Post: Complicating the equation

After attending the Oct. 15 Planning and Zoning meeting it became apparent to me that consideration being given to the Aspen Meadows Planned Development amendment is problematic for numerous reasons. 

The first of which is that three different nonprofits (Aspen Institute, Music, and Physics) are pursuing the amendment under one umbrella, which meaningfully complicates the process. The scale, number of units, location, and impact on adjacent residents is different for each entity. Given the disparate needs and requirements of each, the only way that P&Z can make a well-considered recommendation to the City Council is to have three separate applicant proposals.

Also, the idea that this amendment would help to address the “existential” need for work force housing is misleading, at best. Our need is to provide year-round housing for the APCHA qualified workforce. By definition, the applicant seeks new residential units for the short-term housing of participants of institutional programing. The applicant’s proposal requests 53 new units with 109 bedrooms. For clarity, 27 of the units with 63 bedrooms are for the Aspen Center for Physics, none of which will be available for year-round occupancy. Moreover, only a handful of units will be available for year-round housing of staff at the Aspen Institute or Music. This feels more like hotel use than workforce housing. 

Finally, the impact of traffic and construction on the bordering residential community has not been fully analyzed. There have been no studies about the impact of changes to 3rd and 4th streets, parking loss, and circulation on the West End. When asked why, the applicant responded that those studies “were not required.” 

The fact that no mention of cost, construction time, or source of funding further complicates the equation and leaves considerable doubt as to the impact on the community.

David Post

Aspen