HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Condominiumization Code.A66-93Condominiumization Code
Amendments A66-93
ORDINANCE No.53
(SERIES OF 1993)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, AMENDING CHAPTER 24
OF THE MI INICIPAL CODE, LAND USE REGULA-
TIONS, 10 PROVIDE THAT SECTION 7-1007,
"CONDOMINIUMIZATION", SHALL BE REVISED
TO DELETE HOUSING IMPACT FEES AND TO
REVISE THE "PURPOSE" SECTIONS OF THE R-6,
R-I5, R-15A, R-15B, R-30 AND RR ZONE DIS-
TRICTS TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE "LONG
TERM" IN DESCRIBING TERM OCCUPANCY
LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, Section 27-7-1103 of the Municipal
Code provides that amendments to Chapter 24
of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations,"
shall be reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Planning Director and then by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at public
hearing, and then approved, approved with
conditions, or disapproved by the City Council
at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has pro-
posed and recommended for approval text
amendments to Chapter 24 relating to Condo-
miniumization and to residential zone district
"Purpose" sections; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion reviewed the proposed text amendments
at worksessions on July 20 and August 3, 1993,
and at a public hearing on August 17, 1993, and
recommended approval of the amendments
pursuant to the procedure as authorized by
Section 24-6-205(A)8 of the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the
proposed text amendments will encourage effi-
ciency in government by streamlining the land
use review process and will be consistent with
promoting the public welfare and the purposes
and intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL-
ORADO as follows:
Section 1:
That Section 24-7-1007, "Condominiumiza-
tion" of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby repealed and reen-
acted to read as follows:
"Section 24-7-1007. Condominiumization.
A. General. Where a proposed development
is to include a conduailnium form of owner-
ship, or if an existing development is to be con-
verted to a condominium form of ownership, in
whole or in part, a condominium subdivision
exemption plat reflecting all condominiumized
units, or that portion of the development to be
condominiumized, shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the terms
and provisions of this section.
B. Procedure. A development application for
a condominiumization shall be reviewed pur-
suant to the procedures and standards in this
section and Common Procedures, Article 6,
Division 2.
1. Contents of application. The contents of a
development application for a condominium or
condominiumization shall include the follow-
ing:
a. The general application Information
required In Common Procedures, Section 24.6-
202.
b. A condominium subdivision exemption
plat drawn with permanent ink on reproducible
mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inch-
es by thirty-six (36) inches with an unencum-
bered margin of one and one-half (1 1/2) inches
on the left hand side of the sheet and a one-half
(1/2) inch margin around the other three (3)
sides of the sheet. It shall include:
(I) Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles
and curves used to describe boundaries,
streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, structures,
areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or
common use and other Important features. All
curves shall be circular arcs and shall be
defined by the radius, central angle, tangent,
are and chord distances. All dimensions, both
linear ana angular, are to be determined by an
accurate control survey in the fleid ;which must
balance and close within a limit of one (1) in
ten thousand (10,000).
(if) The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one
(1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet or larg-
er. Architectural scales are not acceptable. If It
Is necessary to place the plat on more than one
(1) sheet, an index shall be included on the
first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appear on
the first sheet showing the condominium pro-
ject as it relates to the rest of the city and the
street system in the area of the proposed con-
dominium.
(III) A description of all survey monuments,
both found and set, which mark the boundaries
of the subdivision, and description of all monu-
ments used in conducting the survey. The Col-
orado Coordinate System may be used.
(iv) A statement by the land surveyor
explaining how bearings, if used, were deter-
mined.
(v) A certificate by the registered land sur-
veyor as to the accuracy of the survey and plat,
and a statement that the survey was performed
in accordance with Colorado Revised Statutes
1973, Title 38, Article 51, as amended from time
to time.
(vi) A certificate by a corporate title insurer,
that the person or persons dedicating to the
public the public rights -of -way, areas or facili-
ties as shown thereon are the owners thereof
in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and
encumbrances.
(vii) Certificates showing approval of the
final plat by the City Engineer and Planning
Director.
(vial) A certificate of filing for the Pitkin Coun-
ty Clerk and Recorder.
(ix) Copies of any monument records
required of the land surveyor in accordance
with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38,
Article 53, as amended from time to time.
2. Recordation: The approved condominium
subdivision exemption plat shall be recorded
in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder within one
hundred eighty (180) days of Its approval by
the Planning Director. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hun-
dred eighty (190) days following approval by
the Planning Director shall render the plat
Invalid and a new application and approval will
be required.
3. Subdivision Exemption Agreement. No sub-
division exemption agreement need be pre-
pared or entered into between the applicant
and the city pursuant to a condominium or
condominiumization approval unless the Plan-
ning Director determines such an agreement is
necessary.
C. Minimum Lease Deed Restriction: Mini-
mum lease deed restrictions imposed by the
city council as a condition of condominiumiza-
tion approval prior to July 1, 1992, shall only by
modified or removed with the consent of the
city council.
Section 2:
That Section 245201, "Medium -Density Resi-
dential (R-6)" of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read
as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-201. Medium -Density Residential
(R-6).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium -Den-
sity Residential (R-6) zone district is to provide
areas for long term residential purposes with
customary accessory uses. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximi-
ty to residential uses are included as condition-
al uses, lands In the Medium -Density Residen-
tial (R-6) zone district are generally limited to
the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively
dense settlements of predominantly detached
and duplex residences, and are within walking
distance of the center of the city."
Section 3:
That Section 24-5-202, "Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15)" of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-202. Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to
provide areas for long term residential purpos-
es with customary accessory uses. Recreation-
al and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate -Densi-
ty Residential (R-15) zone district typically con-
sist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and
subdivisions on the periphery of the city.
Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen
Mountain are also included in the Moderate -
Density Residential (1115) zone district."
Section 4:
That Section 24-5-203, "Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15A)" of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amend-
ed to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-203. Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15A).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15A) zone district is to
Provide areas for long term residential purpos-
es with customary accessory uses. Recreation-
al and institutional uses customarily found in
proxim'•j'to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. Lands in the Moderate-Densi
ty Residential (R-15A) zone district are similar-
ly situated to those in the Moderate -Density
Residential (R-I5) zone district and are lands
annexed from Pitkin County from zone districts
.in which duplexes are a prohibited use."
Section 5:
That Section 24-5-204, "Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15B)" of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amend-
ed to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-204. Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15B).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15B) zone district is to
provide areas for long term residential purpos-
es with customary accessory uses. Lands in the
Moderate -Density Residential (R-15B) zone dis-
trict are similarly situated to those in the Mod-
erate -Density Residential (R-15) and (R-15A)
zone districts, but are those in which single-
family structures are a permitted use and
duplexes are prohibited."
Section 6:
That Section 24-5-205, "Low -Density Residen-
tial (R-30)" of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 24-5-205. Low -Density Residential (R-
30).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low -Density
Residential (1130) zone district is to provide
areas for long term residential purposes with
customary accessory uses. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximi-
ty to residential uses are Included as condition-
al uses. Lands in the Low -Density Residential
(R-30) zone district are typically located along
river frontages in outlying areas of the city.
Section 7:
That Section 24-5-208, "Rural Residential
(RR)" of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 24-5-208. Rural Residential (RR).
A. Purpose, The purpose of the Rural Resi-
dential (RR) zone district is to allow utilization
of land for low density, long term residential
purposes with the recreational, institutional,
public and other compatible uses customarily
found in proximity to those uses allowed as
permitted uses or conditional uses."
Section 8:
That Section 24-3-101, "Definitions", of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended to include a new definition
to read as follows:
"Long Term means the occupancy of a
dwelling unit for residential purposes for a
time period not less than six (6) consecutive
months and shall include rental occupancies,
except that two shorter rental occupancies
may be allowed per dwelling unit per year."
Section 9:
The repeal as provided herein of Sections 24-
7-1007 A (1) (b) and (c), which required mini-
mum lease deed restrictions and the payment
of affordable housing Impact fees, respectively,
as a condition of approval for condominiumiza-
tion shall be applied retroactively to those con-
dominiumization approvals granted in Ordi-
nances 92.44, 92-69. 93-26, 93-28 and 93-33. At
the applicants' request, the City Council will
remove the deed restrictions and refund the
employee housing mitigation fees that were
required as a condition of the above cited con-
dominiumization approvals.
Section 10:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing
litigation and shall not operate as an abate-
ment 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 11:
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 inde-
pendent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 12:
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be
held on the 8th day of November, 1993 in the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen
Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a
hearing of public notice of the same shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB-
LISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of Octo-
ber, 1993.
John Bennett, Mayor
Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Published in the Aspen Times Oct. 22, 1993.
C
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: J PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE:
STAFF MEMBER: FK
PROJECT NAME: Code Amendments - Condominiumization
Project Address:
Legal Address:
APPLICANT:
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative Address/Phone:
--------------------------
--------------------------
FEES: PLANNING
$
ENGINEER
$
HOUSING
$
ENV. HEALTH
$
TOTAL
$
Aspen, CO 81611
------------------------=--------
---------------------------------
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: (Y
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES
I V iSTED RIGHTS: YES
DRC Meeting Date
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
DATE REFERRED:
FINAL ROUTING:
City Atty
Housing
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
2 STEP • X
NO
NO
NO
NO
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
CDOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
INITIALS: DUE:
DATE ROUTED: I lC INITIAL:`
City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Open Space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
MEMORANDUM
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
0
Staff 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 exists 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 condominium ized, 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 condominiumization affordable housing impact fee is imposed
on existing and new residential units, then the "affordable
housing" pru;;-sions 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 eliminated; then our traditional
residential neighborhoods may see an increase in short-term use of
the units and impact the character of the neighborhood.
Staff s 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 currently in place 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 wrl'.}ten so that all residential units would have to adhere to
this restriction, or the language could be specific for duplexes
or multi -family structures.
**his 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.
Rey 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.
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) Approxre 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)..
s
A G E N D A
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 3, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
Cit Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARING
A. 939 E. Hyman Survey Monument Landmark Designation,
Amy Amidon (This item was tabled at the HPC meeting
of 7/28/93 to give the landowner additional time to
consider potential development on the site. As a
result, the P&Z public hearing needs to be continued
to September 7, 1993. The P&Z needs to formally
open the public hearing and vote on continuance of
this item.)
IV. OLD BUSINESS
A. Land Use Code Text Amendments Discussion -
Condominiumization, Francis Krizmanich (Continued
from July 20)
V. DISCUSSION
A. AACP Update, Cindy Houben
B. Floor Area Ratio Discussion, Kim Johnson
VI. ADJOURN
ORDINANCE 81 SERIES OF 1992 - Undergrounding Improvement District
Cemetery Lane
Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #81, Series of 1992;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #81
(Series of 1992)
AN ORDINANCE THE TE I
TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COIARADO, TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN
COR THE PURPOSE OF
THE BOUNDARIES OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS
CONVERTING EXISTING
FACILITIES TO UNDERGROUNDTHEREFOR LOCATION;
was read byPthe city
ION OF
DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS •
clerk
assistant city manager, reminded Council they took
Cindy Wilson,g. This district has to
action on this district at the 1 ublic hearing will be January 11,
be approved by ordinance. The p
1993.
ed to adopt Ordinance #81, Series of 1992,
Councilwoman Richards mov
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call
on first reading; vote; Councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Pro Tem
Peters, yes. Motion carried.
DOMININIZATION DISCUSSION
CON
Tanning director, reminded Council last July the
Diane Moore, p Act went into effect. Staff has
Colorado Common Interest Ownership
made some recommendations on Aspen's regulations. Ms. Moore said
the first issue is the affordable housing impact fee. Curis paid
rently
iniumized, an impact fee
when a free market unit is co a th
itigate e housing needs generated by the
to the housing fund to mth
condominiumization. The sired in an effort to maintain llonglterm
restriction, which is requ
lodge
residents. The third issuis in theshortdtermlrentall marketodge for
units are required to re
tourist accommodations.
his
Ms. Moore told Council staff has done extensive
retroactively research in tand
area. The new state statute cannot be applied
the existing 6 month minimum leases cannot be rendered
since
Ms. Moore told Council under the housing impact fee,
the city has collected $251,000. There are existing ordinances in
place which address affordable housing not through condominiumi-
The growth management quota system also addresses
nation. units. Ms. Moore recommended
construction of affordable housing
6
Reaular Meeting Aspen City Council 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 said 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 #1. 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
3
Re ular Meeting Aspen City Council December 7 1992
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, 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 1, 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
0j
ALTERNATIVE "A" - STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In order to comply with CCIOA and to address the issues outlined
in the memo, staff recommends the following revisions to the Land
Use Code:
1. Amend Section 24-7-1007, "Condominiumization", to state:
"A. General. If a conversion of an existing or proposed
development to a condominium form of ownership is
proposed, a condominium plat shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the standards for
subdivision plats contained in Section 7-1004,
"Subdivision Approval"."
2. The zone district "Purpose" sections generally appear to
contain adequate descriptions of the intent to have
residential or hotel uses. The staff has added "long term"
to strengthen the purpose sections in the residential sections
in the residential zone districts. The zone district Purpose
sections are quoted below with "long term" inserted where
appropriate in bold print.
For your review and discussion, the relevant existing definitions
follow:
Dwelling means a permanent building or portion thereof which
is used as the private residence or sleeping place of one or
more human beings, but not including hotels, lodge units,
clubs, hospitals, temporary structures such as tents, railroad
cars, trailers, street cars, prefabricated metal sections, or
similar units.
• Dwelling, multi -family means a dwelling containing three (3)
or more attached dwelling units, not including hotels and
lodges, but including town houses, with 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 an office, retail,
or service commercial building shall also be considered a
multi -family dwelling.
• Dwelling unit means a separately enterable, self-sufficient
room or combination of rooms which contain kitchen and bath
facilities and which are designed for or used as a residence
by a single family or guests, independent of other families
or guests.
• Hotel/Motel/Lodge means a building containing three (3) or
more individual rooms for the purpose of providing overnight
4
lodging facilities on a short term basis to the general
public, for compensation, with or without meals, and which has
common facilities for reservation and cleaning services,
combined utilities and on -site management and reception. A
hotel unit shall not contain kitchen facilities.
• Residential use means used or intended for use exclusively for
dwelling purposes, but not including hotel or lodge rooms.
Sec. 24-5-201. Medium -Density Residential (R-6).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium -Density Residential (R-6)
zone district is to provide areas for long term residential
purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in
the Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone district are
generally limited to the original Aspen Townsite, contain
relatively dense settlements of predominantly detached and
duplex residences, and are within walking distance of the
center of the city.
Sec. 24-5-202. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-
15) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional
uses. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone
district typically consist of additions to the Aspen Townsite
and subdivisions on the periphery of the city. Lands within
the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are also included in
the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district.
Sec. 24-5-203. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-
15A) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional
uses. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A) zone
district are similarly situated to those in the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15) zone district and are lands annexed
from Pitkin County from zone districts in which duplexes are
a prohibited use.
Sec. 24-5-204. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15B).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential (R-
5
15B) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses. Lands in
the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15B) zone district are
similarly situated to those in the Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15) and (R-15A) zone districts, but are those
in which single-family structures are a permitted use and
duplexes are prohibited.
Sec. 24-5-205. Low -Density Residential (R-30).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low -Density Residential (R-30)
zone district is to provide areas for long term residential
purposes with customary accessory uses. Recreational and
institutional uses customarily found in proximity to
residential uses are included as conditional uses. Lands in
the Low -Density Residential (R-30) zone district are typically
located along river frontages in outlying areas of the city.
Sec. 24-5-208. Rural Residential (RR).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Rural Residential (RR) zone
district is to allow utilization of land for low density, long
term residential purposes with the recreational,
institutional, public and other compatible uses customarily
found in proximity to those uses allowed as permitted uses or
conditional uses.
Note: The purpose sections of the R/MF, R/MFA, AH, and MHP zone
districts presently contain language that addresses long term
residential use.
P.
ALTERNATIVE "B"
Alternative "B" represents the original proposal and is not staff s
preferred approach regarding code amendments.
1. Residential zone districts would be amended to reflect their
orientation toward long-term accommodations versus short-term
housing. Residential districts would contain a requirement
that rentals must be long-term (6 months or more), while
allowing two short-term rentals per year in order to maintain
the residential character of Aspen's neighborhoods.
Conversely, tourist accommodation zone districts should
prohibit long-term rentals or permanent housing in order to
maintain a viable tourist base.
2. Amend Section 24-7-1007 "Condominiumization" to state "A.
General. If conversion of an existing development to a
condominium form of ownership is proposed, the condominium
plat shall be reviewed and approved as a subdivision exemption
by the Planning Director pursuant to the standards for plats
contained in Section 7-1004 "Subdivision Approval".
Z o n e
Districts Recommendation
• R-6, Add a new subsection, "F. Occupancy Restrictions".
R-15, The rental of detached residential dwellings and
R-15A, duplex residential dwellings shall be limited to six-
R-30 month minimum leases, with no more than two (2)
shorter tenancies per year.
• R-15B Add a new subsection "F. Occupancy Restrictions". The
rental of a detached residential dwelling shall be
limited to six-month minimum leases, with no more than
two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
• R/MF, Add a new subsection "F. Occupancy Restrictions". The
AH rental of detached residential dwellings, duplex
residential dwellings and multi -family dwellings shall
be limited to six-month minimum leases, with no more
than two (2) shorter tenancies per year.
• R/MFA Add a new subsection "F. Occupancy restrictions". The
rental of residential dwellings and multi -family
residential dwellings shall be limited to six-month
minimum leases, with no more than two (2) shorter
tenancies per year.
• RR, Add a new Subsection F which states "Detached
residential dwelling units and multi -family
residential dwellings shall be restricted to six-
month minimum leases, with no more than two (2)
shorter tenancies per year.
• L/TR Add a new Subsection F, which states "Residential
dwelling units may be leased without limitation."
• LP Add a new Subsection F, which states "Lodge units,
including those with kitchens, shall be rented to
provide overnight lodging facilities on a short-term
basis to the general public."
• L Add a new Subsection F, which states "Lodge units
shall be rented to provide overnight lodging
facilities on a short-term basis to the general
public. All residential dwelling units shall be
restricted to six-month minimum leases with no more
than two (2) shorter tenancies per year."
0
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
THAT THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,
LAND USE REGULATIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT SECTION 7-1007,
"CONDOMINIUMIZATION", BE REVISED TO DELETE HOUSING IMPACT FEES, AND
TO REVISE THE PURPOSE SECTIONS OF THE R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-30
AND RR ZONE DISTRICTS TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE "LONG TERM" IN
DESCRIBING TERM OCCUPANCY LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS AND
TO ADD "LONG TERM" TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE CODE.
Resolution No. 93-1Z
WHEREAS, Section 27-7-1103 of the Municipal Code provides that
amendments to Chapter .24 of the Code, to wit, "Land Use
Regulations," shall be reviewed and recommended for approval by the
Planning Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission
at public hearing, and then approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved by the City Council at public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has proposed and recommended
for approval text amendments to Chapter 24 relating to
Condominiumization and to residential zone district "Purpose"
sections; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
proposed text amendments at worksessions on July 20 and August 3,
1993, and at a public hearing on August 17, 1993, and recommended
approval of the amendments pursuant to the procedure as authorized
by Section 24-6-205(A)8 of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the
proposed text amendments will encourage efficiency in government
by streamlining the land use review process and will be consistent
with promoting the public welfare and the purposes and intent of
Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION that it recommends that the City Council approve the
following amendments to Chapter 24 of the Code as follows:
Section 1•
That Section 24-7-1007, "Condominiumization" of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Section 7-1007. Condominiumization.
A. General. If conversion of an existing or proposed
development to a condominium form of ownership is
proposed, a condominium plat shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the standards for
subdivision plats contained in Section 7-1004,
"Subdivision Approval"."
Section
i That Section 24-5-201, "Medium -Density Residential (R-6)" of
the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-201. Medium -Density Residential (R-6).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medium -Density Residential
(R-6) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional
uses. Lands in the Medium -Density Residential (R-6) zone
district are generally limited to the original Aspen
Townsite, contain relatively dense settlements of
predominantly detached and duplex residences, and are
within walking distance of the center of the city."
Section 3•
That Section 24-5-202, "Moderate -Density Residential (R-15)"
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
1 amended to read as follows:
2
"Sec. 24-5-202. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional
uses. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15)
zone district typically consist of additions to the Aspen
Townsite and subdivisions on the periphery of the city.
Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen Mountain are
also included in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-
15) zone district."
section 4•
That Section 24-5-203, "Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A)"
of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-203. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15A) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional
uses. Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15A)
zone district are similarly situated to those in the
Moderate -Density Residential (R-15) zone district and are
lands annexed from Pitkin County from zone districts in
which duplexes are a prohibited use."
sect -.ion 5
That Section 24-5-204, "Moderate -Density Residential (R-15B)"
of the Municipal Code of' the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-204. Moderate -Density Residential (R-15B).
A.. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15B) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Lands in the Moderate -Density Residential (R-15B) zone
district are similarly situated to those in the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15) and (R-15A) zone districts,
but are those in which single-family structures are a
3
permitted use and duplexes are prohibited."
ection 6
That Section 24-5-205, "Low -Density Residential (R-30)" of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-205. Low -Density Residential (R-30).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low -Density Residential (R-
30) zone district is to provide areas for long term
residential purposes with customary accessory uses.
Recreational and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as conditional
uses. Lands in the Low -Density Residential (R-30) zone
district are typically located along river frontages in
outlying areas of the city.
Section 7•
That Section 24-5-208, "Rural Residential (RR)" of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-208. Rural Residential (RR).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Rural Residential (RR) zone
district is to allow utilization of land for low density,
long term residential purposes with the recreational,
institutional, public and other compatible uses
customarily found in proximity to those uses allowed as
permitted uses or conditional uses."
Section 8:
That Section 24-3-101, "Definitions", of the Municipal Code
of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to include a new
definition to read as follows:
"Long Term means the occupancy of a dwelling unit for
residential purposes where term occupancy limits shall be
restricted to six-month minimum leases, with no more than two
4
shorter tenancies per year."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission
hereby recommends that the Aspen City Council refrain from removing
the six month minimum lease restriction from previously approved
residential condominiums, unless and until further study shows that
the six month lease restriction is not necessary to protect Aspen's
long term residential housing supply.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on August 17,
1993.
Attest:
Jan Erney, Depu4 City Clerk
5
Planning and Zoning commission:
Bruce Kerr, Chair
EXHIBIT 2
MEMORANDUM
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
F.`Ui%ibjZT�
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, coridominiumizations 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.
!staff 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 generatedby 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.
Rey 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 condom inimumization
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 c`
low and moderate income households over time, as the same
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 provide
some ownership opportunities for locals in the past, this __d
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 exists 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 ;i:s
already occured since a majority of the condominiumizatio-.s
have taken place in the 1970's and 1980's. Within the pa.s`
3
._;everal 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 condom iniuimized which
represents a small portion of the lodge inventory within the
City.
STAFF ANAYLSIS OF REY-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 fortis 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.
Rey Issue 1 - Affordable Rousing 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.
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 (500) shall be deed restricted as
W
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) Dupldx 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 condominiumization 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
condom iniumization 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:
* futur
If the restriction is eliminated from existing otentialle
condominiums, units may be short termed more often, p y
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 ofunits l ounatsor increase units notentially currently. impact
subj subject price
to. deed
new residentia
restrictions.
* Residential condominiums within the residential zone districts
such as R-6, R-15, R-15A, R-15B, R-3o 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 eliminated, then our traditional
residential neighborhoods may see an increase in short-term use of
the units and impact the character of the neighborhood.
Staff's 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.
�kThe new state statute. is not retroactive thus the existing six
month minimum lease restrictions currently in place 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 mt�nth
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.
G
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 wrJ.1ten 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.
Rey 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.
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 residentia_
zone districts to restate the six month minimum lease restrictio7
for duplexes and multi -family units.
3) Amend the permitted use sections of the LJTIr and LP z,
districts to restrict long term leasing of: lodge units.
7
4) Appro-e the pending condom iniumization applications under
the
existing ordinances with a reservation stating if approval
condominiumization ordinances should change after an app'
(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) ..
8
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-15B,. 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 as a
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.
W
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.
10
Exhibit "C"
1) Residential Condominiumization:
The earliest record of a condominiumization 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 figure..
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 c�ily) in 1988.
The City has collected $251,527.00 in. affordablE -ousing impact
fees from condominiumization.
4) Lodge Condominiumization
City records indicate that eight lodges have been condominium. zed
that required city review.
I
t
Exhibit "D"
Summary of Ordinance 1, Series of 1990
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 50% of the square
footage of the residential area demolished. The replacement
housing (50%) shall be deed restricted as affordable housing.
Single-family and Duplex:
2) Remodeling and expansion of existing- single-family and duplex
units is exempt and ..is_. not required..to _mitigate_ .for _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
EXHIBIT 3
Condominiumization Text Amendments - Review Criteria
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the
review standards for amendments to the Code are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
Response: There are no apparent conflicts with any other sections
of the Municipal Code.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements
of the Aspen Area Community Plan.
Response: The AACP does not specifically address
condominiumization regulations. However, retaining a housing base
for long-term residents is a goal on the Plan. As mentioned in
previous staff discussions with the Commission, housing needs for
the community must be addressed by other means within the land use
code. Condominium regulations are not the appropriate avenue tc
secure housing units or housing funds.
The City has been trying to address the need to streamline
governmental processes. This code amendment will eliminate the
one-step City Council review for condominium (ownership) approval.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding
Zone Districts and land uses; considering existing land use
and neighborhood characteristics..
Response: This amendment is not site specific. On a case -by -case
basis, ownership interests in a multiple dwelling structure has no
discernable impacts. Removal of minimum lease requirements for new
condominiums (duplexes or multi -family structures) will have
negligible impacts to neighborhoods, simply by virtue of the
limited number of units to be condominiumized.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and
road safety.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interests
created by condominium approval.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would
result in demands on public facilities, and whether and t:ne
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed zhe
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limi--ed
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supp,',
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities_.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interests
created by condominium approval.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment we --Id
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interests
created by condominium approval.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible
with the community character in the City of Aspen.
Response: The only compatibility issue is perhaps the minimum
lease requirements of the current code language which must be
removed in compliance with the new State regulations. However, the
proposed amendments would strengthen the purpose section of the
residential zone districts to state that the purpose of the zone
district is to provide areas for long term residential uses.
H. Whether there have been changed -conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
Response: The State.'s enactment of the CCIOA regulations prohibits
the City from treating condominium structures differently from non-
condominiumized structures of the same type. This is a city-wide
issue rather than a neighborhood -specific issue.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the
public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
Response: According to the State legislation, our current language
regarding condominiums is not in the public interest. Therefore,
the City of Aspen is obliged to revise its condominiumizat'on
regulations.
ORDINANCE No
(SERIES OF 1993)
I AN ORDINANCE OF:THE CIT CiL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN,AMENDING CI ukPT•ER 24
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, LAND 1bE REGULA-
TIONS, TO PROVIDE THAT SECTION 7-1007;'
'CONDOMiNIUMIZATION". SHALL BE REVISED'
TO DELETE HOUSING IMPACT FEES AND TO
REVISE THE'PURPOSE' SECTIONS OF THE Rio,
R-15, R-15A, It-15B, R30 AND RR ZONE DIS-
TRICTS TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE 'LONG
TERM" IN DESCRIBING TERM OCCUPANCY
LIMIT'S 1N RESiDFM7AL ZONE DLSmRICTS.
WHEREAS, Section.27-7-1103 of the Municipal
Code provides that amendments to Chapter 24
of the Code, to wit, "Land Use Regulations,"
shall be reviewed and recommended for
approval by the Planning Director and then by
the Planning and Zoning Commission at public
hearing, and then approved, approved with
conditions; or disapproved by the City Council
at public heaArtg; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has pro-
posed and recommended for approval text
amendments to Chapter 24 relating to Condo-
-
mWumization and to residential zone district .
'Purpose" sections; and
WHEREAS. the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion reviewed the proposed text amendments
at worksesslons on July 20 and August 3, 1993, And at a public hearing on August 17. 1993, and
recommended approval of the amendments
pursuant to the procedure as authorized by
Section 24-6-205(A)8 of the Municipal Code;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the
Proposed text amendments will encourage effl-
clency In government by streamlining the land
use review process and will be consistent with
promoting the public welfare and the purposes
and Intent of Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COL
ORADO as follows:
Section 1:
That Section 24-7-1007, 'Condominiumlza-
tion' of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, Is hereby repeated and reen-
acted to read as follows:
'Section 24-7-1007. Condominiumization.
A. General. Where a proposed development
Is to Include a condc,.rinium form of owner-
ship, or If an existing development is to be con-
verted to a condominium forth of ownership. In
whole or In part, a condominium subdivision
exemption plat reflecting all condominiumized
units, or that portion of the development to be
condominlumized, shall be submitted to the
Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the terms
and provisions of this section.
B. Procedure. A development application for
a condominlumlzation shall be reviewed pur-
suant to the procedures and standards in this
section and Common Procedures, Article 6,
Division 2.
1. Contents of application. The contents of a
development application for a condominium or
condom IatumizatIon shall include the follow-
Ing:
a. The general application Information
required In Common Procedures, Section 24b
202.
b. A condominium subdivision exemption
plat drawn with permanent Ink on reproducible
mylar. Sheet size shall be twenty-four (24) inch-
es by thirty-six (36) Inches with an unencum-
bered margin of one and one-half (1 1/2) Inches
on the left hand side of the sheet and a one-half
(1/2) Inch margin around the other three (3)
sides of the sheet. It shall Include:
(I) Accurate dimensions for all lines, angles
and curves used to describe boundaries,
streets, setbacks, alleys, easements, structures,
areas to be reserved or dedicated for public or
common use and other Important features. All
curves shall be circular arcs and shall be
defined by the radius, central angle, tangent,
arc and chord distances. All dimensions, both
linear and angular. are to be determined by an
accurate control survey In the !44d :which must
balance and close within a limit of one (1) in
ten thousand (10,000).
(II) The plat shall be drawn at a scale of one
(1) Inch equals one hundred (100) feet or larg-
er. Architectural scales are not acceptable. If it
Is necessary to place the plat on more than one
(1) sheet, an Index shall be included on the
first sheet. A vicinity map shall also appear on
the first sheet showing the condominium pro-
ject as It relates to the rest of the city and the
street system In the area of the proposed con-
dominium.
(Ili) A description of all survey monuments,
both found and set, which mark the boundaries
of the subdivision, and description of all monu-
ments used In conducting the survey. The Col-
orado Coordinate System may be used.
(Iv) A statement by the land surveyor
explaining how bearings, If used, were deter-
mined.
L
"` (v) A certfflcall ihe-registered,land sur-
veyor "to the 4ccutracy of the survey.and plat,
$Oal! a state 1.. that the survey was performed
vt ioeordaota'trith Colorado Revised'$t totes
r?973 aide ]B Abide 54 as amended time
+F ; at A oa WcaSe by a corporate tit�e hisurer,
F.that the person or persons dedlcittiiQ to the
�publlc the pubifc.rlgfiudwaY: steal facW
tles as.:!town thereon are 11re
,; tiJn fee aimple.hiOe4tYdt3ear-.O[all,- 1''Amd
encumbrances:-
(vii) Certificates ahowing apprtival.oi the
final plat by the City Engineer andYltu'ning
Director.
(will) A certificate of filing for the Puldn coun-
ty Clerk and Recorder. -
Ox) Copies of any monument records
required of the land surveyor In accordance
with Colorado Revised Statutes 1973, Title 38,
Article 53, as amended from time to time.
2. Recordation: The approved condominium
_subdivision exemption plat shall be recorded
In the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder wlthln one
hundred eighty (180) days of Its approval by
the Planning Director. Failure on the part of the
applicant to record the plat within one hun-
dred eighty (180) days following approval by
the Planning Director shall render the plat
Invalid and a new application and approval will
be required. -
3. Subdivision Exemption Agreement No sub-
division exemption agreement need be pre-
pared or entered Into between the.applicant
and the city pursuant to a condominium or
condotm minNtratlon approval unless the Plan-
Ing Director determines such an agreement Is
necessary.
C. Minimum lease Deed Restriction: Mini-
mum lease deed restrictions Imposed by the
i city council as a condition of condominiumiza-
tlon approval prior to July 1, 1992, shall only by
modified or removed with the consent of the I
city council. jl
Section 2: "
That Section 245-201, -Medium-Density Resl-
dental (R-6)" of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read
as follows: -
"Sec. 24-S-201. Medlum-Density Residential
(R-6)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Medlum-0en-
$fly Residential (RS) zone district Is to provide
areas for long term residential purposes with
customary accessory uses. Recreational and
Institutional uses customarily?ound in proximi-
ty to residential uses are Included as condition-
al uses. lands In the Medium -Density Residen-
tial (RS) zone district are generally limited to
the original Aspen Townsite, contain relatively
dense settlements of predominantly detached
and duplex residences, and are within walking
distance of the center of the city."
Section 3:
That Section 24-5-202, "Moderate -Density
Residential (R-15)" of the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to
read as follows: -
"Sec. 24-5-202. Moderate -Density Residential
(R-I5).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate -
Density Residential (R-15) zone district is to
provide areas for long term residential purpos.
es with customary accessory uses. Recreation-
al and institutional uses customarily found in
proximity to residential uses are included as
conditional uses. lands in the Moderate -Densi-
ty Residential (R-15) zone district typically con-
sist of additions to the Aspen Townsite and
subdivisions on the periphery of the city.
Lands within the Townsite which border Aspen
Mountain are also included In the Moderate -
Density Residential (RIS) zone district."
Section 4:
That Section 24-5-203. "Moderate -Density
Residential (R-ISA)" of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amend-
ed to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-5-203. Moderate Density Residential
(R-I SA).
Exhibit 4
Purpose. The ptirpose of the Moderate-
Ity Residential (11•15A) zone district is to
le areas for long term residential purpos-
h customary accessory ttses, Recreation. '
al and, Institutional uses customarily found In
p.otdmlty to residential uses are Included ass'
conditional uses. Lands In the Moderate-0eiisk�.,:
ty Residential (R-1SA) zone diltrlct are slmllar-=
ly situated to those in the Moderete-Density
Residential (R-15) zone district and are Lands
annexed from Pilkin County from zone districts
In which duplexes are a prohibited ttse.' ,
Section 5:
That Section 24.5-204, 'Moderale•Denslty 4
Residential (R-1SB)' of the Municipal Code of
the City of Aspen. Colorado, Is hereby amend-
ed to read as follows:
"Sec. 245-204. Moderate -Density Residential
(R-15B).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Moderate
Density Residential (R-15B) zone districtisto-f
provide areas for long term residential purpos.
es with customary accessory uses. Lands In the
Moderate -Density RestdentW (R-1SB) zone dis-
trict are similarly situated to those In the Mod -
erase -Density Residential (R-IS) and (R-ISA)
zone districts, but are those hr.which single-
family structures are a permitted use and
duplexes are prohibited."
Section 6: -
That Section 24b205. " ow-Denslty Reskfen;
tW (R30)" of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby anon red to -read as "t
follows: --
"Sec. 24-5.205. Low -Density Residential (R- _
30).
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low4)ensity ;•
Residential (R30) zone district is to provide ;
areas for long term residential purposes with -
customary accessory uses. Recreational and
institutional cues customarily found In prordml- h
ty to residential uses are Included as condition-
'
al uses. lands in the Low -Density Residential
(1130) zone district are typically located along
river frontages In outlying areas of the city. -
Sectton 7: -
That Section 24-5-208. 'Rural Residential
(RR)" of the Municipal Code of the City of
Aspen, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
'Sec. 24-5-208, Rural Residential (RR)
A. Purpose. The purpose of the Rural Rest-
dential (RR) zone district Is to allow utilization
of land for low density, long term fesidential
purposes with the recreational. Institutlonal,
public and other compatible uses customarily
found in proximity to those cues allowed as
permitted uses or conditional uses' 1
Section 8:
That Section 243101, 'Definitions of the
Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado,
is hereby amended to Include a new definition
to read as follows:
'Long Term means the occupancy of a
dwelling unit for residential purposes for a
time period not less than six (6) consecutive
months and shall Include rental occupancies.
except that two shorter rental occupancies
may be allowed per dwelling unit per year.'
Section 9:
The repeal as provided herein of Sections 24-
7-1007 A (1) (b) and (c), which required mini-
mum lease deed restrictions and the payment
of affordable housing Impact fees, respectively,
as a condition of approval for condominiumlza-
tion shall be applied retroactively to those coo-
dominlumization approvals granted In Ordi-
nances 9244, 92-69. 93-26, 93-28 and 93.33. At
the applicants' request, the City Council will
remove the deed restrictions and refund the
employee housing mitigation fees that were
required as a condition of the above cited con-
dominlumization approvals.
Section 10:
This Ordinance shall not effect any existing
litigation and shall not operate as an abate-
ment 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 11:
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 Jurlsdic0m, such portion
shall be deemed a separate. distinct and inde-
pendent provision and shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions thereof.
Section 12:
A public hearing on this Ordinance shall be
held on the 8th day of November, 1993 In the
City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen
Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which a
hearing of public notice of the same shall be
published In a newspaper of general circulation
within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB-
LISHED as provided by law. by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 12th day of Octo-
ber, 1993.
John Bennett. Mayor
Attest: Kathryn S. Koch. City Clerk
Published In the Aspen Times Oct. 22. 1993.
Villa
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
v/rk
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Directo���\
FROM: Francis X. Krizmanich, Deputy Director
RE: Condominiumization Amendments - Second Reading and Public
Hearing of Ordinance 53, Series of 1993.
DATE: November 8, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is the second reading and public hearing of
Ordinance 53, which proposes to amend the City Condominiumization
procedure. The staff recommends that the Council approve the
attached Ordinance.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council reviewed the proposed
amendments to the City Condominiumization procedure at the first
reading on October 12, 1993.
BACKGROUND: The Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA)
requires that local laws cannot treat properties differently merely
because of the form of ownership; it appears that the Aspen
condominium regulations, as written, may be in conflict with this
statute.
The Planning Staff discussed proposed amendments to Section 7-
1007, Condominiumization, at worksessions with the Planning
Commission on July 20 and August 3, 1993. On August 17, 1993, a
public hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments
and requested that the staff draft a resolution recommending
approval to the City Council. This resolution is attached as
"Exhibit 111.
The staff has recommended that the condominiumization regulation
be amended to be a simple administrative subdivision platting
process, and that the requirements for housing mitigation would be
deleted. Staff also recommended adding "long term" to the purpose
sections of the residential zone districts to reflect their
residential nature. A definition for "long term" is also proposed.
The Planning Commission agreed with these recommendations.
The staff notes that the proposed ordinance differs from the
Planning Commission recommendation in two areas: 1) The definition
of long-term was modified at the recommendation of the City
1
Attorney for clarity. 2) The Planning Commission resolution
refers to a condominium application to the entire subdivision
regulation (Section 7-1004) for the applicable platting standards.
Upon further consideration, staff has provided for a separate
procedure for condominium subdivision exemption plats so that the
process is as straight forward as possible to aid both the public
and the staff.
HISTORY: Based on direction from the City Council in December of
1992, the staff met with the Planning Commission on July 20, 1993,
and proposed that the permitted use sections of the residential
zone districts be restricted to long-term occupancy (six month
minimum lease) with two shorter tenancies per year allowed.
Alternatively, short term accommodations (hotels, motels, lodges
and some residences) were proposed to be limited to short term
occupancy. This proposal recommended adding a new subsection "F"
to the residential and lodge zone districts. Subsection "F"
generally would have required six month minimum leases in all
residential zone districts; in lodging districts, short term
rentals were required.
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns with this
proposal regarding the addition of a six month minimum lease to all
the permitted use sections and short term requirements for lodges:
• It does not appear that the proposed restrictions are
necessary at this time.
• The trend appears to be away from the short term rental of
dwellings in residential zones, in part due to an increased
supply of quality hotel accommodations in Aspen.
• The market tends to "adjust" itself to maintain a balance
between resident and short term accommodations.
• Enforcement of lease restrictions would be extremely difficult
and would probably be somewhat unpopular with the general
public.
• It does not appear necessary to require short term rental of
lodge properties at this time.
At the second worksession with the Planning Commission on August
3, 1993, the staff discussed a different approach to occupancy
restrictions. The staff opinion at that time was that the existing
zone district "Purpose" sections and the Land Use Code definitions
adequately define and regulate residential and tourist
accommodations; however, in an attempt to strengthen the
residential nature of certain zone districts, "long term" was added
to the purpose section. The definition of "long term" and the
purpose sections are included in "Exhibit 111, the Planning
2
Commission's recommendation.
The second worksession on August 3, 1993, also focused on the need
to require six month minimum lease restrictions in the permitted
use section of the residential districts as well as requiring short
term leasing in the lodging districts. Members of both the City
Council and the Planning Commission, as well as the Planning staff,
had originally voiced concerns that removing the six month minimum
lease restriction could lead to increased displacement of local
residents from long term rental housing. Based on our previous
research (See Exhibit 11211) and discussions with the Planning
Commission, the staff opinion at this time is that removing the six
month minimum lease restriction from the condominiumization process
will have little effect because most of the larger projects that
house employees have been condominiumized and/or contain six month
minimum lease restrictions. In fact, it appears from reading the
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) that the six month
lease restriction (based on a condominiumization application) is
precisely the type of regulation that is prohibited. While the
staff was originally concerned that CCIOA would negatively impact
the local housing market, it appears at this time that other
regulations will fill this void; including Ordinance 1 and the
Growth Management Quota System for new projects. These issues are
outlined in the attached Exhibit 2.
While the CCIOA prohibits regulations that treat condominium
interests differently than other property ownerships, this Act is
not retroactive. All previously restricted residential
condominiums which have a six month restriction would remain
restricted unless those restrictions are repealed by City Council.
One approach which the Planning Commission discussed at the August
3 meeting was to amend the condominiumization regulations to make
them a simple platting procedure (to comply with CCIOA), while
making the recommendation to the City Council that the six month
minimum lease requirement not be removed for any previously
approved condominiumization. In addition, it appeared that broadly
applying a six month lease restriction to all residential
properties ignores the diverse qualities that make each
neighborhood unique ("messy vitality"). By adding "long term" to
the purpose section of the residential zone districts, this concern
will be addressed. Based on the above, the Planning Commission
discussed the potential of holding a future worksession with City
Council and the possibility of analyzing the true effect of
occupancy restrictions - short and long term - as they affect the
character of Aspen.
Staff finds that the proposed text amendments outlined in the
proposed ordinance meet the review criteria for text amendments
(Section 24-7-1102) as outlined in the attached Exhibit 3.
SUMMARY: The proposed amendments will:
• Provide for a simple administrative subdivision process.
• Eliminate the affordable housing fee for future
condominiumizations.
• Eliminate the 6 month minimum lease requirement as a
requirement of condominiumization.
• Add "long term" to the purpose section of residential zone
districts.
• Add a definition of long term to strengthen residential zone
districts.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Planning Staff recommend that the City Council amend the Land Use
Code as outlined in the attached Ordinance.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 53, Series of 1993,
amending the condominiumization regulations and amending the
purpose sections of the residential zone districts and including
a definition of long term in the Definition section."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 53, Series of 1993
Exhibits:
111" P&Z Resolution recommending approval of the proposed revisions
to the Land Use Code
112" Memorandum to Council re: Condominiumization, dated 12/7/92
from Leslie Lamont
113" Condominiumization Text Amendments - Review Criteria
114" Public Notice
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manage
THRU: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM: Francis X. Krizmanich, Deputy Director
RE: Condominiumization Amendments - First Reading of
Ordinance, Series of 1993
DATE: October 12, 1993
SUMMARY: The Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA)
requires that local laws cannot treat properties differently merely
because of the form of ownership; it appears that the Aspen
condominium regulations, as written, may be in conflict with this
statute.
The Planning Staff discussed proposed amendments to Section 7-
1007, Condominiumization, at worksessions with the Planning
Commission on July 20 and August 3, 1993. On August 17, 1993, a
public hearing was held. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed amendments
and requested that the staff draft a resolution recommending
approval to the City Council. This resolution is attached as
"Exhibit 111.
The staff has recommended that the condominiumization regulation
be amended to be a simple administrative subdivision platting
process, and that the requirements for housing mitigation would be
deleted. Staff also recommended adding "long term" to the purpose
sections of the residential zone districts to reflect their
residential nature. A definition for "long term" is also proposed.
The Planning Commission agreed with these recommendations.
The staff notes that the proposed ordinance differs from the
Planning Commission recommendation in two areas: 1) The definition
of long-term was modified at the recommendation of the City
Attorney for clarity. 2) The Planning Commission resolution
refers to a condominium application to the entire subdivision
regulation (Section 7-1004) for the applicable platting standards.
Upon further consideration, staff has provided for a separate
procedure for condominium subdivision exemption plats so that the
process is as straight forward as possible to aid both the public
and the staff.
1
HISTORY: Based on direction from the City Council in December of
1992, the staff met with the Planning Commission on July 20, 1993,
and proposed that the permitted use sections of the residential
zone districts be restricted to long-term occupancy (six month
minimum lease) with two shorter tenancies per year allowed.
Alternatively, short term accommodations (hotels, motels, lodges
and some residences) were proposed to be limited to short term
occupancy. This proposal recommended adding a new subsection "F"
to the residential and lodge zone districts. Subsection "F"
generally would have required six month minimum leases in all
residential zone districts; in lodging districts, short term
rentals were required.
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns with this
proposal regarding the addition of a six month minimum lease to all
the permitted use sections and short term requirements for lodges:
• It does not appear that the proposed restrictions are
necessary at this time.
• The trend appears to be away from the short term rental of
dwellings in residential zones, in part due to an increased
supply of quality hotel accommodations in Aspen.
• The market tends to "adjust" itself to maintain a balance
between resident and short term accommodations.
• Enforcement of lease restrictions would be extremely difficult
and would probably be somewhat unpopular with the general
public.
• It does not appear necessary to require short term rental of
lodge properties at this time.
At the second worksession with the Planning Commission on August
3, 1993, the staff discussed a different approach to occupancy
restrictions. The staff opinion at that time was that the existing
zone district "Purpose" sections and the Land Use Code definitions
adequately define and regulate residential and tourist
accommodations; however, in an attempt to strengthen the
residential nature of certain zone districts, "long term" was added
to the purpose section. The definition of "long term" and the
purpose sections are included in "Exhibit 111, the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
The second worksession on August 3, 1993, also focused on the need
to require six month minimum lease restrictions in the permitted
use section of the residential districts as well as requiring short
term leasing in the lodging districts. Members of both the City
Council and the Planning Commission, as well as the Planning staff,
had originally voiced concerns that removing the six month minimum
lease restriction could lead to increased displacement of local
2
residents from long term rental housing. Based on our previous
research (See Exhibit 11211) and discussions with the Planning
Commission, the staff opinion at this time is that removing the six
month minimum lease restriction from the condominiumization process
will have little effect because most of the larger projects that
house employees have been condominiumized and/or contain six month
minimum lease restrictions. In fact, it appears from reading the
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA) that the six month
lease restriction (based on a condominiumization application) is
precisely the type of regulation that is prohibited. While the
staff was originally concerned that CCIOA would negatively impact
the local housing market, it appears at this time that other
regulations will fill this void; including Ordinance 1 and the
Growth Management Quota System for new projects. These issues are
outlined in the attached Exhibit 2.
While the CCIOA prohibits regulations that treat condominium
interests differently than other property ownerships, this Act is
not retroactive. All previously restricted residential
condominiums which have a six month restriction would remain
restricted unless those restrictions are repealed by City Council.
One approach which the Planning Commission discussed at the August
3 meeting was to amend the condominiumization regulations to make
them a simple platting procedure (to comply with CCIOA), while
making the recommendation to the City Council that the six month
minimum lease requirement not be removed for any previously
approved condominiumization. In addition, it appeared that broadly
applying a six month lease restriction to all residential
properties ignores the diverse qualities that make each
neighborhood unique ("messy vitality"). By adding "long term" to
the purpose section of the residential zone districts, this concern
will be addressed. Based on the above, the Planning Commission
discussed the potential of holding a future worksession with City
Council and the possibility of analyzing the true effect of
occupancy restrictions - short and long term - as they affect the
character of Aspen.
Staff finds that the proposed text amendments outlined in the
proposed ordinance meet the review criteria for text amendments
(Section 24-7-1102) as outlined in the attached Exhibit 3.
SUMMARY: The proposed amendments will:
• Provide for a simple administrative subdivision process.
• Eliminate the affordable housing fee for future
condominiumizations.
• Eliminate the 6 month minimum lease requirement as a
requirement of condominiumization.
• Add "long term" to the purpose section of residential zone
districts.
• Add a definition of long term to strengthen residential zone
districts.
3
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission and the
Planning Staff recommend that the City Council amend the Land Use
Code as outlined in the attached Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE: Council may wish to amend the permitted use sections
of the residential zone districts to restate the six month minimum
lease restriction for residential units.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to read Ordinance , Series of 1993,
amending the condominiumization regulations and amending the
purpose sections of the residential zone districts and including
a definition of long term in the Definition section."
"I move to approve Ordinance , Series of 1993, amending the
condominiumization regulations and amending the purpose sections
of the residential zone districts and including a definition of
long term in the Definition section."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance 5 3, Series of 1993
Exhibits:
111" P&Z Resolution recommending approval of the proposed revisions
to the Land Use Code
112" Memorandum to Council re: Condominiumization, dated 12/7/92
from Leslie Lamont
113" Condominiumization Text Amendments - Review Criteria
,, q„ P"o:, NJI ce-
4
§ 7-1005 ASPEN CODE
�10 E. Recordation- The subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
Pitkin County clerk and recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat
within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the city council
��, shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration and approval of the plat by the commission
1Y ��� and city council will be required before its acceptance and recording, unless an extension or
waiver is granted by city council for a showing of good cause. The one hundred and eight
i (180) day recordation requirement contained herein shall not apply --to- the recording of
( condo urim 11 m maps, or declarations or any other documents required to be recorded to ac
X omp is a con ominiumlzatlon In a lty of Aspen.
VZr� Sec. 7-1006. Amendment to subdivision development order.
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat may be
authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to techni-
cal or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not
reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat
�►1 which the planning director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting
the approved plat.
B. Other Amendment. Any other amendment shall be approved by the city council,
provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. If the proposed change
is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new
development application for plat.
C. Plat vacation. Vacation of an approved plat or any other document recorded in con-
junction with a plat shall be considered a plat amendment, and shall only be approved by the
city council -if good cause is demonstrated.
Sec. 7-1007. Condominiumization. %t _I ✓: r
A. General. In addition to all other requirements imposed in this division, when applica-
tion is made for subdivision of a parcel of land to be used for condominium development, the
applicant must also comply with the following requirements during the review of the devel-
opment application for plat. If conversion of an existing development is proposed, the
condominiumization shall be reviewed and approved as a subdivision exemption by the city
council pursuant to the terms and provisions of this section.
1. Condominiumization of residential units.
a. Purchase rights of existing tenants. Existing tenants shall be given written notice
when their unit will be offered for sale as a condominium, and the sale price.
Each tenant shall be provided a ninety -day nonassignable option to purchase the
unit at this preliminary market value. In addition, each tenant shall have a
ninety -day exclusive nonassignable right of first refusal to purchase the unit
which shall commence when a bona fide offer is made by a third person, and
accepted by the owner. In the event that such offer is made while the initial
Supp. No. 1 1746
MEMORANDUM
TO: Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Zoning Administrator
FROM: Diane Moore, City Planning Director 1 �1
RE: Condominiumization Memo for Council
DATE: August 25, 1993
I had mentioned to you last week that this item was placed on the
Council meeting of September 13, 1993 for first reading of the
ordinance. There are several items that you need to address for the
Council memo and they are:
1. How do we address future condominiumization of commercial
properties? Presently, the code is silent as to these types of
condominiumizations and staff processes them utilizing the existing
language. We can talk about this further.
2. I think that I put something in your in -box regarding the time
frame for recordation of a condo plat. The current code does not
have a date specified as most people prepare one after, the units
have been constructed. We may want to add a time frame as at least
the "space" can be delineated on a plat. We have found that no one
ever files a condo plat (no motivation) even though they are
required to do so. Again, we can talk about this. Let me know when
you are available.
J) f./ Z
Tuesday, August 31, 1993 - Draft memo and ordinance for Diane's
review. Once you have made some of the revisions to the ordinance
(based on above paragraphs) we can then give Jed a copy for his
review and comments.
Friday, September 3, 1993 - Deadline for final memo and ordinance
to Diane.
Wednesday, September 8, 1993 - Council packet deadline is at 2 pm.
Thanks.
M3i:iVWZi`.11110Ti
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Francis X. Krizmanich
RE: Condominiumization Amendments - Public Hearing
DATE: August 17, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Staff discussed proposed amendments to
Section 7-1007, Condominiumization, at worksessions with the
Planning Commission on July 20 and August 3, 1993. A new state
statute, the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act (CCIOA)
requires that local laws cannot treat properties differently merely
because of the form of ownership; it appears that the Aspen
condominium regulations, as written, may be in conflict with this
statute.
The staff has recommended that the condominiumization regulation
be amended to be a simple administrative subdivision platting
process. The requirements for housing mitigation would be deleted.
The Planning Commission seemed to agree with this recommendation.
In addition, based on direction from the City Council in December
of 1992, the staff originally proposed the requirement that most
of the residential districts be restricted to long-term occupancy
(six month minimum lease) with two shorter tenancies per year
allowed. Alternatively, short term accommodations (hotels, motels,
lodges and some residences) were proposed to be limited to short
term occupancy. This proposal recommended adding a new subsection
"F" to the residential and lodge zone districts. Subsection "F"
generally requires six month minimum leases in all residential zone
districts; in lodging districts, short term rentals are required.
This proposal is attached as Alternative "B".
The Planning Commission expressed the following concerns with this
proposal regarding the six month minimum lease:
• It does not appear that the proposed restrictions are
necessary at this time.
• The trend appears to be away from the short term rental of
dwellings in residential zones, in part due to an increased
supply of quality hotel accommodations in Aspen.
• The market tends to "adjust" itself to maintain a balance
between resident and short term accommodations.
• Enforcement of lease restrictions would be extremely difficult
1
and would probably be somewhat unpopular with the general
public.
At the second worksession with the Planning Commission on August
3, 1993, the staff discussed a softer approach to occupancy
restrictions. The staff opinion at this time is that the existing
zone district "Purpose" sections and the Land Use Code definitions
adequately define and regulate residential and tourist
accommodations; however, in an attempt to strengthen the
residential nature of certain zone districts, "long term" has been
added. The relevant definitions and the purpose sections (with
"long term" inserted in bold print) are attached as Alternative
"A". This is the staff's recommended code amendment language.
The discussion on August 3 also focused on the need to require six
month minimum lease restrictions in residential districts as well
as requiring short term leasing in the lodging districts.
Originally, members of both the City Council and the Planning
Commission, as well as the Planning staff, voiced concerns that
removing the six month minimum lease restriction would lead to
increased displacement of local residents from long term rental
housing. Based on our research (See Exhibit 11111) and discussions
with the Planning Commission, the staff opinion at this time is
that removing the six month minimum lease restriction from the
condominiumization process will have little effect because most of
the larger projects that house employees have been condominiumized
and/or contain six month minimum lease restrictions. In fact, it
appears from reading the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act
(CCIOA) that the six month lease restriction (based on a
condominiumization application) is precisely the type of regulation
that is prohibited.
While the CCIOA prohibits regulations that treat condominium
interests differently than other property ownerships, this Act is
not retroactive. All previously restricted residential
condominiums which have a six month restriction would remain
restricted unless those restrictions are repealed by City Council.
One approach which the Planning Commission discussed at the August
3 meeting is to amend the condominiumization regulations to make
them a simple platting procedure (to comply with CCIOA), while
making the recommendation to the City Council that the six month
minimum lease requirement should not be removed for any previously
approved condominiumization. In addition, it appeared that broadly
applying a six month lease restriction to all residential
properties ignores the diverse qualities that make each
neighborhood unique ("messy vitality"). Based on the above, the
Planning Commission discussed the potential of holding a future
worksession with City Council and the possibility of analyzing the
true effect of occupancy restrictions - short and long term - as
they affect the character of Aspen.
Staff finds that the proposed text amendments outlined in
2
Alternative "A" meet the review criteria for text amendments (24-
7-1102) as contained in Exhibit 112".
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Planning staff recommends amending Section 7-1007,
"Condominiumization", to state:
"A. General. If conversion of an existing or proposed
development to a condominium form of ownership is
proposed, a condominium plat shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for review and approval as a
subdivision exemption pursuant to the standards for
subdivision plats contained in Section 7-1004,
"Subdivision Approval"."
2. The Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the recommended text amendments outlined in
Alternative "A", which recommends that long-term uses for
residences be added to the purpose section of the residential
zone districts.
3. The Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend that
the Aspen City Council refrain from removing the six month
minimum lease restriction from previously approved residential
condominiums, unless and until further study shows that the
six month restriction is not necessary to protect Aspen's
residential housing supply.
3