See Jan 24, 2013 The Estin Report: Property Owners Notice*

*Who is Affected?
• Anyone who cannot build an ADU* on their land and sell it outright to an employee
• Anyone in the R15B Zone which prohibits ADUs (Knollwood Eastwood, Aspen Grove). This is a double “whammy “ to those neighborhoods because residents have a smaller FAR to begin with.)
• Anyone who has the ability to or plans to expand their home
• Anyone with a vacant lot will be significantly affected by this

“An accessory dwelling unit [ADU] is a small living space — typically a studio or one-bedroom unit — that homeowners are required to build, separate from a main house, in order to become exempt from city growth restrictions. “The objective is to amend the mitigation options to those that provide actual housing,” Bendon wrote in explaining the initiative. “Because (accessory dwelling units) are not required to be rented, and actual occupancy (of existing accessory dwelling units) is low, the impact of new development is not being mitigated by the production of more (accessory dwelling units).” Chris Bendon, Aspen City Planner

ASPEN REAL ESTATE — A letter from a local lawyer asks the Aspen City Council and Mayor Mick Ireland not to take action at Monday’s regular meeting that would change the way the city does business with regard to impact fees and affordable-housing mitigation for residential development. Jody Edwards, in the Jan. 24 letter, [to be posted here shortly] says he is writing on behalf of several property owners, real estate sellers and other members of the community in questioning two proposed ordinances that “mandate that residential property owners pay impact fees, provide on-site housing or deed-restrict free-market property to provide affordable housing as a condition of residential development.”Edwards wants the council and Ireland to wait 90 days before taking action to allow more time for examination and public discussion of the ordinances, which are said to involve a greater financial burden on property owners and developers than the existing rules require.
By Andre Salvail, January, 28 2013 AT

Link to article

More on this appears in the recent Jan. 17, 2013 Red Ant issue #88 excerpt:

“SUBSIDIZED HOUSING JIHAD: The council just approved these ordinances on first reading (second reading and final vote is in two weeks — on January 28). This will be your ONLY opportunity to speak out in opposition…In the dark of night, your city council and the professional city hall bureaucrats have set in motion a land grab not unlike Ordinance 30 of 2008 when they tried (unsuccessfully) to force historical designation upon private property owners. This time, however, it’s worse. Far worse. With two sneaky maneuvers to further expand the subsidized housing inventory and diminish (destroy?) all development in the city and county, APCHA (the housing authority) and our city leaders have put forth some draconian new subsidized housing mitigation requirements that reach far beyond anything even contemplated in the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP). (The AACP stipulates that our community must maintain a “critical mass” of working residents in local subsidized housing. What it doesn’t do is define that number.) Once again, the city forces the rest of us to adhere to the stipulations of the AACP while doing what they please above and beyond what it states. The new ordinances are onerous, unfair and probably illegal.”