HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ca.Condominiumization Code.A66-93
DATE RECEIVED: /
DATE COMPLETE:
:~
--
"e_ _'"'\,
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
/
PARCEL 10 AND CASE
NO.
AiP(,,-9
FK
PROJECT NAME: Code
Project Address:
Legal Address:
STAFF MEMBER:
Amendments - Condominiumization
APPLICANT:
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative Address/Phone:
Aspen. CO 81611
===~==========================================================
FEES: PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV. HEALTH
TOTAL
$
$
$
$
$
# APPS RECEIVED
# PLATS RECEIVED
TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL:
P&Z Meeting Date
CC Meeting Date
DRC Meeting Date
1 STEP:
2 STEP:-L-
k~e II PUBLIC HEARING:
_~~ VESTED RIGHTS:
/ I'!.--
/0/17-./ PUBLIC HEARING:
.
j II 'it -7- ';9i (pJ)STED RIGHTS:
.~
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Zoning
Parks Dept.
Bldg Inspector
Fire Marshal
Holy Cross
Mtn. Bell
ACSD
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
COOT
Clean Air Board
Open Space Board
Other
Other
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS: DUE:
---------------------------------------------r------------------
;~~~~-~;~;~~~~----------------~~;;-~;~;;~~--h (e----~~~;~~~~~iJ-
___ City Atty ___ City Engineer ___Zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing ___ Open space Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
/'.
~ '. / (I II
. &></7/'10 ,'j I
,~.
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager . ~iC'~
Diane Moore, city Planning Direct r.
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
December 7, 1992
TO:
THRU:
DATE:
RE:
Condominiumization - Analysis of Impact of New State
Statute (CCIOA) on City of'Aspen Land Use Regulations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY:
On July I, 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.
1,
6f
~
~
. \:
1
,
.' ,
S1taff 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: .
Key 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.
Key Issue 2 - six Month Minimum.Lease
a six month minimum lease is
condominiumized units in an effort
tenants/residents.
Restriction: currently,
required for newly
to maintain long term
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 .'IS".
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,
~
~.
~.
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 "ccndominiumization 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 condominiumizationsi 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 wi thin 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 1980's.' Within the past
~
,0
.,,--....\
~~
,
>
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 KE~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 condominiumized, an impact fee is paid
to the Housing Fund to mitigate affordable housing needs generated
by the condominiumization.
. Response: Sinc,e 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 resul t 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
1.
~
.~
affordable housing.
2. New or reconstructed single family and
required to mitigate employee housing impacts
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.
duplexes are
by one of the
While the method used to address the existinq affordable housinq
inventorv in Ordinance 1 is different than the affordable housinq
impact fee for condominiumization. the qoal is the same i. e.
maintaininq the communi tv's stock of affordable housinq. Since the
. current condominiumiz-ation affordable housing impact fee is imposed
on existing and new residential units, then the "affordable
housing" prvvisions 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 dwell~ngs.
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 housingjdaycare 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 prov1s1on 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,
~
.1
.~,
/"'0
a six month m~n~mum 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
condominiums, units may be short termed more
displacing local tenants/residents.
existing or future
often, potentially
* 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;dthen 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 ct:immunity; 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 existinq six
month minimum lease restrictions current Iv 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.
~
~
, ,
,-,
Recommendation: staff recommends that Council consider addressing
the land use issues posed by the elimination of the six month
minimum lease restriction through amendmends to the permitted use
section within the various residential zone districts.
For example, the permitted use section of the residential zone
districts would restate the six month minimum lease restriction
(along with exceptions for shorter tenancies). The language could
be written so that all residential units would have to adhere to
this restriction, or the language could be specific for duplexes
or mUlti-family structures.
'It<This approach would be a major policy decision as the focus would
be on the use of all residential dwellings within the zone
district, not just condominiumized residential units. There
probably would be considerable backlash.to this concept in-addition
to an increase in enforcement. If the language was specific to
duplexes and multi-family residences within the zone districts,
then single family homeowner resistence would be eliminated.
Key Issue 3
condominiumized
that they are
accomodations.
Lodge Condominiumization: Lodges that are
are required to remain in the short term market so
available to the general public as tourist
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 I, 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.
1-
fu
~,
.~
\
,
4) Approve the pending condominiumization applications under
existing ordinances with a reservation stating if the
condominiumization ordinances should change after an approval
(within a reasonable period of time thereafter), the applicant will
be. allowed the benefits of any change by way of the retroactive
application of the new ordinance (e.g. if the requirement of an
impact fee is repealed, the applicant will get its. previously paid
fee refunded).
~
~
~
.A
AGENDA
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
August 3, 1993, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
cituall
============~==================~==============================
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
r'\
r'\
Reqular Meetinq
Aspen city Council
December 7. 1.992
ORDINANCE #81.. SERIES OF 1.992 - Undergrounding Improvement District
Cemetery Lane
Councilwoman Richards moved to read Ordinance #81., Series of 1.992;
seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. All in favor, motion carried.
ORDINANCE #8l
(Series of 1.992)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO, TO CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF
CONVERTING EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC AND COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES TO UNDERGROUND LOCATION; AND ADOPTION OF
DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFOR was read by the ' city
clerk .
Cindy Wilson, assistant city manager, reminded Council they took
action on this district at the last meeting. This district has to
be approved by ordinance. The public hearing will be January 1.1.,
1.993.
Councilwoman Richards moved to adopt Ordinance #81., Series of 1.992,
on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Pendleton. Roll call
vote; councilmembers Pendleton, yes; Richards, yes; Mayor Pro Tem
Peters, yes. Motion carried.
CONDOMINIUMIZATION DISCUSSION
Diane Moore, planning director, reminded Council last July the
Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act went into effect. Staff has
made some recommendations on Aspen'S regulations. Ms. Moore said
the first issue is the affordable housing impact fee. CUrrently
when a free market unit is condominiumized, an impact fee is paid
to the housing fund to mitigate the housing needs generated by the
condominiumization. The second issue is .the 6 month minimum lease
restriction, which is required in an effort to maintain long term
residents. The third issues is lodge condominiumization. Lodge
units are required to remain in tbe short term rental market for
tourist accommodations.
Ms. Moore told Council staff has done extensive research in this
area. The new state statute cannot be applied retroactively and
the existing 6 month minimum leases cannot be rendered invalid.
Ms. Moore told council under the housing impact fee, since 1.988,
the city has collected $251,000. There are existing ordinances in
place which address affordable housing not through condominiumi-
zation. The growth management quota system also addresses
construction of affordable housing units. Ms. Moore recommended
6
,/
\'"
~
'-
/-..
Reqular Meetinq
Aspen citv 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 rema:i,n 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 Tern 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 Tern Peters said enforcement is a different issue Council can
address.
Mayor Pro Tern Peters asked if condominiumization is enough like
subdivision to require certain mitigation and impacts. Jed
Caswall, city attorney, said an argument can be made that condomin-
iumization is a certain form of subdivision and that is where it is
located in the city's land use code. Caswall said the state
legislature does not agree. Caswall'sa.id an argument can be made
that land use is not of state concern but is of municipal interest.
This attempt by the legislature to diminish the city's subdivision
regulations is in violation of Article XX of the COlorado constitu-
tion and unenforceable in home rule cities. Caswall said the
legislature may have intended to pre-empt local government.
Caswall said the city could mount a legal challenge to this
statute; however, the real issue is whether the city would rather
look at alternatives outlined by staff and other legislation to
address areas of concern. Caswall told Council Aspen is the only
municipality that has an ordinance that could conflict with this
state statute.
Mayor Pro Tern 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
~.
~.
Reqular Meetinq
Aspen citv 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 mee.ting). 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 aft.er 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
8
lip
~.
~
Reaular Meetina
Aspen city Council
December 7. 1992
limit uses to long term and short term asappropriate~ 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. A1I1y
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.
1
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
9
.~
.~
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 ona 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-G).
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
r-',
r-'1
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 pro~imity 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.
6
r'\
~
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 0 n e
Districts
. R-6,
R-15,
R-15A,
R-30
. R-15B
. RjMF,
AH
. RjMFA
. RR,
Recommendation
Add a new subsection, "F. Occupancy Restrictions".
The rental of detached residential dwellings and
duplex residential dwellings shall be limited to six-
month minimum leases, wi th no more than two (2)
shorter tenancies per year.
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.
Add a new subs.ection "F. occupancy Restrictions". The
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.
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.
Add a new
residential
Subsection
dwelling
F which
units
states "Detached
and multi-family
7
~.
~
residential dwellings shall
month minimum leases, with
shorter tenancies per year.
be restricted to six-
no more than two (2)
. LfTR
Add a new Subsection F, which states "Residential
dwelling units may be leased without limitation."
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."
. LP
. 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) shortez: tenancies per year."
8
)
1""'.
r-,
EXHIBIT 1
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING
THAT THE ASPEN CITYCbUNCIL 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 P.HRASE "LONG TEJlli" IN
DESCRIBING TERM OCCUPANCY LIMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS AND
TO ADD "LONG TERM" TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION OF THE CODE.
Resolution No. 93-Jj[
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 2:
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
)
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:
Th.at. 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."
section 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
r--.
r--.
permitted use and duplexes are prohibited."
section 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:
Planning and zoning Commission:
a/~L
)
Bruce Kerr, Chair
city Clerk
"-.
5
.~
EXHIBIT 2
,.-"
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
Amy Margerum, City Manager .~~~
Diane Moore, City Planning Direct r .
Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
December 7, 1992
TO:
THRU:
DATE:
.RE:
condominiumization Analysis of .+mpact of New State
Statute (CC+OA) on City oI'A~~~n Land Use .Regulations
~=======~===========~===========~~==========================
SUMMARY:
On July 1, 1,992, a new state statute titled the Colorado Conunon
IriterestOwnership Act ("CCJ:OA") went into effect. . Staff has'been
analyzing the new statute t6 determine the impact of CC+OA on
planning/regulatory issues within the City. staff is providing
council with this confidential memorando.m (due to potential
lawsuits) and has scheduled this issue as a discussion item for the
December 7, 1992 Council agenda.
As yo~ will reca'll, severa:!. applicants have requested
condominiumizati.on and staff has advised them that until such time
as the Municipal Code is amended, coridominiumiz.ations will follow
existing regulations. Two applications are scheduled for second
reading on the December 14, 1992 coun~il agenda.
On October 26, 1992, Jed provided with you with a memorandum
that outlined the lega~l 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.
;L
,
r-,
,.-,
$taffhas 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 cO!1dominiumization 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: .
Key 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 condominiu~ization.
Key Issue 2 - six Month Minimum;Lease
a six month minimum lease is
condominiumized units .in an effort
tenants/residents.
Restriction: currently,
required for newly
to maintain long term
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. Whi le this has prov ided
some ownership opportunities for locals in the past, this "5
not likely to cont~nue as prices spital further upward,
"
,
,,.....,,
..-,
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 Hlmter 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 condominiumizatio~s
have taken place in the 1970's and 1980's.' \oJithin the past:
.~
~.
i-'
several years, most of the condominiumizations approved by
City Coun~il 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 KE~' '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 condominiumxzed, 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 uS.ed 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
f"'\
,-"
affordable housing,
2. New or reconstructed single family and
required to mitigate employee housing impacts
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;
duplexes are
by one of the
While the method used to address the existinq affordable housinq
inventory in Ordinance 1 is different than the affordable housinq
imoact fee for condominiumization, the. qoal is the same i.e.
maintaininq the community's stock of affordable housinq. .Since the
.current'condominitimization affordablehous:ing impact fee isimpos:ed
on existing and new res:idential units, then the "affordable
housing" prv;.-isions of OJ",dinance 1 woul<:i address those residential
dwelling units: that result from the demolition of res:ident.multi-
family s:tructures, or. from new or reconstructed .single-family and
duplex ~well~ngs.
An area that would. not be addressed (i'f' the existing
condominiumization regulations were eliminated) is if an exis:ting
multi-fami~y structure' would condominiumize, then the provisions
of ordinance 1 would not apply_ It is -not clear as to how many
existing mUlti-family st.ructures 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.affordablehousing for a minimum
of 35 % of the employees generated by the proposed development.
This "effectively aQ.dresses 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,
.2
~
~
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 discus.sions with a loca:!. 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. supject. to. deed
restrictions. .
* Residential condomin'iums within the residential zone di'stricts
such as R-6, R-15, R-;L5A, 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 dup:!.exes) within the City have already been
condominiumized so the elimininationof 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 cvmmunity; approximately 525 affordable housi.ng 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 existinq 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 mon<:h
minimum lease restriction.
!i
.
1""''\
~
Recommendation: Staff recommends that council consider addressing
the land USe issues posed. by the elimination of the six month
minimum lease res.trictionthrough amendmends to the permitted use
section within the various residential zone districts,
For example, the permitted use section of the residential zone
districts would restate the six month minimum lease restriction
(along with exceptions for shorter tenancies). The language could
be written so that all residential units would have to adhere to
this restriction, or the language could be specific for duplexes
or mUlti-family structures.
~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. 'l;'here
probably~ould be considerable backlash,to this concept .i~addition
to an increase in enforcement. If the language WaS specific to
duplexes and mUlti-family residences within the zone dis_tricts,
then sing-le family homeowner resistence wou:).d be eliminated.
Key Issue 3
condominiumized
that. they are
accoInodations.
Lodge Condominiumization: Lodges that are
are required to remain in the short term market so
available to the general public as tourist
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 approClch 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 restrictio~
for duplexes and multi-family units,
J) Amend the permitted use sections of the LJTR and LP zen"
districts to restrict long term leasing of lodge units.
7
r-,
r-,
4) Approue 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)..
-
!!.
i-'\
n
. ...-"
Exhibit "8"
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.residentialdwelling units
in the R-6, R-15, R-lSA, R-:lSB,. R-;30, R/MFiMHP, SCI, .NC,. a;nd
C zone districts. Residential dwelling units in the R~, C-l
and 0 zcne 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
condominiulllization .of 'existing aJ;l.d 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 requiremen.t and deed rest-ricted' 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,
2.
\
'i~
/'-.
i
.~
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 conunon areas of the lodge shall remain as common areas.
.
.hQ
r'-, ~
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 ];lrior to 1973 i a rouqh conservative esti.mate would
be 350 dwellin~ 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 19?3)
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 LITR
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~"ly) in 1988.
The City has collected $251,527.00 in affordable;0:,ousing impact
fees from condominiumization.
4) Lodge Condominiumization
City records indicate that eight lodges have been condominium!;,zed
that required city review,
.11
"" f""""\.
\. J .
~.
\..J l~
Exhibit "0"
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 replac.ement housing of at'. least 50% of the square
footage of the residential area demolished. The repla.cement
housing (50%) shall be deed restricted as affordable housing.
single-family and Duplex:
2) Remodeling and expansion of existing'~ingle-family and duplex
units is exempt and ..is_.nat r.equir.ed..t.o -Dlitiqate_ ,for. '.affordabl~.
housing.
3)' New or reconstructed single-family and duplexes will be required
to . mitig<lte employee housing impacts by one of the following'
mrthoos: '.
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 r~sid~nt occupied unit; two free
market units with one accessory dwelling unit; two resident
occupied units; or the affordable housing impact fee.
12
0EXHIBIT 3
~
Condominiumization Text Amendments - Review criteria
Pursuant to section 24-7-11.02 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 to
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 ~he
extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed ~he
capacity of such public facilities.,. including but not limi Coed
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
Response: This standard does not apply to ownership interes~s
created by condominium approval.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment wo~ld
result in significantly adverse impacts on the natu~al
1
~.
...-"
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 cOlnpliance with the new state regulations. However, the
proposed amendmenti> wOl,lld 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 strl,lctures 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 langu~ge
regarding condominiums is not in the public interest. Therefore,
the City of Aspen is obliged to revise its condominiumiza1:;.:J,on
regulations.
;0
"I .',_....~.....i;'[';.;';,{\~.,";,.~~:,j!:~~~i.i;.i.I~.'~:~."~..'~;:....~.'"'.",..;~....,;~:.. b' ..' ~;'&:..' .~~~.~f~:Lthe..~..::,:
i~~~ef.~:1.~!.~i~~~~~A:~C!E'~~:it:s:.~~
~'.'IO..."\ WrKC,,\li)t,,'UA'1 H~"i'ICI'" :.I:",~ ::.!.1I.... . : pI'OXlrnlty~.tc!lSIderiUaI.~~lild~~..~:
.,.~...~lM..-i"Il:...I,.Al'1\,..... "lr:.\IJ m. HI', ~':,i: "I. I (~I~!, "iM.!IlI'.'Il"t .. t'OIIIl"'.I"I.:I"'='I~.'1" . ~uses.:.1..i.od;s'~ the Modeaat~::,
:_'1",) U1..I"ll.I!'.I:'';'''fIIMI'A''~1 !i:!~" A~i~ 14) ..:.1,'~, II "',l"'r'l4l11 01 1W':I""I~~1 d"IC:~'.~II~;n "I' tr.Res1denUal (R-l$A)~_dldtrk:t~~~.
'~JfI.\'N "ifi .1",I~IJrC~.N".i.''''''!-f~!'iil It<< ,,1..:.alll'I:"IIII~"I!fI,'III-ol"''''''''.IIUI..!N..1 .lysltuatedtotho.ell1,theModeta~ky.:.
~.j H I!'A It ;'.n N..'M1 A"'=. =CI( l,OM n:" ", ;l~ ..a;;:....,,:....,.........=M' OW.M'lI' of'lI,,'1 ,Resi~entl~{R.1S).zone.dlstrl~~.~.~,.,'.
0I.,1C'1'<.,0 II>4C'11 UI '1'11 1.IIIA"'i .,......' ..II.IN.IIIII...........II.! "......"..1.1. !IC,:II'I~' I ~exedIrOmPltldn.Cotrntyfl'OllOaone,~:'-:~
,~TllliWI.I"'UI.!-f1.."="'C.II.jiUlt~C';'II".;,.,\~ l'".tl'lll~d=.:tl'rl" '.... --. ~ .Jtlwhk:h~upJ.exes~8:'~~~..~.l;~1,;...;.;}'~
..UMU&Ih,~:aw...lUJ\u:.).h.)h\...:.'i!>.,. '.'~ ,', Cwl', ',l'"ll'I'I...Il'"lllmWIIIIlA;:IIU'..ll:IlI.l'" :'. . SectionS: ,',' .',: "_'i:-"~"."~>:";/<"";'''~'~:':~'~
': .~ ..-........-:'1..1103of""'_ ....., 1....".'....fl.na1 ..p,a.tby -.. C.'!lyEnlll........ .:e&n....d.,PJ.m ",.DBl Tha.tSeeUOn24-5-2U4~~Moderat.ed)..ena 'ty.{;....\'
. Code_- thai-~-~.',...;.s.~... . 24" ','. ...:'DlrectOt.".: ,.- ' , " --;"-, ...."'-- :.' - . .RatdenUaltV--lSB)" of the MunIdp&I'CodeDf )~,
"ofthe~ to Wtt.~~t;~':st, .;.:,' '(v(u)A~:o(~'b:~~~"< the CIty of..\;pen. cObado.ls ~:,~.~:.~,
$halt.berevlewedandrecQmmendedfor.. krty(:lerkw~...:,::..,t~-".""~;:':'::'" edtoreadastoUows: ".., '.,,~. ' ,:,.'--":';
, "PPnMlby~ PlJnnIE!J Dln:ctor ,and then by' . 1',;('i',,(IX) .C~pl~_:of.Afty, ,..o~~~~~~,.l'ecords *Sec.,_2~. MOdera~ RettdeDuaJ,:';'
.""'_.ndZontrigCom_atpubnc: ,.._oI'beland_'.......nlance (ll'15B~' .' ." . ,"""".'.1
. hearing; and then. ap~, approved wlth',' r:,"wIth CoIorado;~ ~,l973,'.TItJe;38. .A. Pu~. The purpose of the 1r4odue.te-,~
.eoadItIons:'ol' ~ by the CItY Coundl.' ~'" .~,53.as,atended &oan time totllili. " Density Resklential (lMSB) %OM dtstrlc:t'''''W"if
.pubUcbea1:lnlcand._':' ,.'" . ,',': ,:,::'.2.~The~candomlnlwn' pI'O\'kIeareasforJongtennresldellUalpurpo$:',{
'WHEIlE.\S"the'Plannlng-D1rector hai'p..o.:::. . ::'"":..u~~ptIon.. . shIJl ~'I'tCOI'ded, oes-'N1theustomaryaccessoryuses.Lands.tilthe<f
'. ~:=. :n.7~'~,~~;;:~'..',. !,~,'E~...it~~!~~;.!on';."~.'.'..:':'''': S,-~.ty':'bJf,:-i.~_.:''''.~..,.~i. J_..'~:'.'
~ thePlai'anins aitd .~Comin~ :'/:,'" ap~,to,record. the'pIat'.-~, one: -hun~ ta-m.UY$t~u.ctures are 'a:pe.mlltt~~:tHe::'aPdr_ ..
sIoD'~,_Ihe~ textainendments '. ,<,::' dred.eI8bty(l8O)~;~approYal by, dup1exeSareprohtb1tecL:.'.. _':':',':":"~.~''';:l''.I;
l, atwoitcsesslonS Oft .~2&and August ~ 1993.-'" 'I' <,.tbePlarudng Dlrector,jbaU'iePdertbe plilt Sectjon6: .' " ",:' ':-:, .'~~:::'"
,.~~.pubIlchearliigon,Aupsf.n.-J993,.rlCt, :,":-lPvaBdaad.~r~~~wm :- 1'bat~1A-S-tOS;,,~vill'1j,v:;::l
, =-~:'i~u~:ea::'=.d': 'c:'~"~~.e.. 'f...;:';~.... .=~=~:='~..::.'::~~
!.; ~uon ~205(A.)8.Of .the MUnldpaICode;, ;~"cIlVl"~. __pUon/~toeedbe p~ iollowS: .' ,. . . ". .~;. ,
1 ~ .' .',' ;';",,; ,_: ::,_ . ":"-"" " , ,,,--.::-;.,,,;,/paredc)r' entered I~ ~.the.appltcant "'Sec. 24-5-205. ~ltyResld~Ea1.~,1':;'
! \\'HEImAS.theQtyCoundlfind.'thatthe, .., .andCbe~pU...oalltto..'coockiDtIllIulllor'.. 3{f)..' .'~";' C:..' i
,.,~ ... ". . " : :;-,-~Ir-w."'-1"~urdesi:'tbe~ - A.PaIfpose.The'purposeofthe1.ow-OeBllty:"-l!
~.clen<:jln=-;=-"~'::; !=.;.ta&Di<odo</!~"'- ~ai\~" . lla'denUal (830).... d"'- 1st......... ~t
':;E:-~~1.~' \~M~~'=:'~=~:: !F~E"~~.i)J
1":-' .', ' , ,,'..-..,...., \ .cIty.councUu.COIKIItlon.o(,~ .)tytol'CS\dentle1usesare.lRdUdedas'-condi~-
tIOOapptovaIpriorlO'"luIy't,lm-shaDoaIyby .aI use$~ LandSln the Low-DeuItyReskleaUal' .~
~~~~:~.~ ,':~~~_,"lbtbe.~tott~e.\l'~~~~I:~.~~' ~
SectIon 1: ' I' I. . That ~~~..~_2tn_~~Jty.ResJ. \ ThatSe~tlOil ~4-5-208. ~~..l RdlderltlaJ,."
ThatSecliOn 24.7-1007. *Condomlnlumita- . deQtIaI{R-6)...theMimldpalCOdeoftbeQty (RR)" of the Municipal Code of the Clty-o(
tlo,," of the. MuniCipal Cod~ol the CUyol I. . J i,' -of Aspen. -toJorado,ts hereby.8menckd to read . Aspeia,Coiot&do. .ts.hereby amended to read as
Aspen,CoJorado, is hereby repealedaiKI reen-t.. as Iollows: ~. . . . frillows: - ' . . .
Ilded to read as foIlow8: . J..'.' ,'~ US-201. Medium-peni'KY Resklentlal . \' "Sec24-5..208.RuraI~(RI9..'.,. ..:::~,
"Secdon24-:7-UXl1.Con"dOm1nh.unlzatioO. . . (It6). ." . ..> A. Purpose. The- purpose of the1tilrill~J&lA.
A. General. Whei'ea'~ deVelopment' :' A. PurpOse. The purpose of the Medium-Oell- denUal (RR) zone diI!rid ~.toaDow.atDladon'
Is to .lnclude. condc:.mlnlum.formol owner~ sIty_~ (R-6) zooe diStrk:t:. to provide ,of land. for tow denStt)', long tenrl1?ldentl8l
~ or If an exisung deVeJopmCnt IS to be con- areas tor long term l'eS\clentlaI' fl'Ul'Poses. w\th purposes with the recreational, lnstitUtloOal.
vetted to a condomJniUmfonn of ownershlp, In customary accessory uses. Recreational and public and . othei c:ompatt~ uses custorr&adiY
whole or In part... condominium subdivision lrIstfbitIonaIusesciJ$toinattlr'ound inproximl_found In prOXtmltYto those-uses ,allowed as
exempUon plat ~ an oondomlQ1umlzed . tyto re$ident18l uses are lndudedauondltton- pennltted uses or condtdoaaluses." . \
~ or that portIon-ofthe deVelopment to be ~ .~.LancJs In the MedJum.l>ensJty Reskien- section 8: ,. ..
.condominlwnized. shatl h:e -submitted to thl/l t1al (R4)ZOCIt!i d1strtctate gedera11ybtplted to That Sect.ton 2+3-101. ""Definitions". of the
f':IannID8' DIreCtor for review and approval.as a the Ortglnal kJpen Townsite,; ContalnrelaUVety Municipal Code Of tbe Clty',Of AspeR, Colorado.
dbdMslon .exemptlon pursuant to the termS. dense..etdemeRts OfpredomlnanUy detached is hereby. amended; to Include a new deflnIdoIi
-.net provIstOOs of this Rction. ' and duplex residences. Md'&re Wllhtn walking totUdas (allows: .
, ,B. Procedure. ,A development appbUon for c:ttstanc:e:of the ~er of the dly... . '.'. "Long Term. means . the occupancy 0.1 a
a condo.mlnlumlzatlon shall be revtewedpur- Sectkm'3: . , . . - dwelUng unit lor residential purposes for ..
suam: to the procedure$ and standards in this That Section 2"5-202. "Moderate-Del1$lty time periOd not Jess ,than. (6) 'c:onstcuttYe
=~d CoinmonProc:edures. Article 6. Residential (R--lS)" of the Munldpal Codeol'the tnC)llthS and shaD include rental occupandeS.
1. COntents OfappllcaUon. The contents, of a City d" Aspen, Ccilorildo.'ls hereby amended to ex-cept that two shorter ,rentalo<<upandes
~~ment.."~.tIon""---'--lnlwn^"" rWlas1ollows':. ...:. , may,beaUOwedptrdwelllngurdtperyear.",'
......"""V auo..... . ..VI............. "'See. 2+&.202. Moderate-Denslty Residential Sectlon 9:' .
condomlnlumlzatlon shall tildude the lollow- (RolS)... . Therepea1 as provided herelII ofSec:tlon$ 2+
. bla:' . ' . A. Purpase. The purpolleol the Moderate- 7~1001 J>. (J)(b) and (c), which requited a1lnl-
a. The general application Information :Density Residential (R.lS) Zone district Is to mum lease -deedrestridlOnsand -the. pa.ya:M:nt
201utred In Commol'l Proc:edures. SectIon 24-6- provide areas for tong temt residential: purpas. of affordable housing Impact fees,.respect1Yely,
, d with cust<nnary ac:~ry uses. Recreation- as a condltlon of ap~ (or,condomtnluaJlza-
b. A condomlniumsubdlvision exemption at and InsUtutkmaJuses customartlylound 1n lion sMl1 be applie(l'retroactJvelyto those,con-
plat drawn With permanent blk on reprodudble proximity to residential uses are Included as domlnlumlzatlon approvals tJf&Ilted In Ordlw
mylar. Sheet ~ $ball be twenty.four (24)fnch.; conditional uses, Lands .in the Moderate.Densl- ,nances 9244, 92-$.' 93-26. 93-28 and 93-33. At
es by thtrty.&fx (36) inc:bes with an wtenctlm- ty Residential (R-15) zone district typically con- tM aPpllcants' reques~ the City COundl wiD
bered margin of one and one-half 0 1/2) incheS slst of additions to the Aspen fownsite and remove the deed restricUons and re-fundthe
on the left band s1deof the sheet and a one-half subdivlsionson'the periphery of the city. employeehol.lsing mitigation fees that were
(1/2) InclI margin around the other three (3) LandswlthlnlbeTownslte,whkh border Aspen requtred as a c:on4ttion of the above 9tedc;on--
sides of the sheet. It shaD include: Mountain are also Indudedln the Moderate- domlnlumltation approvals.
(I) Accurate dimensions for all Unes. angleS Density Residential (R15) zone district: Section 1~: .
and curves llsed to describe boundaries, Section 4:. This Ordinance shall not effe<:.t any existing
streets. setbacks, alleys. easements, structures, ThatSectlon 24-5~203, ~Moderate-Denslty litigation and shall not operate as an abate-
areas to be reserved or dedicated for public: or Residential (R-lSA)" 01 the Munlclpal Code 01 ment ot any action or proceeding now pending
common use and other Important features. All the City of Aspen, Colorado. Is hereby amend. under or by virtoe of the ordln.ancesrepta1ed
curves shall be circular arcs and shall' be ed to read as follows: or amended as hereln provided. and the same
defined by the radlus,celltral angle. tangent, "Sec; 24-5-203. Moderate--Denslty Residential ' shalt be conducted and concluded under such
~ and chord distances, All dimensions, both (R-lSA). prior ordinances.
linear and'angUlar~ are to be detennJned by an Section 11:
atturate control survey in thEf'.eld whlchmUllt U any section, subseCtion, sentence. clause.;
~ and close within a limit of one (I)-In phraSe. or portion of thlsQrdlnance Is lot any
ten thousani:l (10,000). reason held InvalId or um::onstltlltlonalln a
(li)The plat shalt be drawn at a scale of one court of-competent JurisdIctiOn. s\1(:h portion
(1) 1neh equals one hunc:ked 000> feet or lug. shall be deemed a separate. dlstlnct and lode-
et: Architectural scaJes are not acceptable. If it pendent provision and shall not aflec:t:the
is necessary to plac:ethe plat'oo, more tllanone validity of the remaining portkmS tbenol.
(I) sheet, an Index shall be Included on the Section 12:
first sheet. A vidrilty map ,hall also appear on A public hearing on this OrdlnatTce m.n be
~e ftrst sheeuhowlRgthe eondOmlnlum pro- held on the 8th day of November. 1993 In the
Jed: as It relates to the resf of the dty Md the City Council Chambers. Aspen City HaU. }.spen
street system in the area of the proposed con- Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior \0 wbk.ha
dominium. hearing of publiC notice 0( the same shall be
(Ill) A desc:ripUonof aU- surveymonu~ents: published In a newspaper 01 general drc:ulaUon
both found and set, whk:h mark the boundari~ within the City of Aspen.
01 the 5;ubdlvlslon, and description (If all monu- .E xh I' b'I't4 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUB-
ments used In conducting the survey. The Col- . .. USHED as pro~ded by law. by the City Cound1
orado Coordinate System may be used of the Cltyol Aspen on the 12th OilY of Octo--
(Iv) A statement by, the land surveyor bet. 1993.
explaining how bearings, tfosed. were deter.
mined.
John Benndt. Mayor-
Attest: Kathryn S. Koch. Oty Clerk
published In the Aspen 1m'le5 CX:t. 22. t993.
~
.~
V\' \8-
MEMORANDUM
THRU:
Mayor and city council
Amy Margerum, City Manager~
Diane Moore, city Planning Directo~
Francis X.. Krizmanich, Deputy Director
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
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
amendments to the City Condominiumization
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.
reviewed the proposed
procedure at the first
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 1".
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
,
f"",
,-"
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
re,sidential 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 1", the Planning
2
-'
r":
'-",
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 "2") 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:
3
!"",,\,
~.
. 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:
"1" P&Z Resolution recommending approval of the proposed revisions
to the Land Use Code
"2" Memorandum to Council re: Condominiumization, dated 12/7/92
from Leslie Lamont
"3" Condominiumization Text Amendments - Review Criteria
"4" Public Notice
4
.~
,,,-..,
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and City Council n I ~
Amy Margerum, City Manage~ .
Diane Moore, city Planning Directo~
Francis X. Krizmanich, Deputy Director
TO:
THRU:
THRU:
RE:
Condominiumization Amendments
Ordinance~, Series of 1993
First Reading of
DATE:
October 12, 1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Colorado Common Interest ownership Act (CCIOA)
requires that local laws cannot treat properti~s 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 1".
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 addin<;1 "long term" to the purpose
sections of the residential zone districts to reflect their
residential nature.' ''p. definition for "long term" is also proposed.
The Planning commisslion 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
~
F"\.
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 s~ctions 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 1", 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
r".
.1""'\
residents from long term rental housing. Based on our previous
research (See Exhibit "2") 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 emp.loyees 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 condomiriium
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
r',
,1""'"\
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning commission
Planning staff recommend that the City council amend the
Code as outlined in the attached Ordinance.
and the
Land Use
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 53, series of 1993
Exhibits:
"1" P&Z Resolution recommending approval of the proposed revisions
to the Land Use Code
"2" Memorandum to Council re: Condominiumization, ,dated 12/7/92
from Leslie Lamont
"3" condominiumization Text Amendments - Review criteria
I. If." P"b/:<- NDt,\:e..
4
r'\
,-.,
~ 7-1005
ASPEN CODE
, .\,:;~1\ E. Recordation. The subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the
()~: 'rJ~\"f1\~ Pitkin County clerk and recorder, Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat
ry \iJli'i~\ _ within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following .approval by the city council
fJfd~'~ shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration and approval of the plat by the commission
VW' 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. Xhe one hundred and eighty
-t:1 L .....- f' (180) day recordation reQuirement contained herein shall not apply to the recording of
1, r {condominium maps, or declarations or any other documents required to be recorded to ac.
(\J.9.~ ' compllSh a condominiumlZatlOn 10 the cIty of Aspen, ,
~ /' Vv Sec. 7-1006. Amendment to subdivision development order.
ill ~ \(\ 1 \.5 A. Insubsl!J.ntial amendment An insubstantial amendment to an approved plat may be
, " ~ ,k -"\ ~'\ authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to techni- ,
\rfJJ'^ as calor engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which co'Uld not
OJ (J.J1t- reasonably be anticipated during the approval process, or any other minor change to a plat
'6 which the planning director finds has no effect on the conditions and representations limiting
the approved plat,
~ ~ B. Other Amendment Any other amendment shall be approved by the city council.
~ ' provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved plat. lfthe proposed change
. ,-.JL (\ ~,~S) is not consistent with the approved plat, the amendment shall be subject to review as a new
\)J ~~ de~elopment application for plat.
~ ~~ C, Plat vacation. Vacation of an approved plat or any other document recorded in Con,
~v junction with a plat shall be considered a plat amendment, and shall only be approved by the
\iJ ~ city council' if good cause is demonstrated.
^ 04^J \,,~, '17
V ,.....(1'0" See, 7-1007. Condominiumization. rp. c, 'oJ",',',' d)'
~r,u\- ... ~JV!~.lO'r'" f ~v ~ion
\. 6 \ "'- A. General In addition to all other requirements imposed in this division, when applica-
tion is made for subdivision of a parcel ofland to be used for condominium development, the
applicant must also comply with the following requirements during the .1'llview of the devel.
opment application for plat. If conversion of an existing developmeni 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. Condominiumi%ation ofresidentic.l 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 ahall be provided a ninety-day nOD,assignable option to purchase the
unit at this preliminary market value. In addition, each tenant shall have a
ninety-da:r exclusive nonassignable right of flISt 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
e
(
Supp. No.1
1746
1""\
.~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Francis Krizmanich, Deputy Zoning Administrator
Diane Moore, city Planning Directo~
Condominiumization Memo for Council
TO:
RE:
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 afte~othe units
have been constructed. We may want to add a time frame~ 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.
~) P+2.. ~,
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.
~,
,..-"
MEMORANDUM
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 "1") 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
2
(\
,~
Alternative "A" meet the review criteria for text amendments (24-
7-1102) as contained in Exhibit "2".
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 I s
residential housing supply.
3
3