Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse.code amendment.RMF Replacement Program 273512446801.0047.2008■ 1 CODE AMENDMENT \I 0047.2008.ASLU _ 273512446801 1�1 0 0 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0047.2008.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 2735 12 4 46 801 / 2737 07 3 31 851 PROJECT ADDRESS 130 S. Galena Street PLANNER Chris Bendon CASE DESCRIPTION Code Amendments — RMF Replacement Program REPRESENTATIVE City of Aspen DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10/ 14/08 CLOSED BY Angela Scorey �c ceQ 273�- 12 4W 6 ec, I es, 4 00q-7. 2400g.A-!S�_U 2-7 3 7 07 3 3 'IAa File Edit Record Navigate Form Reports Format Tab Help 1007 Main Valuation I Custom Fields Actions I Feek i ParcelsI Fee Summary I Sub Permits Attachments Routing Status Routing History Permit Type •= Permit # 0047.2008.ASLU Address 130 5 GALENA ST AptjSuite City JA5PEN State —0 Zip 81611 Permit Information 11 �1 Master Permit r Project I J Routing Queue aslu07 Applied 10j14j2008 J Status pending Approved Description CODE AMENDMENTS - RMF REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Issued F J Final F Submitted ICITY OF ASPEN Clock Running Days F 0 Expires 1010912009 wner Last Name (CITY OF ASPEN J First Name CITY HALL F130 5 GALENA ST Phone r So Owner Is Applicant? ASPEN CO 81611 Applicant Last Name CIT'r' OF ASPEN _ J First Name CITY HALL 130 5 GALENA ST Phone Cust # 28426 ASPEN CO 81611 Lender Last Name �— -- First Name �— Phone � Enter the permit description / /1/0 AspenGold(b) Record: 1 of 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Karen Setterfield [karen@aspenreal.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:15 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Karen Setterfield Local address: P 0 Box 3522, Aspen CO 81612 Email: karen@aspenreal.com 1 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Jack Johnson [writejacknow@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:43 PM To: Kathryn Koch Subject: Fw: Bidwell Building --- On Sun, 5/11/08, Su Lum <su arof net> wrote: From: Su Lum <su@rof.net> Subject: Bidwell Building To: "Mick Ireland" <mick@sopris.net> Cc: skadron@comcast.net, jedv@comcast.net, dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us, "Jack Johnson" <writej acknow@yahoo.com> Date: Sunday, May 11, 2008, 6:48 PM Dear Councilpeople, I write to implore you to deny the current application for the replacement of the Bidwell Building, which is too large (high/big/lot-line to lot -line) and too imposing a structure for that friendly corner of our downtown core. Further, we need a change in our codes so that penthouses are no longer accepted as the "financial engines" for these monstrosities, and a change in the HPC perspective that currently demands no setbacks. Where ever possible, the community has spoken to these issues: the Aspen Area Community Plan, the core belief sessions, and by electing you in the hope of stopping the slaughter. Don't stop the good work now. Su Lum May 9, 2008 925-7839; 925-3414 12/29/2009 • � Page 1 of 2 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:45 PM To: 'Don Policaro' Cc: Public Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Don The name calling does not persuade me of the justice of your argument. The "Option 8" is not a repeal but an amendment to the ordinance. I don't agree with Roger. Places without affordable housing nhave mnore growth thatn we do: Vail,m Sun valley, Breck, etc. etc. Housing doesn't cause growth. The ordinance has been around for a long time and is not new. Section 8 only amends it to allow more conversions. Thanks, Mick From: Don Policaro [mailto:Don@Intelefone.ty] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:39 PM To: Mick Ireland Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Dear Mick, What part do you agree with and what part do you not agree with? How would me rebuilding my condo's to the same square footage require them to be affordable housing? I would not be increasing square footage just rebuilding them to modern code. I do not have room, parking or money to add more then the two units that are there now. I think this was originally meant to mitigate for loosing apartment complexes to become empty second homes. Now there are only a couple of those left and this is punishing condo owners. When I bought my places I could rebuild without employee housing, somehow this was added latter without the public knowing. Condo owners will just not rent to locals any more and go for the big rental income from rich tourists. Affordable housing is important although we can never build enough because like Marolt says the more you build the more employees to expand businesses. When people retire they will be living in subsidized housing and not working. Employee housing generates more growth and more problems. Open space is more important. Why not require rich homeowners to build affordable housing on there 5 million dollar single family lots. They have more room and can afford it. Please do the right thing and chose option 8 get rid of this outdated and unfair ordinance? This will never stand up in court because it is totalitarian and unfair legislation which is taking without compensation. Thank You, Don Policaro 12/29/2009 • • Page 2 of 2 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: From: "Mick Ireland" <mick@sopris.net> Date: Fri, September 19, 2008 3:30 pm To: "'Don Policaro"' <don@intelefone.tv> Thank you for your (form) letter. 1 agree in part and disagree in part. Mick -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.netl On Behalf Of Don Policaro Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 11:17 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us;jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; Steve sk@ ci. aspen. co. us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staffs belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Don Policaro Local address: 1004 Durant Ave Email: don@intelefone.tv 12/29/2009 .7 • Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:39 PM To: 'Scott Niblack' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick I -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Scott Niblack Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 7:35 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * This measure effectively takes the homeowner's right of ownership away. An owner would not have the ability to rent to whom they wish without municipal regulation and cannot repair an older unit more than 40%. It would be simpler for the Council to use Eminent domain on all real estate inside the city limits. Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Scott Niblack Local address: 101 N. Spring Street, 3109 Aspen, co 81611 Email: sniblack@msn.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:39 PM To: 'Robert Winchester' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick i -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Robert Winchester Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:34 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Robert Winchester Local address: 777 Cemetery Lane Email: Chet@srec.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:38 PM To: 'Cheri Eddy' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick i -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Cheri Eddy Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 7:17 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Cheri Eddy Local address: 1426 Crystal Lake Road Email: cherigrinnell@yahoo.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:37 PM To: 'Arnold and Joanne Van Hees' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council. - Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick I Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Arnold and Joanne Van Hees Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:12 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Arnold and Joanne Van Hees Local address: 1034 east cooper ave unit 9 Aspen Colorado Email: jogiorgio@rcn.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:37 PM To: 'Gianfranco lavarone' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick i -----Original message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Gianfranco Iavarone Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:33 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staffs belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, gausing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Gianfranco Iavarone Local address: Apt. 2-i , 205 East Durant Ave., South Point Condo., Aspen, CO Email: Iavarone@msn.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:36 PM To: 'Arnold and Joanne Van Hees' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick i Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net (mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Arnold and Joanne Van Hees Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:12 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Arnold and Joanne Van Hees Local address: 1034 east cooper ave unit 9 Aspen Colorado Email: jogiorgio@rcn.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:35 PM To: 'Dan and Betsy Furth' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in part. Mick i Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net (mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Dan and Betsy Furth Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:16 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Dan and Betsy Furth Local address: 880 Bonita Dr., Aspen, CO 81611 Email: aspendan@sopris.net 1 • Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 124 PM To: BGAspen@aol.com Cc: Public Comment Subject: RE: Ordinance 22-Series 2008 As a resident of affordable housing , I don't quite share your views. But thank you for your comment. Mick I From: BGAspen@aol.com [mailto:BGAspen@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 1:29 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; jed@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us; Chris.Bendon@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Ordinance 22-Series 2008 As a resident of Aspen and a voter, I urge you not to adapt Ordinance 22-Series 2008 at your Sept. 22 meeting. In fact, in my estimation, the employee housing program has gone way too far and gotten completely out of hand. It is turning this town into a socialistic enclave. Employee housing, paid for with the RETT funds is a fine idea but confiscating private property without compensation IS NOT. The entire Ordinance #26.470.070.5, the "Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing" of the land use code should be completely tossed out. Thank you for your wise decision to remove this abhorrent provision from Aspen's land use code and avoid potential long and costly law -suits over this issue. Gary L. Goldstein, President Riverview Condominium Association Looking for simple solutions to your real -life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:37 AM To: 'Nathan R. Giles' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: I agree. Mick I Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Nathan R. Giles Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:29 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Nathan R. Giles Local address: 910 W Hallam Unit 8 Aspen Co 81611 Email: nathan.giles@ex3.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:38 AM To: 'NANCY NEVIN' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: I agree for the most part. Mick I -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of NANCY NEVIN Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:23 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: NANCY NEVIN Local address: 415 SILVERLODE DRIVE, ASPEN CO 81611 Email: NANCY@AJAXGROUP.COM 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:37 AM To: 'Peggy Margolin' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: I agree. Mick -----Original Message From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Peggy Margolin Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:32 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Peggy Margolin Local address: 429 B Park Circle, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: margolin@sopris.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:36 AM To: 'Elizabeth Milias' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: with all due respect, I do not share your view of government or housing solutions. But I appreciate the input. Mick -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Milias Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 9:34 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Elizabeth Milias Local address: River Bluff #3 Email: elizabeth.milias@comcast.net 1 • • Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:32 AM To: Rebecca Doane forward Cc: Public Comment Subject: RE: Ordinance #22 Thank you for your support! Mick I From: Rebecca Doane [mai Ito: rebeccadoane@mac.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:09 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; jed@ci.aspen.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Ordinance #22 Dear Mayor and Council Members, While I no longer live within the City limits I am very concerned about the Aspen community and it's economic vitality. Living within close proximity to Aspen, it is where I and my family do our shopping, dining, and entertaining on a regular basis. It is truly what we consider to be "our town". I am also aware of the drastic situation all employers are facing with regard to housing their workforce. In addition to the employer's situation, there are many other vitally important reasons to increase the number of affordable units in the upper valley. I know that each and every one of you recognizes and appreciates these issues and, along with past Councils, has worked very hard to provide solutions to this problem. After reviewing the provisions of Ordinance #22 I request that you not formally re -adopt it and enforce it. I believe if passed, the fabric of our community will be seriously threatened. It will have untenable effects on the housing market, for EVERYONE. It will result it in fewer affordable housing units within the City Limits, NOT more. There will be a migration of citizens down valley, or elsewhere, where the value of their economic investments will not be dictated by local government. Please rethink this ordinance and eliminate it at next Monday's Council meeting. Thank -you, Rebecca Doane Brush Creek Village Rebecca Doane Human Resource Consultant WORKING SOLUTIONS,LLC 970.922.2211 rebeccadoane@mac.com 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: Gaston Alciatore [alciatore@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 8:29 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Gaston Alciatore Local address: 129 W. Francis Email: alciatore@msn.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Ronald M. Martin [rmartin@hollandhart.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 7:22 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? * While one would assume that Ordinance 22 does not cover duplexes, the definition inserted makes the proposed ordinance as written unclear as to whether duplexes somehow fall under this proposed ordinace or not. Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Ronald M. Martin Local address: 743 Cemetery Lane Email: rmartin@hollandhart.com 1 • • Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:29 AM To: JJN18@aol.com Cc: Public Comment Subject: RE: (no subject) Attachments: cc.ord.022-08rmf.pdf The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provides exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. The form letter is apparently based on misunderstanding that this is a "new" ordianance when, in fact, it has been in effect for 20 years. Thank you. From: JJN 18@aol.com [mailto:JJN 18@aol.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:32 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: (no subject) I would like to register my protest to Ordnance 22. It is my desire that this ordnance be removed from any code within the City of Aspen. Joseph Nedlin 1012 E Cooper Ave Aspen, Co. jjn 18@aol.com 917 412 3367 Looking for simple solutions to your real -life financial challenges? Check out WalletPop for the latest news and information, tips and calculators. 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: joan Lebach Uoanylebach@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:28 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: joan Lebach Local address: 1322 Vine St. Email: joanylebach@aol.com 1 • • Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:21 AM To: 'Dan Furth' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Attachments: cc.ord.022-08rmf. pdf l cc.ord.022-08rmf.p df (653 KB) The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provides exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. The form letter is apparently based on misunderstanding that this is a "new" ordianance when, in fact, it has been in effect for 20 years. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: Dan Furth [mailto:aspendan@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:44 PM To: Mick Ireland Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thanks for the acknowledgement. Dan -----Original Message ----- From: Mick Ireland [mailto:mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:35 PM To: 'Dan and Betsy Furth' Cc: public_comment@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter Mick i I agree in part and disagree in part. -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Dan and Betsy Furth Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:16 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. 1 • • * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Dan and Betsy Furth Local address: 880 Bonita Dr., Aspen, CO 81611 Email: aspendan@sopris.net t Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:19 AM To: 'Joseph Nedlin' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Attachments: cc.ord.022-08rmf. pdf cc.ord.022-08rmf. p df (653 KB) The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provides exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. The form letter is apparently based on misunderstanding that this is a "new" ordianance when, in fact, it has been in effect for 20 years. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Joseph Nedlin Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:35 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Joseph Nedlin Local address: 1012 E Cooper Ave Email: jjnl8@aol.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:18 AM To: 'John Correia' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Attachments: cc.ord.O22-O8rmf.pdf ,l cc.ord.022-08rmf.p df (653 KB) The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provides exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. The form letter is apparently based on misunderstanding that this is a "new" ordianance when, in fact, it has been in effect for 20 years. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of John Correia Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:07 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: John Correia Local address: 805 E. Cooper, Unit #1 Email: yashcorreia@hotmail.com 1 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:17 AM To: 'Joe Wise' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Attachments: cc. ord.022-08rmf. pdf 1� cc.ord.022-08rmf. p df (653 KB) The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provides exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. The form letter is apparently based on misunderstanding that this is a "new" ordianance when, in fact, it has been in effect for 20 years. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Joe Wise Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 5:12 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Joe Wise Local address: 630 E. Cooper Ave. #1 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mirk@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:12 AM To: 'Jane Click' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council. - Attachments: cc.ord.022-08rmf.pdf cc.ord.022-08rmf.p df (653 KB) The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provides exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. The form letter is apparently based on misunderstanding that this is a "new" ordianance when, in fact, it has been in effect for 20 years. Thank you. -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Jane Click Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:00 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you, (While I did not compose the above, it is stated more succinctly than I could phrase it and I agree.) Name: Jane Click 1 • C� Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 11:57 PM To: 'Chet Winchester' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Attachments: cc.ord.022-08rmf.pdf U cc.ord.022-08rmf. p df(653 KB) Chet: The ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. Ord. 22 merely provide4s exemptions to the ordinance, it is not new. Section 8 does not repeal the ordinance. Please read for yourself. -----Original Message ----- From: Chet Winchester (mailto:chet@srec.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:10 PM To: Mick Ireland Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thanks for your (Form Reply) What part do you agree and what part do you disagree.... Thanks -----Original Message ----- From: Mick Ireland [mailto:mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 3:39 PM To: Chet Winchester Cc: public_comment@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Thank you for your (form) letter. I agree in part and disagree in other parts. Thanks Mick i -----Original Message From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Robert Winchester Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:34 AM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. 1 * Housing is VERY important 1 eed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Robert Winchester Local address: 777 Cemetery Lane Email: Chet@srec.com 2 Kathrvn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 11:55 PM To: 'Toney Thomas' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Dear Aspen City Council: Dear Toney: Please read the ordinance. Section 8 does not propose the elimination of this 20 year old ordinance. The replacement ordinance has been in effect for many years. what is proposed is an amendment to it ("Section 8." ) not a repeal of the 20 year old ordinance. I really don't think that the author of the form letter is reading the ordinance or understands the amendment process. I attach the entire ordinance. Only the underlined portions represent change to the 1988 ordinance on multi family replacement. Please read the ordinance and please realize that this ordinance has been in effect for 20 years. The proposed changes would provide exemptions from the ordinance, not tis elimination. Thank you. Thanks. -----Original Message ----- From: aspenmatters@p3slhl82.shr.phx3.secureserver.net [mailto:aspenmatters@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net] On Behalf Of Toney Thomas Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 8:44 PM To: micki@ci.aspen.co.us; dwayner@ci.aspen.co.us; jackj@ci.aspen.co.us; stevesk@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? 1 • Affordable housing continues be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Toney Thomas Local address: 926 E. Durant Ave. Unit #6 Email: toneyathomas@aol.com 2 Kathryn Koch From: Robert Connery [rconnery@hollandhart.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 4:46 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron; Public -Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council and Mayor Ireland: I have owned and resided for very substantial parts of the year at a condominiumized unit that is a duplex on 743 Cemetery Lane since 1979. I have been a patron of the music festival, Aspen Institute, and many local civic activities for many year, and have practiced at my law firm's local office for 42 years, which is how I came to know and love Aspen. I have just retired, and hoped to spend even more of the year in Aspen, as well as to improve our duplex unit modestly. Ordinance #22 appears to make that impractical. I urge you not to adopt Ordinance #22. It is not ready for prime time. It does not define its terms and is so vague in so many parts that it is certainly not suited to determine important property, zoning and planning rights and obligations. I don't know whether I am a non-resident or a resident or some kind of tourist. The burden to show that no resident has ever resided in the unit since it was built is unduly burdensome, and indeed probably impossible to establish. I could do so for the 29 years I have been a part-time resident, but beyond that the County has no way of proving or disproving the ordinance's requirement, and I am equally incapable of "proving the negative". Surely these and many other provisions of the proposed Ordinance are unconstitutionally vague. I do intend to be away from Aspen during travel, and might be willing to rent to local, seasonal employees. But with this ordinance being given serious consideration I would not do so. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely yours, Bob Connery Name: Robert Connery Local address: 743 Cemetery Lane Email: rconnery@hollandhart.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Hugh S. Hatcher [hshatcher@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 4:39 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. If concensus can't be reached to select Option 8, then I believe Council should table the issue in order to come up with a more realistic and fair approach with significant public hearings and feedback. Thank you Name: Hugh S. Hatcher Local address: 205 E. Durant Avenue, Apt. 2E Email: hshatcher@aol.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: John Jassy/Mike Doran Udjassy@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 4:08 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: John Jassy/Mike Doran Local address: Chateau Eau Clair #25, 1034 E Cooper, Aspen 81611 Email: jdjassy@comcast.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Theresa and David Zolet [tizolet@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 3:47 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Theresa and David Zolet Local address: 611 South West End Street Email: tizolet@comcast.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Bernard Phillips [flyingcello@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:42 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Bernard Phillips Local address: 311 S. Aspen St. Unit 1, 81611 Email: flyingcello@comcast.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Roberta (Bertie) Lowenstein [bertie23@sopris.net) Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:40 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Roberta (Bertie) Lowenstein Local address: 926 West Francis Street, Aspen Email: bertie23@sopris.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Randy Egan [randyegan@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 2:15 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Randy Egan Local address: PO BOX 2741 Aspen Email: randyegan@comcAST.NET 1 • • Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Marilyn R Marks [marilyn@aspenoffice.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 1:38 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero forward; Steve Skadron; Jack Johnson Cc: Public Comment Subject: Proposed Ord #22 Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, There is much confusion over proposed Ordinance #22, the basic questions of validity, fairness, and unintended consequences. The program needs to be cleared off the books, and redesigned. Hence the voices you are hearing asking you to adopt OPTION 8 on the Exhibit A. Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. The proposed code has far too much room for subjectively, which always leads to inconsistency and abuse. (For example, "local worker" is not a defined term ---meaning that everyone from a part time bus boy to a work -at-home hedge fund manager, or wealthy author may or may not qualify.) The notion that the law (and hence millions of dollars of "fees/penalties" will turn on who once lived in one's home is completely absurd, and has obvious enforcement and fairness issues on its face. Below are but a few of the problems which Ordinance #22 contemplates. While it might be technically a long - existing law, just up for clarification with Ord #22---that is but a ruse. The reality is that this law was vague and rarely applied in the past. Exemptions were freely given. A strict application in the future will have punitive effects on a broad number of homeowners, workers, tourists, and issues. Despite City Staffs belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Please select OPTION EIGHT on the exhibit. Thank you, Marilyn Marks Aspen, CO 970 429 7535 Marilyn@AspenOffice.com www.TheRedAnt.com 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: James H. Perry Upaspen@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:51 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: James H. Perry Local address: P.O. Box 3382, Aspen Email: jpaspen@comcast.net 1 Kathryn Koch From: Davis & Virginia AMMONS [folks@ammons.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:23 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22 : THE ELIMINATION OF THE PROGRAM IN IT ENTIRETY. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? As Aspen "semi -locals" since 1950 and owners of residential property since 1980, we feel that it is unfair to threaten our livelihood and investment potential of our purchase. Affordable housing was not an issue in 1980, and though it is now, it's not fair to punish long-time supporters of Aspen's commercial and governmental needs with a program that minimizes the potential value of our investment. We firmly believe that the immediate solution lies in a technologically up-to-date transportation system ("RAFTA-Rail") or some other high-speed system to carry people from their present homes to their jobs, and that system, which could ultimately benefit us all, could be funded by RETT or other levies. Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you, Davis and Virginia Ammons Name: Davis & Virginia AMMONS Local address: 450 South Original #4, Aspen 81611 Email: folks@ammons.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Larry Weidel [larryweidel@mac.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:21 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Larry Weidel Local address: 630 E. Cooper Ave. #7, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: larryweidel@mac.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Lucy Tremols [Itremols@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 11:58 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Lucy Tremols Local address: 300 Puppy Smith St., #203; Aspen, CO 81611 Email: ltremols@hotmail.com 1 0 Kathrvn Koch From: Richard M. Shohet [millironfarm@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:57 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Richard M. Shohet Local address: 625 S. West End Street #2, Aspen Email: millironfarm@aol.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Sandra & Sam Tyler [tylersam@cox.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 8:30 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Sandra & Sam Tyler Local address: 800 S. Mill Street Email: tylersam@cox.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Moe Owen [m@moeinc.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 6:37 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Moe Owen Local address: 323 West Francis St. Email: m@moeinc.net 1 Kathryn Koch From: Peter T Westcott [westcott_friesen@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 4:05 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Somehow I was forwarded the email encouraging you to "respect property rights" and not have mitigation fees on condos. I don't agree with the letter at all, and encourage you to continue to find ways to make housing affordable to workers in the valley. I consider myself lucky, having moved in the valley over 20 years ago and having found land down valley. However, I know of the plight of many of my co-workers (teachers) and how hard it is for them to stay in the valley. Thank you, Peter Westcott Name: Peter T Westcott Local address: 70 Mountain View Rd, Carbondale, CO 81623 Email: westcott—friesen@hotmail.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Kathy Billington Steinberg [steiny@cmn.netj Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 2:57 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Kathy Billington Steinberg Local address: 280 White Horse Springs Road, Aspen, CO 81612 Email: steiny@cmn.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Flournoy Gull [fgull@sopris.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 2:39 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Flournoy Gull Local address: 25 Ardmore Ct, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: fgull@sopris.net 1 • • Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Timothy Wagner (Timothy_Wagner@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 2:04 PM To: Public Comment Subject: Ordinance 22 Dear City Council, I am an Aspen resident and own a condo in the core. I have reviewed Ordinance 22 and the proposed amendments to it, along with the city Staffs proposed options for further amendments. I strongly support option #8 i.e. elimination of the Ordinance in its entirety. Without addressing the obvious Constitutional issues, I believe that the Ordinance is inherently unfair and inequitable. The Aspen homeowners that can least afford to pay the full brunt of the cost of affordable housing are being required to pay for a disproportionate share when their complex ages and needs to be redeveloped. This requirement of the lowest economic end of the free market owners makes this an incredibly regressive tax on this class of homeowners. If the perceived benefit of providing affordably housed workers is worth it to the recipients of such services, then a more equitable allocation of these costs among the perceived beneficiaries should be made. And who are these perceived beneficiaries? Its all the tourists(that pay no RETT nor contribute in any other financial way to the Aspen affordable housing program),employers(who reap the benefit by having a pool of City subsidized workers that they can pay less in wages than they ordinarily could),all Aspen residents(some of which contributed to the program through the RETT, others that are forced to build affordable housing when their complexes are redeveloped and some that rent and pay nothing towards the program) and of course the affordably housed residents that get to live in this incredible place and be subsidized by the rest of the population. There should be a comprehensive plan on what the majority of the population of this City wants to pay for affordable housing and then a plan to evenly distribute the cost among all of the perceived beneficiaries. Under this ordinance, on a "best case" basis where a condo complex's age warrants redoing it and it has adequate excess unused density, the existing owners will have to essentially pay double the construction cost to redo their complex --once to rebuild their own units and a second time for the affordable units. In a "worst case scenario" where there is no excess unused density, the existing owners will have to let their aging complex deteriorate or build affordable housing on their land for free and no longer be qualified to live there. This is so incredibly inequitable, whatever the original intention of the ordinance was in 1988, it has turned into a perverse means to add to the affordable housing stock in this city. And one last thing --as the owner of an existing condo in the core, I resent being treated as some "fat cat" that can afford to pay for the "local workers" housing --the implication is that just because I'm retired and live here means that I didn't work long and hard for my money to buy into this very expensive town and that I can afford to pay for "local workers" housing. I was part of the "working class" my entire life and am now part of the "retired class". I deserve to be treated as well as the "local workers" --the difference is I worked my entire career 1st before I could afford to move and buy here. The "local workers" intentionally made their choice to live in a very expensive place before they worked and earned enough money to live here and are not entitled to have their housing needs provided by others in disproportionate relationship to the benefits received. Tim Wagner 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: Susan ONEAL [susanchristine44@cox.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:36 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Susan ONEAL Local address: 205 E. Durant Avenue, # 1-I Email: susanchristine44Qcox.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Marie O'Neill [Mariedon@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 11:48 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Marie O'Neill Local address: 0155 Lone Pine Rd., River Bluff C-12 Email: Mariedon@gmail.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: John J Miller Umiller@sprynet.comj Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:56 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." we are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: John J Miller Local address: 450 So. Original St. #6 Aspen Ohio Email: jmiller@sprynet.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Catherine Anne Provine [cacouch2002@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:40 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Catherine Anne Provine Local address: 387 Silverlode Dr. Email: cacouch2002@yahoo.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Lorrie B. Winnerman [lorwin@comcast.net] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 8:56 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Lorrie B. Winnerman Local address: 570 S. Riverside Avenue, Aspen Email: lorwin@comcast.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: The.Little.Nell.Condominium.Association@p3slh182.shr.phx3.secureserver.net Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 6:10 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, The Little Nell Condominium Association requests that you choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). The Little Nell Condominiums is a building including eleven condominium units that was built in the late 1960's. While maintenance of the building has occurred over the years, the building has never had a "face lift" and is in need of one. The Little Nell Condominium Association has been actively reviewing with structural engineers, builders and architects such a "fact lift" that would greatly enhance the look and feel of the building for the owners of the the eleven units. Given all of the work to date on these plans, passage of Ordinance #22 would be an intrusion on the Little Nell Condominium unit owners' property rights. We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: The Little Nell Condominium Association, Theresa Zolet and Dario Anselmo Local address: 611 S. West End Street Email: tizolet@comcast.net 1 Kathryn Koch From: Peter Carman [pcarmn237@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 2:35 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron, Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you, Peter Carman Name: Peter Carman Local address: 700 Ute Avenue # 808 Email: pcarmn237®aol.com 1 • 0 Page 1 of 1 Kathryn Koch From: Marilyn R Marks [marilyn@aspenoffice.com] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 11:28 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment-, John Worcester; Jim True Cc: Tom Isaac; Don Taylor Subject: Can Aspen Afford It? The following comment was posted to our blog ( www.TheRedAnt.com ) from a local real estate attorney. He asked that it be posted without his name. I share it with you for a different and astute perspective, I believe: Putting aside for the moment the legality of Ordinance 22, it occurs to me that this ordinance is going to be very expensive for the local governments, and I don't just mean in terms of legal fees defending the ordinance from the inevitable 5th Amendment takings challenges. For example, if there is uncertainty in the marketplace there will be fewer transactions. If there are fewer transactions there will be less transfer tax income. The transactions that due occur will probably reflect lower prices, thus further reducing transfer tax income. If there is less transfer tax income there will be less money to spend on affordable housing. A much bigger hit would be in respect of property tax income. Ordinance 22 will devalue a large percentage (I don't have the data) of the parcels that comprise the Pitkin County real property tax base. One must expect that after Ordinance 22 passes even newer condominium units will experience some devaluation; older units might not even trade, in which event the owner of such a unit could make the argument that his unit is worth ZERO b/c there is no market value. One must also expect that going forward many more condo owners will protest their property tax assessments and seek lower assessed valuations due to Ordinance 22. There will also be less construction activity, meaning the City will receive less in the way of building permit fee revenue and sales tax revenue. There will also be the problem of having an aging stock of condominiums that nobody will want to replace, thus making our resort less attractive to visitors who naturally will seek out newer and better amenities at other resorts." don't think Aspen can afford Ordinance 22. Marilyn Marks Aspen, CO 970 429 7535 Marilyn@AspenOffice.com www,TheRedAnt.com 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: Charley Podolak [podolak@rof.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 6:07 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Charley Podolak Local address: 146 Rodeo Rd. Snowmass Village Email: podolak@rof.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Dusty Kay Hamrick [Theduster@sopris.net] Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 4:54 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Dear Aspen City Council: Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose Option 8 in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: The elimination of the program in its entirety. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending ? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Dusty Kay Hamrick Local address: 1315 Riverside Dr. Email: Theduster@sopris.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Kristin A. Heffner [details3058@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 10:19 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." we are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Kristin A. Heffner Local address: 700 Ute Ave, #102, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: details3058@hotmail.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Ellen Weinstein [eweinstein@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:34 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you, Ellen Weinstein Name: Ellen Weinstein Local address: 1020 E Hopkins, #!; Aspen81611 Email: eweinstein@hotmail.com 1 Kathryn Koch From: Shael Johnson [shael@masonmorse.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:32 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." we are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you, Shael Johnson Name: Shael Johnson Local address: 713 Midland Park Place (Box 3549) Aspen, CO 81612 Email: shael@masonmorse.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Kim Raymond [kim@kimraymondarchitects.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:32 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Kim Raymond Local address: 802 E Cooper, Unit 4 Email: kim@kimraymondarchitects.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: victoria thomas [merlin@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:30 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: victoria thomas Local address: 835 E. Durant #1 Email: merlin@sopris.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Annette Keller [AKeller@KeltekTool.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:07 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Annette Keller Local address: 1430 Red Butte Dr. Email: AKeller@KeltekTool.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Kathryn Cole [info@kacole.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 9:04 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Kathryn Cole Local address: 801 S. Mill (Fifth Ave. #3) Aspen, CO 81611 Email: info@kacole.com 1 n u r� u Kathryn Koch From: Jerry Bovino [AspenRacer@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 8:46 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, The proposed ordinance to require mitigation before remodel of apartments where "locals" have lived may be subject to the "Law of Unintended Consequences." To keep Aspen a vibrant community, we all want to provide MORE housing for locals. However, if the proposed ordinance is enacted, landlords may actually be reluctant to rent to locals, due to the fear that the value of their property will be reduced. Please give this legislation careful consideration. We don't want Aspen to becme a city where there is a perverse incentive for landlords to discriminate against our own residents. Best regards and than you for your efforts on behalf of all of Aspen's citizens Name: Jerry Bovino Local address: 804 Hunter Creek Road Email: AspenRacer@aol.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: gerald portnoy [ferry@gsbdev.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 8:08 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: gerald portnoy Local address: 1034 east cooper #12 Email: jerry@gsbdev.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Jeri Simon Dermail@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:47 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Jeri Simon Local address: 131 Smuggler Mtn. Road, Aspen, CO 81611 Email: jermail@sopris.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Charles Rowars [cmr@pelicanbays.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:46 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Charles Rowars Local address: PO Box 5064, Aspen, CO 81612 Email: cmr@pelicanbays.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Susan Capiel-Collin [cellsue@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:39 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Susan Capiel-Collin Local address: 400 McSkimming Rd., Aspen, CO 81611 Email: cellsue@gmail.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: drew dolan [Drewinase@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 9:11 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: drew dolan Local address: 1005 waters ave, aspen Email: Drewinase@yahoo.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Elizabeth Siegel [elizsiegel@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 7:48 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Elizabeth Siegel Local address: 100 North 8th Street, #8 Email: elizsiegel@yahoo.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: robert mandich [mandron@rof.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 11:30 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: robert mandich Local address: 100 Dean ST. #3F, Aspen, Co. 81611 Email: mandron@rof.net 1 • • Kathryn Koch From: Bukk Carleton [bec@valley.net] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9:09 AM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Ladies and Gentlemen: It would appear to me the way the code is presently written, this will result in a negative impact as far as providing housing to working residents of Aspen. If a landlord is subject to de -valuing his property by renting to a worker in Aspen, obviously, any potential rentals to workers in Aspen will be immediately stopped. I can think of many individuals, including real estate agents, restaurant workers and others, who are presently renting in Aspen who will be summarily kicked out of their units. I would hope that you would seriously consider the impact of what you are suggesting. Sincerely, Bukk Carleton Name: Bukk Carleton Local address: 1012 East Cooper Avenue, Unit 2 Email: bec@valley.net 1 Kathryn Koch From: Thomas Bliss [tbliss@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 6:34 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Regarding Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: I understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. I object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. SPECIFICALLY, IT IS UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE AND PERHAPS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO APPLY MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO HOUSING WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN OWNED BY A LOCAL WORKER MANY SALES AGO. THIS REQUIREMENT MUST BE LIMITED TO CASES WHERE THE IMMEDIATE SELLER IS A LOCAL WORKER. Thank you, Thomas Bliss Name: Thomas Bliss Local address: 803 E. Durant Avenue #3 Email: tbliss@earthlink.net 1 Kathrvn Koch From: LENNY ALLEN [lenny.allen@sothebysrealty.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 5:44 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: LENNY ALLEN Local address: P 0 BOX 8316 Email: lenny.allen@sothebysrealty.com 1 . • Pagel of 3 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:32 PM To: jtygre@yahoo.com Cc: Public Comment Subject: RE: Multi -family housing But will I hear from you? I hope so. From: Jasmine Tygre [mailto:jtygre@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:01 PM To: Mick Ireland Subject: RE: Multi -family housing I agree entirely with your conclusions, and am glad that you do not intend to repeal the original ordinance - for all the reasons you cite in your e-mail - and I don't think that "exemptions" should be made. You should hear (and actually, no doubt you will hear tonight) the mutterings from People Who Didn't Vote For You In The First Place! Thanks, Jasmine --- On Mon, 9/22/08, Mick Ireland <Mick.Ireland@cLaspen.co.us> wrote: From: Mick Ireland <Mick.Ireland@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: RE: Multi -family housing To: jtygre@yahoo.com Cc: public comment@aspen.ci.co.us Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 3:52 PM Dear Jasmine: We are being asked to "deregulate" Aspen 's multi family housing market. Ordinance 22 is not a new ordinance. The proposal before council is an amendment to an existing ordinance that has required replacement housing for many years. Ordinance 22 is not new, it is an amendment to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990. the ordinance was adopted in response to the rapid conversion of local serving complexes into luxury housing 18 years ago. The planning office believes, and I agree, that in the absence of ordinance 1, we would have priced almost all locals out of free market rental units and would have seen them replaced with multi million dollar condominiums, as has happened in almost every other ski resort. I agree that the provision relating to rentals to locals is problematic and can be fixed. I think that exemption is vague. I do not agree that the ordinance should be repealed in its entirety as being suggested because it has effectively maintained some rental housing in the free market. While it is true that the rents charged in free market rental units in older buildings are high - $2,500 to $3,000 per month in many cases — they are not prohibitive and serve people who would not be able to purchase the same space in a condominium conversion or rent the same space after reconstruction. 12/29/2009 • • Page 2 of 3 Since 2000, an estimated 1,000 locals have been driven out of free market residences by market demand for luxury and retirement units. (AACP existing conditions report, 2008): During the same period, an estimated 1,075 Aspen area workers who used to live in free market homes, condos and multiplexes have had to find somewhere else to live as 597 free market units have been converted into something other than work force housing." (AACP report pg. 8) Deregulation of the remaining multi family housing stock through repeal of the existing regulations would accelerate this process as the new structures that replace the old ones would invariably be priced out of the reach of locals. The market ahs not produced any affordable or even close to affordable free market residential housing outside of the regulatory process. The loss of housing to second home, third home, retirement and corporate retreats has already transformed once viable neighborhoods into dark zones in the off season. Please note what the market has done in Aspen 's West End and the East End where many locals once lived. Ask any 10 year old if they go for trick or treat on Haloween to the West End or other newly gentrified neighborhoods. Again, Ord. 22 is not new and has worked. I do not think there is a case to be made that Ord 20 has restricted the value of multi family housing where rents are often in the $3,000 per month range for fairly small units. In light of recent events on wall Street, I believe it is becoming increasingly apparent that deregulation is not the answer to every market problem. Thank you Mick I MCI Mick Ireland 515 Independence Place 970-920-2858 at home From: Jasmine Tygre [mailto.jtygre@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 12:47 PM To: Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson ; Mick Ireland; Steve Skadron Subject: Multi -family housing RE: Multi -family housing replacement or combination The request to change our existing Land Use Code to allow two smaller "outdated" condominiums to merge is no more than the next speculation boom waiting to happen — and the results are bad for three reasons: 1) Loss of long-term housing. The redeveloped, larger, more luxurious condominiums will no longer house local, full-time residents. These locals cannot afford to spend $5million-plus for a place to live. 2) Loss of affordable rental properties. Traditionally, these complexes have supplemented the existing short-term accommodations provided by lodges and hotels. Combining units is merely part of an overall remodel — installation of marble tubs, steam showers, new sinks, new kitchens, built-in stereos and flat - screen tvs, new custom furniture, etc. Once this happens, such properties become "too nice" and are removed from the condominium rental pool. 12/29/2009 0 • Page 3 of 3 3) Loss of density. Most, if not all, condominium complexes in the city are zoned RMF (Residential Multi -Family). — a zone district whose intent is: "intensive long-term residential purposes..." When units within these complexes are combined, there is usually a loss of at least one bedroom (e.g. two two - bedroom condominiums with a combined square footage of 2000 feet become one 2000-square-foot condominium with a total of two or three bedrooms instead of four). So, even if these remodeled units were occupied full-time, year-round, there would be fewer people in each unit! The extra square footage is not used to provide "more bedrooms for my grandchildren" but to create "amenity space" — media room, study, exercise room, bigger bathrooms, etc. Note that in recently -built luxury developments such as. Limelight/Monarch on the Park, the three -bedroom units current on the market measure 3,080 and 3580 square feet respectively, while the four -bedroom unit is 3,774 feet. (I have detailed printouts from Paragon, the Aspen Multiple Listing Service, if you'd like to see them.) When people buy property, they are entitled to get what they bought; this does not necessarily include the right to expand. For example, you may buy a 3,000 square -foot house in the West End and you may even buy the 3,000 square -foot house next door; this doesn't give you the right to combine the two into a 6,000 square -foot house. I've heard a variety of interpretations of what the proposed "exemptions" will do to the existing ordinance, along with demands that the existing ordinance be repealed immediately. These are not necessarily the sentiments of the majority that elected a "sensible growth" Council to replace the "Infill Council." Please consider the possible long-term effects (and "unintended consequcnes") before you take action. Thanks, Jasmine Tygre 12/29/2009 Kathrvn Koch From: william plucker [terracedrive@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:33 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: william plucker Local address: 835 e durant unit II Email: terracedrive@comcast.net 1 0 Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland [mick@sopris.net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:31 PM To: 'Scott Davidson' Cc: Public —Comment Subject: RE: Ordinance #22 Dear Scott: The ordinance has been in place for 20 years without unduly burdening the market. I do not think we can afford to deregulate the multi family housing market because the units lost would be beyond our ability to replace them. The sale of a $2 million condo that has been converted produces less than $20,000 in revenue for housing. I don't see how this is enough to pay for the housing lost. When will we act, when the whole town is basically dark at night except for AH units and a few isolated locals? We acted 20 years ago with the result that hundreds of locals are still renting in the free market. Thanks for the reply. Mick i -----Original Message ----- From: Scott Davidson [mailto:scott@aa-rg.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:26 PM To: Mick Ireland Subject: RE: Ordinance #22 Dear Mick, Thank you for responding. However, I could not disagree more. We have a vehicle to address affordable/employee housing through the RETT. We need to keep this separate from the free market and allow those who have worked hard to afford Aspen housing to not be punished by attaching restrictions to their properties thus taking away what FREE MARKET is all about. There is room for both and many of us who live and work here full time want to see it kept separate. Should government continue to try and burden the free market homes with restrictions that we as locals own through our on hard work, then you can expect a reversal in our support of the affordable housing program and future taxes that support it. As the old saying goes, "Don't bite the hand that feed you." Thank you, Scott Davidson Original Message ----- From: Mick Ireland [mailto: Sent: Monday, September 22, To: Scott Davidson Subject: RE: Ordinance #22 Dear Scott: Mick.Ireland@ci.aspen.co.us] 2008 3:47 PM We are being asked to "deregulate" Aspen's multi family housing market. Ordinance 22 is not a new ordinance. The proposal before council is an amendment to an existing ordinance that has required replacement housing for many years. Ordinance 22 is not new, it is an amendment to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990. the ordinance was adopted in response to the rapid conversion of local serving complexes into luxury housing 18 years ago. • • The planning office believes, and I agree, that in the absence of ordinance 1, we would have priced almost all locals out of free market rental units and would have seen them replaced with multi million dollar condominiums, as has happened in almost every other ski resort. I agree that the provision relating to rentals to locals is problematic and can be fixed. I think that exemption is vague. I do not agree that the ordinance should be repealed in its entirety as being suggested because it has effectively maintained some rental housing in the free market. While it is true that the rents charged in free market rental units in older buildings are high - $2,500 to $3,000 per month in many cases - they are not prohibitive and serve people who would not be able to purchase the same space in a condominium conversion or rent the same space after reconstruction. Since 2000, an estimated 1,000 locals have been driven out of free market residences by market demand for luxury and retirement units. (AACP existing conditions report, 2008): During the same period, an estimated 1,075 Aspen area workers who used to live in free market homes, condos and multiplexes have had to find somewhere else to live as 597 free market units have been converted into something other than work force housing." (AACP report pg. 8) Deregulation of the remaining multi family housing stock through repeal of the existing regulations would accelerate this process as the new structures that replace the old ones would invariably be priced out of the reach of locals. The market ahs not produced any affordable or even close to affordable free market residential housing outside of the regulatory process. The loss of housing to second home, third home, retirement and corporate retreats has already transformed once viable neighborhoods into dark zones in the off season. Please note what the market has done in Aspen's West End and the East End where many locals once lived. Ask any 10 year old if they go for trick or treat on Haloween to the West End or other newly gentrified neighborhoods. Again, Ord. 22 is not new and has worked. I do not think there is a case to be made that Ord 20 has restricted the value of multi family housing where rents are often in the $3,000 per month range for fairly small units. In light of recent events on wall Street, I believe it is becoming increasingly apparent that deregulation is not the answer to every market problem. Thank you. Mick I MCI Mick Ireland 515 Independence Place 970-920-2858 at home -----Original message ----- From: Scott Davidson [mailto:scott@zgaspen.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:22 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: 2 "The elimination of the prog• in its entirety." • We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? * Aspen had historically supported employee housing by continuing the RETT. It has done so because it was used to buy land and build affordable housing. However, should this ordinance not be eliminated, you will see a backlash that could jeopardize the entire RETT. Free market owners will not sit back and watch as their property becomes affordable housing and their values diminished. These free market owners are not just second homeowners. They are long time, year around residents. Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Scott Davidson Local address: 1305 Snowbunny Lane Aspen, CO 81611 Email: scott@zgaspen.com 3 Kathrvn Koch From: Rick Schultz [rick@theautographsource.comj Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:53 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? * PLEASE understand where we are coming from on this. We have a condo that we are now thinking that we can't ever rent to any employee, only to tourists in order to protect the value of our investment - which is a result all of our years as hard-working locals. Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Rick Schultz Local address: 916 E. Hopkins #303 Email: rick@theautographsource.com 1 • \� Kathryn Koch From: Mick Ireland Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:51 PM To: 'Carolyn Hamlet' Cc: 'public—comment@aspen.ci.co.us'; Kathryn Koch Subject: RE: Ordinance #22 Dear Carolyn: We are being asked to "deregulate" Aspen's multi family housing market. Ordinance 22 is not a new ordinance. The proposal before council is an amendment to an existing ordinance that has required replacement housing for many years. Ordinance 22 is not new, it is an amendment to Ordinance 1, Series of 1990. the ordinance was adopted in response to the rapid conversion of local serving complexes into luxury housing 18 years ago. The planning office believes, and I agree, that in the absence of ordinance 1, we would have priced almost all locals out of free market rental units and would have seen them replaced with multi million dollar condominiums, as has happened in almost every other ski resort. I agree that the provision relating to rentals to locals is problematic and can be fixed. I think that exemption is vague. I do not agree that the ordinance should be repealed in its entirety as being suggested because it has effectively maintained some rental housing in the free market. While it is true that the rents charged in free market rental units in older buildings are high - $2,500 to $3,000 per month in many cases - they are not prohibitive and serve people who would not be able to purchase the same space in a condominium conversion or rent the same space after reconstruction. Since 2000, an estimated 1,000 locals have been driven out of free market residences by market demand for luxury and retirement units. (AACP existing conditions report, 2008): During the same period, an estimated 1,075 Aspen area workers who used to live in free market homes, condos and multiplexes have had to find somewhere else to live as 597 free market units have been converted into something other than work force housing." (AACP report pg. 8) Deregulation of the remaining multi family housing stock through repeal of the existing regulations would accelerate this process as the new structures that replace the old ones would invariably be priced out of the reach of locals. The market ahs not produced any affordable or even close to affordable free market residential housing outside of the regulatory process. The loss of housing to second home, third home, retirement and corporate retreats has already transformed once viable neighborhoods into dark zones in the off season. Please note what the market has done in Aspen's West End and the East End where many locals once lived. Ask any 10 year old if they go for trick or treat on Haloween to the West End or other newly gentrified neighborhoods. Again, Ord. 22 is not new and has worked. I do not think there is a case to be made that Ord 20 has restricted the value of multi family housing where rents are often in the $3,000 per month range for fairly small units. In light of recent events on wall Street, I believe it is becoming increasingly apparent that deregulation is not the answer to every market problem. Thank you. Mick I 1 • • MCI Mick Ireland 515 Independence Place 970-920-2858 at home -----Original Message ----- From: Carolyn Hamlet[mailto:chamlet@monalexpartners.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:20 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Carolyn Hamlet Local address: 1445 Red Butte Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Email: chamlet@monalexpartners.com 4 Kathrvn Koch From: Hetta Heath [hettaheath@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:21 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Hetta Heath Local address: 606 North Spring Street Aspen Email: hettaheath@aol.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Maureen Callahan [mcallahan@destinationhotels.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:56 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Maureen Callahan Local address: 314 Vine, Aspen Email: mcallahan@destinationhotels.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Helen Phillips [helenbphillips@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:33 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Helen Phillips Local address: P.O. Box 8245, Aspen, CO 81612 Email: helenbphillips@gmail.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: Thomas Anderson [ajaxwhitewater@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:57 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: Thomas Anderson Local address: 69 Aspen Village Aspen, Co 81611 Email: ajaxwhitewater@yahoo.com 1 Kathrvn Koch From: john and nicole lewis [lewjandn@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:52 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public_Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: John and nicole lewis Local address: 450 South Original Aspen Colorado 81611 Email: lewjandn@aol.com 1 TO: FROM: MEMO DATE: MEETING DATE: MEMORANDUM Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council 40 \J1 t% C Chris Bendon, Community Development Director awl September 15, 2008 September 22, 2008 RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Multi -Family Replacement Program — Public Hearing Second Reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. SUMMARY: Community Development staff is proposing amendments to the City's long-standing Multi - Family Housing Replacement Program to reinstate certain exemptions from the Program that were previously available to homeowners. During first reading, City Council requested options for further consideration. Those additional options are contained in Exhibit A. Staff is recommending adoption of the proposed amendments as presented. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these code amendments. To the extent that additional exemptions are desired and can be easily incorporated into tonight's ordinance, staff recommends adoption of an amended ordinance at tonight's hearing. There are a few property owners anxious to proceed under staff s proposed exemptions. If there is not clear direction on the additional options presented, staff requests adoption of the proposed ordinance as it has been presented and holding further discussions at a future work session. BACKGROUND' Since the 1970s, the City of Aspen has attempted to regulate the loss of free-market housing that housed local working residents. The Multi -Family Replacement Program as we know it today originated in 1988 through Ordinance 47, Series of 1988 after City Council and City Planning Staff became concerned that the demolition of existing free-market residential dwelling units was resulting in the exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The program regulates the combination and demolition of multi -family dwelling units and is triggered any time construction, remodeling, or demolition results in the loss of a multi -family unit. The program is one of the main reasons older multi -family buildings remain in Aspen's housing stock. There a few exemptions from this long-standing program that, in staff s opinion, were inadvertently dropped from the code. Staff is proposing to reinstate these exemptions. With respect to the definitions, staff views these as "clean-ups" of existing language as it has been 0 • interpreted and applied in the past. Staff is supportive of these amendments, believing they comply with the criteria for code amendment. Prior to 2007, a homeowner could obtain an exemption from the Multi -Family Replacement requirements if they could prove that the multi -family dwelling unit(s) they wish to eliminate were never occupied by local worker. The language was vague with respect to the procedure and necessary documentation and staff would typically request an occupancy history of the units involved. Staff has proposed language to reinstate this exemption to "tourists units." The previous code also included exemption language that stated "Any RMF housing unit which is ordered demolished by a public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Chapter." This exemption was unintentionally omitted from the revised code section in 2007. Staff has proposed language to reinstate this exemption. An exemption for "bandit units" has been applied through interpretation but has never been codified. This exemption stated that if a bandit unit was demolished, it was not subject to the provisions of the multi -family replacement program because it was never a legal multi -family unit. Staff has proposed language to codify this exemption. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Staff is requesting the following from City Council: Determination if application to amend code text meets Standards of Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310.040 Standards of Review. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Ordinance as presented or as amended with one or more of the presented options. Because a few property owners have been waiting for adoption of staff s proposed exemptions, staff would suggest any extensive further analysis be done after adopting the exemptions as presented. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008 [with the following amendments ... ]" ATTACHMENTS: A — Options for amendments to the Ordinance B — "Pre -moratorium" replacement program C — Letter received by staff ORDINANCE No. 22 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.470.070.5 — DEMOLITION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING AND SECTION 26.104.100 — DEFINITIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the requirements and restrictions on the redevelopment of multi -family housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections Section 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Section 26.104.100 — Definitions, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.575.020 — Calculations and Measurements; 26.575.040 — Yards., as described herein, by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 1 Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that these amendments further and are necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. Text being added to the code is underlined red and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing, which section describes the provisions for redeveloping Multi -family Residential Dwelling Units, shall be amended as follows: 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 2 Deleted: Text being deleted from the code is located in the margin and looks like this. 0 • resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting, and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition, or conversion of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion, or redevelopment of multi- family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements: (See definition of Demolition.) Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 3 1. Requirements for Combining, Demolishing, Converting or Redeveloping Free -Market Multi -Family Housing Units_ Only one of the following two options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting, or redeveloping a free-market multi -family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One -Hundred Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi -family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 — Affordable Housing. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free - Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Development. b. Fifty Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi -family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of previous units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area as described above, the Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 4 • applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and the Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 - Affordable Housing. When this fifty (50) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi - Family or Mixed -Use Project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free- market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 — New Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Project. 2. Requirements for Demolishing Affordable Multi -Family Housing Units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms, and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoniny, Commission may require the affordable housing deed restriction on the affected units be brought into compliance with the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 5 3. Fractional Unit Requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash -in -lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. — Provision of Required Affordable Housing via a Cash -in -Lieu Payment 4. Location Requirement. Multi -family replacement units, both free- market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on -site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing Requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free- market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on - site or off -site. 6. Redevelopment Agreement. The applicant and the City of Aspen shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for non-compliance. The City of Aspen may require a bond or other financial instrument insuring compliance with the agreement. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 6 by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded prior to application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth Management Allotments. The existing number of free- market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Location Requirement. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt - from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi -Family HousingL Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi -Family Housing Units after non -willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in -fact non -willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning design standards, or other re u�_ry requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. Also see Chapter 26.312 — Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 7 Formatted: Bullets and Numbering j b. The demolition of Multi -Family Housing Units by order of a, - Formatted: Bullets and Numbering public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non -working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and buildingces. d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as "Bandit Units"). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. . -- Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25" Section 2: Section 26.104.100 — Definitions, which section defines the meaning of terms used in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. For the method of determining demolition, see Section 26.575.020(E), Measurement of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 8 r1 demolition. Demolition shall also include the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi -family or mixed -use building, ,its__ conversion to nonresidential use, or any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between Multi -Family Housing Units if such action is undertaken to combine the units.. (See Chapter - .... (See 26.530, Residential multi -family replacement program.) - Deleted: or r------------- ---------------------------------- ---------- --- ----------------------------------------------------- Dwelling, detached residential_ A residential structure_ consisting --_ of a single dwelling with open yards on all sides, excluding mobile homes. Also known as a Single -Family Home or a Single -Family Residence. Deleted: _ Deleted: shall also constitute demolition Deleted: ¶ Dwelling. A stricture or portion thereof, intended and used as a shelter in which a person or people reside and sleep Deleted: Dwelling, attached residential. A residential dwelling which is physically connected to one or more other dwellings or buildings on one or more sides.Q Dwelling, duplex. A residential building on a single lot or parcel comprised of two (2) , attached Dwellin�in either an over- �_..-- Deleted: attached units and -under or side -by -side configuration having a common unpierced above -grade wall of at least one (1) story in height and ten 10 feet in length, or a common un ierced walk or_floor/ceiling -.- Deleted:/ceiling as applicable. Each unit in the duplex shall contain no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the duplex structure. Dwelling, multi family. A residential structure containing three 3 or more attached Dwellin Units in either an over -and -under or - Deleted: d —� g-------- ---- ---------------------------- ------ - - .. side -by -side configuration with common unpierced demisin walls Deli` u or floors/ceilings as applicable, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, that ma, include accessoryuse facilities Deleted: with - - Y-------- - - ----------- ---------- limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. One 1 or more Dwellin U rts Deleted° d located within a Mixed -Use _ buildin _shall also be considered a Deleted`" ----------- ----- __— ' -' -------- -- Deleted: n office, retail or service multi -family dwelling. The term "multi -family dwelling" also commercial includes properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures consisting of three (3) or more Deleted: d Detached Residential_ Units where permitted by the Zone District. Deleted: dwelling --4weted: u Dwelling unit. A struc__ture or portion ther__eof, intended and used as Aseparatelyentexableroom -- -- -- - - - - - - -------------- - - - - - ----------------------------------- a shelter in which a person or people reside and sleep which or combination ofrooms Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 9 contains a kitchen and bathroom and which is designed for or used deleted: are ---- --- -------- as an individual residence. Also known as a Dwelling or a Residence. Bedroom. A portion of a dwelling unit intended to be used for sleeping purposes, which may contain closets, and may have De,eWd, and which meets Uniform access to a bathroom.. Building Code requirements for light and �------- - ---- --- ---- -- ventilation. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6• A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22" d day of September, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 7• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 10 r� INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as Rrovided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11 day of August, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this .2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: City Attorney Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 11 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor day of Exhibit A City Council requested staff develop some additional options for consideration. Following are suggested options organized from simple, minor amendments to fundamental changes to the program. The italicized text is suggested code language to add to the proposed ordinance. Option 1. The addition of an exemption providing for non permanent penetrations of demising walls. The normal course of remodeling, utility upgrades, etc. often affects demising walls and staff recommends this additional exemption be added. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings that is necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi - Family Housing Units. Option 2. Introduction of a timeframe in the categorization of a unit as a tourist unit. The current regulation applies to a unit which has ever in its history housed a working resident. This is a very rigorous requirement, but has been at the core of the program for the past 20 years. This would be an amendment of proposed exemption c as highlighted below. C. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi - Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non -working residents for a minimum of ten (10) years. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the units) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Option 3. The addition of an exemption providing for wholesale reconfiguration of adjacent units. This would allow, for example, two adjacent two -bedroom units to be redeveloped as a one -bedroom unit and a three -bedroom unit without triggering any of the replacement requirements. The rebuilding or reconfiguration of demising walls or floors/ceilings between adjacent units including substantial changes to the size, layout, number of bedrooms, or other aspects of the individual units such that the total number of units is not affected. Option 4. The addition of an exemption allowing for the combination of units in exchange for a "minimal" deed restriction on the resulting unit. This was discussed at first reading as a way to observe the original premise of the program — to maintain local housing opportunities — while recognizing the desire for units to be combined. The combining of adjacent Multi -Family Housing Units if the newly created unit is deed restricted to occupancy by full-time residents of Pitkin County. The deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney and shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Option 5. Reversion to the pre -moratorium replacement requirements. This system allowed for the total demolition and replacement of multi -family buildings as free-market unit as long as the units were not expanded — an exact replacement system. In the system, if units were expanded, housing mitigation was required. The prior system did not address unit combining any differently than today's program. Please see Exhibit B. Staff would need to re -work the proposed ordinance. Option 6. The addition of an exemption allowing for the "temporary" combination of units with a requirement to divide the units in the future. This was also discussed at first reading as a way to observe the original premise of the program — to maintain local housing opportunities — while recognizing the immediate needs of locals. Staff does not support this option. The combining of adjacent Multi -Family Housing Units if the newly created unit shall be required to be divided and returned to the previous multiple unit configuration if ever sold to part-time residents of Pitkin County. The deed restriction shall be acceptable to the City Attorney and shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. Option 7. The addition of an exemption allowing for the combination of units. This could include some limitation on how many units could be combined. The combining of adjacent Multi -Family Housing Units. Or, The combining of no more than two (2) adjacent Multi -Family Housing Units. This exemption shall be allowed only once per unit, cumulatively. Option 8. The elimination of the program in its entirety. The current validity of the program was questioned during first reading. Staff continues to believe the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice. [Section 1 of the ordinance] Section 26.470.040. S — Reserved. the basis upon which exemption is claimed, and such additional documentation as may be required by the Community Development Director in order to establish the exemption. If the Community Development Director is satisfied that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this Title, a certificate of exemption shall be issued. C. Procedure. A Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption shall be obtained prior to the submission of a building permit. D. Form of Certificate. A Certificate of Compliance or Exemption shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Director. The Certificate shall constitute a Development Order issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development Orders. (Ord. No. 40-2002; Ord No. 51-2003, § 1) 26.530.040 Housing Replacement Requirements. i A. One -Hundred Percent Replacement — No Expansion. In the event of the demolition of free- market resident multi -family housing, the owner shall have the option to construct replace- ment housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units and one -hundred (100) percent of the number of bedrooms demolished. The units shall be re- placed with like -type units (i.e. each one -bedroom unit is replaced with a one -bedroom unit, each two -bedroom unit is replaced with a two -bedroom unit, etc.). Studio units may be re- placed with either studio or one -bedroom units. The project's total net livable area may not be expanded. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished with no expansion of the project's total net livable area, the replacement housing shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. One -Hundred Percent Replacement — Unit Expansion. In the event of the demolition of free-market resident multi -family housing, the owner shall have the option to construct re- placement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units and one -hundred (100) percent of the number of bedrooms demolished. The units shall be replaced with like -type units (i.e. each one -bedroom unit is replaced with a one -bedroom unit, each two -bedroom unit is replaced with a two -bedroom unit, etc.). Studio units may be replaced with either studio or one -bedroom units. The project's total net livable area may be expanded if a portion of the project, commensurate with the percentage of net livable space expansion, is deed restricted according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The required amount of units, bedrooms, and net livable area to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be no less than the percentage of the project's net livable area ex- pansion over the existing development. Affordable housing meeting this requirement shall be deed restricted in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.050, Resale Restrictions (below). No more than 50% of the original project's units, bedrooms, and net livable area shall be required to be replaced as affordable housing. (For example: a project replicating an existing unit/bedroom mix for which the aggregate net livable space is increased by 15 per- cent shall include affordable housing equal to 15 percent of the original units, bedrooms, and City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 500, Page 49 0 • net livable area.) A project both increasing and decreasing individual units sizes for which no aggregate expansion of the project's net livable area occurs shall incur no affordable housing requirement. When this expansion and replacement percent standard is accomplished with af- fordable housing commensurate with the expansion of net livable space, the remaining units replaced on -site shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. B. Fifty Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market resident multi- family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of pre- vious units and bedrooms as described above, the owner shall be required to construct re- placement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, fifty (50) percent of the number of bedrooms, and fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net -residential area demolished. The replacement housing meeting this requirement shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.050, Resale Restrictions (below). The remaining units replaced on -site shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. C. Location of Replacement Housing. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the City Council determines that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maxi- mum number of units on -site which the City Council determines that the site can accommo- date and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined acceptable to City Council. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site development prior to issuance of a Cer- tificate of Compliance for the original parcel. Replacement units may be redeveloped on a separate parcel which is part of a multi -parcel Planned Unit Development that includes the original parcel. In this case, the location of rede- velopment units, both free-market and affordable, shall be determined by the City through adoption of a Final PUD Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. D. Cash -in -Lieu Payment. When the owner's affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be determined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority according to the applicable Affordable Housing Guidelines. E. Timing and Quality of Replacement Units. Any replacement units required to be deed re- stricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any re- developed free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site. Replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall contain fixtures, finish, and amenities required by the Affordable Housing Guidelines of the As- pen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 500, Page 50 THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF ASPEN Warning to all property owners in the City of Aspen: The city has a scheme whereby every property in the City will be taken from you and put into the affordable housing pool — without the City paying for it. Its call the "Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing." Ordinance and is contained in section 26.470.040.5 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The City Staff and the City know full well that as properties age every single one over time will need to be replaced — it's just a natural fact that buildings have a finite useful life — no matter how well they are maintained. With the bulk of the multi — family properties (more than 2 units - essentially all condos and town homes in the City) built in Aspen during the 1960's and 1970's, how long will they last? Over the next 10-30 years, most will need to be replaced and redeveloped. This is where the City's scheme comes in - the Ordinance requires that when the units are redeveloped, that they be converted to affordable housing. That's right - you redevelop your Unit and it becomes an affordable housing unit and you can no longer live there — it's given to someone that qualifies for the affordable housing program. No compensation for the property owner —just a flat out taking of your property without paying for it. If more than 40% of the project is "demolished", it's considered a "redevelopment" that subjects the property to the Ordinance. Now the City is proposing expanding the definition of "demolition "of the project. This is a calculated attempt by the City to make your condo unit an "affordable housing" unit for even minor remodels — again without paying for it! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! What started out as the most generous "affordable housing" program in the United States through the funding provided by the Real Estate Transfer Tax, has now turned into a socialist state whereby the affordably housed city staffers and city council members confiscate your property without paying for it in violation of the Constitution of the United States. If you don't think that you are affected because you own a single family house or duplex, think twice. When will the Ordinance be changed to come after your property? How much will you end up paying (through your taxes) when the city loses a massive lawsuit for taking property without just compensation? Does every real estate broker in town have an obligation to disclose to every prospective buyer of an Aspen condo or townhouse that one day they will be faced with the choice of letting their complex deteriorate due to age or turning their unit over to the City for its affordable housing pool, without any compensation !!!!! Realtors' beware!!!! The City Staffs proposed change to expand this ordinance (Ordinance 22-Series of 2008) is about to be rubber stanped by the City Council on September 22, 2008. Pls attend or have Condo Assoc legal representation attend to express your grave opposition to this change!! We need City Council to take this Ordinance out of the City's land use code in its entirety! SHOW UP AND FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS! r �4 MIIIIII �Vi trot ZZ � ^-s i tie ci&U-f 61111-7`3li u 6e — f4iv MSS m3wTr2n%m 1.. .: as I 0 0 • a ©Pi�riu„a ol 11 of C� • 0 ORDINANCE No. 22 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.470.070.5 — DEMOLITION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING AND SECTION 26.104.100 — DEFINITIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the requirements and restrictions on the redevelopment of multi -family housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing and Section 26.104.100 — Definitions, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing and Section 26.104.100 — Definitions, as described herein, by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that these amendments further and are necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUN' CIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing, which section describes the provisions for redeveloping Multi -family Residential Dwelling Units, shall be amended as follows: 26.470.070.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting, and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition, or conversion of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion, or redevelopment of multi -family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements: (See definition of Demolition.) 1 Requirements for Combining, Demolishing Converting or Redeveloping Free -Market Multi -Family Housing Units: Only one of the following two options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting, or redeveloping a free-market multi -family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 2 a. One -Hundred Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi -family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 — Affordable Housing. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Development. b. Fifty Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of previous units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and the Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 - Affordable Housing. When this fifty (50) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free - Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 — New Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Project. 2 Requirements for Demolishing Affordable Multi -Family Housing Units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms, and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission may require the affordable housing deed restriction on the affected units be brought into compliance with the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 3 0 • 3. Fractional Unit Requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash -in -lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. — Provision of Required Affordable Housing via a Cash -in -Lieu Payment 4. Location Requirement. Multi -family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on -site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing Requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site. 6. Redevelopment Agreement. The applicant and the City of Aspen shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for non-compliance. The City of Aspen may require a bond or other financial instrument insuring compliance with the agreement. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded prior to application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth Management Allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Location Requirement. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi -Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from compliance with any other provisions of this Title: a. The replacement of Multi -Family Housing Units after non -willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in -fact non -willful. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 4 To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility; to conform to zoning, design standards, or other regulatory requirements of the City; or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 — Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi -Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including, but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life, health, safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non- working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply including zoning, growth management, and building codes. d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as "Bandit Units"). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management, and building codes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. e. Any development action involving demising walls or floors/ceilings necessary for the normal upkeep, maintenance, or remodeling of adjacent Multi -Family Housing Units. Section 2: Section 26.104.100 —Definitions, which section defines the meaning of terms used in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. For the method of determining demolition, see Section 26.575.020(E), Measurement of demolition. Demolition shall also include the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi- family or mixed -use building, its conversion to nonresidential use, or any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between Multi -Family Housing Units if such action is undertaken to combine the units. (See Section 26.470.070.5, Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing) [delete Dwelling] Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 5 Dwelling, detached residential. A residential structure consisting of a single Dwelling Unit with open yards on all sides, excluding mobile homes. Also known as a Single - Family Home or a Single -Family Residence. Dwelling, duplex. A residential building on a single lot or parcel comprised of two (2) attached Dwelling Units in either an over -and -under or side -by -side configuration having a common unpierced above -grade wall of at least one (1) story in height and ten (10) feet in length, or a common unpierced wall or floor/ceiling as applicable. Each unit in the duplex shall contain no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the duplex structure. Dwelling, multi family. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Dwelling Units in either an over -and -under or side -by -side configuration with common unpierced demising walls or floors/ceilings as applicable, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, that may include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. One (1) or more Dwelling Units located within a Mixed -Use building shall also be considered a multi -family dwelling. The term "multi -family dwelling" also includes properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures consisting of three (3) or more Detached Residential Units where permitted by the Zone District. Dwelling unit. A structure or portion thereof, intended and used as a shelter in which a person or people reside and sleep which contains a kitchen and bathroom and which is designed for or used as an individual residence. Also known as a Dwelling or a Residence. Bedroom. A portion of a dwelling unit intended to be used for sleeping purposes, which may contain closets, and may have access to a bathroom. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If •any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 22°d day of September, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 6 Section 7: ]`his ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 11' day of August, 2008. Attest: 40OW Kathryn S. och, Michael C. Ireland, City Cler1 Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 22 day of September, 2008. Attest: Kathryn och, City Cler Approved as to form: City A orne I Michael 4L Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008. Page 7 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEMO DATE: August 4, 2008 MEETING DATE: August 11, 2008 RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Multi -Family Replacement Program First Reading of Ordinance No. .Series of 2008. Second Reading scheduled for September 22°d SUMMARY: Community Development staff is proposing amendments to the City's Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program to reinstate exemptions from the Program that were previously available to homeowners. Since the 1970s, the City of Aspen has attempted to regulate the loss of free-market housing that housed local working residents. The Multi -Family Replacement Program as we know it today originated in 1988 through Ordinance 47, Series of 1988 after City Council and City Planning Staff became concerned that the demolition of existing free-market residential dwelling units was resulting in the exclusion of working residents from the City's neighborhoods. The program regulates the combination and demolition of multi -family dwelling units and is triggered any time construction, remodeling, or demolition results in the loss of a multi -family unit. The program is one of the main reasons older multi -family buildings remain in Aspen's housing stock. There a few exemptions from this long-standing program that, in staff s opinion, were inadvertently dropped from the code. Staff is proposing to reinstate these exemptions. With respect to the definitions, staff views these as "clean-ups" of existing language as it has been interpreted and applied in the past. Staff is supportive of these amendments, believing they comply with the criteria for code amendment. Prior to 2007, a homeowner could obtain an exemption from the Multi -Family Replacement requirements if they could prove that the multi -family dwelling unit(s) they wish to eliminate were never occupied by local worker. The language was vague with respect to the procedure and necessary documentation and staff would typically request an occupancy history of the units involved. Staff has proposed language to reinstate this exemption for "tourist units." The previous code also included exemption language that stated "Any RMF housing unit which is ordered demolished by a public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Chapter." This exemption was unintentionally omitted from the revised code section in 2007. Staff has proposed language to reinstate this exemption. An exemption for "bandit units" has been applied through interpretation but has never been codified. This exemption stated that if a bandit units was demolished, it was not subject to the provisions of the multi -family replacement program because it was never a legal multi -family unit. Staff has proposed language to codify this exemption. Staff is recommending adoption of the proposed amendments upon first reading. Second reading is scheduled for September 22nd. The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval of these code amendments at a recent public hearing. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: Staff is requesting the following from City Council: • Determination if application to amend code text meets Standards of Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.310.040 Standards of Review. STAFF COMMENTS: The enclosed Ordinance demonstrates code changes by using fed str-i ethf ughs to delineate removed code text and green underline to denote new code text. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Ordinance upon first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE WORDED IN THE AFFIRMITIVE): "I move to approve Ordinance No. ?_ , Series of 2008, upon first reading." ' A Bandit Unit is defined as, "A dwelling unit or other structure developed or used in violation of the land use or building regulations in effect at the time of its construction." ORDINANCE No. 2-2 (Series of 2008) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 26.470.040.5 — DEMOLITION OR REDEVELOPMENT OF MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING AND SECTION 26.104.100 — DEFINITIONS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Sections 26.210 and 26.310 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, the Director of the Community Development Department initiated amendments to the Land Use Code related to the requirements and restrictions on the redevelopment of multi -family housing; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the City of Aspen Land Use Code Sections Section 26.470.040.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Section 26.104.100 — Definitions, as described herein; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 22, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that City Council approve amendments to the text of Sections 26.575.020 — Calculations and Measurements; 26.575.040 .— Yards., as described herein, by a five to zero (5-0) vote; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the amendments meet or exceed all applicable standards pursuant to Chapter 26.310 and that the approval of the amendments is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission found that these amendments further and are necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Land Use Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Land Use Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. Ordinance No. , Series of 2008. Page 1 WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: Text unaffected is black and in standard print and looks like this. str-ikethfeugh and leeks like this. Text being added to the code is green with underline and looks like this. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Section 26.470.040.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing, which section describes the provisions for redeveloping Multi -family Residential Dwelling Units, shall be amended as follows: 26.470.040.5 — Demolition or Redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting, and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition, or conversion of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion, or redevelopment of multi -family housing shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements: (See definition of Demolition.) Ordinance No. , Series of 2008. Page 2 1. Requirements for Combining, Demolishing, Converting, or Redeveloping Free -Market Multi -Family Housing Units: Only one of the following two options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting, or redeveloping a free-market multi -family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One -Hundred Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi -family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 — Affordable Housing. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Development. b. Fifty Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of previous units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and the Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 - Affordable Housing. When this fifty (50) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free - Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Project, and there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 — New Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Project. 2. Requirements for Demolishing Affordable Multi -Family Housing Units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms, and category of the units Ordinance No. , Series of 2008. Page 3 shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission may require the affordable housing deed restriction on the affected units be brought into compliance with the current Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and to the satisfaction of the City Attorney. 3. Fractional Unit Requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash -in -lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. — Provision of Required Affordable Housing via a Cash -in -Lieu Payment 4. Location Requirement. Multi -family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that replacement of the units on -site would be in conflict with the parcel's zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing Requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site. 6. Redevelopment Agreement. The applicant and the City of Aspen shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for non-compliance. The City of Aspen may require a bond or other financial instrument insuring compliance with the agreement. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded prior to application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth Management Allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Location Requirement. 8. Exemptions. The Community Development Director shall exempt from the procedures and requirements of this Section the following types of development involving Multi -Family Housing Units. An exemption from these replacement requirements shall not exempt a development from conformance with any other provisions of this Title: Ordinance No. Series of 2008. Page 4 a. The replacement of Multi -Family Housing Units after non -willful demolition such as a flood, fire, or other natural catastrophe, civil commotion, or similar event not purposefully caused by the land owner. The Community Development Director may require documentation be provided by the landowner to confirm the damage to the building was in -fact non -willful. To be exempted, the replacement development shall be an exact replacement of the previous number of units, bedrooms, and square footage and in the same configuration. The Community Development Director may approve exceptions to this exact replacement requirement to accommodate changes necessary to meet current building codes; improve accessibility, to conform to zoning design standards, or other re u�ry requirements of the City: or, to provide other architectural or site planning improvements that have no substantial effect on the use or program of the development. (Also see Chapter 26.312 - Nonconformities.) Substantive changes to the development shall not be exempted from this Section and shall be reviewed as a willful change pursuant to the procedures and requirements of this Section. b. The demolition of Multi -Family Housing Units by order of a public agency including but not limited to, the City of Aspen for reasons of preserving the life health safety, or general welfare of the public. c. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Units which have been used exclusively as tourist accommodations or by non- working residents. The Community Development Director may require occupancy records, leases, affidavits, or other documentation to the satisfaction of the Director to demonstrate that the unit(s) has never housed a working resident. All other requirements of this Title shall still apply includingzoning, growth management and buildingcodes. d. The demolition, combining, conversion, replacement, or redevelopment of Multi -Family Housing Units which were illegally created (also known as "Bandit Units"). Any improvements associated with Bandit Units shall be required to conform to current requirements of this Title including zoning, growth management and buildingcodes. odes. Replaced or redeveloped Bandit Units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Section 2: Section 26.104.100 -Definitions, which section defines the meaning of terms used in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, shall be amended as follows: Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. For the method of determining demolition, see Section 26.575.020(E), Measurement of demolition. Demolition shall also include the removal of a dwelling unit in a multi- family or mixed -use building, or -its conversion to nonresidential use, or any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between Multi -Family Housing units independent of Ordinance No. , Series of 2008. Page 5 whether or not such action is undertaken to combine or rebuild the units or for an., other p.q-ose.; shall also eenstitute ,-1emelitie n (See Chapter 26.530, Residential multi -family replacement program.) Divehqmg� A stfuetufe-er- pei4ien thereof, intended and used as a shelter- a -per -son or- peeple feside and sleep. Vll{.• VT Faer-e other- dwellings buildings on o or more sides. Dwelling, detached residential. A residential structure consisting of a single dwelling with open yards on all sides, excluding mobile homes. Also known as a Single -Family Home or a Single -Family Residence. Dwelling, duplex. A residential building on a single lot or parcel comprised of two (2) attaehed .... attached Dwelling Units in either an over -and -under or side -by -side configuration having a common unpierced above -grade wall of at least one (1) story in height and ten (10) feet in length, or a common unpierced wall/ceiling as applicable. Each unit in the duplex shall contain no less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total floor area of the duplex structure. Dwelling, multi family. A residential structure containing three (3) or more attached Ddwelling U,,mits, not including hotels and lodges, but including townhomes, with -that may include accessory use facilities limited to an office, laundry, recreation facilities and off-street parking used by the occupants. One (1) or more Ddwelling Unnits located within a Mixed -Use a effiee, retail-- or- —setwirae--eemmnereial—building shall also be considered a multi -family dwelling. The term "multi -family dwelling" also includes properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures consisting of three (3) or more Ddetached Residential dwelling Uiinits where permitted by the Zone District. Dwelling unit. ^ separate!), ente ..abler mbination of r-eems A structure or portion thereof, intended and used as a shelter in which a person or people reside and sleep which contains a kitchen and bathroom and which are designed for or used as an individual residence. Also known as a Dwelling. Bedroom. A portion of a dwelling unit intended to be used for sleeping purposes, which may contain closets, and may have access to a bathroom. and •„ 1 ieh ..,oats T T,,;r^. Building Code r-equir-ements fef light md ventilation.. Section 3• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall Ordinance No. Series of 2008. Page 6 • 0 be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5• That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6• A�public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 22"d day of September, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 7• This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 1 ld' day of August, 2008. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: Citv Attornev Michael C. Ireland, Mayor day of , 2008. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Ordinance No. Series of 2008. Page 7 ..,4 0 *ZAAAo%* • 26.530.010 • Chapter 26.530 RESIDENT MULTI -FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Sections: 26.530.010 Purpose and intent. 26.530.030 Application of Chapter. 26.530.040 Certificate of compliancelexemption. 26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements. 26.530.060 Resale restrictions. 26.530.070 Enforcement. 26.530.010 Purpose and intent. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings which currently provide resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely hign cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. • Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to piomote a socially and .economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution ef- fects of commuting and prevetit exclusion.of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. In the Aspen Area Community Plan the city has established a goal that affordable housing for work- ing residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The city, through its housing des- ignee, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sec- tor has also provided affordable housing through the GMQS process. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area busi- nesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the city has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the demolition of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. 26.530.030 Application of Chapter. This Chapter shall apply to the demolition of any resident multi -family housing ("RMF housing"), as defined herein, in the City of Aspen or when two (2) or more ownerships of land, each of which contains one (1) or more detached residential or duplex units, is merged or otherwise combined into a project for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction of the units, excluding any • l�V��ryL 684-1 (Aspenvoz) lNtKz rJ s ..' • • 26.530.040 parcel consolidated as a Specially Planned Area (SPA). No owner shall cause the demolition of any RMF housing unit without first obtaining a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption in accordance with the provisions of this Title. The Community Development Department shall not issue a permit for the demolition of any multi -family dwelling unit unless the owner has obtained and presented to the Community Development Department either a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption issued in accordance with this Title. Any RMF housing unit which is or- dered to be demolished by any public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by 1` civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Title. A certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption shall be issued by the city's housing designee only after the owner has complied with the provisions hereof. This Title shall not apply to the demolition or con- verted use of any RMF housing unit owned by the City of Aspen, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or any public development authority. • 26.530.040 Certificate of compliance/exemption. Any owner, as a condition of receiving a permit from the Community Development Depart- ment for the purpose of demolishing or enlarging any multi -family dwelling unit, must first obtain a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption from the requirements of this Title. A. Certificate of compliance. In order to obtain a certificate of compliance, the owner shall: 1. Submit to the housing designee a statement, on a form to be provided by the_city, certifying the number of P-NI F housing units and bedrooms to be lost as a result of demolition and the net residential area to be lost by the demolition. Where required;.secure.necessary land use approvals and permits for the replacement hour ing to be built on the site of the uemolished or enlarged building or on such other location as may be approved. 3. r:-� --lute a. housing replacerent agreement setting forth the terms and conditions upon which replacement housing will be provided and either operated or sold, which_ agreement shall be recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County. The obligation to provide replacement housing as set forth in the agreement shall be secured by a bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the city. B. Certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, the owner must submit a statement certifying that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this Title, the basis upon which exemption is claimed, and such additional documentation as may be required by the housing designee in order to establish the exemption. If the housing designee is satisfied that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this Title, a certificate of exemption shall be issued. C. Procedure. A certificate of compliance or certificate of exemption shall be obtained prior to the submission of a development application. 685 (Aspen 4M1) 26.530.050 0 • D. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the housing designee in the administration of this Title may appeal such decision to the Aspen City Council in accordance with the appeal proce- • dures set forth at Chapter 26.316. 26.530.050 Housing replacement requirements. A. Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi -family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential area demolished or converted. The re- 970 placement housing shall be configured in such a way as to replace fifty (50) percent of the bed- ��� rooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of "IF the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The replacement housing shall be deed re- stricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.060, below. B. Location of replacement housing. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of 4N'S the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappro- priate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circum- stances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the City Council cetermiries that the site can accommodate aiid may replace the remaining units off -site, within the ,7aen lvf,aic,�oliiazi Area. When the owner's. housing replacement requirements involves a'fraction�YW�`�" ul:_a uriii, cast to lieu inay be :provided:.to: meet:. he fractiotial requireiiient only: The,`amouiit of a c.t-:h-in- icLi ;;ball Inn ccnaputed using the formula set forth at Section 26.620.020. )961 _P lsty _,�freplacement. argil. -Replacement units shall be available for occupancy 2`. s:,, iil-1c «s the Yrew unit or units,'rc,gardless•of whether the replacement units are built on- ;.:..r " si „d ihdl contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's �Vh._._, rep'.ar;,ment units are proposed to be built off --site, the owner shall'be required to : ol.air3 order approving the. off -site development prior to or in conjunction with ob- Ai?iilg a di-✓c opnrent order approving redevelopment on the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. 25.530.Ov0 Resale restrictions. Replacement units shall be "for -sale units" and shall be deed restricted in a form and substance compliant with the Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Such deed restricted units may only be sold in compliance with the current Affordable Housing Guidelines established by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. The owner may be entitled to select purchasers, subject to the aforementioned qualifications, with approval from the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority. (Ord. No. 55-2000, § 18) • (Aspen aol) 686 0 26.104.100 Coffee roasting facility. A facility for the processing and packaging of coffee beans for the distri- bution which does not generally receive the public or engage in retail sales. Commercial kitchen. A commercial establishment producing or wholesaling prepared food items in which retail dispensing is prohibited. Commercial use. Land or a structure intended to support offices, retail, warehousing, manufactur- ing, commercial recreation, restaurant/bar, or service oriented businesses, not including lodges or ho- tels. Commission. The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Consignment retail establishment. A retail establishment in which the operator sells second- hand goods as :a third party agent between the buyer and seller. Contiguous. The sharing of a common border at more than a single point.. Lots, parcels, or boundaries may be considered contiguous where separated by private rights -of -way, water courses, or water bodies situated between them. Cul-de-sac. A short local street terminating in a vehicular turnaround. Day care center. See "Child Care Center." (See Supplementary regulations —Child Care Center or Home, section 26.575.080.) Deck. An outdoor, unheated area appended to a living space but not intended for living. Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down, or destroy fifty (50) percent or more of an existing structure as measured by exterior surface wall area; also, the removal of a dwelling unit in a mutti- family building, or its conversion to non-residential use. Demolition, partial. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy less than fifty (50) percent of an existing structure as measured by exterior surface wall area. Partial demolition shall constitute demoli- tion if intended or undertaken in sequence or periodically to ultimately raze, disassemble, or destroy fifty (50) percent or more of a structure. Density. The number of dwelling units or bedrooms per unit of land as permitted in the zone dis- trict. Design studio. A workshop primarily devoted to the design or representation of built form, land- scapes, consumer products, or graphic arts. Developer. A person or entity undertaking any development as authorized by this title. Development. The use or alteration of land or land uses and improvements inclusive of, but not limited to: 1) the creation, division, alteration or elimination of lots; or 2) mining, drilling (excepting to obtain soil samples or to conduct tests) or the construction, erection, alteration, or demolition of build- lJ v �tlo,7 Amtoo— A, 447 tin 10/02) k ' • • 26.104.100 Recreation club. A building and associated land devoted to recreational use including, but not limited to, a golf, swimming pool or tennis clubhouse, an exercise room, a playground/activity cen- ter; and which may include kitchen, bathing or toilet facilities, locker rooms or assembly halls. Recreational vehicle. A wheeled vehicle intended to provide temporary living accommoda- tions. A recreational vehicle is either self-propelled, hauled, or towed by a noncommercial vehicle. Included in the term are units commonly referred to as travel -trailers, camper -trailers, trailer - coaches, motor homes, and pickup campers. A recreational vehicle is not a mobile home as defined in this chapter. Recycling center: A building or facility used for the collection and preparation of recyclable material for efficient shipment. Rehabilitation. To restore or return a substandard or dilapidatedr'building or structure to a habitable condition consistent with existing building codes and regulations. Relocation. The moving of a building or structure to a location on or off of the lot or parcel on which it is situated. Remodel. A construction project comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing structure, as distinct from additions to an existing structure. Renovate. To upgrade an existing structure to a more contemporary and/or efficient use through repair and alteration,- including making additions to the existing structure. Residential multi -family housing. A dwelling unit which has in its history ever housed a working resident and which is located in a building in one of the following configurations: 1) A multi -family residential building; 2) A mixed -use building; or 3) A detached building on a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures containing three (3) or more detached residential units where permitted by the zone district. Excluded from this definition shall be single-family and duplex dwellings and dwelling units used exclusively as tourist accommodations by or nonworking residents. Resident Occupied (RO) unit. A dwelling unit which is limited by deed restriction or other guarantee running with the land to occupancy by qualified employees set forth in the housing guide- lines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Residential use. Used or intended for use exclusively for dwelling purposes, but not including hotels or lodges. 457 (Aspen 10/02) P F__ • a) The propose its comply with the Guidelines of e Aspen/Pitkin County Housing ority. A recommendation from the pen/Pitkin County Housing Author' shall be required for this standard. T Aspen/Pitkin County Housing /actua ity may choose to hold a public hearin ith the Board of Directors. b)able Housing required for mitiga ' n purposes shall be in the form of newly built units or buy -down nits. Off -site units shall be provided within the City of Aspen city lim' . Units outside the ci/quirement ay accepted as mitigation by the C' Council, pursuant to 26.I e mitigation requirement is less t one full unit, a cash-in-lieuy be accepted by the Planning d Zoning Commission upon andation from the Aspen/Pitkin Co ty Housing Authority. If the mitigrementis one or more units, a c h-in-lieu payment shall require City proval,pursuant to Section 6.470.090.3. Required affordableay be provided through a ix of these methods. c) Each unit prow' ed shall be designed such that the fin' ed floor level of fifty (50) percent r more of the unit's Net Livable Are is at or above Natural or Finished de whichever is higher. f d) The pr osed units shall be deed restricted as ',for sale" units and transferred to qua ' ed purchasers according to the Aspy0itkin County Housing Authority G delines. The owner may be entitled td select the first purchasers, subject to e aforementioned qualifications, wi approval from the Aspen/Pitkin Co • Housing Authority. The deed re riction shall authorize the Aspe tkin County Housing Authority or t City of Aspen to own the unit and r tit to qualified renters as defined in e Affordable Housing Guidelines est ished by the Aspen/Pitkin County H sing Authority, as amended. • The proposed units ma e rental units, including but not limited to rental units owned by an employ or non-profit organization, if a legal instrument in a form acceptable to the ity Attorney ensures permanent affordability of the units. The City encou ges affordable housing units required -for lodge development to be rental uni associated with the lodge operation d contributing to the long- term viabi ' of the lodge. Units ed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Ho ing Authority, the City of A/n, Pitk' County, or other similar governor tal or quasi -municipal agency shall not be subject to this mandatory "for-s ' provision. S. Demolition or Redevelopment of AA/ti-Family Housing. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings -currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 135 opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to • decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting, and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. The Aspen Area Community Plan established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The City and the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the City has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the combining, demolition, or conversion of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. The combining, demolition, conversion, or redevelopment of multi -family housing shall be isapproved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on compliance with the following requirements: (See definition of Demolition.) 1. Requirements for Combining, Demolishing, Converting, or Redeveloping_ Free - Market Multi -Family Housing Units: Only one of the following two options is required to be met when combining, demolishing, converting, or redeveloping a free- market multi -family residential property. To ensure the continued vitality of the community and a critical mass of local working residents, no net loss of density (total number of units) between the existing development and proposed development shall be allowed. a. One Hundred Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free- market multi -family housing, the applicant shall have the option to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Resident Occupied affordable housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 — Affordable Housing. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development with no • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 136 • additional affordable housing mitigation required as long as there is no increase in the number of free-market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Development. b. Fifty Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market multi- family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of previous units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area as described above, the applicant shall be required to construct affordable housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, bedrooms, and the Net Livable Area demolished. The replacement units shall be deed restricted as Category 4 housing, pursuant to the Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower Category designation. Each replacement unit shall be approved pursuant to Section 26.470.070.4 - Affordable Housing. When this fifty (50) percent standard is accomplished, the remaining development on the site may be free-market residential development as long as additional affordable housing mitigation is provided pursuant to Section 26.470.070.3 — Expansion of Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi - Family or Mixed -Use Project, and there is no increase in the number of free- market residential units on the parcel. Free-market units in excess of the total number originally on the parcel shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 26.470.080.2 — New Free -Market Residential Units within a Multi -Family or Mixed -Use Project. 2. Requirements for Demolishing Affordable Multi-Familv Housing Units: In the event a project proposes to demolish or replace existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the redevelopment may increase or decrease the number of units, bedrooms, or Net Livable Area such that there is no decrease in the total number of employees housed by the existing units. The overall number of replacement units, unit sizes, bedrooms, and category of the units shall be reviewed by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and a recommendation forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission. 3. Fractional Unit Requirement. When the affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, oash-in-lieu may be provided only upon the review and approval of the City Council, to meet the fractional requirement only, pursuant to Section 26.470.090.3. — Provision of Required Affordable Housing via a Cash -in -Lieu Payment 4. Location Requirement. Multi -family replacement units, both free-market and affordable, shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the Planning and Zoning Commission • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 137 determines that replacement of the units on -site would be in conflict with the parcel's • zoning or would be an inappropriate solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority shall be considered for this standard. 5. Timing Requirement. Any replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site. 6. Redevelopment Agreement. The applicant and the City of Aspen shall enter into a redevelopment agreement that specifies the manner in which the applicant shall adhere to the approvals granted pursuant to this Section and penalties for non-compliance. The agreement shall be recorded prior to application for a demolition permit may be accepted by the City. 7. Growth Management Allotments. The existing number of free-market residential units, prior to demolition, may be replaced exempt from growth management, provided • the units conform to the provisions of this Section. The redevelopment credits shall not be transferable separate from the property unless permitted as described above in Location Requirement. 26.470.080 Major Planning and Zoning Commission Applications: The following types of development shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.060, Procedures for Review, and the criteria for each type of development described below. Except as noted, all growth management applications shall comply with the General Requirements of Section 26.470.050. Except as noted, all Planning and Zoning Commission growth management approvals shall be deducted from the respective Annual Development Allotments and Development Ceiling Levels. 1. Expansion or New Commercial Development. The expansion of an existing commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed -use building or the development of new a commercial building or commercial portion of a mixed -use building shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on General Requirements outlined in Section 26.470.050. • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 400, Page 138 Commercial kitchen. A commercial establishment producing or wholesaling prepared food items • with no on -site consumption but which may have retail dispensing with no seating or wait service. Commercial Parking Facility. The use of a parcel or structure for the short-term parking of automo- biles as an independent commercial venture. Lease periods of less than one month shall constitute short-term parking and shall be considered Commercial Parking Facilities. Leasing of off-street parking spaces to tenants, guests, patrons, or the general public for periods of one month or more shall not constitute a Commercial Parking Facility. When the use of off-street parking spaces by tenants, guests, patrons, or the general public, is accessory to an on -site business or operation and is not an independent commercial venture, the parking shall not be con- sidered a Commercial Parking Facility. Commercial Parking Facilities may require conditional use approval or special review approval in some zone districts. Public parking facilities owned by a public agency shall be con- sidered "public uses." Commercial use. Land or a structure intended to support offices, retail, warehousing, manufactur- ing, commercial recreation, restaurant/bar, or service oriented businesses, not including lodges or ho- tels. Commission. The City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. Consignment retail establishment. A retail establishment in which the operator sells second- hand goods as a third party agent between the buyer and seller. Contiguous. The sharing of a common border at more than a single point. Lots, parcels, or boundaries may be considered contiguous where separated by private rights -of -way, water courses, or water bodies situated between them. Cul-de-sac. A short local street terminating in a vehicular turnaround. Day care center. See "Child Care Center." (See Supplementary regulations --Child Care Center or Home, section 26.575.080.) Deck. An outdoor, unheated area appended to a living space but not intended for living. Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down, or destroy forty percent (400/c,) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. For the method of determining demolition, see sec- tion 26.575.O2O(E), measurement of demolition. The removal of a dwelling unit in a multi -family or mixed -use building, or its conversion to non-residential use shall also constitute demolition. (See, Chapter 26.530, Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program.) Density. The number of dwelling units or bedrooms per unit of land as permitted in the zone dis- tract. • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 100, Page 16 Recreation club. A building and associated land devoted to recreational use including, but not is limited to, a golf, swimming pool or tennis clubhouse, an exercise room, a playground/activity center; and which may include kitchen, bathing or toilet facilities, locker rooms or assembly halls. Recreational Uses: The use of land or buildings for recreational uses such as park, playground, play field, golf course, skate board park, or similar uses. Recreational vehicle. A wheeled vehicle intended to provide temporary living accommodations. A recreational vehicle is either self-propelled, hauled, or towed by a noncommercial vehicle. Included in the term are units commonly referred to as travel -trailers, camper -trailers, trailer -coaches, motor homes, and pickup campers. A recreational vehicle is not a mobile home as defined in this chapter. Recycling center: A building or facility used for the collection and preparation of recyclable ma- terial for efficient shipment. Rehabilitation. To restore or return a substandard or dilapidated building or structure to a habit- able condition consistent with existing building codes and regulations. Relocation. The moving of a building or structure to a location on or off of the lot or parcel on which it is situated. Remodel. A construction project comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing struc- ture, as distinct from additions to an existing structure. Renovate. To upgrade an existing structure to a more contemporary and/or efficient use through repair and alteration, including making additions to the existing structure. Residential multi -family housing. A dwelling unit which has in its history ever housed a working resident and which is located in a building in one of the following configurations: 1) A multi -family residential building; 2) A mixed -use building; or 3) A detached building on a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures containing three (3) or more detached residential units where permitted by the zone dis- trict. Excluded from this definition shall be single-family and duplex dwellings and dwelling units used ex- clusively as tourist accommodations by or nonworking residents. Resident Occupied (RO) unit. A dwelling unit which is limited by deed restriction or other guar- antee running with the land to occupancy by qualified employees set forth in the housing guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. • City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 100, Page 28 v Generany, a "qualifying relative" is an individual who: (a) is a child (including stepchild, adopted child, or eligible foster child), a sibling (including stepsiblings), the taxpayer's father or mother or an ancestor of either of them, a stepparent, a niece or nephew, an aunt or uncle, certain in-laws of the taxpayer, or an individual, other than a spouse, who resides in the principal abode of the taxpayer and is a member of the household; (b) has gross income in the relevant calendar year not exceeding the exemption amount ($3,200 for 2005); (c) receives more than half of his or her support for the year from the taxpayer; and (d) is not a qualifying child of any other taxpayer for the calendar year. In the case of divorced families with children, to obtain a bedroom, each child shall be used once for proving minimum occupancy. Should both parents enter the same lottery, the top winner only shall be allowed to purchase the unit; the other parent shall be able to use the child(ren) to obtain one additional bedroom only. The parent may request a Special Review to purchase a unit that has more than two bedrooms. Disabled Person - See definition for Handicap. Dormitory - A structure or portion thereof under single management that provides group sleeping accommodations for occupants in one (1) or more rooms for compensation. Standards for use, occupancy, and design of such facilities shall be approved by the APCHA. See Part Ill, Sec. 4. Emergency Worker - An employee or volunteer (on call 24 hours/day, 7 days a week for human, life threatening emergencies) of a community based organization that provides on -scene assistance giving personal care to victims, including, but not limited to the following: Fire Department Workers, Mountain Rescue, Sheriffs Deputies, Police Officers, Hospital Emergency Room Technicians, Social Service Workers (mental health and abuse case workers), Ambulance Drivers, Emergency Medical Technicians, Communications Dispatchers through the Sheriff s Office or Police Department, etc. Emergency Service Department Head approval is required, whereby the supervisor must demonstrate the need of that agency to house another Emergency Worker in the Aspen area by requesting a formal approval with the Public Safety Council Housing Subcommittee (see Part I, Section 1, #8 and Part III, Section 6, Exceptions). mEmplovee/Oualified Resident/Buyer - A person who is employed for an employer as defined below on the basis of a minimum of 1,500 hours worked per calendar year in Pitkin County, which averages 35 hours a week, 10 months a year; or 32 hours a week, 11 months a year, physically working in Pitkin County and must reside in the unit a minimum of nine (9) months out of the year. If self-employed, the worker must provide verification of the work done in Pitkin County. Emplover (Pitkin County Emplover) - A business whose business address is located within Aspen or Pitkin County, whose business employs employees (as defined herein) within Pitkin County, who work in Pitkin County, and whose business taxes are paid in Aspen or Pitkin County. If an employer is not physically based in Pitkin County, an employee must be able to verify that they work in Pitkin County a minimum of 1500 hours per calendar year for individuals, businesses or institutional operations located in Pitkin County. ,*mplovee (Non -Profit) - A person who works/ performs for a non-profit organization. Employees include artists, performers, musicians, organizers, bookkeepers, etc., but excluding construction workers. Non-profit organizations include any certified non-profit organization providing services to and located in Pitkin County. Emplovee Dwelling Unit — This is a deed - restricted unit that is required to be rented out. Also see the Pitkin County Land Use Code, Section 3-150-120. Employee Housing - See definition for Affordable/Employee Housing. Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines AMENDED/APPROVED 01108 Page 56 of 68 • Chapter 26.530 RESIDENT MULTI -FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Sections: 26.530.010 Purpose and intent. 26.530.020 Application of Title. 26.530.030 Certificate of compliance/exemption. 26.530.040 Housing replacement requirements. 26.530.050 Resale restrictions. 26.530.060 Enforcement. 26.530.070 Appeals 26.530.010 Purpose and Intent. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. • Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution ef- fects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. In the Aspen Area Community Plan the city has established a goal that affordable housing for work- ing residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The city, through its housing des- ignee, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sec- tor has also provided affordable housing through the GMQS process. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area busi- nesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the city has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the demolition of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. 26.530.020 Application of Chapter. This Chapter shall apply to the demolition of any resident multi -family housing ("RMF housing"), as defined herein, in the City of Aspen, excluding any parcel consolidated as a Specially Planned • Area (SPA). City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 500, Page 47 For the purposes of this Chapter, demolition of a RMF Housing Unit shall include any development • action which constitutes Demolition, as defined, and also any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between RMF Housing Units or which converts a RMF Unit to a non-residential use, independent of whether or not such action is undertaken to combine or rebuild the units -or for any other purpose. No owner shall cause the demolition of any RMF housing unit without first obtaining a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. The Community Development Department shall not issue a permit for the demolition of any multi- family dwelling unit unless the owner has obtained either a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption issued in accordance with this Chapter. A certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption shall only be issued by the Community Development Director if the applicant has com- plied with the provisions of this Chapter. Any RMF housing unit which is ordered to be demolished by any public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Chapter. The City Council, at their discretion, may exempt non-profit agencies or organiza- tions from the provisions of this Chapter. 26.530.030 Certificate of compliance/exemption. Any applicant, prior to applying for a building permit from the Community Development Depart- ment for the purpose of demolishing any multi -family dwelling unit, must first obtain a certificate • of compliance or a certificate of exemption from the requirements of this Chapter. A. Certificate of Compliance. In order to obtain a certificate of compliance, the owner shall: 1. Submit to the Community Development Director a statement, certified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer, declaring the number of RMF housing units, bedrooms, and the net residen- tial area to be affected by demolition. 2. Where required, secure necessary land use approvals and development orders for the project to be developed on the site of the demolished building or on such other location as may be approved. Execute a housing replacement agreement with the City of Aspen setting forth the terms and conditions upon which any replacement housing required by this Chapter shall be devel- oped, which agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The agreement shall burden the property and be recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County. The obligation to provide replacement housing as set forth in the agreement shall be secured by a bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City. B. Certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, the owner must submit a statement certifying that the dwelling unit(s) is exempt from the provisions of this Section, • City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 500, Page 48 • the basis upon which exemption is claimed, and such additional documentation as may be required by the Community Development Director in order to establish the exemption. If the Community Development Director is satisfied that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this Title, a certificate of exemption shall be issued. C. Procedure. A Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption shall be obtained prior to the submission of a building permit. D. Form of Certificate. A Certificate of Compliance or Exemption shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Director. The Certificate shall constitute a Development Order issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development Orders. (Ord. No. 40-2002; Ord No. 51-2003, § 1) 26.530.040 Housing Replacement Requirements. A. One Hundred Percent Replacement — No Expansion. In the event of the demolition of free- market resident multi -family housing, the owner shall have the option to construct replace- ment housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units and t�� one -hundred (100) percent of the number of bedrooms demolished. The units shall be re- placed with like -type units (i.e. each one -bedroom unit is replaced with a one -bedroom unit, ����� each two -bedroom unit is replaced with a two -bedroom unit, etc.). Studio units may be re- placed with either studio or one -bedroom units. The project's total net livable area may not be expanded. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished with no expansion of the project's total net livable area, the replacement housing shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. One Hundred Percent Replacement — Unit Expansion. In the event of the demolition of free-market resident multi -family housing, the owner shall have the option to construct re- placement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units and one -hundred (100) percent of the number of bedrooms demolished. The units shall be replaced with like -type units (i.e. each one -bedroom unit is replaced with a one -bedroom unit, each two -bedroom unit is replaced with a two -bedroom unit, etc.). Studio units may be replaced with either studio or one -bedroom units. The project's total net livable area may be expanded if a portion of the project, commensurate with the percentage of net livable space expansion, is deed restricted according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The required amount of units, bedrooms, and net livable area to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall be no less than the percentage of the project's net livable area ex- pansion over the existing development. Affordable housing meeting this requirement shall be deed restricted in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.050, Resale Restrictions (below). No more than 50% of the original project's units, bedrooms, and net livable area shall be required to be replaced as affordable housing. (For example: a project replicating an existing unit/bedroom mix for which the aggregate net livable space is increased by 15 per- cent shall include affordable housing equal to 15 percent of the original units, bedrooms, and City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 500, Page 49 net livable area.) A project both increasing and decreasing individual units sizes for which no • aggregate expansion of the project's net livable area occurs shall incur no affordable housing requirement. When this expansion and replacement percent standard is accomplished with af- fordable housing commensurate with the expansion of net livable space, the remaining units replaced on -site shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. B. Fifty Percent Replacement. In the event of the demolition of free-market resident multi- family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of pre- vious units and bedrooms as described above, the owner shall be required to construct re- placement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, fifty (50) percent of the number of bedrooms, and fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net'ivK�zJ 4esidentiaf area demolished. The replacement housing meeting this requirement shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.050, Resale Restrictions (below). The remaining units replaced on -site shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. C. Location of Replacement Housing. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the City Council determines that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maxi- mum number of units on -site which the City Council determines that the site can accommo- • date and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined acceptable to City Council. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site development prior to issuance of a Cer- tificate of Compliance for the original parcel. Replacement units may be redeveloped on a separate parcel which is part of a multi -parcel Planned Unit Development that includes the original parcel. In this case, the location of rede- velopment units, both free-market and affordable, shall be determined by the City through adoption of a Final PUD Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. D. Cash -in -Lieu Payment. When the owner's affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be determined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority according to the applicable Affordable Housing Guidelines. E. Timing and Quality of Replacement Units. Any replacement units required to be deed re- stricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any re- developed free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site. Replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall contain fixtures, finish, and amenities required by the Affordable Housing Guidelines of the As- pen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005 Part 500, Page 50 � 1w;- Chapter 26.530 RESIDENT MULTI -FAMILY REPLACEMENT PROGRAM Sections: 26.530.010 Purpose and intent. 26.530.020 Application of Title. 26.530.030 Certificate of compliance/exemption. 26.530.040 Housing replacement requirements. 26.530.050 Resale restrictions. 26.530.060 Enforcement. 26.530.070 Appeals 26.530.010 Purpose and Intent. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there. is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings currently providing resident housing for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the .extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Wreservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been long-standing planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution ef- fects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. In the Aspen Area Community Plan the city has established a goal that affordable housing for work- ing residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The city, through its housing des- ignee, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the_city for has also provided affordable housing through the GMQS process. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommodations, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area busi- nesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the city has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on, the demolition of existing multi -family housing in order to ` minimise the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. 26.530.020 Application of Chapter. This Chapter shall apply to the demolition of any resident multi -family housing ("RMF housing"), as defined herein, in the City of Aspen, excluding any parcel consolidated as a Specially Planned Area (SPA). • 38 For the purposes of this Chapter, demolition of a RMF Housing Unit shall include any development 40 action which constitutes Demolition, as defined, and also any action which penetrates demising walls or floors between RNIF Housing Units or which converts a RW Unit to a non-residential use, independent of whether or not such action is undertaken to combine or rebuild the units or for any other purpose. No owner shall cause the demolition of any RMF housing unit without first obtaining a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. The Community Development Department shall not issue a permit for the demolition of any multi- family dwelling unit unless the owner has. obtained either a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption issued in accordance with this Chapter. A certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption shallonly be issued by the Community Development Director if the applicant has com- plied with the provisions of this Chapter. Any RMF housing unit which is ordered to be demolished by any public agency, including`the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this Chapter. The City Council, at their discretion, may exempt non-profit agencies or organiza- tions from the provisions of this Chapter. 26.530.030 Certificate of compliance/exemption. Any applicant, prior to applying for a building permit from the Community Development Depart- ment for the purpose of demolishing any multi -family dwelling unit, must first obtain a certificate • of compliance or a certificate of exemption from the requirements of this Chapter. A. Certificate of Compliance. In order to obtain a certificate of compliance, the owner shall: 1. Submit to the Community -Development Director a statement, certified by the City of Aspen Zoning Officer, declaring the number of RMF housing units, bedrooms, and the net residential area to be affected by demolition. ____._-__._2_--Wh-ere-re uired--secure-neces q saryiand--use"approvals- arrd _ricvelapmynt'ordcrs-"fof,tii7e-.. _ _ project to be developed on the site of the demolished building or on such other location as may be approved. 3. Execute a housing replacement agreement with the City of Aspen setting forth the terms and conditions upon which any replacement housing required by this Chapter shall be developed, which agreement shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The agree- ment shall burden the property and be recorded in the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County. The obligation to provide replacement housing as set forth in the agreement shall.be secured by a bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the City. B. Certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, the owner must submit a statement certifying that the dwelling unit(s) is exempt from the provisions of this Section, • 39 1 • • • the basis upon which exemption is claimed, and such additional documentation as may be required by the Community Development Director in order to establish the exemption. If the Community Development Director is satisfied that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this Title, a certificate of exemption shall be issued. C. Procedure. A Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption shall be obtained prior to the submission of a building permit. D. Form of Certificate. A Certificate of Compliance or Exemption shall be in a form approved by the Community Development Director. The Certificate shall constitute a Development Order issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, Development Orders. (Ord. No. 40-2002; Ord No. 51-2003, § 1) 26.530.040 Housing Replacement Requirements. A. One -hundred Percent Replacement - No Expansion. In the event of the demolition of free- market resident multi -family housing, the owner shall have the option to construct replace- ment housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units and one -hundred (100) percent of the number of bedrooms demolished_ The units shall be replaced with like -type units (i.e. each one -bedroom unit is replaced with a one -bedroom unit, each two -bedroom unit is replaced with a two -bedroom unit, etc.). Studio units may be replaced with either studio or one -bedroom units. The project's total net livable area may • not be expanded. When this one -hundred (100) percent standard is accomplished with no expansion of the project's total net livable area, the replacement housing shall not be re- quired to be deed restricted as affordable housing. One Hundred Percent Replacement - Unit Expansion. In the event of the demolition of free-market resident multi -family housing, the owner shall have the option to construct re- placement housing consisting of no less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of units and one -hundred (100) percent of the number of bedrooms demolished. The units shall be replaced with like -type units (i.e. each one -bedroom unit is replaced with a one -bedroom "` -` --"�it;�ae� tw'o=bedroom uru�i� repiaceci witli atwo=bedroom unif, etc.: Studio uriit�s may be -"�-"� ---`��-" replaced with either studio or one -bedroom units. The project's total net livable area maybe expanded if a portion of the project, commensurate with the percentage of net livable space expansion, is deed restricted ' according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The required amount of units, bedrooms, and net livable area to be deed re- stricted as affordable housing shall be no less than the percentage of the project's net livable area expansion over the existing development. Affordable housing meeting this requirement shall be deed restricted in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.050, Resale Restrictions (below). No more than 50% of the original project's units, bedrooms, and net livable area shall be required to be replaced as affordable housing. (For example: a project replicating an existing unit/bedroom mix for which the aggregate net livable space is in- creased by 15 percent shall include affordable housing equal to 15 percent of the original units, bedrooms, and net livable area.) A project both increasing and decreasing individual • 40 units sizes for which no aggregate expansion of the project's net livable area occurs shall in- cur no affordable housing requirement. When this expansion and replacement percent stan- • dard is accomplished with affordable housing commensurate with the expansion of net liv- able space, the remaining units replaced on -site shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. B. Fifty Percent Replacement In the event of the demolition of free-market resident multi -family housing and replacement of less than one -hundred (100) percent of the number of previous units and bedrooms as described above, the owner shall be required to construct replace- ment housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the number of units, fifty (50) percent of the number of bedrooms, and fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net resi- dential area demolished. The replacement housing meeting this requirement shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 26.530.050, Resale Restrictions (below). The remaining units replaced on -site shall not be required to be deed restricted as affordable housing. C. Location of Replacement Housing. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate and the City Council determines that replacement of the units on -site would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the City Council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, at a location determined accept- • able to City Council. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site development prior to issuance of a Certificate of Compliance for the original parcel. Replacement units may be redeveloped on a separate parcel which is part of a multi -parcel Planned Unit Development that includes the original parcel. In this case, the location of re- development units, both free-market and affordable, shall be determined by the City through adoption of a Final PUD Plan, pursuant to Chapter 26.445. D. Cash -in -Lieu Payment When the owner's affordable housing replacement requirement of this section involves a fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. The amount of a cash -in -lieu shall be determined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority according to the applicable Affordable Housing Guidelines. E. Timing and Quality of Replacement Units. Any replacement units required to be deed re- stricted as affordable housing shall be issued a Certificate of Occupancy, according to the Building Department, and be available for occupancy at the same time as, or prior to, any redeveloped free-market units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site. Replacement units required to be deed restricted as affordable housing shall con- tain fixtures, finish, and amenities required by the Affordable Housing Guidelines of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. :7 41 • 4� seat N -t� aleld- 5 �,Z• • Deck. An outdoor, unheated area appended to a living space but not intended for living. Demolition. To raze, disassemble, tear down, or destroy forty percent (40%) or more of an existing structure (prior to commencing development) as measured by the surface of all exterior wall and roof area above finished grade and associated assembly and components necessary for the structural integrity of such wall and roof area. For the method of determining demolition, see sec- tion 26.575.020(E), measurement of demolition. The removal of a dwelling unit in a multi -family or mixed -use building, or its conversion to non-residential use shall also constitute demolition. (See, Chapter 26.530, Residential Multi -Family Replacement Program.) Demolition, partial. To raze, disassemble, tear down or destroy less than fifty (50) percent of an existing structure as measured by exterior surface wall area. Partial demolition shall constitute demoli- tion if intended or undertaken in sequence or periodically to ultimately raze, disassemble, or destroy fifty (50) percent or more of a structure. Density. The number of dwelling units or bedrooms per unit of land as permitted in the zone dis- trict. Design studio. A workshop primarily devoted to the design or representation of built form, land- scapes, consumer products, or graphic arts. 0 develo ment as authorized by this title. Developer. A person or entity undertaking any p Development. The use or alteration of land or land uses and improvements inclusive of, but not limited to: 1) the creation, division, alteration or elimination of lots; or 2) mining, drilling (excepting to obtain soil samples or to conduct tests) or the construction, erection, alteration, or demolition of build- ings or structures; or 3) the grading, excavation, clearing of land, or the deposit or fill in preparation or anticipation of future development, but excluding landscaping. Developmentapplicati� on.A writtenregzic t ubmt ted m aecer�axrce tl�xh�s#�t1P to ��ndertake development. Development order. A written authorization issued pursuant to the terms of this Title to under- take development according to an approved site specific development plan. (See Common Develop- mexit Review Procedures --section 26.304.070 Development Orders.) Dormitory. A building, or portion thereof, providing group sleeping accommodations in one room, with shared bath and toilet facilities. (See Supplementary Regulations --section 26.575.160, Dormitory). Dwelling. A structure, or portion thereof, intended and used as a shelter in which a person or peo- ple reside and sleep. • . 15 • 0 iRemodel. A construction proj ect comprising revisions within or to elements of an existing struc- ture, as distinct from additions to an existing structure. Renovate. To upgrade an existing structure to a more contemporary and/or efficient use through repair and alteration, including making additions to the existing structure. sing. A dwelling unit which has in its history ever housed a work - Residential multi -family hou ing resident and which is located in a building in one of the following configurations: 1) A multi -family residential building; 2) A mixed -use building; or 3) A detached building on a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures containing three (3) or more detached residential units where permitted by the zone dis- trict. Excluded from this definition shall be single-family and duplex dwellings and dwelling units used ex- clusively as tourist accommodations by or nonworking residents. Resident Occupied (RO) unit. A dwelling unit which is limited by deed restriction or other guar antee running with the land to occupancy by qualified employees set forth in the housing guidelines the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority. Residential use. Used or intended for use exclusively for. dwelling purposes, but not including hotels or lodges. Restaurant. A commercial eating and drinking establishment where food is prepared and served indoors for consumption on or off premises. (See Supplementary Regulations --section 26.575.180, Restaurant). Retail use. Commercial land use intended ors a —or mstribution f-p-redu�Gt�orseviice--tome general public for profit. Reverse -corner lot. A corner lot bounded on three sides by streets. Right -of --way. A strip or other area of land specifically designated or reserved for travel, passage, and/or the installation of utilities or other similar uses by persons other than, or in addition to, the land- owner. Roominghouse. Same as -"Boardinghouse." Specially Planned Area (SPA). A zoning overlay classification or designation under which cer- tain zone district regulations may be varied to encourage design flexibility and mixed uses. (See Chap- ter 26.440). 25 20.04.010 aChapter 20.04 INTRODUCTION AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS Sections: 20.04.010 Title. 20.04.020 Purpose and intent. 20.04.030 Application of title. 20.04.010 Title. This regulation shall be called and may be referred to as the "Resident Multi -Family Housing Replacement Program" or the "Replacement Program." (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, § 18-1.1) 20.04.020 Purpose and intent. The City of Aspen's neighborhoods have traditionally been comprised of a mix of housing types, including those which are affordable by its working residents. However, because of Aspen's attractiveness as a resort environment, and because of the physical constraints of the upper Roaring Fork Valley, there is constant pressure for the redevelopment of dwellings, which now provide resident housing, for tourist and second home use. Such redevelopment results in the displacement of individuals and families who are an integral part of the Aspen work force. Given the extremely high cost of and demand for market -rate housing, resident housing opportunities for displaced working residents, which are now minimal, will continue to decrease. Preservation of the housing inventory and provision of dispersed housing opportunities in Aspen have been longstanding planning goals of the community. Achievement of these goals will serve to promote a socially and economically balanced community, limit the number of individuals who face a long and sometimes dangerous commute on State Highway 82, reduce the air pollution effects of commuting and prevent exclusion of working residents from the city's neighborhoods. In its Housing Master Plan, the city has established a goal that affordable housing for working residents be provided by both the public and private sectors. The city, through its housing designee, has provided affordable housing both within and adjacent to the city limits. The private sector has also provided affordable housing through the GMQS process. Nevertheless, as a result of the replacement of resident housing with second homes and tourist accommoda- tions, and the steady increase in the size of the workforce required to assure the continued viability of Aspen area businesses and Aspen's tourist based economy, the city has found it necessary, in concert with other regulations, to adopt limitations on the demolition of existing multi -family housing in order to minimize the displacement of working residents, to insure that the private sector maintains its role in the provision of resident housing, and to prevent a housing shortfall from occurring. (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, § 18-1.2) 20.04.030 Application of title. This title shall apply to the demolition of any resident multi -family housing ("RMF housing"), as defined ` herein, in the City of Aspen or when two (2) or more ownerships of land, each of which contains one (1) N. or more detached residential or duplex units, is merged or otherwise combined into a project for the purposes of demolition and reconstruction of the units, excluding any parcel consolidated as a Specially Planned Area (SPA). No owner shall cause the demolition of any R IF housing unit without first obtaining a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption in accordance with the provisions of this title. The building department shall not issue a permit for the demolition of any multi -family dwelling unit unless the owner has obtained 283 20.04.030 • • and presented to the building department either a certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption issued in accordance with this title. Any RMF housing unit which is ordered to be demolished by any public agency, including the city, as a result of damage caused by civil commotion or natural disaster shall not be subject to the terms of this title. A certificate of compliance or a certificate of exemption shall be issued by the city's housing designee only after the owner has complied with the provisions hereof. This title shall not apply to the demolition or converted use of any RMF housing unit owned by the City of Aspen, the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, or any public development authority. (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, Ch. 18, Art II) ��tws ic,& • 284 20.08.010 ;7 do go Chapter 20.08 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 20.08.010 Definitions. 20.08.020 Certificate of comphance/exemption. 20.08.030 Housing replacement requirements. 20.08.040 Rental and resale restrictions. 20.08.050 Enforcement. 20.08.010 Definitions. 4��Yqk%�- il�� (a) Resident multi -family housing and/or resident multi -family housing unit shall mean any multi -family dwelling unit, as defined in section 26.04.100 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations, which has historically been occupied by working residents. R IF housing does not include a single-family or duplex dwelling unit or any multi -family dwelling unit which has been exclusively utilized as a tourist accommodation or occupied by an owner who does not meet the definition of a working resident since the time of its initial occupancy. (b) Housing replacement agreement shall mean the agreement between the city and the owner on forms to be provided by the city which contain the terms by which such owner shall be deemed in compliance with this title. (c) Net residential area shall mean the total number of square feet of living space in a building based upon the interior dimensions of each dwelling unit within such building and excluding stairwells, halls, lounges, and other common areas. (d) Owner shall mean any person, firm, partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, or change of use of any affordable housing unit. The word "owner" shall also include agents and other persons acting on the owner's behalf. (e) Rented or rental shall refer to occupancy of an affordable housing unit pursuant to a lawful rental agreement, either oral or in writing. (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, § 18-3.1) 20.08.020 Certificate of compliance/exemption. Any owner, as a condition of receiving a permit from the building department for the purpose of demolishing or enlarging any multi -family dwelling unit, must first obtain a certificate of exemption from the requirements of this title. (a) Certificate of compliance. In order to obtain a certificate of compliance, the owner must: (1) Submit to the housing designee a statement, on a form to be provided by the city, certifying the number of R IF housing units and bedrooms to be lost as a result of demolition and the net residential area to be lost by the demolition. (2) Where required, secure necessary land use approvals and permits for the replacement housing to be built on the site of the demolished or enlarged building or on such other location as may be approved. (3) Execute a housing replacement agreement setting forth the terms and conditions upon which replacement housing will be provided and either operated or sold, which agreement shall be recorded in the records of the clerk and recorder of Pitkin County. The obligation to provide replacement housing as set forth in the agreement shall be secured by a bond, letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the city. 285 (aspen 5/06) 20.08.020 • • (b) Certificate of exemption. In order to obtain a certificate of exemption, the owner must submit a statement certifying that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this title, the basis upon which 4N exemption is claimed, and such additional documentation as may be required by the housing designee in order to establish the exemption. If the housing designee is satisfied that the dwelling unit is exempt from the provisions of this title, a certificate of exemption shall be issued. (c) Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the housing designee in the administration of this title may appeal such decision to the Aspen City Council. (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, § 18-3.2) 20.08.030 Housing replacement requirements. (a) Minimum replacement requirement. In the event of the demolition of resident multi -family housing, the owner shall be required to construct replacement housing consisting of no less than fifty (50) percent of the square footage of net residential wea demolished or converted. The replacement housing shall be configured ' in such a way as to dace fifty (50) percent of the bedrooms that are lost as working resident housing by demolition. A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the replacement housing shall be above natural grade. The 1 replacement housing shall be deed restricted as affordable housing in accordance with the requirements of section 20.08.040, below. (b) Location of replacement housing. Multi -family replacement units shall be developed on the same site on which demolition has occurred, unless the owner shall demonstrate that replacement of the units on -site .- would be incompatible with adopted neighborhood plans or would be an inappropriate planning solution due 45 �► to the site's physical constraints. When either of the above circumstances result, the owner shall replace the maximum number of units on -site which the city council determines that the site can accommodate and may replace the remaining units off -site, within the City of Aspen or the Aspen Annexation Area, as defined within the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Annexation Element, 1988. When the owner's housing replacement 06 requirements involves fraction of a unit, cash in lieu may be provided to meet the fractional requirement only. (c) Timing and quality of replacement unit. Replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new unit or units, regardless of whether the replacement units are built on -site or off -site, and shall contain fixtures, finish and amenities required by the housing designee's guidelines. When replacement units are proposed to be built off -site, the owner shall be required to obtain a development order approving the off -site development prior to or in conjunction with obtaining a development order approving redevelopment or the site on which demolition is proposed to take place. (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, § 18-3.3) 20.08.040 Rental and resale restrictions. Replacement units shall be subject to deed restriction in a form and substance acceptable to the city council. Such deed restricted units may only be rented or sold to tenants or buyers who meet the city's qualifications in effect at the time of sale or rental, and at sale prices or rental rates which are also in compliance with the city's current regulations. The owner shall be entitled to select tenants or purchasers subject to the aforementioned qualifications. The mix of affordable housing units, as between low, moderate and middle income, or resident occupied, may be determined by the owner, provided that no less than twenty (20) percent of the bedrooms qualify as low income and no more than twenty (20) percent of the units are available as resident occupied units. (Ord. No. 1-1990, § 1: Code 1971, Ch. 18, Art. IV) 0 (Aspen 5/96) 286 • • 20.08.050 20.08.050 Enforcement. (a) No person, firm, or corporation, shall violate or cause another to violate any provision of a deed restriction executed for the benefit of the City of Aspen or the city's housing designee in compliance with this chapter, including, but not necessarily limited to, deed restrictions executed to meet the Aspen/Pitldn County Housing Authority's Affordable Housing Guidelines in accordance with section 26.28.110 (affordable housing); section 26.40.090 (accessory dwelling units); or as part of an agreement for a specially planned area, planned unit development, or subdivision; or for a development allotment granted pursuant to the Aspen area Growth Management Quota System. For purposes of this subsection (a), a violation of any provision of a deed restriction shall constitute a separate offense with respect to each tenant or prospective tenant involved. (b) No person, firm, or corporation, shall intentionally or negligently misrepresent the provisions of this chapter or the terms of a deed restriction executed for the benefit of the City of Aspen or the City's housing designee, with respect to the nature or use of land, including without limitation, permitted uses, zoning district designations, occupancy limitations, provisions of deed restrictions, and status of development thereon. (c) The owner, tenant, and occupant of a structure or land and the agents of each of them are jointly and severally liable for any violation of this chapter with respect to such structure or land. (d) Any person, firm, or corporation, violating any provision of this chapter shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for a period of not more than ninety (90) days, or both such fine and imprisonment, for each offense. (e) The city attorney shall institute injunctive, abatement, or other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of this chapter when it occurs. The same right of action shall also accrue to any property owner, tenant, or prospective tenant, who maybe especially damaged by any violation of this chapter. Any penalty provided in this section shall not preclude the City of Aspen or an affected property owner from . instituting any appropriate action or proceeding to require compliance with the provisions of this chapter. All remedies provided for in this section are cumulative, are not exclusive, and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law. (Ord. No. 45-1995, § 2) • 286-1 cam 5/96) • • 26.04.100 Building envelope is that area on a lot which encompasses all development including but not limited to excavation, fill, grading, storage, demolition, structures, building heights, decks, roof overhangs, porches, patios and terraces, pools, any areas of disturbance, access ways and parking. Approved plantings of landscape materials on natural grade and approved walkways and driveways may occur outside of a building envelope. Otherwise, all areas outside of a building envelope shall remain in pristine and untouched condition unless approved by the Community Development Director. For purposes of site specific development plans, building envelopes may be established to restrict development to protect slopes, important vegetation, water courses, privacy or other considerations. Building envelopes shall be described on recorded plats, site specific development plans, ordinances, resolutions, and building permit site plans. Building permit means that permit outlined in Section 26.52.070. Character means the density, height, coverage, setback, massing, fenestration, materials, and scale of materials. H, Historic Overlay District, historic landmark development guidelines, and Residential Design Standards shall be established to give further explanation of the qualities that compose character. Commercial bakery means a bakery in which there is permitted the production and/or wholesaling of baked goods, but where over-the-counter or other retail dispensing of baked goods shall be prohibited. Commission means the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, as established in Chapter 26.12. Compatible means consistent with, harmonious with, similar to and/or enhances the mixture of complimentary architectural styles, either of an individual structure or the character of the surrounding structures. Contiguous means a sharing of a common border at more than a single point of intersection and in such a manner that the shared boundaries are touching and not separated except by boundaries or private rights -of -way, watercourses or water bodies, or other minor geographical chapters of similar nature running parallel and between the shared boundaries. Contiguity is not the mere touching of points at intersections. Cul-de-sac means a short local street terminating in a vehicular turnaround. Day care center means a facility that provides regular supervision and -care for periods of less than twenty- four (24) hours per day to six (6) or more children under the age of sixteen (16) years who are not related to the owner or operator thereof, which is licensed, as required, by the Colorado Department of Social Services. A day care center shall provide one off-street parking space per employee, a child loading/unloading area of adequate dimensions, preferably off-street, and adequately sized indoor and outdoor play areas and shall maintain minimum hours of operation of 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. from Monday through Friday. A facility which provides regular supervision and care of fewer than six (6) children per day shall be considered a family day care home, and shall be allowed as an accessory use, subject to the following: A. If the family day care home is developed in conjunction with a residential use, it shall meet the requirements of a home occupation. B. If the family day care home is developed in conjunction with an institution or business, it shall be limited to use by the children of the employees or guests of that institution or business and shall provide one off-street parking space. HemWitiowmeans to tear down completely, to do away with or to raze. For the purposes of this definition a building shall be deemed to be demolished if less than fifty (50) percent of the existing primarily residential structure remains in place. Renovation shall not be considered demolition. 11te removal of a dwelling unit in a multi -family structure shall be considered demolition. Density means the maximum number of dwelling units per area of land permitted in a zone district, as set forth in Chapter 26.28. W 0� Pi • 445 A '4&Vd (Aspen 10195) 40 9 11-4 �r LA to Y - � o p � S X i O Kathrvn Koch From: william plucker [terraced rive@comcast. net] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 4:33 PM To: Mick Ireland; Dwayne Romero; Jack Johnson; Steve Skadron; Public —Comment Subject: Ordinance #22 Letter: Mayor Ireland and City Council Members, Please choose OPTION EIGHT in Exhibit A of the proposed Land Use Code Amendments of Ordinance #22: "The elimination of the program in its entirety." We are specifically referring to the Exhibit A, OPTION 8 prepared by Staff, (NOT Section 8 of the Ordinance). We understand that this law has been on the books many years, and not strictly enforced because of the vague language in the past, which is proposed to change to some extent. We object to a number of things about the proposal, as well as the old, ineffective law. Despite City Staff's belief that the program provides benefit in maintaining a broad range of housing choice, it does not. * Housing is VERY important indeed, but the economics of this punitive and anachronistic measure will NOT create more housing - it will ultimately hurt housing. * This regulation likely will have the perverse result, causing condo owners and HOAs to preclude renting/selling to local workers to avoid tainting the units for future mitigation requirements. * Housing is currently funded by the RETT. A decline in the sale of aging units will further impact the already declining RETT revenues. * Condo purchasers already contribute to affordable housing through the RETT. To ask them for more is unreasonable. * Ordinance 22 will create complex disparity in condo valuations. Is this really the time to intentionally create MORE hardship in real estate lending? Affordable housing continues to be a need in Aspen, however the prohibitively expensive Multi -Family Replacement Program is NOT the answer. Thank you Name: william plucker Local address: 835 e durant unit II Email: terracedrive@comcast.net 1