HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930720
-
~
><;>, 'Or 9- ?
~~
~~
~
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 20, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
city Hall
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
I I . MINUTES
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. Land Use Code Text Amendments - Condominiumization,
Francis Krizmanich
IV. ADJOURN
--
9
10121�•'DA_ -iTl
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager:_
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
DATE: December 7, 1992
RE: Condominiumization - Analysis of Impact of New State
Statute (CCIOA) on City of -Aspen Land Use Regulations
SUMMARY:
On July 1, 1992, a new state statute titled the Colorado Common
Interest Ownership Act ("CCIOA") went into effect.. Staff has been
analyzing the new statute to determine the impact of CCIOA on
planning/regulatory issues within the City. Staff is providing
Council with this confidential memorandum (due to potential
lawsuits) and has scheduled this issue as a discussion item for the
December 7, 1992 Council agenda.
As you will recall, several applicants have requested
condominiumization and staff has advised them that until such time
as the Municipal Code is amended, condominiumizations will follow
existing requlations. Two applications are scheduled for second
reading on the December 14, 1992 Council agenda.
On October 26, 1992, Jed provided with you with a memorandum
that outlined the legal implications of the new
statute. The section of the Act that addresses "Applicability of
local codes" states that:
(1) no local building code may impose any requirement upon any
structure held in common interest (e.g., a condominium) which it
would not impose upon a physically identical structure held in a
different ownership (except fire walls), and (2) no zoning,
subdivision, or other real estate law, ordinance, or regulation may
impose any requirement upon a condominium which it would not impose
on a physically identical structure or development under a
different form of ownership. .
1
5taff has focused on the impact of the
Act on our city land use regulations, particularly Section 24-7-
1007 of the Municipal Code, that sets forth the requirements for
the condominiumization of structures. This analysis focuses on the
areas of review authority and the cost to the city associated with
the elimination of our current condominium regulations. Staff has
identified three major areas of concern:
Rey Issue 1 - Affordable Housing Impact Fee: Currently, when
free market residential units are condominiumized, an impact
fee is paid to the Housing Fund to mitigate affordable housing
needs generated by the condominiumization.
Rey Issue 2 - Six .Month Minimum,Lease Restriction: Currently,
a six month minimum lease is required for newly
condominiumized units in an effort to maintain long term
tenants/residents.
Key Issue 3 - Lodge Condominiumization: Lodges that are
condominiumized are required to remain in the short term
market so that they are available to the general public as
tourist accomodations.
These issues will be addressed in the Key Issues. section along with
staff recommendations.
A summary of existing residential and lodge condominimumization
regulations is attached as Exhibit "B".
CONDOMINIUMIZATION BACKGROUND: Our current condominium regulations
were developed as a direct result of impacts created by the
condominiumization of units within the community. Previous
research on the impacts of condominiumization resulted in a 1977
report. As a result, the Planning and Zoning Commission identified
the following problem statements:
1. Condominiumization has served to reduce the rental supply
over time. Rental supply is difficult, if not impossible to
replace, particularly at the low income level.
2. Condominiumization is likely to result -in displacement of
low and moderate income households over time, as the sale
price of condominiumized units increases with each resale.
Many of these units continue to be rented for a period of
time, but usually not rented to the tenant who lived in the
unit prior to condominiumization. While this has provided
some ownership opportunities for locals in the past, this is
not likely to continue as prices spiral further'upward.
2
In 1987, the city planning staff addressed the policy concerns
associated with condominiumization. They also believed that
condominiumization was much less of a problem in 1988 than in 1980
because much of the housing stock had already been condominiumized.
The planning staff conducted research to document the relationship
between residential development and the need for affordable
housing. Their experience was that "condominiumization resulted
in an increased propensity for units to be occupied by tourists,
rather than residents". It was also clear from their research that
units which house tourists require significantly greater levels of
employee services than do units housing residents. They quantified
an employee housing impact attributable to condominiumization. The
result was the creation in 1988 of the affordable housing impact
fee that has since been applied to condominiumizations; this is
the fee that exi-sts in our current regulations-. - -- -- - . .
Condominiumization Data
In order to understand the extent of the condominiumization of
lodges and residential units within the City, staff undertook
background research on these.units (See Exhibit "C").
The research information can be summarized as follows:
*Most of the large free-market residential developments such
as Hunter Creek, Lone Pine, Riverview, and a majority of
duplex units, which are typically occupied by long term
tenants, have been condominiumized and currently have six
month minimum lease restrictions in place. It should be noted
that the new state statute cannot be applied retroactively,
thus the existing six month minimum lease restrictions would
not be rendered invalid.
Other free-market multi -family residential developments that
are located within the L/TR zone district at the base of Aspen
Mountain, such as the Dolomites, Gant, Aspen Alps etc... are
exempt from the six month minimum lease restriction and may
be leased without limitation. These units did not have to
undergo city review for .condominiumization because the city
code did not require it at that time. Additionally, current*
regulations exempt residential units in the L/TR zone district
from the six month minimum lease restriction. These units are
typically occupied by tourists or residents desiring shorter
term occupancies and a six month minimum lease restriction
would not be appropriate for their use.
* Most of the tenant displacement from condominiumization has
already occured since a majority of the condominiumizations
have taken place in the 1970's and 19801s. Within the past
3
several years, most of the condominiumizations approved by
City Council have been for duplex units. Staff also
discovered that there were several citizens petition's in the
1970's protesting condominiumizations due to tenant
displacement.
Since 1988, approximately $251,527.00 has been collected in
affordable housing -impact fees from condominiumization.
*- A limited number of waivers have been granted by City
Council for the six month minimum lease restriction.
* Approximately eight lodges have been condominiumized which
represents a small portion of the lodge inventory within the
City.
STAFF ANAYLSIS OF KEY--ISSUES:-
Staff has focused on the impact of the new state statute on Section
24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code as this Section sets forth the
requirements for the condominiumization of structures. Assuming
that this section will be eliminated from our land use regulations,
three key issues were identified by * staff. The following paragraphs
will discuss those issues and recommended action.
Key Issue 1 - Affordable Housing Impact Fee: Currently, when free
market residential units are condominiumizedr an impact fee is paid
to the Housing Fund to mitigate affordable housing needs generated
by the condominiumization.
Response: Since 1988, the City has collected approximately
$251,527.00 in affordable housing impact fees from
condominiumization. These funds have been used to subsidize the
affordable housing program. There are several existing ordinances
in place that would address some of the concerns if this fee were
eliminated.
For example, Ordinance 1 was adopted in January of 1990. Council
had determined, as a result of market pressure to redevelop
residential 'properties as housing for tourists and second home
owners, that portions of the existing housing inventory were
threatened with demolition. This produced a depletion in the stock
of affordable housing resulting in the displacement of residents
and changing the character of existing neighborhoods.
The adoption of Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, required the
following:
1. In the demolition of resident multi -family housing, the
owner shall construct replacement housing equal to at least
50% of the square footage of the residential area demolished.
The replacement housing (50%) shall be deed restricted as
4
affordable housing.
2. New or reconstructed single family and duplexes are
required to mitigate. employee housing impacts by one of the
following methods:
a) Payment of an affordable housing impact fee.
b) Provision of an -accessory dwelling unit for single family
development.
c) Duplex units have various options for employee mitigation.
While the method used to address the existing affordable housing
inventory in Ordinance 1 is different than the affordable housing
impact fee for condominiumization, the goal is the same i.e.
maintaining the community's stock of affordable housing. Since the
current condominiumiz-ation affordable housing impact fee is imposed
on existing and new residential units, then the "affordable
housing" provisions of Ordinance 1 would address those residential
dwelling units that result from the demolition of resident multi-
family structures, or -from new or reconstructed single-family and
duplex dwellings.
An area that would not be addressed (if the existing
condominiumization regulations were eliminated) is if an existing
multi -family structure would condominiumize, then the provisions
of Ordinance 1 would not apply. It is not clear as to how many
existing multi -family structures would fall into this category and
the loss of dollars to the housing/daycare fund.
The City has collected approximately $116,052.00 in housing impact
fees since the adoption of Ordinance 1 in 1990.
Another area in the Code that would address the construction of new
residential development 'is Article 8, Growth Management Quota
System. If new residential development is proposed, then the
applicant is required to provide -affordable housing for a minimum
of 35 % of the employees generated by the proposed development.
This effectively addresses the provision of affordable housing
through growth management competition.
Staff believes that existing ordinances will address most of the
affordable housing issues associated with the elimination of the
condominiumization affordable housing impact fee.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the sunset provision for
Ordinance 1, Series of 1990, be eliminated as Ordinance 1 will play
an important role in maintaining our affordable housing inventory.
This is also a recommendation contained within the draft Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Key Issue - six Month Minimum Lease Restriction: Currently,
5
a six month minimum lease is required for newly condominiumized
units in an effort to maintain long term tenants/residents.
Response: Concern regarding the elimination of the six month
minimum lease has focused on the following:
If the restriction is eliminated from existing or future
condominiums, units may be short termed more often, potentially
displacing local tenants/residents.
* In discussions with a local appraiser, -the six month minimum
lease restriction may impact the sales price for lower priced units
by keeping the sales price lower. A six month minimum lease
restriction on luxury/high end condo units has a minimal impact.
The implication is that if the restriction is eliminated, the
price of units could increase and potentially impact the price of
new residential units or --units not currently- subject. to. deed
restrictions.
* Residential condominiums within the residential zone districts
such as R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-30 etc...zone districts are
currently required to adhere to the six month minimum lease
restriction (except for two shorter tenancies per year) . If future
six month minimum restrictions are eliminatedf* then our traditional
residential neighborhoods may see an increase in short-term use of
the units and impact the character of the neighborhood.
Staff Is research has shown that most of the multi -family structures
(and a majority of the duplexes) within the City have already been
condominiumized so the eliminination of the restriction would only
impact newly constructed structures and some of the existing non-
condominiumized structures.
Additionally, the Housing Authority, the City of Aspen and Pitkin
County have been active in the construction of affordable housing
for the community; approximately 525 affordable housing dwelling
units have been constructed since 1985. ' The affordable housing
supply -has increased somewhat since the 1970's and 1980's and this
offers residents more housing options.
*The new state statute is not retroactive,* thus the existing six
month minimum lease restrictions currentlyinplace would not be
rendered invalid. Although existing condominiums would be able to
apply (as they are today) for removal of the six month restriction,
staff would strongly encourage Council to maintain the six month
minimum lease restriction on existing condominiums.
Another item to consider is that both the Planning Department and
the Housing Authority staff do not actively enforce the six month
minimum lease restriction. Within the past two years, the Planning
Department has received two calls inquiring about the six month
minimum lease restriction.
6
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council consider addressing
the land use issues posed by the elimination of the six month
minimum lease restriction through amendmends to the permitted use
section within the various residential zone districts.
For example, the permitted use section of the residential zone
districts would restate the six month minimum lease restriction
(along with exceptions for shorter tenancies). The language could
be written so that all residential units would have to adhere to
this restriction, or the language could be specific for duplexes
or multi -family structures.
*This approach would be a major policy decision as the focus would
be on the use of all residential dwellings within the zone
_district, not just condominiumized residential units. ' There
probably -would be considerable backlash -to this -concept _in- addition
to an increase in enforcement. If the language was specific to
duplexes and multi -family residences within the zone districts,
then single family homeowner resistence would be eliminated.
Key Issue 3 .- Lodge Condomi.niumization: Lodges that are
condominiumized are required to remain in the short term market so
that they are available to the general public as tourist
accomodations.
Response: The -concern is that the lodges remain in.the short term
rental market and provide for the lodging needs of the resort. Our
research has shown that a small portion of the lodges within the
city have been condominiumized. One .way to approach these
concerns is to amend the permitted use sections for, the
Lodge/Tourist Residential (L/TR) and the Lodge Preservation (LP)
zone districts to restrict any long term leasing of the lodge units
and encourage short term usage of these units.
For your information, staff has not had discussions with lodge
owners regarding this issue.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council consider amending
the permitted use sections of L/TR and LP zone districts to
restrict long term leasing of the lodge units.
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
1) Eliminate the sunset provision for Ordinance 1, Series of 1990.
2) Amend the permitted use sections of the various residential
zone districts to restate the six month minimum lease restriction
for duplexes and multi -family units.
3) Amend the permitted use sections of the L/TR and LP zone
districts to restrict long term leasing of lodge units.
7
4) Approve the pending condominiumization applications under
existing ordinances with a reservation stating if the
condominiumization ordinances should change after an approval
(within a reasonable period of time thereafter), the applicant will
be. allowed the benefits of any change by way of the retroactive
application of the new ordinance (e.g. if the requirement of an
impact fee is repealed, the applicant will get its previously paid
fee refunded)..
Exhibit "B"
Section 24-7-1007 of the Municipal Code sets forth the
condominiumization, regulations for residential and lodge units.
The regulations are summarized as follows:
1) condominiumization of residential units
a. Existing residents must be given a right of first refusal
on the sale of an existing unit that is being condominiumized.
b. Residential condominiums may only be leased for terms of
not less than six months, with the exception of two shorter
tenancies per year (to allow locals to rent their units over
the holidays) and this applies to residential dwelling units
in the R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-1.5B,. R-30, R/-MF, .MHP, •SCI, NC,. and
C zone districts. Residential dwelling units in the RR, C-1
and O zone districts shall be restricted to six month minimum
leases unless an applicant .can prove that unit is in an area
that is predominantly short term accomodations.
Residential dwelling units in the L/TR zone district or any
zone - district with Lodge (L) overlay may be leased. without
limitation.
c. An affordable housing impact fee is applied to the
condominiumization of existing and new residential units,
however, the condominiumization shall be exempt from the
impact fee if affordable housing has been provided pursuant
to GMQS.
The fee ranges from $3,350 to $8,050 per unit.
The fee is not applied to the condominiumization of units
restricted to the affordable housing guidelines.
An applicant may request a waiver of the impact fee by
demonstrating that the unit will remain available to employees
of the community, however, it would -still be subject to six
month minimum lease requirement and deed restricted'asa
resident occupied unit.
2) condominiumization of lodges
a) The condominium units shall remain in the short term rental
market and shall be used as temporary tourist accommodations
available to the general public.
b) The lodge shall provide minimum sleeping accommodations
for two employees.
9
c) The condominiumized lodge shall provide on -site management
and maintenance.
d) The lodge condominium units shall remain available to the
general tourist market and this condition may be met by
inclusion of the units in a local reservation system.
e) The common areas of the lodge shall remain as common areas.
ku
Exhibit "C"
1) Residential Condominiumization:
The earliest record of a condomini.umization that required city
review occured in 1973. There are many units that were
condominiumized prior to 1973; a rough conservative estimate would
be 350 dwelling units. These units, such as the Gant, Aspen Alps,
and Dolomites did not have to undergo city review to condominiumize
their structure because the code did not require it.
Number of free market units condominiumized (after 1973)
in accordance with city regulations: Approximately 750 units
NOTE: Fully deed restricted affordable housing units are not
included in this f igure . .
2) six month minimum lease
The end of 1977-appears to have been the approximate date when six
month minimum leases were established in the city land use.
regulations. However, some projects as early as 1973 had six month
minimum lease restrictions placed on them.
Approximately 15% of the 750 units condominiumized do not have six
month minimum lease restrictions. This is due to the fact that
waivers were granted, city regulations were not in place that
required six month minimum lease restrictions, units in the L/TR
zone district were exempted along with historic landmarks. It
should be noted that the city rarely granted waivers from the six
month minimum lease restriction.
3) Affordable Housing Impact Fees:
As discussed previously, these fees were added to the
condominiumization regulations (residential units only) in 1988.
The City has collected $251,527400 in affordable housing impact
fees from condominiumization.
4) Lodge Condominiumization
City records indicate that eight lodges have been condominiumized
that required city review.
11
M
Exhibit ','D"
Summary of Ordinance 1, Series of 1*990
Resident Multi -family (historically occupied by working residents) :
1) In the demolition of a resident multi -family housing, the owner
shall construct replacement housing of at.least 500 of the.square
footage of the residential area demolished. The replacement
housing (500) shall be deed restricted as affordable housing.
Single-family and Duplex:
2) Remodeling and expansion of existing single-family and duplex
units is exempt andd-is-not required —to _mitigate.. -fo-r-.,affordable.
housing.
3) New or reconstructed single-family and duplexes will be required
to'mitigate employee housing impacts by one, of the following
methods:
a. Payment of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee.
b. Provision of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for single
family development.
c. Duplex units have the following options: the applicant
provides one free market/one resident occupied unit; two free
market units with one accessory dwelling unit; two resident
occupied units; or the affordable housing impact fee.
12
Re ular Meetin
As en Citv Council Decembe
ORDINAN
CE 81 SERIES OF 1992 - Undergrounding Improvement District
Cemetery Lane
Series of 1992;
Councilwoman Richards moved to read A dl ance in favor, , motion carried.
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton.
ORDINANCE #81
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE =STRICT WITHIN
TY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENTDISTRICT
THE PURPOSE OF
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN
CONVERTING EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRICAND COMMU IC N OOF
FACILITIES TO UNDERGROUND ELOCATION; s read by the�city
DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFOR wa
clerk
Wilson, assistant city manager, reminded Council they took
Cindy W �This district has to
action on this district at the last lic hearing will be January 11,
be approved by ordinance. The p
1993.
Series of 1992,
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt ordinance`Pendleton. Roll call
on first reading; seconded by Councilman
vote; Councilmemb ers Pendleton, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Pro Tem
Peters, yes. Motion carried.
CONDOMINIUMIZATION DISCUSSION
last July the
Diane Moore, planning director, reminded CouncilStaff has
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act went into effect. Moore said
made some recommendations on Aspen s regulations.act fee.' Currently
the first issue is the affordable housing imp act fee r paid
when a free market unit is,condominiumi n 'needs generated by the
n-impto the housing fund to mi second issueate the is the 6 month minimum lease
condom iniumi-zation. The
restri
ction, which is required in an effort to maintain ong term
residents. The third issues is lodtheshortterm
dirental market for
units are requiredto remaiodge
n in
tourist accommodations.
'1 staff has done extensive research in this
Ms. Moore told Council t be applied retroactively and
area. The new state statute canno
tin 6 month minimum leases cannot be rendered ninvalid.
the existing impact fee,
Ms. Moore told Council under ��tohe Thereareexisting ordinances in
ce 1988,
the city has collected $2 1not through condominiumi-
place which address affordablehousing
nt quota system also addresses
zation. The growth man g
' n of affordable housing units. Ms. Moore recommended
construction
6
Regular Meeting AspenCityCouncil December 7, 1992
the sunset provision of ordinance #1, 1990 be eliminated as this
ordinance addresses key elements of affordable housing.
Ms. Moore told Council a lot of existing units in Aspen have
already been condominiumized and the 6 month minimum lease
restrictions will remain in place. Any existing unit can apply to
Council for elimination of that restriction.
Ms. Moore said in lodge condominiumization the consideration is
that the units remain in the short term market. Very few lodges in
Aspen have been condominiumized. Ms. Moore suggested staff look in
the LP or LTR zone district permitted and conditional uses to
regulate this.
Leslie Lamont, planning office, pointed out the ordinance #1 fee is
either paid or an applicant provides. an accessory dwelling unit.
Councilwoman Pendleton asked how ordinances become self -enforcing.
Mayor Pro Tem Peters said in the past there have been strict
penalties for non-compliance. Councilwoman Richards said there
seems to be no enforcement for the 6 month minimum lease restric-
tions. Amy Margerum, city manager,, said this is usually self -
enforcing with condominiumization associations or neighbors. Mayor
Pro Tem, Peters said enforcement is a different issue Council can
address.
Mayor Pro Tem Peters asked if condominiumization is enough like
subdivision to require certain mitigation and impacts. Jed
Caswall, city attorney, said an argument can be made that condomin-
iumization is a certain form of subdivision and that is where it is
located in the city's land use code. Caswall said the state
legislature does not agree. Caswall-sa ' id an argument can be made
that land use is not of state concern but is of municipal interest.
This attempt by . the legislature to diminish the city's subdivision
regulations is in violation of Article XX of the Colorado Constitu-
tion and unenforceable in home rule cities. Caswall said the
legislature may have intended to pre-empt local government.
Caswall said the city could mount a legal challenge to this
statute; however, the real issue is whether the city would rather
.look at alternatives outlined by staff and other legislation to
address areas of concern. Caswall told Council Aspen is the only
municipality that has an ordinance that could conflict with this
state statute.
Mayor Pro Tem Peters said the original purpose of the condominiumi-
zation regulations is still valid. Councilwoman Pendleton said the
Community Plan also recommended the elimination of the sunset
provisions in ordinance W1. Councilwoman Richards agreed and said
she would like to look at other language in Ordinance #1 that would
make it clear for changes in use that they will fall under this
7
Regular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7, 1992
ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Peters agreed with the elimination of
the sunset provisions of Ordinance #1.
Mayor Pro Tem Peters supported the planning office recommendation
to limit the allowed uses in the residential zone district to
basically long term uses. Councilwoman Pendleton agreed with staff
recommendation. Councilwoman Pendleton requested staff look at the
enforcement 'issues. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said he would like all
residential zones covered.
Councilwoman Richards said 'taking units in a residential zone and
turning them into short term business licensing and sales taxes
should come into play. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said short term uses
in residential zone districts should be eliminated other than those
like Christmas rentals. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said the LTR and LP
zone districts have allowed short term uses by right. Councilwoman
Pendleton said these uses should be kept in the LTR and LP
districts. Ms. Moore said staff has not had discussions about
changing the lodge districts with local lodge owners. Ms. Moore
pointed out the community has always encouraged maintaining small
lodges. Mayor Pro Tem Peters said there should be exemptions for
some long term units for owners, managers and staff. Councilwoman
Richards said she would like to hear comments of the lodge owners
from staff.
Mayor Pro Tem Peters said he would like to hear from staff on more
areas for self -enforcement. Amy Margerum, city manager, said the
code may have to be amended in.some areas to impose fines.
Councilwoman Pendleton said for the amount of .money the city
collects, she would just as soon eliminate the condominium fee.
Councilwoman Richards said she is more interested in maintaining
the character of neighborhoods and the inventory of affordable
housing. Mayor Pro Tem Peters agreed with eliminating the fee for
housing impact.
Caswall recommended Council hold up all condominium applications
while staff processes a code amendment rather than process
applications and accept fees. Caswall said the city can schedule
first reading for condominiumization ordinances but put off second
reading until code amendments are adopted. (Mayor Bennett came
into the meeting). Ms. Margerum said she is concerned about
holding people up while an amendment is processed. Ms. Margerum
suggested applicants could proceed and the city could hold the fee
is escrow. Caswall said applicants would have to -file a legal
action within 30 days after approval of the condominiumization
challenging the city's right to impose conditions upon them.
Councilman Peters said Council has agreed to eliminate the sunset
provision in Ordinance #1; to start amending zone districts to
0
Regular Meeting Aspen Citv Council December 7, 199
limit uses to long term and short term as appropriate; to get
direction back regarding the impact on lodge owners, and an interim
strategy on the fees.
ASPEN MOUNTAIN LODGE NON-COMPLIANCE
Jed Caswall, city attorney, reminded Council this is a continuation
of an October 26th hearing on the issue of possible sanctions for
non-compliance on the Ritz -Carlton not meeting the deadline for a
certificate of occupancy for the hotel. There was also a hearing
to extend the construction deadline for the Ritz. Council granted
a request to extend the schedule for the Ritz and that they obtain
their final c/o by December 4,F .1992. Caswall reported on December
4 the c/o was signed. Council decided to continue determination on
the non-compliance to December 14th. Caswall told Council Savanah
Limited Partnership agreed to move this hearing up to this meeting.
At this meeting, Council is to make a determination on whether a
sanction or penalty should be imposed against Savanah for failure
to meet the December lf 1992, deadline for a c/o. Caswall
recommended that Savanah reimburse the planning staff for the time
spent in having to address the non-compliance as a possible
sanction.
Bob Hughes, representing the applicant, reminded Council they found
that the reasons for the delay were beyond the control of the
applicant. Hughes said if there were any mistakes, it was in
deciding not to seek an extension sooner than they did. Hughes
said he does not feel this is appropriate for sanctions. Amy
Margerum,, city manager, said if an extension were sought, the
applicant would have been charged for staff time.
Mayor Bennett closed the public hearing.
Councilman Peters moved to impose a $3800 penalty reflecting the
increased costs of staff time associated with Savanah's failure to
complete by the appropriate date; seconded by Councilwoman
Pendleton.
Mayor Bennett said he feels this is reasonable and appropriate.
Councilwoman Richards asked if all other conditions have been met.
Ms. Margerum told council staff went through the PUD agreement to
make sure all conditions were met. Ms. Margerum noted the c/o is
not for the entire building. Caswall said the c/o that was issued
reserves certain rights to the city; because of the weather and
continuing construction, staff was unable to conduct a thorough
site visit. Councilwoman Richards said she understood the ice rink
site was not to be used as a parking lot. Perry Harvey said the
portion of the site used for construction storage is to be cleaned
A