HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110412 P1
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
& PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, April 12, 2011
4:30 p.m. Council Chambers
CITY HALL
I. ROLL CALL
II. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
III. MINUTES
IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS —
A. Aspen Area Community Plan
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
VII. BOARD REPORTS
VIII. ADJOURN
Next Resolution Number:
P2
MEMORANDUM
TO: City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions
FROM: Ben Gagnon, City Special Projects Planner
Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development
Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 7, 2011
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 12, 2011
4:30 — 7:30 pm, Council Chambers
RE: Joint Public Hearing on new draft of AACP
BACKGROUND: The joint P &Zs will hold their first public hearing April 12 on the
new draft of the AACP, which was released to the P &Zs and the public on March 28. A
quorum of each board is required for all public hearings. If a quorum is not
present, the meeting will need to be continued to April 26
SUMMARY: As staff worked to revise the draft AACP, staff responded to the consistent
public feedback regarding the tone of the document, and the need to make the new draft
more aspirational and forward- looking. Staff is reasonably confident that this direction is
reflected in the new draft, while incorporating specific P &Z direction on policy changes
during the last few months. This does not mean the entire document is relentlessly
positive at all times; the draft still identifies challenges faced by the community, while
always incorporating guidance and future direction for meeting these challenges.
In addition to making changes to ensure the document is forward looking, some structural
changes were made as well. The Aspen Idea chapter has been moved to be the first
chapter, which is immediately followed by the "Managing Growth for Community &
Economic Sustainability" chapter. In addition, all of the Action Items have been moved
to an Appendix.
Finally, as noted in the March 28 memo to the P &Zs, staff made an eamest effort to
eliminate repetition and redundancy in the interest of making the new draft more concise,
clear and direct.
Several P &Z members and others have asked staff why there is no "red- line" or "track
changes" version of the Introduction and Managing Growth sections. The reason is that
extensive changes were made to these sections that made a red -line version impossible to
P3
follow. One can review the previous draft side -by -side with the current draft to get a clear
sense of the revisions.
REVIEW PROCESS: Staff suggests the following approach to the upcoming public
hearings, which is based on a process used successfully by the City in the past for large,
complex documents.
Starting with the introduction and proceeding chapter -by- chapter, the first task would be
for P &Z members to identify specific portions of the plan where they would like to add
language, delete language or change language.
For example, a P &Z member might identify the 2 " paragraph of the Philosophy of
Sustaining the Aspen Idea, and suggest added language. Some discussion amongst P &Zs
when an item is identified is welcomed to help ensure there is consensus regarding the
items being "flagged." Staff will take notes on the discussions and provide a summary of
all the issues identified in the next packet.
The P &Zs would then move on to the next item to be "flagged." During this exercise, the
P &Zs would not determine the exact language of the proposed addition, deletion or
change — and would not decide whether the revision should be made.
Once this exercise is complete, staff can prepare a "flagged" version of the new draft
prior to the April 26 meeting, for the public and P &Zs to consider ahead of time. Each
flag would be numbered, and include a brief description of the proposed revision.
At subsequent public hearings, the P &Zs can walk through the "flags" one -by -one, have
a discussion and then decide what change, if any, should be made. Ideally, decisions
would be made by consensus, but in some cases may require a straw vote.
There are several reasons for taking this approach:
• It will allow staff to prepare a new "flagged" draft for the subsequent hearings, so
that the P &Zs and the public can easily follow along, have a general idea of the
proposed change, and have at least a general sense of when a certain issue will be
debated and decided.
• Allow the P &Zs, the public and staff some time to consider the ramifications of
potential changes to the draft, including consideration of internal consistency of
the document.
• Taken together as a whole, the new draft with " flags" r- be helpful in reflecting
a thematic shift (if any) in the P &Zs approach to the document as a whole.
Staff would also like to suggest a similar approach to Action Items, and non - substantive
wording changes. In both cases, these changes should occur after all substantive changes
to the plan have been made. As we get closer to that point, staff will suggest a process
and scheduled times for changes to Action Items and non - substantive wording.
P4
While it may be tempting to review the redline versions of the chapters, Staff suggests the
P &Z focus on the document as a whole, rather than focusing on specific redlines or word -
smithing. It is important that staff get a sense of the general direction the P &Zs want to
go before making very specific wording changes.
HOMEWORK PRIG TO MEETING: In an effort to facilitate the discussion at the
meeting, staff requests that the P &Zs please come to the meeting with a list of the items
you would like to "flag." It would be helpful if the commissioners who are unable to
attend the meeting forward their "flags" to the entire group prior to the meeting. This
will allow the group to discuss the feedback in the meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Staff suggests allowing public comment as the items are
"flagged" by the P &Z to ensure continuity in the discussion. If a member of the public
wants to suggest a specific change in language, staff would "flag" the change along with
the P &Zs suggestions. Again, the P &Zs would not fully review and decide on a potential
change until a subsequent meeting.
In addition, a number of public comments have been received. These are attached as
Exhibit A.
P &Z REVIEW SCHEDULE: The public hearing schedule is outlined as follows:
• April 12: 4:30 — 7:30 pm in Council Chambers
• April 26: 4:30 — 7:30 pm in Sister Cities
• May 10: 4:30 — 7:30 pm in Council Chambers
• May 24: 4:30 — 7:30 pm in Sister Cities
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Public Comment
P5
Aspen Area Community Plan
March 28, 2011 Draft
Aspen Ski Company Comments - Introduction through Managing Growth
Chapters
David Corbin — Vice President Planning and Development
416/11
Introduction:
General comments:
• The more concise Plan format and text improve upon prior drafts.
• The increased aspirational focus of the Plan is likewise an appreciated improvement,
although the addition of even more descriptive language of what Aspen's desired
and envisioned future might look like would be helpful to guide future policy and
decision making.
• "Purpose," "How to Use...," "How to Read..." "What's Changed...," "What's New...,"
and "Linkages" sections of the Introduction and /or within individual Chapters are
helpful elaborations and clarifications in this draft.
• Themes of the 2011 AACP - sample themes listed - pages 7 & 8
o Comments: Apart from the central themes noted, the plan still lacks a central
aspirational statement or "mission statement," such as: The Aspen
community aspires to be [insert appropriate adjectives, goals, and aims, e.g.
to pick a hollow cliche, 'the best'] mountain resort community in North
America [the world.. ?].
o Whatever the themes of the plan, I think a direct, simple and summarizing
statement of whom and what we uniquely wish to be in the coming decades
should be incorporated at the forefront of the Introduction.
Aspen Idea:
• Revitalizing the Aspen Idea - page 20
• "Revitalize and sustain the original supplied] of ` i. ; r
Idea."
o Comments: Revise 1.1 to simply read:
"Revitalize and sustain the Aspen Idea."
o Must we try reading the runes of "the original intent ?" Do we really wish to
look back and focus on the Aspen Idea at creation or should we instead
I ^t the Aspen Idea is today and how we wish to see it carried
1
P6
forward, expressed and fulfilled in the future? I would argue for the latter,
rather than the former.
o The subsections of 1.1 fail to allude to land use implications or aspirations
with respect to the Aspen Idea. Add a subsection to the effect of:
• "Support, encourage, and promote community infrastructure,
activities, and land uses that enable, actualize and sustain the
Aspen Idea."
. Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability:
• Vision and Philosophy Sections:
General Comments:
• The theme and subject of the Aspen area Economy still reads as inextricably linked
to, dependent upon or even presumptively constrained by the theme or subject of
"Managing Growth."
• This conceptual linkage arises in part due to the expansive definition of "Growth"
(which continues to include any "increase in activity") found in a sidebar in the draft.
(See ASC's previous draft comments, concerns and objections regarding this
definition)
• Ensuring a Sustainable Tourist -Based Economy - p. 24
o Comments: The presumptive constraints and limitations of "Managing
Growth," including "managing," controlling or limiting any "increase in
activity," continue to concern ASC.
o "Sustaining" and nurturing our existing tourist -based economy should
positively call for "the promotion, support, diversification, incubation, and
enhancement," of our tourist -based economy, rather than lean so heavily
or singly upon "management." Language should be inserted in the text of
"Ensuring a Sustainable Tourist -Based Economy" on page 24 to this
effect.
o Otherwise, this section of the new draft is a welcome addition. ASC
readily endorses the establishment of a working group to strategically plan
for and support our tourist economy and would gladly participate in such
an effort.
• Lodging Sector - pages 25, 28, 30
2
P7
o Comment: The reintroduction of the concept of "replenishing" the
declining lodging base, coupled with the principle of diversifying the
bed base is a positive change.
• Managing Growth...& Economic...Policies - p. 30
• Maintain our Tourist -Based Economy
• 1.1 Maintain and improve the Aspen Area's tourist -based economy.
o Comments: This policy section merits expansion and some elaboration to
describe the community's aspiration and the steps necessary to achieve
community goals. For example, the following might be considered and
included:
• The public / private "working group" strategically planning for the area's
economy should regularly monitor, measure, assess and consider a
wide variety of economic metrics, from local to national, quantifying the
resort economy and continuously adjust the community's strategic
economic planning in light of these metrics and changing economic
conditions.
• Land use policies, codes and regulation should support, promote and
enhance opportunities for winter and summer recreation, as well as
foster and enable the institutions, activities, events, presentations and
performances which are the components of our tourist -based
economy.
• Aspire and state as a goal to be the best winter sports and outdoor
recreation resort in North America, if not the world.
• Maintain market share and guest visitation in the face of changing
demographics, national economic fluctuations, and increased
competition.
• Maintain the job base and meaningful, attractive employment for the
skiing and outdoor recreation sectors of the Aspen area economy.
• Offer diverse events and activities, attractive to a wide range of guests
and visitors.
• Tackle the "affordability problem," offering a range of events and
activities (and lodging) that many segments of the Aspen demographic
can afford.
3
P8
• III. Lodging Sector - page 31
o Comment: To preserve the community's bed base and remain competitive
among destination resorts, ASC would encourage the inclusion of an even
stronger statement of support for the "continual refurbishing, restoration
and /or redevelopment of existing lodging where necessary for its economic
and functional sustainability as a critical component of our tourist -based
economy."
• V. Commercial Sector - page 31
o Comments: Consider additional policy statements, such as:
• Incent, support, and potentially subsidize if necessary, the creation of
"incubator retail" and enable small, nimble entrepreneurs to invent and
try new retail and commercial concepts.
• Focus on experiential elements of the retail and services sectors.
• Invest in and enhance the public areas of the town, specifically the
commercial core where people can gather, interact, linger, sit and
observe, or do things.
• Support and encourage restaurants, cafes, bars, activities and
nightlife. Encourage sidewalk seating and dining, bringing these
activities to the public space.
4
P9
AS P EN(N CH A MBER
RESONT ASSOCIATION
WWW.ASPENCNAMBEN.ONO
Observations on the AACP Introduction
On page six, paragraph two, biking is referenced before skiing. We suggest skiing come first.
Historically, Aspen is a ski resort.
On page six, paragraph three, it was not only ski areas that were founded due to the Aspen Idea,
but the arts and cultural development occurred simultaneously. That in our opinion is what
makes Aspen unique in comparison with other ski areas. Also, it was private citizens not the
government that were responsible for this Aspen renaissance.
On page six, paragraph five, the sentence "Arts and cultural events proliferated with the
renovation of the Wheeler Opera House in 1984." The sentence implies that the Wheeler
renovation was the cause for the growth of the arts and culture in Aspen. The arts and culture
grew and continue to grow independently of the Wheeler.
On page 7, paragraphs two & three, the statement that tourism as the economic force of the
community was no longer true by the end of the decade is true only to the extent that the dollar
value of real estate transactions surpassed taxable sales.
Moving on to paragraph 4 on page 7, the statement "This fundamental shift from tourism to real
estate as the primary economy" is misleading. The statement implies that there was a conscious
decision to make such a shift. Tourism and Aspen's position as a resort was always primary.
The national economy was a primary driver that increased real estate sales and development. In
addition the development was to redevelop lodging properties or to provide residences for
seasonal visitors. In paragraph 5, the AACP aspires to focus on what makes Aspen an "attractive
place to live and a compelling place to visit." Therein lays another significant factor that boosts
real- estate sales and development. Some could say we are victims of our own successes.
Page 8, paragraph 5 references hou -is mitigation for all new employees. This shows up
elsewhere with the 100% mitigation, and will be controversial. Also, states the plan focuses on
the need for additional local - serving businesses. A good point, but in many cases not viable.
We wish the AACP would refer to seasonal homeowners (due to the fact that many of these
homeowners have more than two homes), and visitors rather than tourists.
We think the Accomplishing Goals on page 10 is somewhat gratuitous, as it seems to emphasize
_ -rsy surro'mding some accomplishments rather that explain how these
P10
accomplishments indicate achievement of community aspirations, policies, values, and goals.
Seems like more of political pats on the back, or an admonition that anticipates controversy over
this plan. There are accomplishments that are not included. For example the mass transit section
is only about paid parking, does not include the establishment and continued expansion of RFTA
due to multiple community's collaboration. There is nothing included about Senior Housing.
Also, the bullets are not in chronological order. There are also a number of grammatical errors
throughout the Introduction.
On page 11, I think the opening sentences in paragraphs 2 & 4 are in opposition to the statement
on page 12 under City of Aspen that the AACP is both a guiding and regulatory document. We
will continue to support the proposition that requirements for land use applications reside in the
Code. Of course the Code should bear consistency to the AACP, but the regulations do not exist
in the AACP.
On page 11, under Going Forward, reference to the 2000 Plan is missing. One not familiar
would think there has been no update since 1993.
We have many concerns regarding the lodging section of the plan and will bring forth more
recommendations at the next meeting.
Aspen Chamber Resort Association.
P1
• Jessica Garrow
From: Cindy Houben
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:59 AM
To: Ellen Sassano; Jessica Garrow; Chris Bendon; Ben Gagnon
Subject: FW: Draft AACP
From: Rachel Richards [mailto :rachelrichards @comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:55 AM
To: Cindy Houben
Cc: Mirte Mallory; Mick Ireland forward; MARCELLA LARSEN
Subject: Draft AACP
Cindy, I had a hard drive meltdown and do not have Ellen or Jessica in my email address book right now, so please
forward this note to them as well.
I continue to feel very strongly that the new MCP should include the chapter introductions on each of the major topics
from the 93 and 2000 plans. I have made this request since our first 'check -ins' with the BOCC.
I still feel that they add valueable context, evolution and elaboration on the goals and policies in the current draft. I was
disappointed to recieve my new draft without those inclusions, to me, they are more important than any of the
wordsmithing or surveys that have been going on. Thanks Rachel E. Richards
PS.lam CCing the only people I do have email addresses for.
Email secured by Check Point
i
P12
4 -7 -11
To: Planning and Zoning Members
From: Timothy Semrau
RE: Aspen Area Community Plan
Dear Planning and Zoning members,
Thanks for your volunteer effort in crafting the Aspen Area Community Plan. Having helped write the
2001 AACP, I know what an exhausting and time consuming task it can be. I also know how difficult
it is to listen to suggestions and comments after a two year process, and I commend you for
encouraging citizen participation at this seemingly late date.
Please keep in mind much of the data gathered for the AACP process were from studies completed in
2007 and 2008. Much has changed in the last four years; reality today perhaps dictates different
considerations.
- 2,400 (two thousand four hundred) jobs were eliminated in Pitkin County
in 2009 and 2010 (per bureau of labor statistics).
-A fourfold increase in citizens receiving food stamps since 2008 (Daily News).
- This winter's survey commissioned by the city showed increasing citizen concem with
Aspen's "economic development."
- The same survey showed an increase in citizens supporting "relaxing regulation and policy
that would inhibit economic development."
- Demand for affordable housing has decreased in the last few years.
- Aspen's exiting rules successfully protected the town from the 05 -07 real estate peak; there is
no existing growth threat to the town now or into the foreseeable future.
Given the above conditions, the proposed change to 100% affordable housing mitigation and the
attendant increase in the production of AH units seems more a reaction to conditions in 2007 than
2011. Other considerations;
- The AACP calls for a "critical mass" of affordable housing units, but does that mean 100% of
workers have housing provided for them? Does critical mass mean 100 %?
-Isn't 60% mitigation and the city's historic goal of housing 60% of workers enough right now?
-The change to 100% mitigation, in conjunction with the other increase in city fees, will almost
certainly FREEZE ASPEN "S CORE and MOST RESIDENCES IN ASPEN. The probable cost
of city fees will be about $250 per square foot, a cost no one can afford.
I see no factual or logical justification to freeze town, eliminate even more jobs, and commit the
city to hundreds of new units at this time by changing the current 60% mitigation and housing
goal to 100 %. There is also no community data indicating a majority support this change.
Please reconsider and eliminate this item in the AACP.
Thank you,
Tim Semrau
Former chair of APCHA housing board
Former member City of Aspen Planning and Zoning board
Former Aspen City Council member
P13
Jessica Garrow
From: Tim Semrau <tim @sbdgreen.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:03 AM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: Planning and Zoning letter for 4 -12
Attachments: P and Z letter 4- 7- 11.doc
Good morning Jessica,
Attached is a letter for the P and Z meeting April 12 I'm traveling, so I emailed it in a word document. Please reply and
let me know if you can print it and get it to P and Z members. If need be. I can print and fax it to you if necessary if you get
me the fax number.
I checked the agenda, to confirm the meeting is combined P and Z commissions at 4;30 at the Rio Grande. The agenda
just says AACP work session; is that correct?
Is there anyway staff can request the public get to make comments at the beginning of the meeting? Last time it took until
7 pm, at which time many had left and everyone is so tired it isn't very effective. Can I make that request on the public's
behalf at the beginning of the meeting?
If you need to call, I'm at 310 -456 -0642.
Thanks,
74n Seemaa
Original Message
From: Jessica Garrow [mailto :Jessica.Garrow @ci.aspen.co.us]
• Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 11:05 AM
To: Tim Semrau
Subject: RE: AACP survey results
Hi Tim - I'm not sure if you're on our AACP distribution list or not, so in case you aren't below is the email I sent
out this morning about the AACP release. Let me know if you have any questions.
Dear Community Members —
Thank you for all your input on the Aspen Area Community Plan update. The revised draft of the joint City-County
2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) was released today and is available online at
www.aspencommunityvision.com. Hard copies are also available in the City Community Development
Department. The AACP is a character- based, ten year community plan for the Aspen Area created in collaboration
between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. It is used as a decision - making guide by both the City Council
and County Commissioners.
Between October 2008 and February 2009, public input was gathered through a series of focus groups, a community
survey, blog, Facebook, and instant voting sessions. Another series of small and large =r-::r; - ,t : :gs were held
October 2010 thru November 2010, and another survey was conducted in January 2011.
The revised draft of the 2011 AACP feature topics that include: a vision statement, philosophy, what's changed and
what's new, and addresses the Aspen Idea, managing growth, economic sustainability, west of the Castle Creek
corridor, transportation, housing, park, recreation, open space and trails, environmental stewardship, historic
preservation, and the lifelong Aspenite.
You are invited to attend the upcoming Planning and Zoning Commission public hearings beginning on April 12 at
4:30pm to : d -necting room. The complete schedule for public hearings is available on
www.aspencommunity vision.c:m.
1
P14
Jessica Garrow
From: shae singer <shae @aspenelectriccars.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Jessica Garrow
Cc: Debbie Braun
Subject: aspen community vision
Attachments: pastedGraphic.tiff; ATT661682.txt
Dear Jessica et all,
I am Just following up after I read the newest version of the ongoing community vision plan.
I find it extremely short sighted of the planners to be focusing so strongly on limiting vehicles into and parking in
downtown Aspen. The repercussions are great and very long lasting. Instead of limiting and penalizing people who wish
to live, work or visit Aspen, it is my belief we need to be incentivizing alternate vehicles and creating positive ways for
people to enjoy coming to our town.
On a daily basis our businesses, offices, work force and "locals" are moving down valley. The living, shopping and social
scene is becoming more desirable and affordable just 18 miles away!
The plain truth is that our visitors who are the strongest supporters of our community and our economy are the ones
most affected by these changes. That in turn will of course adversely affect our local growth and prosperity.
People use cars! Tourist use the busses mainly in the winter for
skiing! Look at the ridership! People fly into to Denver, Vail and
Aspen and rent vehicles. Visitors in the summer drive Independence pass, or up from Denver or the western slope. Our
residents travel up and down the valley. Bus systems will not replace automobiles. The number one complaint from
visitors is how hard it is to get here and once they do how awful the parking is.
Year after year this is what the people say and yet you, the planners refuse to listen, instead creating new vision that
will create a more difficult time for people to come to our town.
I implore you to look at what other bigger and more congested cities are doing around the world. Look to Denmark,
Israel, China, California, and even places in Colorado like Boulder and Ft Collins.
They all incentify alternate vehicles to increase use and educate on how we can drive and still be good for environment
and the world.
Here is Aspen, you seem to be focussing on Bicycles and walking paths and the impossible challenge of elimination car
visits to Aspen.
First, why would you want to stop people from coming and going as many times as they want if they are living, working
or socializing here...
That means they are spending money, paying taxes and your salary as well. If they cannot get here who will use the bike
paths?
To make it more difficult to park or cost more will only serve to lower visits and continue the exodus down valley.
Why not offer alternative vehicles or bus riders some benefits and
use positive reinforcement -not prohibit vehicle visits into town!
Think about this, I have been to town once and used my 4 hour window to park, now I remember I need to get a gift for
a friend for a party tonight, do I drive back into Aspen or just go downvalley..
i
Just last week I had a friend who used to live here and moved down valley. She came into town from Grand Junction. P1 5
She paid to park in front of a restaurant using a credit card on the machine by her vehicle. She paid for 4 hours. She had
lunch and then walked the block and shopped at several stores. She spent about $400 shopping not to mention lunch.
When she got back to her car she was ticketed for being
20 minutes over her limit... a $40 ticket. She moved her car and went
to get a hair cut and was issued a warning that she already parked in town, and could not park again.. You can imagine
what she thinks of Aspen now. What you are considering will perpetuate that experience ten fold!
Please reconsider or listen to the people and choose to make coming to Aspen easier and pleasant not at hardship.
Shae
Shae Singer 970 - 948 -7423
shae @AspenElectricCars.com
http://www.AspenElectricCars.com
Email secured by Check Point
•
•
2
P16
Jessica Garrow
From: maggielee @gdewolf.com
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: some additions and corrections to the MCP Background page:
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The 2011 AACP describes a vision for the future of the Aspen area that is meant to guide community decision -
making for the next ten years, and as an introduction to the substance of the plan we describe the setting in
which we live and the history that has kept our community a thriving and vital one up to today and
presumably well into the future.
The Aspen area has attracted many visitors and residents, both national and international who have come to
enjoy the striking mountain views, to bike along the Roaring Fork river and to ski in unparalleled powder. Rural
in character but surrounded by wilderness and including one hundred years of history built by victorians who
built an opera house to add panache to the town and culture which has a firm foothold in Aspen today and
will tomorrow.
Since the 1940s and WW11 ended, the world looked forward to peace and the concept of the Aspen Idea
complimented by skiing and spending time in a victorian town listening in the summer to Aida in the local
opera house and symphonies in the newly designed tent, appealed to a wtde audience who needed places to
stay, ergo many small lodges and condominiums sprang up in the 1950s and 1960s.
In the 1970s preservation was uppermost in the county's mind and ambitious steps were taken to preserve
rural Aspen while the city began buying open space and giving thought to preserving houses built during the
latter part of the 19th century.
Over the span of years since Aspen emerged as a town, all kinds of recreational activities have been thought
up for people to enjoy including hang - gliding with gliders landing on the Thomas Open Space area, while the
wilderness areas were established in the 19705 and 1980s and the Wheeler Opera House was renovated in
1984 to once again to be used by the Aspen Music Festival for its original operatic use as well as myriad other
performances, movies and lectures.
As Aspen has become such a desirable town to live in, the small town scale that it represents has become
more precious and more worthy of protection and even 20 or 30 years ago there was worry about the
unintended impact of success. In 1973 the Aspen land use plan was committed to "control growth and prevent
urban sprawl," and land use plans since then have echoed that concept.
With the expansion of arts and cultural institutions in the 1980s, Aspen was truly maturing as a resort
economy and it was during this same period that national economic trends resulted in proliferation of
wealthy households across the country, creating an entirely new level of demand for resort properties. By the
end of the decade tourism was no longer the economic force within the community and during the late 1990s
real estate surpassed retail and lodging to become the dominant factor in the Aspen economy and by 2007,
real estate transactions approached $1.8 billion, according to the Aspen Economy, a 2008 report
commissioned by the city of Aspen.
1
The fundamental shift from tourism to real estate and the resulting real estate boom from 2004 to 2008 has P1 7
prompted community concerns and led to the main theme of the 2011 AACP to focus on the elements of the
Aspen area that make it such an attractive place to live and indeed a compelling place to visit. Just as the
previous version of the AACP is remembered for two words: Messy vitality, so this version of the MCP will
perhaps be remembered for the new phase of Aspen from visits to making a life here in Aspen, Colorado.
Email secured by Check Point
2