HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20110426 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
& PITKIN COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
TUESDAY, April 26, 2011
4:30 p.m. Sister Cities
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:
MEMORANDUM
TO: City & County Planning & Zoning Commissions
FROM: Jessica Garrow, City Long Range Planner
Ellen Sassano, County Long Range Planner
Chris Hendon, City Community Development Director
Cindy Houben, County Community Development Director
DATE OF MEMO: April 20, 2011
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 26, 2011
4:30 — 7:30 pm, Sister Cities
RE: Joint Public Hearing on new draft of AACP
BACKGROUND: The P &Zs met in a work session on April 19 to discuss the public hearing
process. At that meeting the group agreed it is important to take public comment at the
beginning of each public hearing. In addition, a number of public comments have been received.
These are attached as Exhibit A. The group also requested staff memos to outline the major
changes in the March draft, and include the background information the group has reviewed on
each topic over the past 2- and -a -half year review process. The group agreed to begin with the
Aspen Idea chapter and continue through the document chapter -by- chapter. This memo
addresses the "Aspen Idea" and "Managing Growth for Community & Economic Sustainability"
chapters. All P &Z members have been given a hard copy of the plan, so an additional copy is
not provided with this packet.
There was not a quorum at the joint P &Z meeting on April 12 so it was continued to April 26
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 May 10`
GENERAL DOCUMENT CHANGES: 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.
Page 1 of 4
New sections called "What's Changed Since 2000," "What's New in the 2011 AACP," and
"Linkages" have been added to each chapter. "What's Changed" highlights important
background information and provides a brief explanation of key policies or other factors that
have changed since the 2000 Plan was adopted. "What's New" highlights any major policy
changes from the 2000 AACP. "Linkages" highlights the ways a chapter is connected to other
topics.
Finally, as noted in the March 28 memo to the P &Zs, staff made an earnest effort to eliminate
repetition and redundancy in the interest of making the new draft more concise, clear and direct.
THE ASPEN IDEA CHAPTER: The concepts in the Aspen Idea Chapter are relatively
unchanged. The re -draft incorporates information found in call -out boxes in the September Draft
regarding the origins of the Aspen Idea. The re -draft places a greater emphasis on civic
discourse and the importance of collaboration among government, businesses and non - profits.
There are no significant changes to the Policies or Action Items.
When the P &Zs initially reviewed this chapter, they used background information, including:
the 2000 AACP, the State of the Aspen Area Report, the Economic White Paper, and the public
feedback results.
THE MANAGING GROWTH FOR COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY
CHAPTER: This chapter was re- written for tone and to ensure it is forward looking rather than
focusing on the mistakes of the past. The last draft focused more on the things that we don't like
or don't want to happen, and the mistakes of the past rather than what the community wants in
the future. The new draft focuses more on our goals for the community: "In the broadest terms,
these goals include a thriving and sustainable year -round community and a unique and vibrant
resort in the context of a healthy natural environment." (from the Vision) In this vein, the
discussion of the concerns over "infill" (which is no longer in the city land use code) and the
need to re- examine it has been eliminated and replaced with a discussion of managing future
development so that it contributes to the long -term viability of a sustainable, diverse tourist -
based economy and a strong year -round community.
The "What's Changed" section incorporates background information on major code changes
over the last 10 years, construction activity, and new projects. The "What's New" section
highlights the major policy changes from the 2000 plan, including the call for 100% affordable
housing mitigation, focusing on limiting residential growth in environmentally sensitive areas,
and not having a population cap.
When the P &Zs initially reviewed this chapter, they used background information, including:
the 1993 & 2000 AACP, the State of the Aspen Area Report, the Economic White Paper,
Population Segment information, Build -out information, Carrying Capacity White Paper, and the
public feedback results.
Maintaining our Tourist - Based Economy: The new draft recognizes that our three economies
(resort tourism, development, and year round community) are inter - twined, and focuses on how
to ensure they work in harmony. New Action Items have been added under the "Maintaining our
Page 2 of 4
Tourist -Based Economy" policy. These additions were discussed by the P &Z in February, and
include items like wayfinding, and improving the visitor center.
Residential Sector: The draft has eliminated the call for an overall decrease in house size, and
instead focuses on protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive areas. This was direction
from the P &Z in February. The Policies and Action Items have been changed to reflect this
direction. A Policy and associated Action Items on TDRS were added based on direction
received from P &Z. Many of the Action Items were already written and were just moved under
the new policy.
•
Lodging Sector: The plan continues to call for a "balanced" lodging inventory with a focus on
economy /moderate lodging. This draft provides more background and explanation on this topic.
Based on the many discussions with the public, P &Zs, and elected officials, the reference to
"modest" was deleted from the chapter, and replaced with "compatible and in harmony with."
This section includes one of the two regulatory statements in this chapter: "New lodging should
be compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale, and character of the neighborhood."
Commercial Sector: This draft focuses more on what we want the commercial sector to look
like. The previous draft focused more on how we are "dissatisfied" with our commercial mix.
The Commercial Policies and Action Items are largely unchanged.
Public, Institutional, and Non - Profit Sector: The concepts in this section are unchanged.
Some minor clarifications in language were made to the Policies, but no content changes were
made.
Managing Growth: The Policies and Action items in this section are largely unchanged. The
first Policy in this section was re- written for clarity and to be consistent with the overall tome
changes. This section includes one of the two regulatory statements in this chapter: "New
development should be compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale, and character of the
neighborhood."
Pace of Construction: The past draft did not include a philosophy section on pace, though there
was a Policy related to it. The re -draft includes a discussion of why the policy is included, and
calls for a comprehensive approach to addressing construction impacts. The Policy is
unchanged, but some minor clarifications have been made to the Action items.
Mitigating Impacts on Community Infrastructure: All of the mitigation Policies and Action
Items from the Housing chapter were moved into this chapter and were not changed. A Policy
that called for using mitigation as a tool to bring the lodging inventory into balance was deleted
because it is in conflict with the P &Z's direction to have 100% mitigation.
HOMEWORK PRIOR 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.
Page 3 of 4
P &Z REVIEW SCHEDULE: The public hearing schedule is outlined as follows:
• 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
BACKGROUND INFORMATION USED BY P &Z: There were a number of documents the
P &Z used in the initial drafting of this chapter. These include:
• State of the Aspen Area Report Managing Growth Chapter,
• State of the Aspen Area Report Economics Chapter,
• State of the Aspen Area Report Aspen Idea Chapter,
• Economic White Paper,
• Build -out Analysis,
• Population Estimates,
• History of Managing Growth Paper,
• Carrying Capacity White Paper,
• Clicker Session data, and
• 2008 Survey data.
All are available at www.AspenCommunitvVision.com. In addition, all the past P &Z packets
are available under the Adoption section of the website, or by clicking the links below:
• April 7, 2009 • October 13, 2009
• August 18, 2009 • October 27, 2009
• August 25, 2009 • November 10, 2009
• September 1, 2009 • November 24, 2009
• September 8, 2009 • December 1, 2009
• September 8, 2009 Addendum • December 8, 2009
• September 22, 2009 • January 12, 2010
The most recent clicker sessions (Nov 2010) and survey (March 2011) are also available
online.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Public Comment
Exhibit B: Written Comments received from P &Z members
Page 4 of 4
Jessica Garrow n/e',J Co✓ t - .eartC
From: Steve Falender <falender @comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:27 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Cc: Mick Ireland; Steve Skadron; Torre; Derek Johnson; Ruth Kruger
Subject: RE: MCP meeting re- scheduled for April 26th
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thanks for this notice. I was planning to attend, so this saved me a trip.
I do have a question. The 3/28/11 draft says this plan is an "effort to gauge community consensus" (p.7) and "is
intended to reflect community aspirations ". (p. 11). Two of the major changes from the 2000 plan are: 1. The multiple
statements in the draft calling for all new development to provide housing for 100% of all new employees that are
generated and 2. The call to encourage development of economy /moderate priced lodging. Could you please point out
to me the community feedback from the various public meetings that show that these goals reflect significant
community consensus? I could not find strong community support in my review of various meeting data that the city
website contains that justifies the emphasis the AACP places on these two issues, and I did find thoughtful concerns
about these goals and what negative impact they might have on our economy.
Three comments:
1, The latest draft is worded in a much more "friendly" manner than the previous drafts, and I think this is a positive
change.
2, I am very concerned about the number or continued studies, data needs, and collaborative initiatives proposed by
this draft. The time and money required to do all the follow up will be extremely expensive, and staff intensive. If this
report is adopted, in my opinion a careful process must be used by Council to evaluate the cost versus potential benefit
of each study contemplated before the study is initiated.
3. This AACP, and the recent Historic Preservation committee report were, in my opinion, too expensive and time
consuming based on the final product. The vast number of meeting was too great for even a very interested member of
the public to reasonably follow. While some say this is reflective of a great effort to gather community input, I think a
streamlined process would generate better community feedback and more effectively solve difficult issues. I think that
future committees assisting on studies and reports like this should identify consensus, and also quickly identify issues
where no amount of further meetings will build consensus. Those issues need to be resolved by proposing code
amendments, holding formal public hearings by Council, and then Council has a responsibility to make a final and time
effective decision.
I ask that you please forward this email to the Aspen P &Z members.
Thank you.
Steve Falender
falender@comcast.net
970 - 920 -1816
603 W. Gillespie St., Aspen
From: Jessica Garrow [ mailto :Jessica.Garrow @ci.aspen.co.us]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 1:23 PM
To: aspencommunityvision @gmail.com
Subject: AACP meeting re- scheduled for April 26th
Dear Community Members —
1
. .. ._. . ...._ . . ..
N.) N) CO On t (
2 ¥ / �
( m ) _ - c ƒ J 2 | •
m 2 00 cp « ] % ) = J 9
3 7 § {k \ 7 o CO iii ? § §�� ` 3
_ e
= co
cn \ } ) E = \ �
& \ o § »
f{ } 3 I (§
c (0
E & § q - )=
\} / \ ° 3 \ 74: Fri ( \(/ \ CA
0) 0 I
& o f •
J § r0
M
o 00)
(\\\
2 - E
( + [
)(3« .
8\ g (
a E% ; 2 k
( \ \a 2 \
[k 3 }
k 0 ] =7 }
/ ; S . \
; \ - k
3 3 ot -0 -.
,, #k 7
q) ;a
CO
} //4 co k
a ( ]§ ° § )
i 0)/ )
}\ k\ (7;
\
so t\� o
°® |
2/ cr
_ 3 cr
\ ; , 3 R Ro
/ 1
CT
t)ew VV Q%ntO
Aspen Area Community Plan
March 28, 2011 Draft
Aspen Ski Company Comments - West of Castle Creek Corridor Chapter through
Changes to the Urban Growth Boundary
David Corbin — Vice President Planning and Development
4/11/11
West of Castle Creek Corridor:
• Philosophy - pages 34 — 35
o The Philosophy section reads in part, page 34: The West of Castle Creek
Corridor is home to a wide variety of important uses that define the
gateway experience... (emphasis supplied)... all of which are important
components of our community."
o General Comment: While the Vision and Philosophy sections expand the
prior draft's emphasis beyond the "gateway experience" and visual impacts, it
still seems as though the functional land uses of the area remain
underemphasized in the draft, subservient to the dominant themes of a visual
pattern and "development nodes."
o Patterns of use are one aspect of land use planning; the uses themselves are
quite another. Many, if not all of the uses in this physical area are critically
and irreplaceably important for the community. Their functional relevance
and importance should be noted and supported more directly in the Policies
of the comprehensive plan.
• Policies - I. Land Use - page 37
o The Policies, particularly I. Land Use on page 37, includes the following: I.
1. Planning for the West of Castle Creek Corridor should support a well -
defined visual and functional pattern for a series of different "nodes" of
activity supporting limited uses that are physically separated by open
space."
o Comments: The uses of the area serve the community in ways equally
important and more numerous than simply 'defining the gateway
experience' and establishing a visual and functional pattern. The land
uses in this area should themselves be emphasized and promoted.
o The airport, the Aspen Business Center's service businesses and light
warehouses, affordable housing at North Forty and Burlingame, and
the Buttermilk Ski area (to name but some of the unique uses of the
area) are all critical community assets and essentially irreplaceable.
1
These uses could not easily be moved or re- established physically,
legally or financially in another location within the UGB.
o Policy proposal: Unique land uses within the Castle Creek Corridor
should be acknowledged, fostered and promoted in the comprehensive
plan. A Land Use Policy should be added stating:
• "The West of Castle Creek Corridor contains a wide variety of
unique, functionally critical land uses which are singular and /or
exceptional uses within the UGB. Some are residential,
commercial, or recreational in nature; others constitute key
community infrastructure, the airport being the most obvious
example. Many of these uses could not easily or desirably be
replicated in other parts of the UGB and are thus irreplaceable.
Planning for the West of Castle Corridor should recognize,
support and promote the wide variety of land uses presently
existing within the corridor and adapt flexibly in the future so that
functional needs of the community which are poorly suited to the
downtown core or residential areas might be compatibly met
and provided for in this area."
Transportation:
• Vision - p. 38
o The Vision statement reads: We seek to provide a balanced, integrated
transportation system that reduces congestion and air pollution. Mass
transit use [and others listed]...are some of the tools that can help us
achieve this vision."
o Comments:
• The Vision statement, like prior drafts, speaks to those things we do
not want of our transportation modes and system, e.g. congestion and
pollution, yet it still fails to articulate an aspirational goal or commit us
to an essential purpose of our transportation system.
• The Vision does not commit the community to identify or pursue a
system capacity or service benchmark which will meet the
transportation needs and demands of our community. In short, it omits
a primary and essential goal.
o I would suggest revising the first sentence of the Vision statement to read:
2
• "We seek to provide a balanced, integrated transportation system that
safely, effectively, conveniently and routinely moves all of the users of
the system, including residents, commuters and guests, through a
variety of modes, means, and methods, to and from their intended
destinations, while emphasizing and investing in mass transit solutions
and reducing congestion, pollution and other undesirable traffic
impacts..." [emphasis - added language supplied].
• Primary Transportation Policy - p. 41
o Similarly, the Primary Transportation Policy, page 41, seeks to "Continue
to limit...daily trips...and...reduce peak hour vehicle trips, "and aims to
accommodate additional person trips "using alternative transportation
methods."
o Comment: The Primary Transportation Policy should likewise at least
allude to the primary purpose of transportation and be amended to read:
• "While aiming, aspiring and evolving to meet overall
transportation system needs and demands and provide for
desired person trips, we should continue to limit Average Annual
Daily Trips... [etc.]." [emphasis — added language supplied]
• Airport Policies — p. 43
o VII.6. Improve the convenience, efficiency and environmental impacts
of ground transportation options available at the airport. To further
reduce reliance upon the automobile and improve the arrival experience and
convenience of our guests and visitors, add the following language to this
sub - section:
• "Moreover, plan for and support the modernization of mass
transit modal connections and new transportation alternatives to
and from the airport and other areas of the wider community,
such as the commercial core and Snowmass."
Housing:
• Philosophy — pages 45 and 46
o Comment: On page 45, paragraph two, the draft refers to 2,200 units
managed by APCHA in the Aspen Area. On page 46, Aspen Area Housing
History side bar, last paragraph, the text reports APCHA "is involved in the
oversight of over 2,800 units..." The unit count discrepancy should be
resolved.
3
Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails:
o No new comments. Generally, the form and substance of the new draft is
simpler, more direct and preferable to the previous draft.
Environmental Stewardship:
o Comments: At the bottom of page 54 the text refers to the Ecological Bill of
Rights and directs the reader to the "sidebar on page 52 — 53." The page
reference in the new draft should be to page 57. Once again the new
draft's form and substance is preferable to the prior drafts. The various
environmental stewardship policies are laudable and merit support as
aspirational goals of the community.
Historic Preservation:
• Policies - Publicly Accessible Interiors — p. 62
o IV. 1. Explore code changes to preserve exceptional character defining
historic interiors in publicly accessible buildings.
o Comments: ASC has previously submitted comments regarding this subject
in response to earlier drafts. We continue to object to this concept and the
language proposed.
• As a drafting matter, this particular "Policy description" does not
read as a policy at all, but rather as an action item (which items
have been removed to the Appendix). It says nothing about the
reasons or purposes of such purported interior preservation, nor
does it attempt to express an underlying and compelling public
interest in such private property or its regulation. Neither does it
allege a legal right or interest in doing so.
• Substantively, public accessibility does not by itself impart a
legitimate public interest that would permit a governing body to
regulate a property's interior appearance in the service of the
government's police powers protecting the public's health,
safety and welfare. Regulatory controls concerning the interior
appearance of a private party's real property would seem to be
an unwarranted intrusion of the government into the rights of
private property owners and beyond the legitimate powers of
government. This "policy" should be deleted from the draft.
The Lifelong Aspenite:
o No new comments
4
Changes to the Urban Growth Boundary:
o Comment: Extending the Urban Growth Boundary to coincide with the area
of the airport's operational area and the 2004 Airport Master Plan is
consistent with the comprehensive planning purposes of the Community
Plan. It would make little sense to split the airport's physical area across the
UGB. The UGB should be revised to fully incorporate the airport property.
5
Y ", c I k dQ-4. in X1112 pcckei-
Aspen Area Community Plan
March 28, 2011 Draft
Aspen Ski Company Comments - Introduction through Managing Growth
Chapters
David Corbin — Vice President Planning and Development
4/6/11
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 intent [emphasis supplied] of the Aspen
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
focus on what the Aspen Idea is today and how we wish to see it carried
1
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
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
• 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
.1- u in '-111- c6-E-
ASPEN( CHAMBER
RESORT ASSOCIATION
W W W. A S P E H C H A M B E R. O R C
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 housing 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
the controversy surrounding some accomplishments rather that explain how these
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.
= in (-4 )12- Pceiti,b
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 AACP 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
PSI am CCing the only people I do have email addresses for.
Email secured by Check Point •
k
•
•
Lida& in 4Ntz I ac,c.k 44 ,
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 Senacue
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 group meetings 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 is Salo Grande meeting, room. The complete schedule for public hearings is available on
www.aspencommunityvision.com.
1
Tnclud.ed (P1 1 -II IL mat
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 concern 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
•
nclud¢d i yI IZkzt
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..
1
Just last week I had a friend who used to live here and moved down valley. She came into town from Grand Junction.
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
.tnclocluiiet Ll.hz pacice.
Jessica Garrow
From: maggielee @gdewolf.com
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Jessica Garrow
Subject: some additions and corrections to the AACP 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 wide 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 1970s 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
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 AACP 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
r`4VV1101t 1 3
To: City and Pitkin County P &Zs
From: Marcella Larsen
Date: April 11, 2011
Re: Staff's Rewrite of the AACP, and Response to 4/8/2011 Memo From
Staff Requesting "Red- Flag" Issues by Our 4/12/2011 Meeting
This memo is divided into three parts: (1) Overview: (2) What should happen in this next
meeting ?; and (3) Attempted "Red Flags."
I. Overview
Hello, everyone. We have come so far, yet it's one step forward, one step back. We as
P &Zs do need to fulfill our statutory duty to adopt a master plan, and we shall. We need
to do that on our own terms, avoiding the politicization of this plan wherever possible,
and always representing the public interest. Remember, that's why, by state statute, the
P &Zs engage in master planning, and the politicians do not.
Most of Staff's edits to the AACP are good —they promote clarity and, with the
exception of the growth and economy section, do not substantially dilute the substance of
the plan. I commend them for their hard work; overall, this is a better document.
However, let's remember again that it is the P&Zs who write and adopt master plans, and
we should define a process that works for us, given the status of the current draft, and we
need to make sure that the substance is still there. The growth and economy section is a
problem; it is no longer truly philosophical nor does it provide much guidance for future
development. In my view, the vision and philosophy section will need to be substantially
rewritten.
I received Staff's memo for our upcoming meeting today, this past Friday, as you all did.
I appreciate that Staff suggests a format for our review, but I wonder whether it's
realistic: Staff is asking that we annotate their entire draft for every "Red -Flag" item we
may have, to be completed between now and Tuesday —five days. My guess is that most
of our volunteers aren't capable of that kind of turnaround. While I will be out of town
for our next meeting, I done my best to comply electronically. (I only made it through
the first two chapters for Tuesday's meeting.)
In addition to identifying these "Red- Flag" items, I would strongly suggest, contrary to
Staff's recommendation, that you actually compare the before (our version) and after
(Staff's rewrite). If you don't look at the redlines, you might not realize —for example —
that every single reference to the problems with the upzonings of mid -2000 (called
"infill ") were deleted from the Growth and Economy philosophy section we spent years
drafting. Or, you might not see that there is no longer any discussion of a "modest" mass
and scale.' What happened to the idea that high job - generation (at low wages) isn't
necessarily healthy (i.e., the argument that the Walmart should be built because it will
revitalize the community because it will provide jobs)? I could go on and on ...
Personally, I am not comfortable with merely "Red- Flagging" these issues because in a
few place the substance has changed rather significantly. (There, a Staff memo
identifying these substantive changes would have been helpful and appropriate. It's hard
enough for a citizen - volunteer who is familiar with the document to find these issues for
themselves, but I imagine it will be nearly impossible for the public to understand. And,
since there were many members of the public who supported the document as written by
P &Z, this seems to make their continued participation unnecessarily difficult.)
Additionally, as you read through the new draft, you will see the resurfacing of some of
the same ideology from (city) Staff, which we spent hours debating and ended up
rejecting. There, too, all of our conclusions about the desirability of the significant
upzonings from mid -2000 (called "infill ") have been entirely eliminated. Which begs the
question: At whose direction? Indeed, prior, rejected language about the untested design
standards that would supposedly "fix" the failures of these upzonings has assumed new
prominence in the draft.
The same is true regarding population limits, which were never a true cap in the prior
AACPs, but merely something that might help guide future rezonings and other decision
making. Obviously, that guide wasn't used in connection with the mid -2000 upzonings,
but it should have been. Their elimination from the current draft AACP is neither
supported by any citizen input, nor has it somehow become "illegal" since the 2000
AACP. (No one has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that we would stop issuing
building permits allowed under the zoning that exists at the time of application because
we had exceeded our population goals.)
One can only imagine what the current "recession" might inspire in terms of new
upzonings. Another committee, like the one who proposed the huge upzonings mid -
2000? Yet another new "revitalization" —read, upzoning —of our town? If we're okay
with this forever growth model, let's just say so. But, if we're not to become another
Vail or Broomfield or even Boulder, we ought to say something meaningful that isn't
silenced because of a recasting of the population numbers and what they meant in the
prior plans. As I said before, I believe the entire vision and philosophy section in the
growth and economy section needs to be rewritten. (I have attached a redline of the
former P &Z version of growth and economy, which I believe illustrates the problem - -the
redline is our former language, which has largely disappeared in the new draft.)
Actually, you couldn't see these changes because, Staff is correct, a redline would
be illegible, so significant was their rewrite.
2
II. What should happen in this next meeting?
I think P &Z needs to work hard to regain control of this document and make it something
that reflects the entire public interest. As I've said before, as P &Z's we have a heady
responsibility imposed by state statute: let's do our job.
Let's ask Staff to prepare a memo that identifies the substantive changes they made, and
the reasoning for each. Without such a memo, a near - impossible burden is placed on
P &Z and also the public, who has no idea what has changed.
Beyond the call to do "Red - Flags" on Staff's draft, let's commit to all bring forward the
issues that have been dropped, missed, deleted or whatever from the draft. Some of us
may be able to get through the entire document by Tuesday, but I suspect most of us will
not (I didn't). As I said before, it's not fair to ask us to identify what Staff changed, when
it hasn't been identified in a memo.
Let's also understand the process that Staff undertook to arrive at the revised document
that it now presents for our review. What was their internal process (for example, how
were the individual action items changed ?)? Beyond what we've seen in terms of public
comments, did they have any meetings or contacts with any groups or individuals about
the plan? The public needs these types of disclosures.
Finally, let's set a schedule to get this plan finished. I'd suggest we start with the first
chapter next meeting (not the introduction, which we shouldn't address until the draft is
mostly done). I believe we can do a chapter a meeting, and should try to meet more than
twice a month.
III. Red - Flags
I've noted my "Red- Flags" as comments in the document itself. I think they are self -
evident. I only made it through the growth chapter because it was important to me to
understand the differences between the P &Z draft and Staff's total rewrite. This took a
lot of time, and along the way, I noticed that the "clean" draft I was working on in Word
wasn't the same as the online version (or the redline ...) so I stopped.
I'll continue to work on my "flags" and pass them on to Staff and P &Z when there is a
Word document available (I can't comment on .pdfs).
Attached Documents:
1. My redlines /comments on the first two chapters of the AACP (note: the Word draft I
was given is not consistent with the online version).
3
2. A redline of the growth and economy chapter that shows the P &Z's version with all of
Staff changes taken out (note: this isn't to say that none of their changes are good, but it
illustrates the problems with the vision and philosophy quite vividly)
4
Draft Aspen Area Community Plan
AA CP Introduction
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) is intended to describe a vision
for the future of the Aspen Area that will help guide community decision - making
for the next 10 years. But before moving into the substance of the plan, it's
important to briefly describe the setting in which we live, and provide some
historical context that brought the community to this unique point in time.
The scenic mountain views, biking along a river, unparalleled skiing, rural
character, extensive Wilderness Areas, a historic downtown, outstanding arts
and cultural events and the sense of a small -scale community are among the
many reasons why the Aspen Area has attracted national and international
visitors and compelled many to make it their home.
Since the 1940s, Aspen has taken numerous intentional steps to create an ideal
environment in which to live and visit. With the concept of the Aspen Idea as its
foundation, ski areas were founded in the 1940s and '50s, attracting intemational
ski racers. Dozens of small lodges and condos were built through the 1950s and
'60s.
In the 1970s, Pitkin County took ambitious steps to preserve rural character, a
grass roots effort began to preserve Victorian architecture, and the City of Aspen
began buying open space.
All types of recreational activities emerged over the years, including hang - gliders
landing on the Thomas Open Space in the mid- 1970s. Another grass roots
movement resulted in the establishment of Wildemess Areas in the late 1970s.
Arts and cultural events proliferated with the renovation of the Wheeler Opera
House in 1984. At the same time, a range of non - profit groups focused on
everything from the arts to social causes to science to international affairs.
All through the 1960s, '70s and '80s, citizen planners and local government
consistently linked the beauty of the natural environment and the desirability of
the area as a place to live and visit, and they identified small town scale as
worthy of protection. Even then, people were worried about the unintended
impacts of success.
➢ In 1966, the Aspen Area General Plan worrieat that "The most significant
change has been ... the gradual encroachment of (housing and lodges) on - MARCELLA LARSEN 4 10 11 1 55 PM
the countryside." Comment [1]: Plans claret wary. People do.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 1 of 103
➢ The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan was committed to "control growth and
prevent urban sprawl," adding that, "Emphasis will be placed on preserving
the natural environment where new development occurs."
➢ ... eliminating indiscriminate development in environmentally sensitive
areas ... "was an important concept in the 1976 Aspen /Pitkin County
Growth Management Policy Plan.
➢ Maintaining `Aspen's unique small town character and scale as one of its
major attractions to residents and visitors, " was part of the 1986 Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Historic Element.
With the expansion of arts and cultural institutions in the 1980s, Aspen was truly
maturing as a resort economy. It was during this same period that national
economic trends resulted in a proliferation of wealthy households across the
country, creating an entirely new level of demand for resort properties.
Although the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan clearly said that, "Tourism is the
economic force of the community" — that statement was no longer true by the end
of the decade.
"During the late 1990s, real estate surpassed retail and lodging to become the
dominant factor in the Aspen economy," according to The Aspen Economy, a
2008 report commissioned by the City of Aspen. "By 2007, real estate
transactions approached $1.8 billion, generating far more economic activity than
the $508 million of taxable sales (that year)."
Themes of the 2011 AACP
This fundamental shift from tourism to real estate as the primary economy was
strongly manifested during the economic boom period of 2004 — 2008, and
prompted community concerns. Although the 2011 AACP was drafted during a
deep economic recession amidst little or no development, many residents remain
uneasy about this fundamental shift. MARCELLn LARSEN 4 1 0 : 1 1 z la PM
Conunwt [t]: I would delete this or say
Taken as a whole, he main theme of the 2011 AACP is to focus on the elements p eople a are "u n° ° ayy' above axut' ' just It r t yso
are more construction
it
s ome(
of the Aspen Area that make it such an attractive place to live and a compelling economy, itis negatively °Reding the quality of
P place to visit seek to manage future development so that it contributes to the genodwn cause no wewymemane
9 P economy becausera nestW went to go W
long -term sustainability of a vibrant and diverse tourism economy and a strong Aspen anymore.
year -round community. Finally, there Is deep disagreement about
whether this was a deep economic recession or
more Many parts of the 2011 AACP focus on affirming the Aspen Area's unique ideals, t. e rection,aueaati °ou red estate
which has the dual effect of sustaining a viable tourism economy. The following MARCOtto InRSEn 4lu 11 zos Poi
are some of the central themes of this plan: Comment D]: mla oversimplifies the matter
✓ Rediscovering and reinvigorating the Aspen Idea. and sasses the larger purpose which is lo move
toward a responsible and sustainable
✓ Protecting the natural ecosystems and scenic settings of mountainsides community-4 Isn't JUST that we want tolls
and riparian areas. living here and hop that tourists will cone.
✓ Managing development pressures. MARCLLLA LA RSEN 4.10.11 2 07 PM
✓
Replenishing our lodging inventory to encourage a diverse visitor base. comment KK1: There Isnom°mi°nofsome
P 9 9 9 ry g and mass, nor is there anything about 'inilir
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 2 of 103
✓ Promoting a unique and interesting downtown for a diverse visitor base'.
✓ Exploring residential design concepts that reaffirm our small town MARCELLA LARSEN 4:1011 2'. 06 PM
heritage. Comment: [5]: A vital downtown should be for
more than just the visitors ...
✓ Exploring physical planning and design concepts for the West of Castle
Creek Area
✓ Improving and linking altemative methods of travel, including commuter
trails and transit.
✓ Continuing to acquire open space and improve recreational opportunities.
✓ A renewed focus on environmental stewardship, from water and air to
reducing
greenhouse gases.
✓ Preserving historical architecture, helping us tell the unique story of our
past.
Providing a critical mass of affordable housing remains a long- standing goal of
the community, so those who work here can have an opportunity to make Aspen
their home, and become vested members of a strong year -round community. The
plan includes an emphasis on the livability and quality design of Community
Workforce Housing. The 2011 MCP acknowledges problems in the City and
County housing mitigation strategies, and seeks to re- examine such
requirements to ensure that new development fully offsets its impacts. For the
first time, the 2011 AACP calls for all new development to provide housing for all
the new employees that are generated. At the same time, the plan focuses on
the need for additional local- serving business.
In addition to housing, the 2011 AACP also focuses closely on the day -to -day
lives of year -round residents and commuters. That includes a new chapter called
the Lifelong Aspenite, which focuses on services ranging from day care to
education, from public safety to senior services. This new chapter invites
collaboration between a wide range of govemment entities, taxing districts, non-
profits and other organizations.
Planning Area
The Aspen Area Community Plan is the Comprehensive Plan for the area within
the Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. The map below depicts the planning area.
The City is shaded in blue, and the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is outlined in
orange. The portions that are not shaded are located in unincorporated Pitkin
County. The UGB includes Red Mountain, East of Aspen neighborhoods, the
Airport Business Center, the Airport, Buttermilk Base area, and portions of the
Castle Creek and Maroon Creek valleys.
While the boundaries of the planning area are limited, we recognize that the
Aspen Area is an integral part of the Roaring Fork Valley. We are dependent
upon our commuting workforce, second homeowners, tourists, and those who
live here full time. As a result, this plan recognizes the interconnectedness of all
those people who make Aspen work as a community and as a resort.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 3 of 103
Public Engagement Process (sidebar)
One of the primary goals of the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan process was
to undertake the broadest public feedback effort possible, in an effort to gauge
community consensus on a vision for the next 10 years. This initial effort was
described as "direct democracy," and was intended included everyone who
"lives, works or visits" the Aspen Area.
Phase I began with extensive educational outreach, including the State of the
Aspen Area Report: 2000 -2008, and The Aspen Economy, a white paper on the
history of the local economy. Educational outreach was followed by an attempt to
identify shared values, explore common ground and articulate community
consensus. This effort included a series of focus groups, large meetings that
used instant voting technology, and social networking tools. Phase I of the public
process included more than 1,000 participants, and won four awards.
The purpose of Phase II was to further articulate the community's vision and
philosophy, while drafting carefully worded policies to implement community
goals. This process included the joint City and County Planning and Zoning
Commissions, resource experts and the public.
Phase III was the final adoption process, including the joint P &Zs, the public -at-
large, the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners.
Purpose of the Plan
Simply put, the 2011 AACP is intended to reflect community aspirations. As we
encounter new challenges and changing conditions in the future, this plan is
intended to be used as a compass, to help steer us in the right direction.
The 2011 AACP is not intended to provide an exact road map to follow for the
next 10 years, step -by -step. It is simply impossible to anticipate all the twists and
turns that will face the Aspen Area in the future.
At the same time, this plan recognizes that community goals are often
inextricably linked: sometimes they complement each other, and at times they
come into conflict. Preserving a healthy and beautiful natural environment,
providing recreational opportunities, maintaining historical architecture and
providing arts and cultural events are all shared community values that are also
foundations for an unparalleled resort experience. But there are fundamental
conflicts as well.
A community plan is not intended to be a tool that easily reconciles all community
goals in every instance. Instead, it is a broad, aspirational plan with an articulated
vision for the future that serves as a reminder of what's important to the
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 4 of 103
community. As a community we are constantly in a state of weighing and
balancing a variety of competing goals.
Good Local Governance (SIDEBAR)
As part of this aspirational plan, its worthwhile to reflect on some of the most
critical principles of "good governance."
It's helpful to recognize that the word "govemance" did not originally refer to
some kind of governmental structure as we know it today. The word
"governance" comes from the Greek kubemao, meaning to steer."
In the spirit of this plan, a community can find its path through collaboration and
leadership not only through the processes of local government, but from the
private sector and a wide range of local organizations, groups and individuals.
Good governance is transparent, participatory, educational, inclusive,
collaborative, civil, consensus - oriented, responsive, effective and efficient,
follows the rule of law, and is accountable.
Transparency means that the process of decision - making and implementation is
carried out so the public can readily engage in debate, and that reliable
information is freely available. Modern technology should be used to help convey
and illustrate facts and information.
Informed participation is made possible by our constitutional rights to freedom of
association and freedom of expression. Providing reliable information and
education allows for informed debate and discussion.
Inclusiveness means ensuring that the public feels they have a stake in decision -
making, and does not feel excluded. Participation can evolve into collaboration
across public and private sectors that can serve the whole community.
Civility sets the tone of productive community discourse. Civility means
encouraging active debate on the issues, but discouraging personal affronts. To
be consensus oriented means weighing different interests to reach a broad
agreement on what is in the best interest of the whole community.
Good governance requires that institutions and processes are responsive to the
needs of the public within a reasonable timeframe. Effectiveness and efficiency
means producing results that meet the needs of society while making the best
use of resources.
The rule of law means a fair legal framework that is enforced impartially. It also
means there is predictability and fairness in government review processes.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 5 of 103
Accountability is key to effective local government, and accountability cannot
thrive without transparency and the rule of law. For a community to thrive, the
private sector and local organizations must also be accountable to the public.
Good governance is an ideal that can be difficult to achieve in its totality.
However, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to
work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality. MAHCELLA LARSEN 4'10/71 z it PM
Comment 161: This N cantusing. Human
development sounds like personal
Accomplishing Community Goals development; is that what you mean?
It's important to remind ourselves that the Aspen Area community has achieved
many ambitious and impressive goals over the years. Sometimes the process
has been long and controversial, and just as often those achievements have
ultimately become a norm for the community, taken for granted as a shared
value. Here are just a few examples:
✓ Red Brick Center for the Arts
A former school on Hallam Street, today's Red Brick Center for the Arts
was purchased for $3.6 million by voters in August 1992. The tally was
526 in favor, and 523 opposed.
✓ Pedestrian Malls
The two downtown pedestrian malls that are widely enjoyed and
appreciated today were controversial subjects. One City Council action
denied design funds in 1975 — finally approving full design and
construction funds in 1976.
✓ Housing and Day Care
In 1990, there was extensive debate on establishing a .45% sales tax for
affordable housing and day care. It was a close vote, with 53% in favor. In
2008, opinions had changed — it was reauthorized with 66% in favor.
✓ Historic Heritage
The Aspen City Council established the Commercial Core Historic District
in 1974, ultimately resulting in the preservation of structures like the Elks
and Brand buildings. It was controversial at the time, but now we now take
for granted that such buildings will be protected forever.
✓ Mass Transit
Paid parking was the subject of widespread ire, and even picketing
outside City Hall, but Council approved it as part of the Aspen
Transportation Implementation Plan in July 1993. Paid parking was part of
the reason why RFTA ridership doubled in the mid- 1990s.
✓ Backcountry Preservation
In 1994, Pitkin County adopted Rural and Remote Zoning, along with a
new Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) program amidst extensive
debate. Today, it's accepted as a program that has preserved more than
5,840 acres outside of the Urban Growth Boundary.
Achieving important public policy milestones is never without lively debate and
discussion. We hope the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan includes important
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 6 of 103
new policies that will ultimately become critical turning points for the community
over the next 10 years. Nothing worthwhile is ever easy.
We hope this plan captures the broad outlines of our aspirations as a community,
and that it will help steer us into a future where our challenges come only from
our continued success.
Going Forward
The Aspen Area has a long history of planning for our future — from the first
growth management codes in the 1970s to the first Aspen Area Community Plan
in 1993. This update continues our tradition of comprehensive city -county
planning.
Without implementation, comprehensive plans are meaningless. Annual
performance review is critical to the continuing viability and relevance of this
plan.
How to Use the Plan
The Aspen Area Community Plan shall be adopted by ordinance in the City of
Aspen in conformance with Section 4.8 of the Horne Rule Charter of the City of
Aspen. It shall be adopted by resolution by the Pitkin County Planning and
Zoning Commission in conformance with Section 30 -28 -108, C.R.S. There are
subtle differences in the application of the plan in the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County:
Pitkin County
Pitkin County recognizes the AACP as an advisory document as described
below:
All land use applications are subject to the Policies in the Land Use Code,
including one (section 1- 60 -20) that says "It is...policy....to ensure that the use
and development of land...and any actions committing such land to development
or change in use should consider Pitkin County's Comprehensive Plan." The
County Land Use Code specifically requires consideration of Comprehensive
Plans as a criterion of approval for certain types of land use reviews, (including
special review, location and extent review, Code amendments, rezoning,
activities of local and state interest, and growth management exemptions).
Reference to Comprehensive Plans in the Land Use Code as a basis for
reviewing and taking action on a land use application has the force of law, and
where such reference is made, Plans (including the AACP) may be used
accordingly.
City of Aspen
In the City of Aspen the AACP shall be used as both a guiding and regulatory
document as described below.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 7 of 103
The Use of Guiding Provisions in the Plan:
The entire AACP should be considered a guiding and philosophical document to
assist the City Council, appointed boards and commissions, City staff, and the
citizens of the City of Aspen, in establishing priorities for future legislation, work
plans, budgets, and the further development of future community goals. The
guiding "Vision" and "Philosophy" statements contained in the AACP should be
considered as aspirational and goal setting tools to assist the Aspen community
in achieving its long range objectives and ambitions for the continued health and
vitality of the Aspen area, its residents, and guests.
The Use of Regulatory Provisions in the Plan:
The Land Use Code of the City of Aspen, Chapter 26 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, currently requires applications for certain and use development to be
consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Provisions of the AACP that are
intended to be regulatory and therefore subject to the consistency standard of
review contained in the Land Use Code are expressly identified as such in the
"Policy" or "Action Items" sections of each Chapter of the Plan. Each regulatory
provision has been written with sufficient specificity so that proponents of new
development are afforded due process of law; reviewing bodies do not retain
unfettered discretion in approving or denying development applications; and,
decisions by reviewing bodies can be clear for reasoned judicial review.
Applications for land use development that are required by the land use code to
be consistent with or in compliance with the AACP shall include an analysis
section entitled "Consistency with the Aspen Area Community Plan." The
application should address those provisions in the AACP that are identified as
regulatory and provide an analysis explaining how the proposed development will
be consistent with the AACP.
An application for land use development shall not be denied by any reviewing
body on the grounds that the proposed development fails to comply with any
provision of the AACP that is not specifically identified as regulatory.
How to Read the Plan
The Aspen Area Community Plan is divided into nine different chapters. Each
chapter contains:
✓ Vision
The Vision for each chapter is the first item you will read. These are short
statements intended to outline community aspirations.
✓ Philosophy
The Philosophy is a longer explanation of the Vision statement. It
addresses each topic area in more detail and often provides a brief
overview of historical context.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 8 of 103
✓ What's Changed Since 2000
Outlining recent history relevant to the chapter.
✓ What's New in the 2011 Plan
Summarizing new policy direction, compared to the 2000 AACP.
Linkages
Outlining ways chapters and topics are related to one another.
✓ Policies
Policies are based on the Vision and Philosophy statements for each
chapter, and are intended to direct decision - making. For the City, the vast
majority of Policy Statements are guiding in nature, but there are some
Policies that can be used to regulate development (see the "How to Use
the Plan" section for more detail). Reference to "guiding" or "regulatory"
Policies is specific to the use of the Plan in the City of Aspen. In the
County, policy categories are for descriptive purposes only. Each policy
falls into one of seven categories that are intended to identify the
underlying purpose of each policy. For City purposes, categories 1 — 6
are "guiding" and category 7 is "regulatory." Each category is outlined in
detail below:
1. Community Goals — These statements articulate our broad community
aspirations. They help guide decision - making on a variety of topics.
2. Collaborative Initiatives — These statements suggest collaboration
between a variety of groups, including the city, county, non - profits, other
government agencies, businesses, etc. Additional work may result from
the collaboration, but the first step is working with interested and affected
parties.
3. Incentive Programs — These statements do not direct regulatory code
changes, but look to implement new voluntary programs and policies.
4. Work Programs — These statements describe potential departmental work
programs. They may require work from one or more departments. They
do not direct code changes, but may direct internal city/county policy
changes.
5. Data Needs — These statements clearly identify the need for new data
gathering. Data gathering may ultimately support code changes, budget
priorities, work programs, and initiatives.
6. Proposed Code Amendments — These statements are guiding, and
provide direction for future code changes. These code changes range
from exploring the creation of a development pacing system to updating
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 9 of 103
affordable housing mitigation levels. These policies will require follow -up
and prioritization by appointed and elected officials.
7. Regulatory — These statements are regulatory in nature. Any development
application submitted subsequent to the adoption of the 2011 AACP,
which is required to show consistency with the Aspen Area Community
Plan, will have to show consistency with these policy statements.
A series of Action Items are located at the end of the plan, following the chapters.
✓ Action Items
A series of Action Items are located at the end of the plan, following the
chapters.
The Action Items represent a set of tools to implement the Vision,
Philosophy, and Policies. They are in no way an exhaustive list of
everything that could be done to further community goals, but they provide
a possible road map toward implementing the community's shared vision
and philosophy. The Action Items are found in their own section, toward
the end of this document. In the Action Item section, the policies are re-
printed, with a list of directly associated Action Items.
Each Action Item identifies a department or agency that should be
responsible for the implementation of the Action Items. In addition, each
Action Item is identified as something that should be pursued immediately
(labeled with an "I "), or in the long -term (labeled with an "LT "). Each Action
Item also includes the entities that are responsible for implementing the
plan. The list on the following page identifies the entities referenced in the
plan.
A — Airport
ABC Group — Airport Business Center Neighborhood Group
ACRA — Aspen Chamber Resort Association
AO — City Attorney's Office
APCHA — Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority
ARD — Aspen Recreation Department
Aspen K -12 — Aspen School District
Asset — City Asset Department
AVH — Aspen Valley Hospital
B — Building
CDOT — Colorado Department of Transportation
CI — Canary Initiative
City Manager — City Manager's Office
CMC — Colorado Mountain College
County Manager — County Manager's Office
CR— City and County Community Relations
EH — Environmental Health
EOTC — Elected Officials Transportation Commission
E /SW — Engineering and Stormwater
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 10 of 103
Fire - Fire Department
HHS - Health and Human Services
HPC - City Historic Preservation Commission
KF - Kids First
L - Landfill
LE - Law Enforcement
LPHA - Local Public Health Agencies / Boards of Health
LM - County Land Management Department
P - Planning
PH - Public Health
P /OS - City and County Parks and Open Space Departments
PW - County Public Works Department
RFTA - Roaring Fork Transit Authority
SE - Special Events
SkiCo -Aspen Ski Company
SrS - Senior Services
Streets - City Streets Department
T - City Transportation Department
U - City Utilities
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 11 of 103
The Aspen Idea
Vision
We are committed to sustaining and revitalizing the 'original intent of the (Aspen
Idea MARC EL VI v,HSEN a ro t z za PM
Comment [ the language I inserted was
deleted from the PM draft and changes the
Philosophy vision we discussed. There was concem that
The Aspen Idea is a fundamental awareness that mind, body and spirit can be e Ass entIde was being misused and
fully integrated parts of a whole and balanced person, and this
interconnectedness entails the cultivation of all three. At a basic level, this
valuable concept can help us balance our every-day life.
The concept is attributable to Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke, and a circle of
friends from Chicago who began convening intellectuals, artists, skiers,
philanthropists and philosophers in Aspen after World War II.
The Aspen Idea is a legacy that has established Aspen as a place known for its
arts, culture, athletic endeavors, philanthropy, lifelong education, spiritual
pursuits, environmental consciousness and humanitarian service. We also value
authentic engagement with others, including civil discourse about the kind of
community we want to create and maintain. The Aspen Idea is a core element of
the community's heritage and identity, enriching our quality of life and reinforcing
Aspen's national and international profile.
Despite its central role in forming Aspen's character, the Aspen Idea can
sometimes feels like a historic chapter in our past, rather than an enduring and
uniting concept that defines our community and sets us apart in a unique and
positive way.
There are promising opportunities to raise the profile of the Aspen Idea while
widening and broadening the perception of Aspen. A collaboration including local
business, ACRA, the public sector, key institutions and non - profits can explore
strategies to collectively rediscover and reinvigorate the Aspen Idea. We can
illustrate how the experience of Aspen can stimulate mind, body and spirit.
Many different non - profits and the public sector produce arts and cultural events,
many local businesses focus on recreation and other groups have a strong
spiritual component. It is difficult, and perhaps unnecessary, to categorize one
activity as only focused on the mind, or only related to the body, or the spirit. For
example, skiing, backcountry hiking or hang - gliding are about the body and
physical health, but often include a strong spiritual component. Attending a
concert or a seminar on the classics can stimulate the mind and the spirit at the
same time.
In a seasonal resort environment, it is understandable that many local
organizations are in competition to attract attendance and customers. But if the
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 12 of 103
recent recession has revealed anything of valuel, it is that collaboration across
the private and public sectors can result in a bigger picture that is somehow -- MARCELLA LARSEN 4110 :11 2'.21 PM
greater than the sum of its parts. o n e „,nton$th;; don't recesssio c ia ' �
c there
really was one in Aspen). I would change this
W collaborative approach to reinvigorating the Aspen Idea can create common to However, "tiabom on
ground among those who live, work and visit the Aspen Area, while
strengthening a diverse visitor base into the future.
MARCELLA LARSEN 4:1011 2'.27 PM
Whats Changed Since 2000 + What's New in the 2011 AACP
Continent h Z draft been idea s t re aunaeon
g from the that h this was a way o here. not That
ideawetthb together, to bring lst With
demise ad socio-economic nomic b , bog also locals with
What's Changed Since 2000 breed sodoacpnomic backgrounds.
A number of local institutions and non - profits have expanded their programs and
facilities and since 2000. The following are just a few examples:
• Aspen Music Festival Music Tent (2000)
•
• Spiritual Paths Foundation at Community Chapel (Est. 2000)
• Aspen Ideas Festival (2007)
• Doerr - Hosier Center at the Aspen Institute (2007)
• Shigeru Ban- designed Aspen Art Museum (Approved 2010)
•
• Aspen Environmental Forum
MARCELLA LARSEN 4110111 2 28 PM
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
A 2004 Economic Impact of the Arts Study showed that total expenditures by
audiences for arts and cultural events average $31.3 million in the summer, and
$4.8 million in the winter.
At the same time, there has been some disconcerting recent developments
regarding some local institutions, including the closure of the Silver Lining Ranch,
a non - profit supporting children with cancer; and the closure of The Given
Institute, which has been sponsoring retreats, conferences and public lectures
since 1972 under the auspices of the University of Colorado.
What's New in the 2011 AACP
This chapter was originally titled "Arts, Culture & Education" in the 2000 Aspen
Area Community Plan. The new title reflects a desire to reinvigorate and sustain
the concept of the Aspen Idea.
This new chapter also focuses on the accessibility of events and educational MARCELLA LARSEN 4:10111 212 PM
opportunities related to arts and culture, and also suggests a set of standards to comment Cunt I deleted the planning jargon
- essential pubk facilities because Ws too
consider when developing newjfacilities or reburbishing old ones. nanow
MARCELLA i.ARSEN 4'10:11 229 PM
Deleted: essential public
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 13 of 103
Finally, this chapter calls for exploring methods to address the further loss of
quasi - public institutions.
Linkages:
This plan recognizes that community goals are often inextricably linked:
sometimes they complement each other, and at times they come into conflict.
The Aspen Idea is the basic underpinning of our tourist -based economy. It is
manifested in many ways, including our outdoor lifestyle, arts and cultural events,
continuing education and the preservation of the natural environment.
Policies
1. REVITALIZING THE ASPEN IDEA
1.1. Revitalize and sustain the original intent of the Aspen Idea. (Community
Goal, Collaborative Initiative)
1.2. Encourage collaboration among non - profit organizations, local government
and local
businesses. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative)
1.3. Foster greater inclusivity and participation in cultural events from within the
spectrum of community residents and visitors. (Community Goal, Collaborative
Initiative)
11. ARTS FACILITIES
11.1. Maintain the legacy of the Aspen Idea by enhancing and preserving our non-
profit and quasi - public facilities and spaces and ensuring that development of
new facilities is consistent with community goals. (see also Growth Management
& Economic Sustainability Chapter) (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative)
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 14 of 103
Managing Growth for Community & Economic
Sustainability
Vision
MARCEL LA I ARSEN 4/11/11 10'.01 AM
We are committed to managing growth in order to achieve the community values and
Continent D11: Flag this entire section and
goals that are expressed in this plan. In the broadest terms, these goals include a compere It to the prior draft. This vision
thriving and sustainable year -round community and a unique and vibrant resort in the changes the substance or the Paz draft, which
context of a healthy natural environment. We recognize that all of our community goals said:
can and should benefit those who live and work here, as well as those who visit. ^ we are committed m managing returning to
sustainable land use practices enough which
goals we seek to achieve in this chapter include (in no particular order):
both me zoning and itycedyow boMarta
The community 9 P C P achieve the ing a n d pa values and goals o r ere
• Providing affordable housing for a "critical mass" of local residents. guided by restraint and respect for the physical of
• Managing the impacts of development to maintain a high quality of life. w r c remog gN file e phy a r our small town.
We Ze thalsd IS head
• Preserving mountain views and the natural ecosystems, including riparian areas. and that expressed in sic mmisdan.ln the
• Maintaining a high quality of life and resort experience. broadest terms, these goalsmameun
growth v411 result M an unsustainable need for
• Planning for a tourism economy that is supported by future generations of more Community Workforce Housing,
diverse visitors. infrastructure, and services. We desire to be a
a diverse, unique and vital downtown area. community mgaad sustainable and vibrant • Facilitating q and and a i al unique aria vibrant round in
• Supporting a vibrant non -profit sector, including arts and cultural organizations. the context of a; therefore we want our
the historic character of the built environment so we can "tell the
economy to be nai l t w d diar le
• Preserving e corny t o ow nail c i vrr e w
story" of Aspen to future generations.
• Replenishing the lodging base with a focus on diversifying the lodging inventory. We are canmated to returning to sustainable
P 9 9 9 N 9 9 9 rY lard use practices guided by the following
• Encouraging a local business sector that provides basic products and services priorities:
for everyone, and encouraging an appropriate level of local- serving business. -Manage the pace of growth;
Preserve be physical sale and historic
character of our small town;
n Preserve mountain views and the natural
'P h i I oso p h environment We recognize , including the safe
This community plan recognizes that managing growth and economic sustainability are enjoyment me"outdoor lifestyle;
*Prioritize ere use of renewable building and
closely inter - related, and have therefore been combined into one chapter for the first energy sources over non - renewable resources;
time in order to identify how they work together. •Encourage redevelopment that an of our
community goals an and should results in a
diverse lodging inventory, affordable
The City and County growth management systems are effective tools that can help the commercial and residential uses, and
community reach desired goals. The management of development through growth discourages projects with minimal community
management and other land use tools influences our three intertwining economies:
benefit
ole who five and work here, s well as
man•
9 9 beewho those who adverse impacts;
> Resort tourism
Development/Real estate •ProNtle affordable housing for a 'cdtial mass'
of local nutrients.
> Year -round Community Pacilitafing a diverse, unique and vital
Oownownta area.
taros.
None of these economies stands discrete and alone; they are inextricably connected at
a number of levels. The economic impact of growth management and other land use MARCELLA LAHSCN 41111 10. AM
tools have been debated for many years, and should continue to be a focus of Comment [In Flag the entire section. There
discussion, study, and visual and economic modelin bearsdraa.mge n ee to o
l o poresaetmnhm
Y. modeling. be on n g. a it need to a n i g This entire
section and give it same meaning. This reads s
For example, preserving scenic views, riparian areas and a pristine natural environment , as more of the same...
are important aesthetic and philosophical values held closely by local residents, but
these efforts have also contributed to a highly attractive resort, and resulted in
substantial economic benefits across the board. Studies have repeatedly shown that
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 15 of 103
open space and opportunities for recreation reflect a kind of natural capital that
enhances the economic well -being of the entire community.
As the resort matured in the 1980s, additional venues for arts and cultural groups
complemented the already outstanding recreational opportunities and scenic views, and
the development economy began growing dramatically. A 2008 economic study
commissioned by the City of Aspen found that by 2000 — for the first time — the economic
activity related to the development industry eclipsed and surpassed the economic
activity related to the tourism industry.
While the development industry has been hit hard by the current recession, to assume
that it will not make a rebound during the 10 -year life of this plan would be irresponsible.
Therefore, one of the broad themes of this plan is to manage future development so that
it contributes to the long -term viability of a sustainable, diverse tourist -based economy
and a strong year -round community.
Ensuring a Sustainable Tourist -Based Economy
Our long -term sustainability as a visitor -based economy depends largely on our ability to
remain an attractive, welcoming and accessible place for future generations. Aspen has
a long history of loyal visitors who return at a rate of about 70% -- far higher than other
mountain resorts.
At the same time, we recognize the importance of looking to the future, and considering
the interests and needs of the next generation of residents and visitors. As a resort, its
important to ask ourselves: How will Aspen continue be relevant in the next 10 -20
years? Some of our local businesses and institutions have anticipated these questions,
and adjusted their programming. Aspen has a history of innovation and reinvention, and
that creative and groundbreaking spirit should serve us well in the future. We support a
working group to generate strategic planning that supports the tourist economy.
There are a set of basic principles that have served the Aspen Area well for decades.
These include:
• preserving scenic landscapes,
• protecting the natural environment,
• creating an extensive trail network,
• providing unparalleled winter and summer recreational opportunities,
• maintaining our unique architectural heritage,
• supporting arts and cultural institutions,
• maintaining a safe community,
• facilitating an interesting, vital and walkable downtown, and
• maintaining a sense of place.
This fundamental set of values evolved over the years by responding to changing
conditions. The Community Workforce Housing program has provided a service to the
resort by providing working residents a place to live, and reducing pressure on our
challenged transportation system. Today, we seek to bring the lodging inventory into
balance by encouraging economy /moderate lodging. We also strive to improve the
everyday quality of life by finding better methods to manage the impacts of development.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 16 of 103
Residential Sector
While some potential remains for residential development on vacant lots, the primary
source of future residential construction will be redevelopment. The Aspen Area's recent
track record shows that residential redevelopment typically means the demolition and
replacement of existing homes with larger structures.
Current city and county zoning regulations should be reviewed and amended to better
protect and preserve environmentally sensitive and scenic areas through various
methods, including allowable house size. Zoning that protects environmentally sensitive
and scenic areas has been in place since the mid- 1970s, and has been updated from
time to time. This plan calls for a renewed focus on these zoning rules. At the same time,
this plan also focuses on the neighborhoods on either side of City/County boundaries,
where allowable house size differs dramatically and can result in sudden changes in
neighborhood character.
Protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive and scenic areas is an essential
part of maintaining a sustainable resort in the long -term.
Lodging Sector
During the last 10 -15 years, an aging lodging infrastructure, shifting expectations of
travelers, and high financial returns for alternative uses such as 2 homes has resulted
in a declining lodging inventory. More specifically, dozens of moderate to economy
lodges have converted to other uses. New lodges have tended to be in the deluxe
category, with large rooms and extensive amenities.
The formulation of a strategy that replenishes the lodging base, and favors
economy /moderate lodges is important to the long -term sustainability of a tourist
economy that purposefully seeks to attract a diverse visitor base. Without "entry- level"
lodging, we limit the ability of future generations of visitors to experience the Aspen Area
and its surrounding public lands. It's undisputed that many of today's longtime locals and
second homeowners first experienced Aspen thanks to "entry- level" lodging. The
concept of providing equal access to Aspen has been present in long range plans dating
back to 1976.
The need to accommodate a diverse visitor base is also a well -known fact of our dual
season resort — while the winter visitor tends to reflect a higher -end demographic, the
summer visitor is more family oriented. Finally, we also recognize that adequate
economy /moderate lodging provides a place to stay for those who produce and
participate in many of our critically important special events, workshops, and other
activities.
We recognize the financial challenges of bringing our lodging inventory into balance by
encouraging economy /moderate lodging and the viability of existing small lodges. This
plan strongly encourages exploring a wide range of models, including additional zoning
incentives and possible public /private partnerships.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 17 of 103
Commercial Sector
This plan calls for exploration of the existing balance between local- serving and tourist -
serving businesses, and to determine if the level of local- serving business is appropriate
to serve year -round residents.
Due to high land and leasing costs, we are concerned that businesses providing basic
necessities for both residents and visitors could be replaced with alternative uses that
bring higher financial returns. A comprehensive investigation of this issue was
undertaken by City staff in 2006/07, and ultimately recommended outreach to
businesses, the potential future use of publicly -owned property, exploring community-
based cooperatives and other possible tools.
Additionally, this plan calls for a unique and vital downtown area that serves a diversity
of visitors, addressing the interests of future generations as well as the differing make -up
of winter and summer tourists.
Public, Institutional, and Non - Profit Sectors
Active and influential civic and non - profit organizations, many of which found their roots
in the legacy of the Aspen Idea, provide cultural experiences and educational
opportunities. They are integral to our character and we depend on their continued
strength. They also set us apart as a well- rounded resort with a wide range of choices to
balance mind, body and spirit. It is critical to find ongoing methods of supporting these
organizations.
Pace of Construction
The intense periods of construction activity that occur during national economic booms
can reduce our every-day quality of life and the long -term sustainability of the visitor -
based economy. Although significant improvements were made to construction
management practices during the last economic boom, this plan calls for a renewed
focus on managing the impacts of intense construction activity.
While citizen plans going back to 1976 and various surveys have shown consistent
support for some kind of pacing system, specific methods have met with substantial
opposition in the past, and none have been implemented. A comprehensive effort to
explore pacing models must be deliberate and transparent, including substantial public
outreach and feedback.
Mitigating Impacts on Community Infrastructure
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County currently require new development and
redevelopment to at least partially offset its impacts on the community, including fees
and other mitigation tools which provide for parks, schools, affordable housing, air
• quality, renewable energy systems, and the transportation system.
Some of our mitigation methods are sound and reliable, but others may not be achieving
community goals in the most efficient manner. With the recent adoption of the Affordable
Housing Certificate program, the City should comprehensively re- evaluate its "menu" of
affordable housing mitigation to ensure the viability of this new certificate program. The
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 18 of 103
County should re- evaluate the housing mitigation fee exemptions currently granted in the
building permit process.
Both City and County mitigation strategies require further examination, research and
potential changes to ensure that:
• Mitigation tools are effective in reaching community goals.
• Job generation and other impacts are being accurately calculated.
• New development and redevelopment offsets its impacts.
At the same time, this plan establishes a new goal of requiring that all new development
fully offset the impacts of job generation by providing housing for 100% of the new
employees generated. This policy is in part a response to the 2007 Affordable Housing
Summit in Aspen, which concluded that the Aspen Area continues to fall behind in its
effort to provide Community Workforce Housing (CWH).
The continued conversion of locally -owned homes to 2 " homes is just one trend that
erodes the amount of workforce housing in the Aspen Area. Other long -term trends
include substantial increases in downvalley home prices, limiting options for Aspen Area
workers. In addition, the Aspen Area is on the cusp of a long -term trend that will result in
more and more local workers retiring in affordable housing. While this is a minor factor at
this time, baby boomer demographics clearly show that current Community Workforce
Housing will steadily convert to affordable housing for retirees during the next 20 years.
This plan anticipates a continued reduction in the number of both free market and
affordable housing units that will be occupied by working residents in the Aspen Area in
coming years. These trends will reduce the ability of local businesses to hire local
workers to support the tourism economy — and will result in even more profound impacts
on our already challenged regional transportation system.
For these compelling reasons, this plan calls for every new development — public or
private — to
offset its job generation by providing affordable housing for 100% of all new employees.
This will require considerable changes to current growth management practices, which
currently reduce housing mitigation requirements if certain community benefits are
provided.
What's Changed Since 2000 +
What's New in the 2011 AACP
What's Changed Since 2000
In 2000, the Aspen Area Community Plan re- adopted the Aspen Area Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), in an effort to prevent further urban sprawl. The concept was to
encourage higher density development that met community goals in urbanized areas,
with much lower density development outside of the UGB. - MARCLLLA LAHS6N 4'1m1 t s 26 PM
COMMIT! an flap. This statement is
inaccurate in tens of what the plan actually
said or how the 'concept' actually worked in
Aspen. Please Quote the plan Instead.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 19 of 103
During the economic downturn of 2001 -2003, the City of Aspen focused on allowing
more development,within the City. At the same time, the Economic Sustainability
Committee identified its top priority as replenishing the lodging base. _ MARCELLA LARSEN 410:11 5.26 PM
Deleted: "infill'
Just as new code changes were adopted to encourage infill and lodgings, the national
economy dramatically improved and several major land use applications for the MARCLLLA LARSEN 4:1 on 1 9 :1 s PM
downtown were submitted. The public expressed serious concerns that the downtown Cann* [1s]: Flaw The upzanings
would lose its character, and turn into a series of tall monolithic buildings. At the same eannuraab ar an hoaces anti fraotionat 't adtua iff ioreresa,
whkns pent (te so-called aren
time, some longtime local- serving businesses such as Aspen Drug were converting to providing lodging (the socallad'lodec -acs ^)
other uses. The City Council responded by adopting a moratorium in April 2006. b1ARCELLA LARSeN an011 sea PM
Comment [151:
In 2007, the Council adopted extensive changes to the Commercial and Lodging Design
Standards, including new restrictive regulations and a mandate to substantially vary
heights. No major development has come forward to put the 2007 design standards into
practice.
MARCEL LA LARSEN 4110'11 9.18 PM
(Between 2000 and 2010, most construction activity occurred in the form of more than Comment [161: Flag. We previously
270 homes being demolished and replaced with new and larger homes. This reflected that acassed ttmiswro a
the f rthe
a
design sandamsare thure
more than 800,000 square feet of new residential space. broken "Mir regulatdne. The issue the
is one of
design, butt doesn't get at the root of the
adoption of the 2000 AACP, Pitkin County modified the Land Use Code to limit AN a ti n ttap pr development
appropriate rdesirs
Since ado
P ty AND em, which i anoteppropd et(ty a.
house size to 5,750 square feet, allowing larger homes up to 15,000 square feet within MnRC, L 1.� LnusEN a 1 L n 9 19 PM
the UGB Only upon purchase of transferable development rights (TDRs) from remote or Continent [171: why list the residential square
agricultural properties in the County. feet when you don't list the new
commerdegiodpe apace?
As the development economy slowed to a near standstill since 2008, the focus has been r.1. ,ELL LARSEN 4 1011 9 19 PM
on public projects, including approval for an expansion of Aspen Valley Hospital and a Canna Ile Fact check.
new Aspen Art Museum. While a new downtown Fire Station was constructed, an effort r.1ARCLLL, L,,RS_N 4 10 11 921 PM
to build on the vacant lot next to the Wheeler stalled in the public process. Today, Continent n0 Fag. Fact check. Howls the
preliminary planning continues for a renovated Galena Plaza and expanded Pitkin AAM a public project?
County Library. In the Aspen Airport Business Center area, the Pitkin County Animal
Shelter and Aspen Fire Protection District substation have been built in recent years.
In March 2010, the City Council adopted an Affordable Housing Certificate Program
intended to make it more economically viable for the private sector to produce deed -
restricted housing — and as a method to provide mitigation in a more timely manner.
What's New in the 2011 AACP
One of the broad themes of the 2011 AACP calls for managing growth so that future
development contributes to the viability and stability of a sustainable, diverse tourist -
based economy and a strong year -round community. While this is not an entirely new
concept, the 2011 AACP places a stronger emphasis on this approach compared to past
plans.
Similarly, the concept of limiting residential growth in environmentally sensitive areas
and scenic areas is not a new idea. However this plan places a stronger emphasis on
this effort compared to the 2000 AACP.
Seeking to replenish the lodging inventory while bringing it back into balance by
encouraging the development of economy /moderate lodging is a significant new policy
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 20 of 103
compared to past AACPs. It is a policy that began to evolve with the Economic
Sustainability Committee Report of 2003.
Perhaps the most significant change in the 2011 AACP is a call to increase housing
mitigation so that all new development provides affordable housing for 100% of the new MARCELLA LARSEN 4'10'11 924 PM
employees generated. This will require many changes to existing city and county codes Cammem[20]: Flag. Faddredt (the County
and practices. Currently, housing mitigation is exempted or partially waived if various aire9dyregei is is and we to
d ouefrthe enure ur community.
most imp mportant
types of community benefits are provided. At the same time, the plan suggests that both jam for the entire commudry.
the City and County conduct a comprehensive re- evaluation of their housing mitigation
strategies to ensure that job generation is being accurately calculated, and that
mitigation tools result in occupied, deed - restricted housing.
(Finally, unlike the 2000 AACP, this plan does not set a cap on population growth. This
decision was not made lightly, but was based on several important conclusions.
The bottom line is that a population cap is simply not legally enforceable. The fact is that
every property carries with it certain property and development rights, which cannot
legally be eliminated without compensation. In short, we can't simply "close the gate."
Instead, we focused our time and energy on estimating ultimate build -out as part of the
State of the Aspen Area Report. And there is more statistical work to do. The 2011
AACP calls for further research on the various impacts that ultimate build -out could have
on the Aspen Area, from job generation to traffic congestion. Estimating and
understanding these impacts will help the community make important decisions during
the 10 -year life of this plan.
In addition, establishing a population cap could provide a false sense of control that
might distract us from exploring realistic and effective tools that can help shape the
future. For example, our zoning regulations can influence where a home might be built
along a river. Our mitigation policies can offset the impacts of new development in any
number of ways.
While we recognize that there are ultimate physical limitations to development in the
form of eventual build -out, we also concluded that a population cap was not an effective
tool in shaping our future. Instead, we sought consensus on a shared vision.
MARCELLA LARSEN 411011 923 PM
Linkages Continent (21]: Flag. This does not
This plan recognizes that community goals are often inextricably linked: a" ret°y reflect
sometimes they complement each other, and at times they come into conflict. We
manage growth to ensure different community functions and uses are in balance,
and to help reach community goals in the broadest sense. When we discuss the
different ways to manage growth, topics include ultimate build -out, job
generation, affordable housing needs, environmental impacts, infrastructure
expansion, the transportation system, and the viability of our tourist -based
economy. We rely on the tools of growth management to encourage the uses
needed by the community, and to discourage uses that don't contribute to our
vision for the future.
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 21 of 103
Policies
I. MAINTAIN OUR TOURIST -BASED ECONOMY
1.1. Maintain and improve the Aspen Area's tourist -based economy. (Community Goal,
Collaborative Initiative)
FOR SOME REASON THE "CLEAN" WORD VERSION IS MISSING 1.a.-j. Both 1.a.
and 1.b„ which I would flag because we need to be clear about what this group is doing.
A marketing plan is fine (though I might disagree that it should be about "branding"
which is an unseemly way to describe the town,_inmy view), but this shouldn't be the
impetus for more upzoninqs in the name of revitalization._ Hopefully we have learned
from prior mistakes. The new language also deletes the notion about keeping Aspen
relevant to the next generation.
II. RESIDENTIAL SECTOR
MARCELLA LARSEN 4.11 10: 13 AM
Comment [22]: This section doesn't contain
11.1. Ensure City and County codes are consistent in the vicinity of city /county so many of the subsections that) have stopped
boundaries to discourage jurisdiction- shopping, and prevent sudden shifts in the commenting. It would have been better for me
neighborhoods. (Proposed Amendment) ta have
ngworked draft now, ut have lam
character of nei
9 ( P ) made o bNet o n t now,butoapa e
made comments on the next two pages ...
HERE MY CLEAN DRAFT IS ALSO MISSING 4.a. i -iv
11.2. Preserve and protect environmentally sensitive and scenic areas by controlling the
location and size of homes in those areas. (Proposed Amendment)
111.3. Protect the visual quality and character of residential neighborhoods by reducing
site coverage. (Proposed Amendment)
MARCELLA LARSEN 4/1011 9:29 PM
11.4. Encourage permanent residents to remain in existing free market homes. (Incentive Comment [23]: Flag. The prior policy
Program) mass and s Also coverage
one are the reasons
11.5. Ensure that the County and City Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) programs
continue to effectively preserve backcountry areas /agricultural lands, and historic
structures, respectively. (Work Program for Planning, Proposed Code Amendment)
III. LODGING SECTOR
111.1. Prevent the further Toss of lodging inventory. (Community Goal, Collaborative
Initiative, Proposed Amendment)
111.2. Replenish the declining lodging base with an emphasis on a diverse and balanced
inventory. (Community Goal, Proposed Amendment)
111.3. Lodging amenities should be designed to facilitate interaction between visitors and
residents. (Community Goal, Proposed Amendment)
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 22 of 103
01.4. New lodging should be compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale and
character of the neighborhood. '(Regulatory)
MARCELLA LARSEN 4/10111 9'.38 PM
V. COMMERCIAL SECTOR Comment RAJ: Flag. This Mandan has
never worked well before. The new language
eliminates the prior language which said 'New
IV.1. Create a commercial mix that is balanced, diverse, vital, and meets the lodging shoed be modest in bulk, mass and
year-round residents and visitors. (Community Goal, Collaborative Initiative) spate..' why eliminated wasme Nit of
needs of
Y ( tY ) reasons why these tlmt wa were in place.
IV.2. Ensure the sustainability of retail businesses that provide basic and essential
products and services. (Collaborative Initiative, Incentive Program, Work Program for
Planning)
IV.3. Ensure that the City code supports lnnovative'development that respects our
architectural heritage in terms of site coverage, mass, scale, form and a diversity of MARCELLA LARSEN 4 1011 940 PM
heights. (Work Program for Planning, Proposed Amendment) Corn rt[25]: Flag. This is in the eye of the
beholder. We should be much more precise.
V. PUBLIC, INSTITUTIONAL, AND NON - PROFIT SECTOR
V.1. Ensure that PUD and COWOP processes result in long -term 'community benefits
and do not degrade the built environment through mass and scale that significantly - MARCELLA LARSEN 4:1011 943 PM
exceed land use code standards. (Community Goal, Proposed Amendment) Comment 1241: Flag. The wad 'tangible'
(which means actual and concrete) was
substituted with long - term.'
V.2. Preserve and enhance our non - profit and quasi - public facilities and spaces. (see
also Aspen Idea Chapter) (Collaborative Initiative)
V.3. New or expanded non - profit facilities in the UGB should be located within the City
limits, as their mission allows. KProposed Amendment)
- MARCELLA LARSEN 4:10/11 9'.45 PM
VI. MANAGING GROWTH Commit [273: Flag. The prior language
read quite differently and changes the meaning
of the peter policy.
VI.1. Manage development So that it contributes to the long -term viability of a
sustainable, diverse tourist -based economy and a strong year -round community. MARCELLA LARSEN 4/10:11 9.45 PM
(Community Goal, Work Program for Planning) Comment tasJ: Flag. The prior drat saki
'achieve sustainable growth practices .. ' It
isn't just an issue of managing growth -the
VI.2. Restore public confidence in the development process. (Community Goal, point was that were not doing It in a sustainable
Collaborative Initiative) wayngm now.
VI.3. Our public policies should be informed by reliable data on ;Construction statistics,
and population segments.' (Data Gathering)
MARCELLA LARSEN 4/10/11 9 -50 PM
VI.4 New development should be compatible and in harmony with the massing, scale Camino* [29J: Flag.. This drat deletes our
and character of the neighborhood. kRegulatory) roa wwie oa impacts development
MARCELLA LARSEN 4'10/11 9'.51 PM
VII. PACE OF CONSTRUCTION Consistent [301: Flag. This substantially
charges to position of the P62. If there was
prior inappopdate development. that means it
VII.1. Explore better methods to manage adverse construction impacts, including a will continue. we need asay what we mean.
construction pacing system that respects quiet enjoyment of our community and
neighborhoods. (Community Goal, Proposed Amendment)
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 23 of 103
VIII. MITIGATING IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY
INFRASTRUCTURE
VIII.1. Ensure that new residential development and redevelopment mitigates all
reasonable, directly- related housing impacts. (See Colorado Revised Statutes 29 -20-
104.5) (Work Program for Planning & APCHA, Proposed Amendment)
VIII.2. Ensure that impact fees fully offset the associated costs of development on the
community. (Work Program for Planning & Attorney's Office, Proposed Amendment)
VIII.3 All development should provide housing to accommodate 100% of the employees
it generates. (Work Program for Planning & APCHA, Proposed Amendment)
VIII.4. On -site housing mitigation is preferred. (Work Program for Planning & APCHA,
Proposed Amendment)
3.28.2011 Draft AACP
Page 24 of 103
Page 1: [1] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
The community goals we seek to achieve in this chapter include (in no particular order):
Providing
Page 1: [2] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
Managing the impacts of development to maintain a high quality of life.
Preserving mountain views and the natural ecosystems, including riparian areas.
Maintaining a high quality of life and resort experience.
Planning for a tourism economy that is supported by
Page 1: [3] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
Facilitating a diverse, unique and vital downtown area.
Supporting a vibrant non - profit sector, including arts and cultural organizations.
Preserving
Page 1: [4] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
to future generations.
Replenishing the lodging base with a focus on diversifying the lodging inventory.
Encouraging a local business sector that provides basic products and services for
everyone, and encouraging an appropriate level of local- serving business
Page 1: [5] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
This community plan recognizes that managing growth and economic sustainability are
closely inter - related, and have therefore been combined into one chapter for the first
time in order to identify how they work together.
The City and County growth management systems are effective tools that can help the
community reach desired goals. The management of development through growth
management and other land use tools influences our three intertwining economies:
Resort tourism
Development/Real estate
Year -round Community
None of these economies stands discrete and alone; they are inextricably connected at
a number of levels. The economic impact of growth management and other land use
tools have been debated for many years, and should continue to be a focus of
discussion, study, and visual and economic modeling.
For example, preserving scenic views, riparian areas and a pristine natural environment
are important aesthetic and philosophical values held closely by local residents, but
these efforts have also contributed to a highly attractive resort, and resulted in
substantial economic benefits across the board. Studies have repeatedly shown that
open space and opportunities for recreation reflect a kind of natural capital that
enhances the economic well -being of the entire community.
As the resort matured in the 1980s, additional venues for arts and cultural groups
complemented the already outstanding recreational opportunities and scenic views, and
the development economy began growing dramatically. A 2008 economic study
commissioned by the City of Aspen found that by 2000 — for the first time — the economic
activity related to the development industry eclipsed and surpassed the economic
activity related to the tourism industry.
While the development industry has been hit hard by the current recession, to assume
that it will not make a rebound during the 10 -year life of this plan would be irresponsible.
Therefore, one of the broad themes of this plan is to manage future development so that
it contributes to the long -term viability of a sustainable, diverse tourist -based economy
and a strong year -round community.
Ensuring a Sustainable Tourist -Based Economy
Our long -term sustainability as a visitor -based economy depends largely on our ability to
remain an attractive, welcoming and accessible place for future generations. Aspen has
a long history of loyal visitors who return at a rate of about 70% -- far higher than other
mountain resorts.
At the same time, we recognize the importance of looking to the future, and considering
the interests and needs of the next generation of residents and visitors. As a resort, it's
important to ask ourselves: How will Aspen continue be relevant in the next 10 -20
years? Some of our local businesses and institutions have anticipated these questions,
and adjusted their programming. Aspen has a history of innovation and reinvention, and
that creative and groundbreaking spirit should serve us well in the future. We support a
working group to generate strategic planning that supports the tourist economy.
There are a set of basic principles that have served the Aspen Area well for decades.
These include:
preserving scenic landscapes,
protecting the natural environment,
creating an extensive trail network,
providing unparalleled winter and summer recreational opportunities,
maintaining our unique architectural heritage,
supporting arts and cultural institutions,
maintaining a safe community,
facilitating an interesting, vital and walkable downtown, and
maintaining a sense of place.
This fundamental set of values evolved over the years by responding to changing
conditions. The Community Workforce Housing program has provided a service to the
resort by providing working residents a place to live, and reducing pressure on our
challenged transportation system. Today, we seek to bring the lodging inventory into
balance by encouraging economy /moderate lodging. We also strive to improve the
everyday quality of life by finding better methods to manage the impacts of development.
Page 2: [6] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
Current city and county zoning regulations should be reviewed and amended to better
protect and preserve environmentally sensitive and scenic areas through various
methods, including allowable house size. Zoning that protects environmentally sensitive
and scenic areas has been in place since the mid- 1970s, and has been updated from
time to time. This plan calls for a renewed focus on these zoning rules. At the same time,
this plan also focuses on the neighborhoods on either side of City /County boundaries,
where allowable house size differs dramatically and can result in sudden changes in
neighborhood character.
Protecting and preserving environmentally sensitive and scenic areas is an essential
part of maintaining a sustainable resort in the long -term.
Page 3: [7] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
an aging lodging infrastructure, shifting expectations of travelers, and high financial
returns for alternative uses such as 2 homes
Page 3: [7] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
an aging lodging infrastructure, shifting expectations of travelers, and high financial
returns for alternative uses such as 2 homes
Page 3: [7] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
an aging lodging infrastructure, shifting expectations of travelers, and high financial
returns for alternative uses such as 2 homes
Page 3: [7] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
an aging lodging infrastructure, shifting expectations of travelers, and high financial
returns for alternative uses such as 2 homes
Page 3: [8] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
The need to accommodate a diverse visitor base is also a well -known fact of our dual
season resort — while the winter visitor tends to reflect a higher -end demographic, the
summer visitor is more family oriented. Finally, we also recognize that adequate
economy /moderate lodging provides a place to stay for those who produce and
participate in many of our critically important special events, workshops, and other
activities.
We recognize the financial challenges of bringing our lodging inventory into balance by
encouraging economy /moderate lodging and the viability of existing small lodges. This
plan strongly encourages exploring a wide range of models, including additional zoning
incentives and possible public /private partnerships.
Commercial Sector
This plan calls for exploration of the existing balance between local- serving and tourist -
serving businesses, and to determine if the level of local- serving business is appropriate
to serve year -round residents.
Due to
Page 3: [9] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
land and leasing costs,
Page 3: [9] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
land and leasing costs,
Page 3: [9] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
land and leasing costs,
Page 3: [10] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
Additionally, this plan calls for a unique and vital downtown area that serves a diversity
of visitors, addressing the interests of future generations as well as the differing make -up
of winter and summer tourists.
Page 3: [10] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
•
Additionally, this plan calls for a unique and vital downtown area that serves a diversity
of visitors, addressing the interests of future generations as well as the differing make -up
of winter and summer tourists.
Page 3: [11] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
•
Active and influential
Page 3: [11] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
Active and influential
Page 3: [11] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
•
Active and influential
Page 3: [11] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
•
Active and influential
Page 3: [11] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
•
Active and influential
Page 3: [12] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
While citizen plans going back to 1976 and various surveys have shown consistent
support for some kind of pacing system, specific methods have met with substantial
opposition in the past, and none have been implemented. A comprehensive effort to
explore pacing models must be deliberate and transparent, including substantial public
outreach and feedback.
Mitigating Impacts on Community Infrastructure
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
at least partially offset
Page 3: [13] Deleted MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
at least partially offset
Page 3: [14] Deleted . MARCELLA LARSEN 4/11/11 9:19 AM I
The continued conversion of locally -owned homes to 2 homes is just one trend that
erodes the amount of workforce housing in the Aspen Area. Other long -term trends
include substantial increases in downvalley home prices, limiting options for Aspen Area
workers. In addition, the Aspen Area is on the cusp of a long -term trend that will result in
more and more local workers retiring in affordable housing. While this is a minor factor at
this time, baby boomer demographics clearly show that current Community Workforce
Housing will steadily convert to affordable housing for retirees during the next 20 years.
This plan anticipates a continued reduction in the number of both free market and
affordable housing units that will be occupied by working residents in the Aspen Area in
coming years. These trends will reduce the ability of local businesses to hire local
workers to support the tourism economy — and will result in even more profound impacts
on our already challenged regional transportation system.
For these compelling reasons, this plan calls for every new development — public or
private — to
offset its job generation by providing affordable housing for 100% of all new employees.
This will require considerable changes to current growth management practices, which
currently reduce housing mitigation requirements if certain community benefits are
provided.