current development.
My understanding is that this document would be adopted, and the city and county would work to
implement the vision through code amendments. Imagine, we no longer have an AACP that is part of
the development process, and there will be this large debate over what land use amendments should
occur, and there will be a great void in whether development meets the visions of these documents.
There are no action items in this current plan. Again, our officials will have to muck through the process
of figuring out what to do. There is no future land use map in this document in this plan. I can envision
many volatile developments occur in response to this. I think we would work to have this document
definite in the development process in identifying Aspen as a community, the Bill of Rights.
General disagreement:
• Not an update, just a vision
• Too much too soon
• The details (teeth) are lacking
• Needs a new name
• Are people going to read the community comment?
~Xt+tP3 it (3
Jessica Garrow
..From: Mike Maple [mmaple@dunrene.com]
±nt: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:14 PM
BYO: Jessica Garrow; aspencommunityvision@gmail.com
Cc: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron; Jack Johnson; Jackie Kasabach
Subject: RE: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
While t appreciate that I have been provided with this notice, I have been very uncomfortable with the AACP process as I
endeavored to communicate in the first meeting that allowed community input - on only a very limited scope of the
AACP topics. My discomfort continues with the receipt of this draft and the provision of just one week and two
opportunities for any public dialogue. In my opinion, public dialogue (as opposed to survey opinion taking) has been
largely foreclosed throughout this AACP process. Looking at the review and adoption schedule, this appears to be
another example of the City of Aspen limiting public input opportunities and rushing the adoption of a plan with far
ranging and long term implications.
I encourage you all to review and consider the very first page of the 2000 Vision for the Aspen Area, page 7 of the 2000
AACP, particularly paragraphs 3, 5 and 7. These key ideas from the 2000 AACP plan seem to have been completely
overlooked in the City's 2010 AACP process. Perhaps the County AACP community input opportunities were better. I will
be looking to seeing if these ideas/issues, which in my opinion are more relevant in 2009 than when they were when
highlighted in 2000, make it into the 2010 AACP.
Thank you.
From: Jessica Garrow [mailto:Jessica.Garrow@ci.aspen.co.us]
""'ent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:28 PM
w,,.o: aspencommunityvision@gmail.com
Subject: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Dear Community Vision participants,
We pleased to announce that the first draft of the Community Vision for the Aspen Area is now
available for your review. Attached is the Executive Summary of the document; the entire
document can be accessed through our website, www.aspencommunityvision.com. A hard copy that
you can review is also available in the City Community Development Department on the third
floor of City Hall.
Two brown bag open houses will be held on February 26th and 27th. These are intended to give
the community an opportunity to learn more about the plan, and to give staff direct
feedback. The Thursday Feb 26th open house is at 3pm in the Rio Grande meeting room, and the
Friday Feb 27t" open house it at 1:30 in Council Chambers.
The city and county elected and appointed officials will be reviewing the document at a
series of work sessions, all open to the public. The first of these work sessions is with
the city and county Planning & Zoning Commissions on February 24th at 4:30pm in the Sister
Cities room in the basement of City Hall. The detailed adoption schedule is available on
http://www.aspencommunityvision.com.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact 7essica Garrow, Long Range Planner for
the City at ]essica.Garrow(laci.aspen.co.us, or Ellen Sassano, Long Ranger Planner for the
ounty at Ellen.Sassano(alco.pitkin.co.us.
Sincerely,
The City and County Community Development Departments
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Long Range Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2780
www.asoencommunityvision.com
www.aspenpitkin.com
/**.
~,.
.~,
Jessica Garrow
l=rom: Mike Maple [mmaple@dunrene.com]
±nt: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:59 PM
-~ro: Jessica Garrow; aspencommunityvision@gmaiLcom
Cc: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron; Jack Johnson; Jackie Kasabach
Subject: RE: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
2000 AACP, page 7, 2000 Vision for the Aspen Area, paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 for your reference:
The genuine character of our community
should be measured by the quality of our
human interactions, and not by the physical
look of our man-made artifacts or the
magnificent beauties of nature surrounding us.
Openness is closing and hidden
agendas are increasing. Difficulties of survival
and career competition are hampering our
cooperation. Our heritage as a very special
place is being challenged. We must allow
change without restrictive rules dictating a
level of conformity that stifles community
creativity. The excessive body of regulations
must not keep expanding and many should be
•econsidered.
The relationships between the citizenry and
the government need improvement. More open
and sincere communications are needed.
Although the government does encourage
much public input, some community members
feel a sense of opaqueness and tolerant
inattentiveness. The distance between apparent
agreement and action is too wide, and citizens
often feel ignored in the outcome. Rather than
creating new rules, community members
should creatively solve problems. The
community should encourage more citizen inspired
contributions, while being sympathetic
to the excessive demands placed on
our government. The task of protecting us
from over-zealous exploitation is wearying.
Micro-management too often muzzles sensible
immediate solutions: the citizens and the
government should become closer partners.
'rom: Mike Maple
.gent: Friday, February 20, 2009 3:14 PM
To: 'Jessica Garrow'; aspencommunityvision@gmaiLcom
Cc: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron;'1ackJohnson';'Jackie.Kasabach@ci.aspen.co.us
Subject: RE: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
While I appreciate that I have been provided with this notice, I have been very uncomfortable with the AACP process as I
endeavored to communicate in the first meeting that allowed community input - on only a very limited scope of the
AACP topics. My discomfort continues with the receipt of this draft and the provision of just one week and two
opportunities for any public dialogue. In my opinion, public dialogue (as opposed to survey opinion taking) has been
largely foreclosed throughout this AACP process. Looking at the review and adoption schedule, this appears to be
another example of the City of Aspen limiting public input opportunities and rushing the adoption of a plan with far
ranging and long term implications.
I encourage you all to review and consider the very first page of the 2000 Vision for the Aspen Area, page 7 of the 2000
AACP, particularly paragraphs 3, 5 and 7. These key ideas from the 2000 AACP plan seem to have been completely
overlooked in the City's 2010 AACP process. Perhaps the County AACP community input opportunities were better. I will
be looking to seeing if these ideas/issues, which in my opinion are more relevant in 2009 than when they were when
highlighted in 2000, make it into the 2010 AACP.
Thank you
From: Jessica Garrow [mailto:lessica.Garrow@ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:28 PM
To: aspencommunityvision@gmail.com
Subject: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Dear Community Vision participants,
We pleased to announce that the first draft of the Community vision for the Aspen Area is now ,w~
available for your review. Attached is the Executive Summary of the document; the entire y~
document can be accessed through our website, www.aspencommunityvision.com. A hard copy that
you can review is also available in the City Community Development Department on the third
floor of City Hall.
Two brown bag open houses will be held on February 26th and 27th. These are intended to give
the community an opportunity to learn more about the plan, and to give staff direct
feedback. The Thursday Feb 26`h open house is at 3pm in the Rio Grande meeting room, and the
Friday Feb 27`h open house it at 1:30 in Council Chambers.
The city and county elected and appointed officials will be reviewing the document at a
series of work sessions, all open to the public. The first of these work sessions is with
the city and county Planning & Zoning Commissions on February 24th at 4:30pm in the Sister
Cities room in the basement of City Hall. The detailed adoption schedule is available on
http://www.aspencommunityvision.com.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact ]essica Garrow, Long Range Planner for
the City at ]essica.Garrow(~ci.aspen.co.us, or Ellen Sassano, Long Ranger Planner for the
County at Ellen.Sassano[aco.pitkin.co.us.
Sincerely,
The City and County Community Development Departments
Jessica Garrow, AICP
long Range Planner
Community Development Department
z
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
'0.429.2780
www.aspencommunityvision.com
www.asoenpitkin.com
Jessica Garrow
From: Joe Myers poeandjennine@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 1:17 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Cc: Mick Ireland; Jack Johnson; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron; Jackie Kasabach; Junee Kirk
Subject: Re: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
No offense, Jessica, but I would discazd your writing on Historic Preservation and start over. At least half of us
on the HP Task Force, and maybe even a majority, believe that historic preservation is not only about saving
landmark buildings but also about preserving the historic chazacter of Aspen by retaining the scale of one, two,
three and four story buildings by close scrutiny of the height and mass of new buildings. In fact some of our
members think that historic preservation is only about this and that saving individual structures is almost
irrelevant. Many think that the scale of Aspen will be changing rather quickly for the worse unless Council
steps in and revises our codes to reduce developer expectations of new, large buildings. If we are not cazeful, in
the not too distant future, we may be a town of all four story buildings with vacant free market penthouses on
the top floor, no front yard setbacks, no first floor open space and very restricted views of the mountain. The
new fire station goes up 50 feet and the new Chart House will be 46.6 feet high. It is happening now. Whoever
is the source of your information is only giving you part of the picture of historic preservation in Aspen. Joe
Myers
On Feb 20, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Jessica Garrow wrote:
Dear Community Vision participants,
We pleased to announce that the f rst draft of the Community Vision for the Aspen Area is now available for your review.
Attached is the Executive Summary of the document; the entire document can be accessed through our ''~"'`
website, www.aspencommunitvvision.com. A hard copy that you can review is also available in the City Community ~.,-^
Development Department on the third floor of City Hall.
Two brown bag open houses will be held on February 26th and 27th. These are intended to give the community an
opportunity to learn more about the plan, and to give staff direct feedback. The Thursday Feb 26`" open house is at 3pm
in the Rio Grande meeting room, and the Friday Feb 27'" open house it at 1:30 in Council Chambers.
The city and county elected and appointed officials will be reviewing the document at a series of work sessions, all open
to the public. The first of these work sessions is with the city and county Planning 8 Zoning Commissions on February
24th at 4:30pm in the Sister Cities room in the basement of City Hall. The detailed adoption schedule is available
on http://www.aspencommunitvvision.com.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner for the City
at Jessica.GarrowCcilci.aspen.co.us, or Ellen Sassano, Long Ranger Planner for the County
at Ellen.SassanoCa.co.pitkin.co.us.
Sincerely,
The City and County Community Development Departments
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Long Range Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2780
www.aspencommunitwision.com
www.aspenpitkin.com
<Executive Summary.pdf>
Jessica Garrow
From: Tim Ditrler [tim.ditrler@bestyearyet.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Dear Jessica
Congratulations to you and your colleagues on assimilating a lot of information and presenting it so clearly. I enjoyed
reading every word of the Executive Summary. I personally believe that putting the entrance to Aspen issue within the
broader context of environmental quality, public transportation needs and affordable housing at the AABC is a great way
to proceed. Perhaps that broader context will help our community to bridge the dividing lines that have kept this issue
unresolved for so long.
Warm regards from a proud Aspen resident! Tim Ditzler
On 2/20/09 2:28 PM, "Jessica Garrow" <lessica.Garrow(a~ci.aspen.co.us> wrote:
Dear Community Vision participants,
We pleased to announce that the first draft of the Community Vision for the Aspen Area is now available for your review.
Attached is the Executive Summary of the document; the entire document can be accessed through our website,
www.aspencommunitvvision.com <http://www.aspencommunitvvision.com> . A hard copy that you can review is also
available in the City Community Development Department on the third floor of City Hall. ,.*,
Two brown bag open houses will be held on February 26th and 27th. These are intended to give the community an
opportunity to learn more about the plan, and to give staff direct feedback. The Thursday Feb 26th open house is at 3pm
in the Rio Grande meeting room, and the Friday Feb 27th open house it at 1:30 in Council Chambers.
The city and county elected and appointed officials will be reviewing the document at a series of work sessions, all open
to the public. The first of these work sessions is with the city and county Planning S Zoning Commissions on February
24th at 4:30pm in the Sister Cities room in the basement of City Hall. The detailed adoption schedule is available on
http://www.aspencommunityvision.com <http://www.aspencommunitvvision.com/page 41> .
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner for the City at
Jessica.Garrowt~ci.aspen.co.us, or Ellen Sassano, Long Ranger Planner for the County at
EI len. Sassan oCa~co. gitki n. co. us.
Sincerely
The City and County Community Development Departments
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Long Range Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2780
www.aspencommunitwision.com <http://www.aspencommunityvision.com> '^`
www.aspenpitkin.com <http://www.aspenpitkin.com> """'"
Jessica Garrow
From: Junee Kirk (junee.kirk@comcast.net]
rnt: Sunday, February 22, 2009 9:40 PM
~-ro: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Re: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Jessica: The continual use of the "Aspen Idea" with respect to historic preservation and open parks and recreation
shows a very limited understanding of what the true meaning is. If anything the Aspen Idea, has nothing to do with
contributing to the "spirit" within the development of parks and open space. Our "natural" environment, unencumbered by
the continual development of parks, trails and human activitiy, is where the "Aspen Idea" is best exemplified. Yes, in this
case it is preservation of our natural environment; It is in solving today's problems both world wide and locally of reaching
"sustainability" :dealing with global warming, limiting traffic on our roads and streets. Hence, it is limiting oversized
development projects which contribute to our traffic problems in the first place. Remember, we live in a finite valley and
town!
We do not need to increase our"transportation infrastructure at the S curves to improve our environmental quality. It is
just the opposite. The easier you make traffic infrastructure into this small town, the more cars will come.
Interrelationships:
Historic Preservation is NOT about encouraging growth through the exchange of TDR program.! THis only encourages
growth, and massive, inappropriate "urban buildings which do not preserve anything!
One of the most ludicrous principles in the Historic preservation guidelines is the definition " that new additions to historic
structures must not copy adjacent existing historic structures. This is not historic preservation, but only a guise for
planners, and architects and developers to turn this city into a commonplace town and grab bag for development in an
"urban "style. You yourself told me that the' the architecture of the Limelight was the "New Aspen"' and that its boxy and
assiveness was just like the Wheeler and Hotel Jerome. (You're implication was that everything else be allowed to
n9evelop to thet same massiveness.) We should NOT be building to the size and mass of Iconic structures. Allowing
codes and Design guidelines to encourage massive developement is not historic preservation.
Moreover, preservation is NOT just preserving some disparate house styles or buildings in outlining neighborhoods, or
areas. It is preserving those entire neighborhoods that have told the story of Aspen over the decades, with it charm, small
scale, and views to the mountains. Historic preservation is not what the present codes should be encouraging for the
future, but rather what we should be preserving of the past.
The fact that our Historic Guidelines say that no new additions can copy adjacent existing historic structures in the same
style of'context" is not historic preservation either. This guideline only serves as an incentive to change Aspen's historic
neighborhoods and allow developers and those in the building industry to urbanize Aspen, much like we see in
development around large cities. Many feel this is contrary to this town's character.
Long time locals and members of this community, as evidence in the AACP meeting and its results, and the article in the
paper for "preservation" and in the petition handed into council with more than a 100 names to support small
scale,character historic neighborhoods in 07, feel that this is what Aspen's preservation should be . It is NOT about
preserving some'disparate" architectural styles, here and there, but entire neighborhoods which have told the entire story
of Aspen over the decades (including the Victorian 19th century.
Thank you for your time and consideration of these comments. I hope you will consider them in some revision of the
AACP Junee Kirk
---- Original Message -----
From: Jessica Garrow
To: aspencommunitvvision(c~gmail.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:28 PM
Subject: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Dear Community Vision participants,
We pleased to announce that the first draft of the Community Vision for the Aspen Area is now available for your review. ,.
Attached is the Executive Summary of the document; the entire document can be accessed through our website,
www.asoencommunitvvision.com. A hard copy that you can review is also available in the City Community Development
Department on the third floor of City Hall.
Two brown bag open houses will be held on February 26th and 27th. These are intended to give the community an
opportunity to learn more about the plan, and to give staff direct feedback. The Thursday Feb 26`" open house is at 3pm
in the Rio Grande meeting room, and the Friday Feb 27`" open house it at 1:30 in Council Chambers.
The city and county elected and appointed officials will be reviewing the document at a series of work sessions, all open
to the public. The first of these work sessions is with the city and county Planning & Zoning Commissions on February
24th at 4:30pm in the Sister Cities room in the basement of City Hall. The detailed adoption schedule is available on
htto://www. asoencomm u n itvvision. com.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner for the City at
Jessica.Garrow~ci.asoen.co.us, or Ellen Sassano, Long Ranger Planner for the County at
EI len. SassanoCo~co. pitkin. co. us.
Sincerely
The City and County Community Development Departments
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Long Range Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2780
www.asoencomm unitwision.com
www.asoenoitkin.com
Jessica Garrow
_~rom: Elizabeth Milias [elizabeth.milias@comcast.net]
ant: Monday, February 23, 2009 2:36 PM
^«.,-o: Jessica Garrow
Cc: Marilyn Marks; Paul Menter forward; Mike Maple
Subject: Re: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Jessica
Where in the AACP discussions and research did "affordable housing" become synonymous with "employee and retiree
housing?" (Affordable Housing Policy Themes -page 6 - "The community expects the affordable housing program to
meet a wide range of community goals, including housing retirees, young people and families.") This is not something
that was detemined through the AACP process to-date, and it's a dangerous precedent to make such broad-reaching
changes without significant and specific public input, especially with such ahot-button issue. In your own interpretation,
"There was no clear direction reflecting the desire to have the affordable housing program serve the needs of both retirees
and younger generations." When the facts and results of the research don't fulfill a policy goal of local government
leaders, then you cannot create facts to do so!
As it currently stands, "affordable housing" (funded by the RETT) is for working locals. And yes, the retiree question
needs to be addressed. But such a move (to just add "retirees" to "employees") is far beyond the scope of the AACP
process especially when it was not part of the process, and is additionally insulting to those of us who are closely
watching this process, fearing exactly this sort of behavior. I realize that you (and presumably Design Workshop) are
under great pressure from the Mayor to "find" answers that suit his goals (specifically regarding housing), but your
credibility, the credibility of DW and the accuracy/credibility of the AACP depend on the proper and accurate reporting of
the TRUE results of the research.
In addition, such interpretive comments as "this community survey question (reflecting the public's desire to develop and
nd affrodable housing) may reflect controversy regarding the perceived excessive cost of the Burlingame Affordable
sousing development" are not only unprofessional, but reflective of input to the Draft Community Vision by someone other
than those who were hired to conduct and compile the research.
There are many of us who are combing over this document and its contents. The AACP is not being taken lightly, nor will
there be a blind acceptance of the Draft's contents. There has been too much manipulation of the facts during the current
City administration (Burlingame audits, for example) to not question every element that goes into something as large as
the AACP.
See you Thursday.
Elizabeth
-----Original Message ---
From: Jessica Garrow
To: asoencommunitvvision(rDgmail.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 2:26 PM
Subject: Draft Community Vision for the Aspen Area now available for review
Dear Community Vision participants,
We pleased to announce that the first draft of the Community Vision for the Aspen Area is now available for your review.
Attached is the Executive Summary of the document; the entire document can be accessed through our website,
www.asgencommunityvision.com. A hard copy that you can review is also available in the City Community Development
Department on the third floor of City Hall.
r Two brown bag open houses will be held on February 26th and 27th. These are intended to give the community an
opportunity to learn more about the plan, and to give staff direct feedback. The Thursday Feb 26`h open house is at 3pm
m the Rio Grande meeting room, and the Friday Feb 27th open house it at 1:30 in Council Chambers.
The city and county elected and appointed officials will be reviewing the document at a series of work sessions, all open
to the public. The f rst of these work sessions is with the city and county Planning & Zoning Commissions on February
24th at 4:30pm in the Sister Cities room in the basement of City Hall. The detailed adoption schedule is available on
htto:!/www. asoencommu n ityvision. com.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner for the City at
Jessica.Garrow(a~ci.asoen.co.us, or Ellen Sassano, Long Ranger Planner for the County at
Ellen.Sassanola co.pitkin.co.us.
Sincerely,
The City and County Community Development Departments
Jessica Garrow, AICP
Long Range Planner
Community Development Department
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.429.2780
www.asoencommunitvvision.com
www.asoenpitkin.com
/"~
`~'