The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLanduse Case.ZO.Proposed Code Change for Six Month Rental.1978-ZO-1 < ,,-.... .~ ~ 8RADFORD PUBLISHING CO., OE,NVER R E COR D 0 F PRO C E E DJ N G S ORDINANCE NO. 1./.-1 (Series of 1978) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 24-3.7(0) TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADDITION OF THE R-6, R-15, R-30, R-40, RR, AND C DISTRICTS AND SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX UNITS UNDER THE SIX-MONTH MINIMUM LEASE PROVISION WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Section 24-3.7(0) of the Aspen Municipal Code for, the benefit of the City of Aspen, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That Section 24-3.7(0) of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby repealed and reenacted to read as follows: (0) Rental limitations. (1) All dwelling units within the R-6,R-15~ R-30, R-40, RR, C, RMF, 0, and C-l districts shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. (2) In the event that any dwelling within the above-described districts shall, after the effective date. hereof, be purchased by several owners on a time-sharing basis, such arranged time-sharing for multiple use shall (as required by Section 20~3(s)) be deemed to constitute a subdivision and (for pur- poses of this section) condominiumization of the unit making the above-described leasing limitations effective. Section 2 If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. Section 3 That a pUblic hearing be held on this ordinance on , 1978, at 5:00 P.M. in the City '- :).. . :,.. ). '~i , :-:;, .- '.,'. .::/" " -' '." :,(',"" ....."-" ...... .. '. ..~. "~... ,-;-"''',' 'i" " ..- ,- .. .~.".-J :',.~: -y.... -z- }{.Iel;) An;) qOO:l{ . S UA.Iq~ 1lJI ; I I I I I ! I 1 i :.Lsa.L.LV .IOA1lW III AelPU1l~S A01l+S '8L61 ' J: 0 A1lP eq+ uo peAo.Idd1l PU1l pess1ld 'pe~dop1l X~~VNI& }{.Iel;) An;) qOO}{ 's UA.Iq~1l}{ :.Lsa.L.LV .IOA1lW III Aelpu1l~S A01l~S "8L61 ' J:O A1lP eq~ uo uedsv J:o A~1;) eq~ ~1l Pleq 2u1+eem .I1l1n2e.I s~1 ~u 'oP1l.IOI0;) 'uedsV J:o A~1;) eq~ J:o 11ouno;) A~J;) eq~ Aq,h\1l1 Aq pep1Ao.Id S1l peqs11Qnd as:~s:a~o aNV aV3:B 'as:;)naO~.LNI 'uedsv J:o A~1D eq~ u1q+1h\ U01~1l1nO.I1o 11l.Ieue2 J:o .Ied1ldsh\eu 1l u1 peqs11Qnd eQ II1lqs em1lS eq~ J:o e01~Ou 2U1.I1leq q01qh\ o~ .I01.Id SA1lP gl 'oP1l.IOI0;) 'uedsv 'It1lH A~1;) uedsv 'S.IeQm1lq;) t1ouno;) S9NIG33:>01ld :10 0110::>31:1 H3AN30 0'0::> '!;lNIH61,snd QHOolaVHS 1""'\ t"""'" eIT 130 s PEN MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council Mick Mahoney FROM: Tom Isaac Yestetday I met with Ron Stock and we discussed some of the problems with Ordinance 41 which has not received universal spontaneous support. I would"like to see the Ordinance tabled until such time as we have a chance to work out the inequities. I still strongly support 1 egislation to control any further deterioration of the residential neighborhoods into short term lodging areas. Some of the problems that we discussed were as follows: 1. Non-conforming uses must establish a record of usage of at least 6 months before an exemption can be granted. 2. All units that are short termed on a continuous basis must pay City sales tax. The City woul d thus have. a record 0 f short termed units. 3. The eventual possibility of signing contracts with land owners who rent long term units and meet the Housing Authority guidelines. The City should look at subsidizing these units in the fOrm of economic incentive. We should recognize the existing "bandit" units and encourage this usage in trying to relieve the employee housing shortage problem. 4. We also discussed the possibility of the addition of an administrative assistant to the City Attorney. This position might serve as a zoning enforcement officer and coordinate our efforts in housing administration. The problems which we had hoped Ordinance 41 would address are complex. I suggest we schedule a study session and invite some representation of the community to help work out a viable program which will address the short term rental housing problem. .-. ~ ~ AUDREY B. SNOBBLE -Sox 77) &ptl), Colo_ ~/6 L( bu., 7-71 Uza.r S-lacf'1- 1: ~trol'\ql~_ oeEEE 1fu. profXJ.5!d Clmzndlt'lZTl+ ~ ~zChOA :2.'-1- 3.7 (0) o..f orD.ntll"lC7 td l.{I,bR-C~ 6f 0.11 7 Id~M ~1'fSJl& ".d(~-L ~()C}oJu/ (Dr5.f Suit LmpftJvtMAi- l2rY.>. I~r; S,nC'i'rtI7J a.uor~ b, .snobh~ 7 I r- fJ.), ::'1Yl uqcju1 0vJ pM - .. I'IESt"'IDE IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION ,~ 701 No. Third Street Aspen; Colorado 81611 December 4, 1978 Dear Property Owner: A special meeting of the Board of the West Side Improvement Association was called on December 1st to discuss the proposed amendment of Section 211-3.7 (0) of Ordinance #41. See attached. Gideon Kaufman spoke first on the agenda, giving us his opinion, as a lawyer. Because the city has tightened its condominium ordinances, it was felt there was a need to limit what was feared would be an inevitable move to short-terming. The concern for more employee housing seems to be part of Council's thinking in passing this ordinanCe, on first reading, five to one. (George Parry cast the dissenting vote). Gideon said it was inferred that the ordinance was supported by the West End to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and cut down on traffic around the schools. No method of enforcing the proposed amendment was presented. Gideon felt the ordinance should be opposed because 1) it was unenforceable; 2) any methods of enforcing it would be onerous and 3) it would not accomplish its purposes. Jim Martin and Bill Stirling of the Aspen Board of Realtors were present and stressed that it was a hasty, ill-considered piece of legislation and urged more publicity so that Aspen residents would be aware of all aspects of the amendment. Discussion from the floor developed the following ideas: 1. It is economically unfeasible to '~ong-termTt these expensive properties except at very high rents. 2. the only way employees could afford such rents would be to combine into large groups. Example: Actual instance of seven unrelated adults living in three bedroom, 1 bath apartment with seven cars of their own plus additional traffic of frequent guests. 3. Short term rentals are usually to a family with one car. ~~ner can afford to keep the place well cared for. 4. Short-terming has been common in our residential areas the last ten years. 5. Legally unsupportable or enforceable. 6. The dictatorial attitude of council becom~nga concern. 7 . The impingement on property owners ' rights is resented. For the above reasons, the motion to oppose the ordinance was made by Charlie Patterson, seconded by Roger Hunt and unanimously passed by the Board members attending. A public hearing will be held in Council Chambers, City Hall at 5:00 P.M., December 11th. This is a matter that will affect all of us and our neighborhood. lve urge you to contact the Council members by phone ~ee below), write a letter expressing your opinions and/or attend the meeting to personally speak out. For those property owners who are out of town we find that telegrams are effective. Phone Numbers: Citv Council Stacy Standley, Mayor Michael Behrendt George Parry Steve lvishart John Van Ness Thomas Isaac Ellen Anderson Address: City Hall 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Home Office 925-2020 925-3220 925- 9957 925-3220 925-3842 925-2842 925- 4500 925- 4588 925- 4500 925-6331 Cordially, Anne Schwind, Chairman West Side Improvement Association ~~ Side Improvement Associati~. 701 N. Third Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 December 4, 1978 For the Record: The Mayor City Councilmen City Hall, 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen:. A meeting of the Board of the West Side Improvement Association was called. on December 1, 1978 to discuss the proposed amendment of Section 24-3.7(0) of ordinance #41. Discussion from the floor developed the following ideas: 1. It is economically unfeasible to "long-term" these expensive properties except at very high rents. 2. The only way employees could afford such rents would be to combine into large groups. Example: there is an actl.al instance of seven unrelated adults living in a three bedroom, ~ bath duplex with seven cars of their own, plus additional traffic of frequent guests. 3. Short term rentals are usually to a family with one car. Owner can afford to keep the place well cared for. 4. Short-terming has been common in our residential areas for the last ten years. 5. It is legally unsupportable or enforceable. 6. The further intrusion on the rights or property owners is resented. For the above reasons the Board Members of the .West Side Improvement Association v0ted to oppose the proposed amendment. Yours respectfully, Anne Schwind, Chairman West Side Improvement Association 1"""', OR;/ /1JIk;c:]- #/!/ IA- //~17. .~, ...u. ..c;~~r;,;~~t"h 2)1......... u7~Ricf<lr4WLqnd... 7:'. . ...- ~~-~..,., itI~~<e.;L__. -7 ~r ...~-t= ~,t'&>-'<<32l,_ =~~-~:_~:__.. . -t'Ji-lf.?~~ <2:\1 . .... '=95,-1- e p../ .. .., 11~~Le 4u~~ / ._/e'illj/AA'e~~G.e-..N'ffiJ . ..'. .. .. .. .. ..:~Ij~ ..- -. --41""1- ......-dl'~-....... ..... ----~IL~..... ~~~r~L~ - . ,,0 ,iWWl,. . ..,rtl1Y" ....,. 1""P '. .--......, ........ /G : lit:-lc:::;:k,Lr tT,11 I ..~4. ".~ ~ :Ii-,ll-.-L (~t-~, '....'m _, IL!II ~',..m..JN~ndy . ,yors~ . 'i.. ........hA1, 2(';ms.. ,. ...-.~.~..~l~.j.'.... -: ......., ..~:!I~-_~~7J-_..._.. ;zirii~~oa Hfdr4/M~ . .......~~.LS1rl/~~:......................... l' .lft/0/. ~ ~il -~ .-------. -:-;11--" UL !f.'I' 'i TI .Ii II -:-:1 'I I ,-, ,-, 1. Theodore Haftel 873 Emerald Trail Martinsville, NJ 2. Charles C. Nicola Denver Attorney 3. RobertHoguet 120 Broadway, NY,NY ---4. Steen Gantzel Christiania Lodge, Aspen 5. Robert A. Dean, La Holla, AA 6. Frank H. Shafroth, Denver Attorney 7. Robert Gronner Middletown, VA 8. Robert Bennett, 120 S. Cherry Street, Denver, CO 9. Ilse Bruehsel, 325 Polk St., Warsaw, IL 10 and 11 Ms. Jane Erb and Mr. G. Mauerhoff, Aspen residents 12. Paul Saurel, 450 Park Avenue, NY, NY 13. Thomas Congdon, 1776 Lincoln Street, Denver, CO ----14. A. Frederick & Francis Uhler, Aspen 15. General W.K. and Mary Martin, Aspen ----16. T. C. Tupper, Aspen 17. Robert W. Pullen, Houston, TX 18. Nancy L. and Adolphe Schoepflin Aurora CO 19. Richard Jacobs Miami FLA ----20. W. E. Biggs Aspen ---21. Nick Coates, President, Aspen Chateaux Condominiums ____22. Neil Bennett, Managing Agent, Silverglo, Aspen 23. Charles and Charlotte Owen Ann Arbor, MICH 24. Jack O'Neill Hopkins, MINN 25. Judith R. Bielinski Skokie ILL 26. George Vranesh Boulder, CO ---27. Robert Morriss, Attorney, Aspen ~28. Bette Gallagher, Aspen 29. Robert Boden - tourist 30. John L. Martin, Chicago, ILL 31. Edw~n Baker, Denver 32. David and Nora Meneghetti, Palos Hill, ILL 33. David Wilhelm Denver, CO I , 7/V ~~ , ttTf ~fA,I,r T'it.J~ If Lz.- Trustees 1978,1979 Elihu Abrahams Philip W. Anderson Robert O. Anderson R. Stephen Berry Felix Boehm Peter Carruthers James Cronin David De Young Sebastian Doniach Loyal Durand Paul M. Fishbane Daniel Z. Freedman Murray Gell-Mann, Chairman Peter Kaus Sydney Meshkov Heinz Pagels David Pines Jonathan Rosner Douglas Scalapino L. M. Simmons, Jr. Joseph Slater Gary Steigman Fredrik Zachariasen Honorary Trustees Hans Bethe Michael Cohen R.obert W. Craig Daniel Fivel George Stranahan R. R.Wilson Corporate Associates ARCO Foundation Bell Telephone Laboratories hiternational Business Machines Corporation North-Holland Publishing Company Xerox Corporation Laboratory Associate Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 1"""', ASPEN CENTER FOR PHYSICS ,-, BOX 1208 ASPEN,COLORAD081611 November 27, 1978 Mayor and City Council City of Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colo. 81611 Dear Mayor Standley and Members of the Council: I write to voice the concern of the Aspen Center for physics for the proposed amendment of Section 24~3.7(0) of the Aspen Municipal Code. This amendment would impose rental limitations on residential units. Rental of housing in residential areas during the period of our operations (June-Sept.) has been an important element of the success of our program, which next summer will be beginning its 17th year. We do not consider ourselves to be engaged in short- term rental, and we do not feel our use of these units to be either "tourist" use or detrimental to the residential character of the respective neighborhoods. We therefore urge that, even should you feel it desirable to pass this amendment, you find a way to allow the Aspen Center of Physics to continue its current rental pattern. The past few years have seen extreme pressures put on us regarding the cost of hOUSing for our participants. Further pressure will only be detrimental to OUr program. I request this letter be included in the minutes of the public hearing on this matter scheduled for December 11, 1978. Sincerely yours, p~ 1n (j~ Paul M. Fishbane, President Aspen Center for Physics PMF/bap --.. ,-, TO: His Honor the Mayor Members of the City Council Members of the City Planning & Zoning Commission The Board of Directors of the Aspen Chamber of Commerce through its Committee on Housing wishes to be placed on record in oPPosition of Ordinance #41, series of 1978. Primary reasons for taking this stand are as follows: Short-term rentals have been the backbone of our Summer and winter economy since 1946 and will continue to be a necessary element of housing. This ordinance has the potential of further decreasing the number of rental units within the City as various properties change ownership and use. Long-term tenancies as proposed in private dwellings and condominiums are not conducive to SOlving housing problems. This will result in multiple occupation more deteriorating to the neighborhood than short-term. Stringent down-zoning, demand, and inflation have priced properties to a level where some owners prefer not to rent at all, again decreasing available rental properties. The ordinance is onerous and unenforceable without pitting neighbor against neighbor, or without the creation of increased governmental expense to the private sector in the administration and enforcement areas. Contrary to the reasoning of the inceptors of this ordinance, short- term tenancies do not necessarily return more net dollars to the owner than long-term tenancies, but do contribute tax dollars to the City. Six month leases do not coincide with the seasonal aspect of the community, its guests or its employees. In any given zoned area it is an inequitable limitation on ownerShip to permit one owner to be privy to one set of rules and regulations while his neighbor is treated to another. This results in an artifica1 economic impact on real estate ownership. Ordinance #41, 1978 appears to be hastily conceived as another step towards down-zoning resulting in the unforeseen long-term impact as effects the second homeowner, the M.A.A., Ballet West, Physics Institute to mention a few, let alone transportation, skiing and the general business welfare. Re_~'pectfully Suomi Ued, "'.,,'~'--'~-"';-~---~-- '~._ ,f',' ..../.)~ ._~. Lm>-<._ c',:~Yr,.,.~ ~.- -r::,( /': _.__ Edward W. Morse. Chairman Aspen Chamber /bf Commerce--Housi ng Commi ttee EWM:hc FROM ~spen City Council 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 "~,I I THEODORE HAFTEL 873 Emerald Trail Martinsville, N.J. 08836 L ~ SUBJECT, FOLD HERE ORDINANCE #41 (Series of 1978) Gentlemen: I DATE December 4. 1978 Ieam wriking to reg~ster my strong opposition to the proposed Ordinance #41. Iaam the owner of unit #309 Aspen Silverglo Condominiums. I purchased this unit strictly as an investment. It was represented to me as a short-term rental unit with on-site management. My intention for it's personal use is but one or two weeks per year. Because of it's proximity to the lifts, public transportation and the commercial area, it has always been a highly utilized tourist facility since it's construction. If this ordinance is enacted, my investment will be severely diluted and it's re-sale value greatly diminished. I urge you to defeat this ordinance. Please read this letter at the public hearing on December II, 1978. Very truly yours, Theodore fORM 1125. REGENT fORMS. PENNSAll~EN. N. J. 081011 SPEED,MEMO -~ ~. CHARL.ES C, NICOL.A ATTORNEY AT LAW THE DENVER CLUB aUILDING DENVER, COLORADO e0202 November 30, 1978 The Honorable Stacey Standley Mayor of the City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Standley: This has reference to the proposed ordinance which would limit short rentals of residences located in designated areas of Aspen. Our Aspen residence is located in one of the designated areas. It has been rented for short periods of occupancy in each of the nearly 15 years during which we have owned it and for a number of years prior thereto by the former owner. By reason of that rental history, I am advised that the proposed ordinance would not apply in our case because of a "grandfather" clause which it is said to contain. Notwithstanding the fact that we may not be affected, directly, by the proposed ordinance, I wish to urge that it not be adopted. In all probability, objections to it for various reasons have been brought to your attention. I wish to mention only one, which no doubt has been raised by others and which I hope you will urge the Council to consider. There appears to be a serious question as to the constitutionality of a law imposing such a restriction. The time and expense which would be incurred by those attacking the ordinance on that ground and by the City in defending it from attack would be substantial. It would seem to be in the best interests of both the City and the taxpayers it serves to avoid such a test in view of the likelihood that the ordinance may not survive it. Very truly yours, p _u ' CCN:nl - ROBERT L, HOGUET 120 BROADWAY NEW YORK, N. y, 10003 November 30, 1978 Hon. Stacy Standley III Mayor of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Standley: I understand that there is to be a public hearing on December 11th concerning the modification of the present regulations of the Planning and Zoning Commission in Aspen with a view to restricting the right of owners to rent their properties. My wife and I would like to go on record as being very much opposed to this restriction. First, let me identify myself. We have been coming to Aspen winter and summer for 27 years. We finally bought a double house at 118 East Bleeker Street in 1966. I might add I am on the Board of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies. I have contributed to the well-being of the town of Aspen for a good many years, have been a tax payer and have also been a contributor of some substance to the Aspen Institute which does in turn, I think, benefit the town. I consider the proposed amendment to be a hostile and totally unwarranted curtailment of my ordinary rights. As I indicated above, my house has two <;omplete dwelling units. This was bought with the idea one unit be occupied by my wife and me during vacations and the other unit by my children. We have had good experience with short term rentals and enjoy a modest income which goes some of the way toward offsetting our taxes and maintenance costs. Short term rentals are just what fits our book because we come to Aspen four or five times a year for about 10 days at a time and need the house often ourselves. In our particular case were you to rule out short term rentals the house would not be available for long term rentals. Yours very truly, cc: The Aspen Times Aspen, Colorado 81611 / I~ (tLJ-f j (O)'1-,-v/ ,- .;,--~..~ CH~TIANIA LODGE & CHALETS 501 WEST MAIN STREET. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611. PHONE (303) 925-3014 MESSAGE REPLY TO I ASPEN CITY COUNCIL 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, CO 81611 I DATE L 12/6/78 ~ DATE Gentlepersons: ORDINANCE NO 41 which involves restrct'ons on renting in R-6,R-15, R-JO, $-40 RR, and C single mily and duplex units. Restrcited to six months ease provision. I am sure the ideas behind such an ordinance are valid and commendable. However, bluntly the whole ordinance should be dropped. N in reason is that it would prove to be completely u nforceable. A~pen~s track record in the area of housing restrictions is zilch. Bluntly, if I wish to rent my house fo a week, month, summer period, etc., I shall do so without the city ha ing any say in the matter. As I said the idea behind this ordinanc problem in the area of employee housing trying to work on, but tough. If an emp employees who need housing, then let su problem. The City council can not solve in the ~tter of use and rent of houses, and Aspen's great housing may be what this ordinance is oyer has a problem finding h employers work on the all problems for everyone and etc., this restrictive ordinance BY SIGNED Form N.N73UiOThe Drawi~g Board, Inc.. Box 505. Dallas. Texas 75221 INSTRUCT'ONS TO SENDER: ''''STRUCTIONS TO ""ce,v",,,, I. ",.Of:F> VEl.LOW COPY. 2. SENO WHITE .0."'0 P'NK COPIES INTACT. I. Wi'lL"': "'"PI.Y. 2. OETAC,... STuB, KEEP "'NK COPY, R"'TuRN WHIT" CCPV TO 50:NOE:". - r--', CHF"~~1TIANIA LODGE & CHALETS 501 WEST MAIN STREET. ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 . PHONE (3.03) 925-3014 MESSAGE REPLY TO I I DATE L ~ DATE would prove such a headache in enfor ement and backlash of home owners.. Personally, I think Aspen has its pr who can afford to live in Aspen is s council's efforts in dealing with th any real constructive suggestions. I happening in this community. I would add that the music festival of housing, and in addtion a six mon squastl housing for many of these per those visiting. blems and the type of people ary. I sympathize with the se problems but I can not offer just boggles my mind what is oula move with the hi~h cost hs restriction would certainly ons both in the festival and Facts of life are that some home own rs might need weekly and a few months rent during season to sup art their house with its high values and taxes. One big can of worms. Cordially, - Steen Gantzel BY SIGNED Form N-N73UiOThe Drawing Board. Inc.. 80x 505, Dallas. Texas 75221 'NSTRUCTIONS TO SENOCR: INSTRUCTIONS TO RCCElve.., 1. I(E:EP YELLOw COPY. 2. SENO WHITe ANO PINK COP'E'> INTACT. 1. W..,T<: ..<:..~.,.. 2. O<:TACM STU"'. K<:<:P PINK COPY. "CTU"N WM'TC CO"Y TO SENO"". ,-. .~ ,'- ,- ~ ,- ~ ~. /'-; a; " ..~ ;;.- . :;; '" '" .~-, R DEAN 3385 CAMINITO GANDARA- LA HOLLAAA QZ037 ~ 4-070120E342 12/08/78 Ies IPMMTZZ CSP DVRB 7142923678 MGM TDMT SAN DIEGO CA 100 12-08 0814P EST -, ASPEN CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 130 SOUTH GALENA ST ASPEN eo 81611 AS AN OWNER AT SILVERGLO I AM OPPOSED TO ORDINANCE 41. PUReH~SED IN 1971 AS A SHORT TERM UNIT CLOSE TO LIFTS I FEEL THIS ORDINANCE IS RESTRICTIVE AND UNFAIR PROVIDE OTHER ALTERNATIVES BY SETTING ASIDE LAND TO BE DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY FOR LONG TERM LEASE AND NOT BUILDINGS ALREADY IN USE ROBERT A DEAN PHO 20;14 EST MGMCOMP MGM TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL, FREE PHONE NUMBERS t""> t"">, SHAFROTH AND TOLL MORRISON SHAFROTH FRANK H. SHAFROTH ..JOHN 1=". SHAFROTH HENRY W. TOLL, .JR. HERSERT A. DELAP PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW December 8, 1978 620 BOSTON BUILDING saa SEVENTEENTH STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE (303) 623-3500 Honorable Stacy Standley, Mayor of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Standley: I am writing you to express my strong objections to the proposed amendment of Section 24-3.7(0) of Ordinance #41. When my wife and I purchased our house at 324 Francis Street some 11 years ago, it was with the thought that we would rent it for short terms to winter and summer tourists and enjoy it ourselves in the off season. This we have done, with the exception of a 2 month rental each summer to Mr. Perlman at the behest of the Aspen Music Institute. If the rules are now changed, we, of course, could no longer afford to hold our house. At first blush, this might not concern you. On the other hand, if the consequences of our a~ions and others like us are weighed, you might find that real estate prices collapse with an ultimate decrease in tax base; that the demand for city services, schools, etc. increase as the new owners tend to be year around residents, and that you suffer a decrease in revenue from the bed tax. Of course, I knew that you are well aware of the questions concerning the constitutionality of the Ordinance, as well as the problems of its enforcement. Surely, lengthy litigation will be necessitated with all of the costs and uncertainties which follow. Finally, I believe that if you would personally tour those houses which are rented on long-term leases, you will see that their general upkeep and appearance leaves much to be desired, not to mention the number of cars usually parked along the street. Any of Aspen's realtors will tell ~ou that the long- term renters cause considerably more wear, tear and damage to ,-, r--, - 2 - a house than do short-term ones. In conclusion, I urge you to vote against the passage of the Amendment. Sincerely yours, --" -----'..-- 1j1...J D() (} // !rail-I (ffJJlay"r'orl- Frank H. Shafroth cc - Michael Behrendt George Parry Steve Wishart John Van Ness Thomas Isaac Ellen Anderson ~ ".... ,~ "'" ,-'.. """ "'" ;;;::- MAI~GRAM SERVICE CENT~ MIDD~ETOWN, VA. 22645 &&II LI MAl @ ~~~T~~@ western union c:n gram ~ ~' ~ ",.-. .***.*.. 'i""'; ~ 1-069397E341 12/07/78 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP DVRA 3121818157 TDMT CHICAGO IL 100 12.07 OS17P EST .1'" ,"'" STACY STANDLEY, MAYOR 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 .,..... ,....., ,..., ~ DUPLICATE OF TELEPHONED TE~EGRAM ,....., THE ENCLOSED COPY WIL~ BE READ AT, THE DECEMBER 11 HEARING FOR ME BY MRS ~ REID. I HAVE ALSO SENT BRIEF TELEGRAMS OF PROTEST TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS. f"". ,...,. """ ".... ,..., """ """ ,..., "'" "'" ,...., $ " , ESt'"", :;; N "' ,-.. VERY TRULY YOURS, ".... DR ROBERT GRONNER 21130 EST "" "'" MGMCOMP MGM "'" "'" "'" """, "'1\ "'" I'"t> "'"'!' .- TO REPLY BY MAILGRAM, SEE REVERSE SlOE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOLL, FREE PHONE NUMBERS .-..\ /'"""' G;-' 120 South Cherry Street Denver, Colorado 80222 December 4, 1978 Hon. Stacy Standley III Mayor Aspen City !'Ia11 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear l"u-. Mayor: Hoy yould you like to have dreamed for 26 years of owning a place in Aspen, to have paid. an uncOlllfortably high price to get it, and then to have a city council YOIl had no say in electing dictate the terms: on which you could keep it? The availability of residential property on a short-term basis has attracted slders to Aspen f%'Oll the very beginning. If they can't rent what they want in Aspen, many will go somewhere else. Where is the logic--let alone justioe --in turning away a source of income for the entire eommu9ity in order to coerce certain taxpayers who can't vote into providing low-cost housing for certain nontaxpayers who can? . Please don't let Ordinance No. 41 pass! Sincerely yours, Robert W. Bennett I~ I ~, \,Jarsa~J Clinic P.C. 325 Polk St. \larsaiif, Illinois 62379 December 2, 1978 Mayor Staoy Standley CitJT Hall Aspen, Colo. 81611 Dear Sir: I \liould lil.;:e to bring fOrNB-rd m:! opinion on the issue of the short term rental restrictions of vacation homes, an issue that if:) to come before the City Council this JJecernber 11. I Houlcl liJ.te to ask \,rh~r :punish the harct 1/Tor};:ingmicldle class!! j:-:[ot all of us had the opportunity to d.iscover ASJJen in its infancy, nor enjoy the freedom of movement to settle and make a living in Aspen, nor are all of the home O\.Iners extremely ie,real th~.i' to 8,fforcL a house in Aspen and. maintain this solely for occasional occupancies. There is a large percentage of hard vJorl<ing middle class Americans that h2.ve gone to Aspen for the past 10 to 20 years, falling in love with Aspen, and selected the tOlTl1 as the place to relax and possibly retire as soon as their personal economic situation lJould allov,'.. \.'Jatching prices go up and uP, they rec.lized that the only way to afford this dream would be to purchase and build while they are in an earning situation and properties at affordable prices.. They relied on short term rentals to finance the high maintenance 8~d depend on this more ;::;0 nOl'.; that taxes anct utilities are ever gro"\^Jing. These minimum lease :/rovisions :proposed i<rould force many middle C18,88 :people to sell their homes. It 1",'Jould be ,discrimination against the people that 1,'Jere sJ.read~.r burdened b;y punative taxation and lJY theinzecurities of our present unstable economy. fJ}he house in Aspen, the retreat from the ha,rassJ1.1en"t of the c1_aily drudgery 8,nd ",",)"or1c load, lJo'L1.1cl become unaffordable.. This provision of rental restrictions is against the American principa,l of free enterprise th8.:t this c'auntr:! has been defending f)O fiercely. Allover the free l,rCGtern Horla. middle class people have acqlJ.ired lovel~l mou.:C1tain homes, deper..ding 0::0. short term see.zonal rentals.. It is shocking thB.t in this country of free enterprise such Harxistic :nethods are even. lJcing considered.. They clictate to a ci ti?',en \',;hat he ma~i or may not do l;i th his personal propert;y. Sincerely yours, rIse E.. Bruehsel I:8~B : 1m - - Post Office Box Aspen, Colorado December 6, 1978 3207 81611 Members, City Council of Aspen City Hall Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlepeople, City Council, This communication relative to proposed Ordinance #41, Public Hearing of 12/11/78: Opposition to the above proposition is hereby indicated & substantiated by the following listed reasons: a) Healthy growth & well-being of Aspen originated by the establishment of the area as a ski resort in winter months; a music center in summer months; a tourist center the year round. Having so established, the community has limited growth involving housing, while encouraging expansion of tourist attractions. This is not compatible at the outset; you now wish to aggravate the situation by limit- ing "short-term" rental facilities by retro-active limitation of areas to be put to such usuage, as well as limitations on future areas. Since it is reasonable that most of us live in Aspen as a result of the recreational facilities named above, or the community & financial benefits obtained therefrom, it is difficult to equate the Ordinance Proposal to the well-being of council members. b) It is patently irresponsible to first encourage the kind of growth which Aspen is experiencing; then, to penalize citizenry & investors who have shown the kind of faith in the area which has been exhibited. If restrictions must be exercmsed, they should be applied to future developments & areas; future investment, with rules & regulations clearly outlined. That the integrity of residential housing should be preserved and upheld, is a laudable goal & should be upheld in areas thus far untouched by short-term rentals. Nor can one disagree that long-term hous ing is of":paramount importance. The obvious answer to this problem is new housing specifically designated for long-term rentals by permanent residents who comprise the working force of the::community and who are necessary for the well-being of the city of Aspen. It is suggested that council members take another hard look at the proposal which at first glance suggests all the right answers with no cost to the community. Keep in mind why an old mining town, tucked away in the hills, has suddenly become a city, nationally & internationally known for its beauty and attractions. Keep in mind that even more "short-term" rental property must be made available if current attractions are expanded -- the which you appear to endorse and applaud. Cordially, Cottonwood Condominiums_ Permanent Residence 700 Monarch Condo's - Income Property " ,...."!' ~\ ,-. ~: PAUL SAWREL CHARLES S. MCVEIGH, ..JR. GUY G. RUTHERFURD A. PENNINGTON WHITEHEAD ,JOHN E.DUETSCH MACDONALD BUDD LEONARD B. BOEHNER PETER FRELINGHUYSEN ..I. ROBERT COLEMAN MORRIS a M\;VEIGH 450 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022 WILLIAM SHIELDS, .JR. COUNSEL OAVID F. COOKE PAUL..I, O'NEILL,..JR ROBERT ..I. MILLER TELEPHONE (212) 593 - 6200 CABLE ADDRESS "F=>ARGET" TELEX.64- CItes CALL BACK~ PAR:OET-.NYK TELECOPIER (212) 593.8530 November 29, 1978 Re: Council Hearing - December 11, 1978 Proposed Amendment of Sec, 24-3.7(0) of the Aspen Municipal Code Hon. Stacy Standley III Mayor of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Standley: I respectfully submit that keeping temporary visitors out of Aspen through the proposed ordinance which will deprive them of accommodations would seem at variance with the responsible history of the Council and contrary to the best interests of A~pen and its permanent residents. It seems beyond dispute that the prosperity of Aspen and of its residents has been due primarily to the nonresidents of Aspen who have come and used the facilities which it offers. Under the wise and careful control of the City authorities, the develppment and the use of Aspen has been orderly and constructive. Reducing the number of short-term (e.g. one week) visitors to Aspen will obviously reduce the revenues of all Aspen shop- keepers and the earnings of many other permanent residents. It will inevitably also adversely affect Aspen's receipts from its sales tax I assume that uhe proposed ordinance is not a pOlice measure since if some short-term or long-term visitors abuse Aspen's hospi- tality, they can and should be dealt with directly. I write this at the request and on behalf of my wife, Louise Saurel, who owns a house at 117 North Monarch Street in Aspen. , -. ,,-., ~.. MORRIS & M9VEIGH Hon. Stacy Standley III -2- November 29, 1978 As my wife is a nonresident and despite her very substantial investment in Aspen, she of course has no voice in Aspen affairs except to the extent that the Council extends to her the courtesy of expressing her views. I note that the text of the ordinance does not seem to con- tain the saving clause for existing non-conforming use. I assume that this is not intended to deprive existing owners of the benefit of this uniformly adopted provision. Vory {:;.107WANt/ PS:MCM ~ ,~~ THOMAS E. CONGDON 1776 LINCOLN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 December 5, 1978 Mr. Stacy Standley, Mayor City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Standley: I feel Ordinance No. 41, intended to amend the Aspen Municipal Code to limit sharply short- term rentals of vacation homes, could have in some instances the opposite effect from that you seek. My wife and I own a "second home" at 202 West Francis Street. From time to time we have rented the house for as little as two weeks or as much as ten months. To facilitate shorter term rentals to Aspen visitors we also rent our home concurrently at a modest rental to two nurses who work at the Pitkin County Hospital; they care for the house and assist the rental agent in managing the property. Long term tenants do not wish to share occupancy with others; accordingly, we were obliged to terminate the rental arrangement with the Aspen residents during our long term rental. I am sure housing for working Aspen residents at reasonable rental rates is one of your objectives. Ordinance No. 41 seems to work against that objective---at least in the case of our property. c v~~ ::U1Y yu - [, Thomas E. Cong 0 ah cc: Mr. William Dunaway Aspen Times Box E Aspen, Colorado 81611 a or~'- 17~~~~ ~ JM.t 1:. ~ ~ 62' 11- ~l~ ~0I ~ d' . ~ ~~- Cl ~ "i ci!~ /h. ~ ,#.5,;u-n v~ f3:? -- IL.<j. 71 ~ M.ft;N' ~~~h~~~ ~~~r~c.~~' d"J ~. eJ<-~ ~ ~~ j4 ~ I( 4.t-C ~ cLu ~ v~ --te ~ 0. /lu1t::;' Y .-u-.C-IJ~' l_JL~ ~ c~~ tr ~~-~~ ~~~.~?-~~. o.-u-L ~ tpe,..~~ ~ vLe. ~ ~ ~ /t;,.. ~ €U-.eu,~ 1 )~ ~ ~cC~ '?r ~n~'~,.~ .~.e. ~~? .~.~ crv-oJ ~ ~ .b---, /1 . ) ~~ D Ovi...~/~-.:c-. ~ c.. c.e-.-.- ~~eld~) kcf2 6u.l')""~,~ iU-r jrJ ~r ~ ?- ~r Lo. .;f ,-:tii .~ ~ <1-- ~ . ,,'71h..J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~u-u..{lq. u:> ~ ~ /V-<>f'- ~ CU-- ~~ IJ ~ L ~,' cs .. .." , f ~ '~ <Lv /crt/Co.J ~ !utJ,~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L<....' ,:hs ~ -~G ~ 1- ~~. 1>; ~/~ ~J~~~tr* ~~ ~~ ~ ~ . T~ m '~r-v ~ ~({;~~ ~ ,IlJU 7t:i ~ ~ ~~~ ~"p~ ~ r-:x' ~ ~ "d.. 0~ ~ t- ~~ ~~~ C:6 ~ fv'~ ~ ~?;(;~...:.- ~-~'~~'f J.d-l,a O'z.vv ~i.A.A.-~ d~ f-J'~ ~ ~ (L.~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ?-f/.j,~~ /Cd:j ~~ ft Lf/ ~ ~J ~. Jilkl a~L 2%; )Z.v.R.LL ~ tI.xr ;;tt. )if .WL.lI ~7ti ~~~ 1 ~ uv~~ ~~jL ~ ,l..R-. (fJ . v:;; ~ ~ ,~- ~ Y- r tL~ cry r .~~- ~ ~~/~~/-r ~.~/U~ w~~~ 1 r'~~~'~~ ~ ~ ~~"~, '" V ~ J;;-c...... ~) ~ ct; ~~~a~~ ~ ~~fovF~~ ~ '- ~ c-v ~ ~ I cL~ CZ:;: ~ .t4JL.,..~ A~ a.d~~p h~.~~:t-t4-~. ~ 16-. ~... ~ ~ ry 1fz;:;;' ~ @. J(1~~/4J ~. ~ ti:zr ~ ~d~ ~ V~J ~ wL; ~ r-- ~J?~ ~ ~ rcL~~ ~~ . ~~) .~~.~C9- ~~ ~~~/~~~ ~. ~ W-J::t:;. 0..-.. 0~ d ~~ 7('-L-- U~. ~ ~." e..- ~ ~~,~ ~ t6::e- ~~ tIJ-, 1L.-. ;; f;f;: ~. ~ ~ ~~"j 7le~-~~ ~ *~Jti:~ ih-~ ' - Q-%~~ur .~d-- r' ~~ to ~ ~ ~iJ3'/)~~~~ '~I ~ .~ aJ2~~~ r~-J ~ ~ O-dL~ ~-u ~ ccV2- ~~, ~~ 1- .~ ~~I\~_1~ft _ ' ~~ ~ ct- ~'- Lf ,~ ~. (1 ~ c-~~ ~~ .-:- ~~ w~~~ ~~.~~( - T~'~r~~~~~ --p ~ ~J'~~ '{~v:{ ~,~~~..~ ~~~ t~r' 0r~~1~ .~~ ~ lJ a~ u---t~ ~~~~r-~~~ i~~ ~~ ~m ~'/~' ~~ Iv '- tf ~ +- JA~ ,~ ,-, T. C. TUPPER Box 1851 Aspen, Colorado 81611 The Honorable Mayor Stacy Standley Aspen City Hall South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mayor Standley: Subj ect: Proposed Amending of Section 24-3.7 (0) of Ordinance No; 41 We cannot attend the 11 December Public Hearing but would like to express our concern. 1. The crime rate would increase. Many houses would stand vacant. There is no way a home owner can come to ski and still rent a house for 6 months - what six months, April 15 to October IS? What would a long term renter do in that period? 2. Employees wouldn't have a job then or the ability to pay such r.ent. 3. The shops, restaurants, etc, would suffer. Incoming out-of- town prosperous skiers support all such tax paying operations. Construction people, carpenters, painters, would suffer. We have owned our Aspen house since 1967 and have used rental income to maintain and improve the house continously. Finally, ex post facto legislation is illegal - not within the Constitution of the United States. Since most of the residential houses that have .an established use pattern of short term rental would have to be exempted on a non-conforming basis anyway, why pass such an Amendment? If indeed the Council has stopped the construction of condominiuIIls, duplexes, etc., in residential areas, then the mission of maintaining the residential character of Aspen has been accomplished. Sincerely, Tully and Grace Tupper 1'X,:hh ~ /'-", ,-, ROBERT W. PULLEN 1905 BANK OF' THE: SOUTHWEST BUILOING HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 December 7, 1978 Aspen City Council 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: It just came to my attention that the City of Aspen is considering some type of regulation on the rental of housing. It seems to me there is question as to the constitu- tionality as well as the enforceability of such a law or regulation. Setting that aside entirely, it seems to me the real question is the ultimate effect this would have on Aspen. I believe time will prove such a law would be to the detriment of not only second-home owners but also full-time Aspen residents and visitors as well. bert W. Pullen 825 North Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RWP:bd, ~ -.. 343 Nome Street Aurora, Co. 80010 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 DeceDlber 7, 1978 Sirs:, As part owners of a con&minium in the RMF Zone of Aspen, We urge strongly that you will not pass the proposed Ordinance 41. Our unit is. in the Aspen Si1ver-G1o complex which has been used as a tourist facility since its construction. It has enjoyed a high rental rate because of its Proximity to downtown Aspen, to the ski lifts and to public transportation. We are not the original owners. We purchased the condominium primarily so that it would be ll.sed as a short term rental unit With on-site management, ll1Qid and linen service plus other desir_ able rental allllllenities. Our pt!!rsonal Use of the unit is limited to a very brief time during the year. The proposed O:rdinance 41 would, Without doubt, result in a severe financial hardship to us and to others similar condominium owners in the affected areas of Aspen and we urge that this o:rdi_ nance not be enacted. Had this o:rdinance been in effect in the past, ;;ny of us would not have purchased property in Aspen. To change the ground rules at this time would be grossly unfair to current property owners. /-) ~ou~f ;inc~ily, ,~c/ y~~ Nanfy. L. Schoepflin & Adolphe J. , ('-~7E~_,-~, )F\~~ V SChoepflin, M.D. <"'\ ,.. 'L, 6-:.(;;:~.rd::t':::"-l" ,~ :";'!q ~'.,< '. . j\j<~~J':; j'~; ..:O!t BSJ:. .. ;:X0.;-;.:~ sd'~:;X;J;i~.':- '1:7 ;:-d:id..rcr oj .~r~~ e..:rilJ .;:>;,:^: ed.:.~ ,~, :"\-. dn..:; ,.,.; r ;;;;.~~)"~~ -~:,>r: 0>-, c,~<'!(', i;S:':i..y.V~'2"::'. f;';-J :~. .;:.;; '-....,-., ~, ;5.: ...._t':".~!..o ,0,:j~Y" c. :J ::':,,....:.j.,c d ..::~:,,.:< :;;,.':. r::.t ':x~ .-':.1".:-.::.:.::: C{...~:~: C \~ 0:' fj;::'1 . :"iOqB.i\ .LLBli ;.h:~B~rj('~ ;:;.;;:81.::;:) <'<.~;~j(:? C{.L J S>}18 O;b,i<;'::.O,r(.<~~' ~t~9q_(3ii. ~ z':cl:~ rd: i'\\,[,~).:;:.t[ftd1tiO~~' .8. 'Ie a'!Sff\irG S' .:.SO' sA a~-: $0(,.5 jOL .Ll:,j::,'j i:,fO\i: J.i?,fij 8 '3 .~~ "H:: ,~b"::~G oID_"'!;::;0"/)':'J:2. z'J:e:.:{2,.A \-"r:.~f n";'~ 81. S.C:tfJ.; 'HiO '{:;i..tlL~Jz"i .:i'z.t"f.:';cd .G ~\'~ ;::.:.,';;:-.:;-cr;:,,"t:r Z.::rE '10 8E;:,;3:J8(} eSz"'! ..L::,.J,j-rEW\ 0~'; ... 2,'~~f+f5:1i7C iSi'iLgl":: (' ei'~j- j\)"l ''5''f$. e~.~ '."'-;' C,:";;3$..f '5,d ;:l'..t:;/r:! jj ~. .",~;",) ,;:., ,".;',:.r Xl? .._0: 0 dj- }:7,; C'[lG ~';i:,~,ti1 :~..c.:' j:5":; Y' ';;';:;:' X,~Jrie':: ';,r.;t, } ~':,~'~02,".r3 ,;: ":U,:\) (:;)r.';:j:,,:,~' '!el."":(ci l....rt?..~. .~'. f):; ,,";U~8 ..,/ ~).r',:f ,,-".' ,/ ~;:)J.DG',"':. er:rLi.G:l.b"'!G .G;;;:2,':::",.rr':"" ~"', ;' ". e'!81JeE .',. ^ \.::.c.f\e~f.:,.r:{ r),:" f'}:'f,',~ a::.; o.:! :.';.'~ 8<:r:~ rr->ro ~ " ~, ". .C'SJ n~:,~ 1115 :)fl~ ti,2)q;:" ;-- '.le: ~Jd ;;S;f.. BO:1R.0 j:"O~B ..,:,..".,:::',:,:,.;-.:-m~ e: ~ . ~1 /A "\ ;': b'";, '. '.',.. .:.t(~f~ t.). r,::;l~': ~.:,~,r'io '-'- sn,,~ D'fU,~~::-:r~~; ,C-D~< ,-::,'" ~;.;ltiS "'::'.f.;UC~-"-":q .:::-r;:;-'!-'::'Lr.;::,; ;;-~ J,.,i "2.':~B,,I: ~" ~",.h' ,'-'0,- i"-~ ""\.,' ,,:~I, .~ /,"""""'\ RICHARD F. JACOBS. M. D.. P. A. PROFESSIONAl. ARTS CENTER SUITE 511 1150 N. W. 14TH STREET MIAMI, FL.ORIDA 33136 TELEPHONE 324.7601 December 6, 1978 Aspen City Council City Ha 11 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Color~do 81611 Dear Si rs : I am adamantly opposed to ordinance #41. My condominium unit at the Aspen SilverGlo was purchased as a short term rental unit with onsight management and all the other amenities designed for tourist use. During the entire history of this unit it has been designed and constructed for short term tourist use. My occupancy of the facility has been 1 imited to severa 1 weeks per year. Because of its favorabl e location in relation to the city, the ski lift, transportation and other activities, this unit has always been well utilized in its capacity as a tourist unit. I urge you to vote against ordinance #41 which would repeal the Aspen Municipal Code Section 24-3.70. RFJ/dh ~ ."""'" """'" The Honorable Stacy Standley and Members of the City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Ordinance 41 Gentlemen and Ladies: I have recently been informed that there is an Ordinance before City Council to prohibit homeowners from renting their homes except for six month intervals or longer, with the exception of two shorter tenancies per year. My wife and I, from Knoxville, Tennessee, have come to like Aspen so much the past few years we bought a residence here last May. Although Our home is not on a rental program at present, I cannot believe a group of intelligent men and women would approve or pass any such law that would prohibit a homeowner from renting his home in any way he chooses. I sincerely hope this Ordinance will not be passed, V. e,ry tr~y // a!Z/xt(!'/f4A: . W. E. BIggs 0189 McSkimmi g Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 ~, ~ Honqrab1e City Ceunci1 of the City. of Aspen Cityka 11 130 South Galena, Street -- Aspen, Co10Y'ado 81611 Honorable City Council: This letter is written with regard tO,Ordinance No. 41. ~1y twelve years experience in Aspen real estate and property management business tells me that if this Ordinance is enacted it will result in: -,..,- - - -., '., -,-' --, ""', ,--. -',', "",' -, , 1. Fewer rental uflits being available for summer guests, Music Festival people, etc. If.youcan on,ly rent twice a year it doesn't ma,f<,e much sense to do it at summer rates; , 2. Enforcement problems on the part of the City. Who is going to keep track of this--the neighbors? Do we really want to create a situation where a neighbor is snitching on' another neighbor because he rented hi.s home. out three or four times during the winter? 3. No add'lt:iona1 employee housing (which I presume is the purpose of the Ordinance}. The people who are in this market are not go.ing to rent their homes or apartments on a long-term basis simply because, an Ordinance is, '.'" adopted by City Council. ' , 4. An i~crease in the shortage of short-.term rental units. The City Council shou,ld be aware of the recent trend in the conversion of what 'were formerly short-term rental units into non-rental units simply be- cause the unit was sold at such a high pHce that the new owner decided that it was a too valuable a property to rent and .preferred to maintain it for his own use and the occasional use of his friends. Thh is a decided' trel)d and one which is going to continue as prices escalate. " , - :' " ' . CHATEAU ROARING FORK. CHATEAU EAU' CLAtBE -. CHATEAU SNOW,.; DER aERGHOF . J)'OMEGRi\NATE, CONDOMINIUMS DUR'ANT MALL . ~COOPER STREET, LOFTS ' ---..---.----..-- /""'.. , ) "",,,.-,.;.. 1"', ~ Honorable City Council of the City of Aspen ~2~ December 8, 1978 The Council must not forget that the economic base of our community is our Tourist Industry. The number of tourists' beds in town is limited and under the Growth Management Plan they are not growing. Rather, the total inventory of tourists I beds is shrinking and the passage of this Ordinance would further enhance the shrinkage and begin to affect the restaurants, the shops and the other businesses that depend upon the tourist economy. The PrOVision of this Ordinance making a purchase by multiple owners a sub~ division is to me unclear as it is worded. What constitues a purchase by several owners on a time-sharing basis as opposed to a purChase by several oWners who just want to own property jointly? Is a jOint purChase by a husband and wife exempt from this provision? What about a purchase by two brothers or other related parties who Simply want to own property JOintly? ~' , , , How do you differentiate between mutiple owners who are buying for time- sharing purposes and mutiple owners who are buying simply because they want to own together? At least 30 of the condomtniums that we manage have mutiple owners but none of these are time-shared. They are Simply owned by people who have gotten together to purChase a Condominium in Aspen and their unit is used no differently than the unit next door that is owned by one family. I applaud the Council for any efforts they make in solving the employee hOUSing problems as we have a criHcal hOUSing shortage for our own em~ ployee,s. At the present time, we need hOUSing for at least 40 employees and are unable to obtain it. . However, I feel that the solution to the employee housing prOblem is not to be found in Ordinance 41. What the Council and the County Commissioners must do is allow for the development of a new housfng project that will meet the needs of the employees in this area. We need to take a long term ap~ proach and stop whittling away at the problem in a piecemeal fashion such as is being done in the proposed Ordinance 41. ' This is a bad Ordinance and I hope the Council wi 11 have the wisdom to defeat it soundly. Si ncere ly, ASPEN CHATEAUX CONDOMINIUM RENTALS, INC. ~;.,~ Nick Coates President mt cc: The Aspen Times ~ ,'-'" """'" J ,-, ~o!B~e~ . ~'ili?~Io CONDOMINIUMS P.O, BOX 9260/ ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 PHONE: 303/925,8450 December 6, 1978 Aspen City Council City.Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, COlorado, 81611 Gentlemen: The owners of Silverglo Condominium units are stunned and dismayed by your proposed Ordinance 41. Since its opening in 1970, the Sliverglo has been strictly a short term tourist facility offering on-site management, maid service, pool, conference facilities and other tourist oriented features. Because of its proximity to the lifts, public transportation and the commercial core, the complex has always been a popular and highly utilized tourist complex, both summer and winter. Many of our current owners are original owners, buying units when the complex was first built. Because of our condominium declaration restrictions, permanent residents have been dis- couraged from purchasing Silverglo units. Our owners have purchased these units as second homes, using them as such, i. e., coming to Aspen one or two weeks each year and renting short term otherwise. While we understand the intent of your ordinance, we feel that its enforcement will create a very undesirable community situation. In addition, we feel that facilities with a demonstrated short term tourist use, such as Silverglo, should be excluded rather than be made a non-conforming use. We do not see that this ordinance, if passed, will solve the , problem it supposedly addresses and hope that you will recon.. sider your decision and find a solution more viable for the entire community. Sincerely, , . ;7 ~/'/'>/~,/..,& _ ' '.;) r: Ne{'t' ~ ;'B~~et~-7'1..--7Cc,_),./' Managing Agent 'J ..".,"- ,,- &spen City Council City Hall 130 South Clalena $\. Aspen, eolwado, BlblL .l'}ear sirs; -, " lJ2; Elmwood Drive A\nn Arbor, Michigan Jtecember 4, 19'18 We would like to voice oPJilOsition to the proposed OrDinance No. 41. at the hearing to be Aeld' on Monday Dec. ll. Our two-bedro0111 unit in Sd.lverglo 80miomi:niUllls QS purchasect four years ago as a ahort... term rental unit, With built-in management and every convenience for the tourist and skier. We have used the unit only a few weeks eaCA Yea~sually only two weeks. To lIl1 knowledge, the Whole complex has always been a short- term facility, and was built With that use in mind. Silverglos excelLent location for tne ski l1Uli!J1 waJ.king distance to tOWl!1, restaurants and stores and ahopa, has IlIadeit a popUlar place for the Aspen visitor, both in SUll!Dler and Winter. I am sanding a copy of this letter to Mr. Neilllennett, so that i'le can speak in lIl1 belial:f. Respectfully SUbmitted, {~0t!io ?: U~~ Charles E. Owen (!~ ([J!~ Charlotte L. Owen I""'" ,-, 5 December 1978 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Gentlemen: Proposed ordinance 41 provides no benefit to the city of Aspen that I can discern unless itscpurpose is to reduce or eliminate the towns most beneficial revenue source, the short term rental tourist family. We purchased our Aspen residence in the Silverglo at 930 E Waters (in an RMF zone covered by proposed Ordinance 41) with the knowledge it had been used exclusively as a short term rental unit, and because of its location within walking distance of the lifts and downtown stores and restaurants. We purchased our Aspen residence so we could enjoy the area several times a year - not only for a week during the ski season, but also for a week during the peaceful, beautiful fall or early summer "quiet seasons". It's possible for us to do that, and properly maintain our property, because we rent it to tourist 'families, or music school students, or writers conference attendees, when we're not in Aspen. An Ordinance which would force us to rent for long term (and thereby deny us use of our property) would be, in effect, confiscation of our property. If you drive away enough of us who own vacation residences in Aspen there won't be much need for "employee" housing, or even employees. If yOur intent is to prohibit building more short term rental units, or to prevent conversion of current year-around residences, it's very poorly drafted. If your .intent is to turn "near downtown", well maintained, well managed, short term rental condominiums into long term rental "slums" (remember Silver King?) the current Ordinance 41 will do the job, Vote against Ordinance 41. ~nCerelY' , .' C?~ ack O. 0 Neill . '930 E. Waters Ave. Aspen, Colorado 416 Kresse Circle Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 INTERNAL MEOICINE CAROIOl.OGY 'J1orthw..t .Jntema! medicine A,ociat.. S. C. GEORGE A. NELSON. MD. ROBERT A. BIELINSKI. M.o. J. LEONARD BRAUDO. M.D.. F.R.C.p' STEVEN H. HERSH. MD. OLD ORCHARD PROFESSIONAL BUILDING 64 OLD ORCHARD ROAD SUITE 308 SKOKIE. ILLINOIS 60077 TEl.EPHONE 312/677-0064 Veeemb~ 5, 1978 ~~---~=-~~=--..'i'\'6'j:5eyctt.t!rt:oClnctt --~,,-- CUy Hall 130 S. Galena Sb!.ed Mpen, CotoMdo 8]611 VeM Sfu: "'-" ..-,...."..---.....-^,.';- "_...,.-.~...>-".._.-.,- r wou-Cdu'ke :to expM4A mv oPpMWon :to OIUUn.anee #4] wh1c.h eomiU :to pl:/./lt.(.e heMri,ng qn Peeemb~ ]], JIl78 ..Ln :the CUy COl:/.nc...U., r am :the Ow/1.~ ('16 >t eondo~ ..Ln :the SUvV1-gloW Con" dorrWU.u.m M.60ci:.a.t.{.on, TM4 l:/.11M; WM pu./l.ehaAed M (I, bM..LniUA ,-I..n"> ve.6:tmen:t :toQe m<<;na,ged M a, Ahf!M.,:tVLirJ Il,~ l:/.nU w.Uh on".6Ue ma.nagemen:t diU'c;8ned 6014 Ii('l:th wi:n:teA Mr! 4ttmmeA :towr4:t Me,When fL. eV,C;e.wQtg ~..l:/.. nU 6014. ' I'MC-. , ~e, r.'. Il,ev,C;ewed. no:t on.e. y.:the /W,. . :tMy 06 :t/W, eondOm<;11i:wn oed ~Q :tfW,:t 06, :the Mpen eommu.n{.:ty Md 6eLt :tha;t);:t WCt.6 a. dv.;l:Ntble ..6nViU.tmen:t. The l:/.nM; ha4 a:t.tJw.e:ted AhoNt" :teJLm :to~:t U4e 4,<,nee i.4 e('lIl4:t!w.c.;t;(qn Md :the eof/lt1jwu.:ty hM en., Joyed exegUen:t 4:C4:tM M >t. VMa;t;(M M~. Mil pW14MM Me 04 :t/W, l:/.nM; :to if<;t:te hM been ZeI!,q C{,6 :the u.n{.:t {4 6l:/.nda.mel'l:tiil"Uy (I, bU4MLv.;4 ..LnviU.tmen.:t. r 6ee.e :thM O~c.e Jl4J wou-Cd /:MepMP,qty ifa;ma.,ge:the M:trzr;tc.:t,{;veniU4 06 :tiJj;q UnM; :to. :th,e VC{,6:t ma.j('l,1r).,ty 06 v(I,ea;t;(on~. The tClewon <16 .the S{.eve!t.fJl<lw C('IndQm.(:~l!.l1 bo:th.to :the exM.ttng U6:tA q,nd Ci:,nypILPpQ/.>:ed, M we.e.t M i.4 pIl.Q~y :to:the 0l:/.4.6J.iU4 riMw'e:t (J6 Mpen, ma.ke.q U an ~c.:t,{;ve 4hoNt..,:teJLm !r.ental. PM"" peNty. r do no:t 6eel:tfJ..(1;t :the 4\WJe bene6i.4 wou-Cd exM.t 1,6 Mn.:tal. WCI4 :um.e:ted :tCl no liU4 :t1iM (:t 6 mqn.:th lC<l4 e, My oppoM,ti;on .t(J :the ~Aage 1)6 Ol1Jt.Cn4nc.e #41 <4 liMed on wh({:t r 6ee.e <4 .6J. :the pv.;:t ,cn.:teAiU.t Qtl :the Mpen. eollW)u.n{.:tV M a whole, " r ll,eql:/.iU:t &:t VOl:/. 8..6ve :tli,tq Ae/U.QU4 C.('I14,<,dell,(:l;t);on ..Ln YOM openmee.ting, ' JRB; th S:lne~e.ey ~ 7T . , --;::::.J , , ,/\. " . ~eUll4lU ' VRANESH, RAISCH AND SCHROEDER, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2120 13!1! STREET GEORGE VRANESH JERRY W.RArSCH WAYNE B. SCHROEDER P. Q. BOX 871 BOULDER, COLORADO 80306 OF' COUNSEL DAVID P. PHILLIPS ..JOHN R. HENDERSON DAVID C. LINDHOLM MICHAEL D. SHIMMIN TELEPHONE 303/443-6151 December 4, 1978 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 41 Dear Council People: I have been made aware that the City of Aspen is attempting to enact an ordinance restricting condominiums and dwellings within a designated area to six-month leases rather than short- term leases. I feel that this ordinance would be a mistake to the long-term welfare of Aspen. Much of the revenue derived in Aspen is a result of short-term condominium ocCupancy. People come in from allover the country and world to stay in Aspen. There are not many of them that are willing to sign six- month leases just to come skiing in Aspen. I am sure the problem Aspen is experiencing on shortage of living accommodations for the workers can be resolved by other means. In any event, I feel that Aspen would be taking a gigantic step backwards if it curtailed short-term leases from condominiums. Sincerely, RAISCH AND SCHROEDER, P.C. V(l. ~ C George Vranesh GV:djs cc: Neil Bennett ROBERT PRENTIS MORRIS ATTORNEY AT LAW !52.0 EAST COOPER AVENUE. SUITE C.g, P. O. BOX 9069 ASPEN. COL-ORACO 81611 1.303.9215...8081 December 5, 1978 City Council 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Proposed Ordinance #41 Ladies and Gentlemen: As an attorney and resident of Aspen, I am in total opposition to Ordinance #41 as proposed. This measure is patently illegal and could not survive a competent legal challenge. Furthermore, Ordinance #41 would necessitate a new layer of bureaucracy to enforce such rental restrictions. I contend that such enforcement is distasteful and nearly impossible. And poor enforcement merely breeds contempt for the legal system and those officials entrusted with its administration, I urge the City Council to reject Ordinance #41. Respectfully submitted, ~~.~ RPM/sdf Robert Prentis Morris December 4, 1978 City Council Ci ty Hall IJO S. Galena Aspen, COlorado Ladies and Gentlemen: r am writing to express my disapproval of the ordinance which restricts rentals to three periods during the year when it has been rented long-term prior to its sale. r feel that it is unfair to visitors with second homes, as well as to purchasers of condominiums or houses, and r also feel that it is unconstitutional and if passed will entail more lawsuits for the city of Aspen. Box 121 Aspen, Colorado Very truly yours, ~"--G~~ Bette Gallagher ~ ~ December 6, 1978 Aspen City Council City Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado Gentlemen: We have been made aware of a proposed Ordinance that will be considered for passage following the public hearing, December 11, 1978. As owners of Silverglo Condominium #107 & 207, we strongly obiept to Ordinance #41" The Governing Body must be aware tha.t our pur.chase of this property was made for all the reasons that this proposed ordinance would render illegal. After 15 years as tourists for several weeks during ski season, the opportunity arOse to purchase a short term unit, with on sight management and all other ammeni- ties basically designed for tourist use that minimized the hassle of obtaining satisfactory accommodations for us personally for the few weeks that we can avail ourselves, due to bU8iness committments, also taking into considera- tion the location of the site, making it possible to walk to the ski lift and the availability of public transporta- tion making this extremely suitable to the tourist, causing this condominium to be an extremely popular and highly utilized facility. Business here prohibits both my partner and myself from attending the public hearing, but we respectfully request council to consider our opposition to this piece of legis- lation that you are considering adopting. (~~ Robert Boden CC: Silverglo Mgt. t I: (./ ;/ tv n , cj"', I, ~vf1 r V{/ vr ~I Y' ~ /I~l~'j I l_J James L. Tuohy John L.Martin , / Joseph P. Buell ,~ ,-, LAW OFFICES TUOHY AND MARTIN, LTD. II South LaSalle Street-Suite 1815 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6060~ Telephone FRanklin 2-8678 November 28, 1978 The Honorable Stacy Standley, III Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Mr. Standley: This letter is to advise you that my partner, James L. Tuohy, and I will use all the legal means at our disposal to prevent the passing of Ordinance 41. We both feel that this proposed Ordinance violates our Civil Rights, due process of law and is designed to reduce the market value of our property. I should pOint out that we have owned our home since 1971 and we have received absolutely no complaints from anyone concerning our class of tenants or the condition of our property. In fact, our home, managed by Reid Real Estate and Rentals, is maintained far better than comparable homes of your so-called local residents. ]LM:kk Very truly yours, TUOHY AND MARTIN, LTD. ~2.<~ John L. Martin . . CC: Mr. William Dunaway, c/o Aspen Times, Box E, Aspen, Colorado 81611 . -; ,~ r" ~ Counselors in Real Estate "-...-"..-.",,--- 600 South Cherry St. Denv:er, Colorado 8022,2 303-320-5800 December 5', 1978. Stacy Standley, Mayor City of Aspen Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Stacy, Recently ther.e ,has been con:;ide1;abl!l publicity concerning the proposed Ordinance 41 for the City of 'Aspen which, as I read it, would prevent those of us who have awned condominiums far same years now, in the RMF District as well as cer,tain ather districts, from 'leasing an a short term basis to people who wish to rent far vacations in Aspen. Stacy', I know that this Ordinance came before the City 'once before in 1975 and was defeated. I would. request, at the present time, that you cons'ider very strongly defeating this kind of an 'ordinance once again. I can commend your 'efforts to reduce growth' in Aspen and your efforts to keep it as a fine place far people to live and vacation. Without. the wisdom shawn by Council Members and County Commissioners in recent years, there's no question that the unbridled growth would have continued 'and that the quality of life in Aspen would have been greatly diminished _ if not destroyed. This current proposition appear's to do two things to me, both'of whiCh I would consider highly undesirable far the City of Aspen. One, I think it is denying people the, right to use private property without due process which, of course, is a'legal consideration. Second, I think it wouJ:d take aut of the available rental pool'many units that are currently utilized during bath the winter and summer seasons an' a short term basis that permits the ski areas'and ather recreational facilities, ,as wel'l as mast of the cOmlnercial busJ.nesses, to enj'oy the kind of business that they enjoy. If the ski enterprises in Aspen are reduced because people can't stay, then the 'need far employees and permanent residents will also go dawn. Ultimately, the effec,ts an business could' be d~saster6us: I think you have sufficient controls now to keep growth at a very law level , far the future. Those controls alol;l.e should. suffice to prevent the growth and spread of new businesses,. Why would there ,be a need far the Little 'Annie ski area if there weren I t going to be additional vacationers came in and ut,ilize . those facilities? Certainly all of'the ski facilities in the Aspen area:,are not'going.to be,nationalized and made available an a free bas'is only to those' who iive there. CdJ1sequently" the' resort aspects of Aspen ,must be recognized and, accommodations maintained to provide the necessary beds to support the economy-. . .' 1"""', 1""'\ December 5, 1978 Stacy Standley, Mayor' Page Two I would suggest that there are'a number of ways of. creating more employee housing in the Aspen area without denying current property owners the right to continue to r,ent their properties on whatever basis they wish so long as they conform to the regulations in effect at the time they bought or built the properties they are currently renting. The se.cond provision in the proposed Ordinance, referring to time sharing, I believe also is totally unconstitutional. I don't see how, if one or more owners wish to share an apartment or home on an undivided interest basis, that it, can be considered a condominiumization and, therefore, illegal under any ord.inance that .you design. I would strongly urge you to vote against the Ordinance and urge .that it be withdrawn as not repre- senting the best interests of all of the residents, either part time or full time, in the Aspen area. Your consideration of this request will be greatly appreciated. ~d;/ZM1 Edwin W. Baker, Jr. U EWE/Irk cc: ~Ir. William Dunaway Ms. Kay Reid ~ ~ December 4, 1978 Aspen City Council Ci ty Hall 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Council Members: It has come to our attention that the Aspen City Council will hold a public Ineeting on the proposed Ordinance #41 on December 11, 1978. As owners of a condominium unit in Aspen and as sin- cere admirers of Aspens unique and lovely ambience, we want to emnhasize that we are strongly opposed to the passage of this ordinance. First for its bad effect in general: Aspen is a leading tourist- centered city. Its continued ex1stance as a viable city depends heaVily on tourism (by skiers, nature lovers, and students of the arts, humanities, and sciences). In such an. ambience it is neither reasonable nor prudent to propose an ordinance which would so greatly limit the housing chmices of these many visitors. Trane- portation in and out of Aspen via plane or bus is in itself a hassle for visitors without further complications of limited short-term rental accomodations. In Aspen tourist-directed short-term accomodations are too dispersed to allow such an or- dinance to be realistic. Second, relative specifically to the Silverglo Condominiums in which Vie have owned a unit for about eight years: The unit was purchased primarily for rental on a short-term basis. It has always had on-site management, linen service, and other amenities directed toward tourist use. The Complex has been used as a short- term tourist facility since its construction. We personally use our unit about two weeks per year. The proximity of this complex to lifts, public transportation and~mhe commercial core has re- sulted in its popularity and high utilization as a tourist faCility. 10933 Westwood Dr. Palos Hills, IL. 60465 Sincerely, f)w 1~ '-. DaVid MeneiJh;tt1 7?ouv~' Nora Meneghetti Owners Silverglo Unit #106 ,-, "'" ,'-' "'" ""'~ -, "'" "'" "'" I""'> ""'- ,I""'>, "'" I""'> I""'> --.0;; - I""'> I""'> ~- .... .... '" -, WILHELM FEEDLOTS D HEMMINGSON PO BOX 16507 ,-." DENVER CO 80216 !!! "!!I\7railgrani fiY ,': . .-,. .,. "" * "" "," ."'" I ' 1-" 1-041911E341 12/07/78 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP DVRA 3038931115 MGM TDMT DENVER CO 110 12-07 0311P EST ","" ,....., STACY STANLEY CITY HALL 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN CO 81611 i1"\ ,..,.., ....., I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH ORDINANCE 41 AMENDING SECTION 21~3.7CO) AS AN ASPEN PROPERTY OWNER SINCE 1960 I BELIEVE A CORNERSTONE TO THE UNIQUENESS TO ASPEN CITY (NOT VAIL) IS RESIDENTIAL WEST END WELL MAINTAINEO HOMES AND GARDENS, LOW AUTOMOBILE DENSITY, LIMITED OCCUPANCY, CREATING A QUIET RESIDENTIAL AMBI'ENCE. ORDINANCE CHANGE WILL BRING MORE AUTOMOBILES, NOISE OCCUPANCY, UNKEMPT YAROS (WITNESS EXTREME WEST END) THUS CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF ASPEN. PRAGMATIC MOVE TODAY IS NO LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO HOUSING PROBLEMS. INSTEAD IT IS A DETRIMENTAL PERSONALITY CHANGE TO ASPEN. I URGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST PROPOSAL ~ ..-" i' -., '-', DAVID C WILHELM 331 WEST FRANCIS ASPEN eo 15112 EST "'" ,....., MGMCOMP MGM ....., ....., ,... ....., ,""' ...-,,1 ....., '"'" TO REPLY BY MAilGRAM, SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR WESTERN UNION'S TOll, FREE PHONE NUMBERS -. ,/c ""_ I 1"""\ A "41- .:z:o M E M 0 RAN DUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Planning Office (KS) RE: Code Amendment - Rental Restrictions ~ DATE: November 2, 1978 On Tuesday, November 7, amendments will be considered to Section 24-3.7(0), Rental Restrictions. The purpose is to add R-6, R-15, R-30, R-40, RR, and C districts to those districts subject to a six month miniumum lease. The amendments would also add single family and duplex units as units to be restricted. Currently only multi-family units in RMF, 0, and C-l districts are so limited. The proposed language of Section 24-3.7(0) would read as follows: 24-3.7(0) (1) All dwelling units within the R-6, R-15, R-30, R-40, RR, C, RMF, 0, and C-l districts shall be restricted to six(6) month minimum leases ( with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year. \ (2) In the event that any dwelling within the above described districts sha 11, after the effecti ve date hereof, be purchased by severa 1 owners on a time sharing basis, such arranged time sharing for multi- ple use shall (as required by section 20-3(s)) be deemed to constitute a subdivisioD and (for purposes of this section) condominiumization of the unit making the above described leasing limitations effective. The impetus for the amendments comes f~om increasing pressure in all districts for short-term rentals. The pressure is resulting in greater depletion of the housing supply for low and moderate income employees. Ordinance #53 was written to attempt to mitigate the pressure on that supply caused by condo- miniumization and amendments will be presented to you Tuesday to strengthen those provisions. As part of the condominiumization policy, we have required 6 month minimum lease restrictions on all conversions whether ,new or existing development. These proposed amendments will make the condominiumization restriction consistent with zoning use limitations. We suggest that this is justified in order to maintain our permanent residential districts as such, without intrusion of tourist, high turnover usage. The amendment will also use the language of Section 20-22 regarding the allowance of two shorter tenancies per year. It will drop the limitation of 2 short term periods to 15 days each. This should resolve the problem that some persons foresaw of precluding rentals to music school faculty and students and Institute personnel who may be here for two or three months. The language also drops the exemption for single family and duplex units and for multi-family units constructed prior to the adoption of 24-3.7(0). Any such units which had been short-termed prior to that amendment or to the ones proposed today wi 11 enjoy status as a non-conform- ing use and will be subject to the conditons of Section 24-12.2. November 9, 1978 On a three to two vote the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on November 7, recommended denial of the above proposed Code Amendment regarding expanding the rental limitations to districts other than RMF, 0 and C-l where they now apply. Again discussion was considerable. Those favoring the proposal noted that the expansion of rental limitations was intended simply to re- inforce zoning that we already got. In other words, that side felt that the residential zone districts were clearly intended .in the Aspen Municipal Code to accomodate only permanent residential usage, not the higher impact usage that pressure is now bringing to bear. They pointed that this was only one facet of a total approach to maintaining the employee housing that we have and preventing its gradual conversion to short-term rental.With new time-sharing proposals, we have seen that there is increasing pressure to '-."'- . '.;,-,: :..-...,. ~, t:- .~ ;--,. I""'" A Memo to City Council Code Amendment - Rental Restrictions November 9, 1978 Page Two convert not only multi-family in the RMF and core districts but also to convert single family, duplex, and multi-family in other districts. Input from the public also raised the concern that in the West End at least, people would be prevented from renting their houses in the summer time to Institute, MAA, or other cultural visitors who are here for more than a two week period. That concern seemed to be resolved by the language that is proposed, that there can be two shorter tenancies a year (not limited to 15 days). On the other side of the coin were those that looked at this as an unnec- essary layer of regulations. Those in opposition pOinted out the problem of enforcing such a new law. They also did not like the idea of making those residences which are now short-termed non-conforming uses which have the right to continue as long as they are not expanded or discontinued. We do urge that Council go ahead and set the public hearing on the matter and take the input at that time. We are still strongly recommending this proposal believing that as we continue with growth management and as the demand for Aspen continues to increase there will be more and more pressure to convert our long term residential districts and that we need to take all measures possible to insure that there will be a separation between our tourist district where there is higher activity and much more going and coming from the commercial core and recreational centers, from our permanent residential areas which should be maintained as a quieter place for people and families to reside. sr .',. ,-"'- -:....\:'- . ,'::_1; :.;.._, -"r:- ,l , ~ -.. )~- \'- -- .'" ,...., I;. r""'" , }.I ',I .,..' v: '(' CITY OF ASPEN PLANNIHG AND ZONING COt1MISSION RESOLUTI orl NO. RE: Policy for Condominiumization of Duplex and l1u1ti- Family Owe 11 i ngUn its WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council requested the City Attorney at their May 23rd meeting to prepare an Ordinance which would require multi-family condominiumizations to comply with the following require- ments: " 1. ....- That existing tenants be given fair notice and a 90- day exclusive non-assignable right of first refusal to purchase their unit, at the preliminary market value at the time of first notice of intent to condo- miniumize, and, 2. That each unit be restricted to six month minimum lease restrictions, and WHEREAS, by memorandum dated May 31,1977, the City Attorney notified Planning. and Zoning of Council's request for an ordinance and suggested - at Council's request - that the Planning and Zoning consider additional policy guidelines that would be considered for each appli- cation on a case by case basis, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission heard a report at their July 5th meeting prepared by the Housing Director detailing the impact of condominiumizations on the employee housing market and making recommendations for policy to mitigate against any adverse impacts on the pool of hOUSing available to local permanent residents, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the recommendations again at their regular August 16th meeting and at a special meeting held on August 23rd and finds that it is necessary and in the public interest that additional policy nuide1ines be drafted to include a policy aimed at maintaining a supply of low and moderate i ncone hous i ng and suC)ges ted geneJ'a 1 cd teri a for approval in a"tcordance with stated policy. llOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Comi'lission supports the tlvO requirements for multi-family condominium- ization which \vere adopted by the Council. on r1.1Y 23rd and fUI'thel' ~ I""'" ,-, . . recommends that Council consider an Ordinance for both duplex and multi- family condominiumization that contains additional policy guidelines as follows; 1. Th1l't duplex multi-family condominiumizations be allowed after review on a case by case basis. 2. That in each ~ase, the applicant be requested to demonstrate the short and long term impacts of the proposal on the supply of low and moderate income housing. /,/ 3. That it be the policy to approve those condominiumi- zations which comply with the goal of maintianing a supply of low and moderate income housing (as such may be determined by the Housing Authority) available to and affordable'by the local resident which does not displace existing tenants, and which will remain within the low and moderate income category OVer the long term. 4. That each applicant may choose the manner of demon- strating compliance vlith the housing goal by providing specific information at the time of Conceptual Plan Submission on any of the following criteria including but not limited to: a. evidence that illustrates there will be minimal tenant displacement as a result of the conversion. b. evidence that the conversion will not be excluSionary (unaffordableby persons of. moderate income). c. evidence that future prices of unit resales will not become exclusionary such as subscription to a right of first refusal or any other continuing control mechanism which may be private or devised by the Housing Authority. d. evidence that tenants who cannot purchase their units are relocated to similarly affordable housing if they so desire. ~ e. evidence that future occupancy of the units will be made available to local employees of moderate incomes. f. evidence regarding a long tet'm lease arrangement to the present tenants. - 2 - . , "..., ~ . g. evidence that the prospective purchaser(s) is an employer or group of employers who intends to rent the unit(s) to his employees. AND BE,lJ FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the 'Planning and Zoning Commission will continue to review all condominiumization applications in accordance with existing policy adopted by the City Council uniess and until City Council makes any amendments or additions thereto. . 'Approved thi s & tI day of + /~~e.r , 1977. ~ Charles Collins, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission / / I, f/,:,c,0eth "S/1t?Y'Vll! ,Deputy City Clerk do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was .adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at its meeting held September 6, 1977. "Eh a {u-c1.-f S~ Deputy City Clerk ... -3 - ,./ . . I""" lei's put some limits on condo conversions By Daniel Lauber j , Rental housing is fasl becomin): an rndangered species in many lilies throughout the country. The "inual haIr inapanmcnt conslru<:tion this decade and the rapid conversion of apartments to condominiums have combined to produce a dwindlin): supply of rental housing in many communities. A few cities and COunties however have cnacted innovative ~ondomin~ iumconvcrsion ordinances to alleviate their housing crises. Some of these ordinances prohibit conversions dur~ ing housing shonages; others require tenant approval prior ro conversion. Apanment construction has been hindered in many communities by rapidly rising construction costs and a shortage of land zoned for multi, family use. New construction has be, come so expensive that ircompares unfavorably, on a cost,profit basis, with conversions of existing apart- ments to condominiums. HUD reports that condominium conversion has become popular be, cause of the "large potential profits which can be made in a relatively short period of time when compared with new construction." Manv land, lords convert because the\' can"r raise rents quickly enough ro k~ep up with rising costs. In addition, changes in federal tax laws have made apan, ment-building ownership lessattrac, tive to investors. The demand for condomiums is largely due ro the postwar baby boom. These children have come of age and formed new households. Condominiums offer new or young households with above-average in, come the opportunity to accumulate equity and enjoy the tax benefits of home ownership during this inlla, tionar)" period. when the average COSt of a detached single,family house has risen to more than S50.000. Likewise, empty, nest householders seek con, dominiums to combine the fin;mriaJ benefits of home ownership with the convcoicoce.of rondominium living. Condominium convt"fsion is most intense in communities that have little or no vacant bnd available for new cond.ominium construct,ion, They already have a tight rental market th.lt is only worst'm.'d by con- dominium fOllvcrsions. Since virtually no new rental unilS are being built, removal of existin}:: apartment buildings from the rental market leads to scarcity and a demand for rental housing greater than the supply. The result is that rents sky, rocket in the remaining rental build, ings and force tenants ro leave the community and others to pay a dis, proportionately large share of their in, come: for rent, . Most adversely affected by conver, 5lOn arc: . persons ...ithout accumulated wealth, particularly those'of average or lower than average income; . young persons who expect ro move as their family grows; . persons who prefer to rent, us' ually through personal choice or being at a stage in life (students, for' example) where mobility is impor, tant: . older persons with locational at, tachments and no desire or need ro accumulate the equity or take ad, vamage of the tax breaks that con, dominium ownership brings. Senior citizens and low, and moderate-income families are the most seriousI\- affected. Lawrence Mages, forme; president of the Bel, mont Harbor Neighbors on Chicago's Norrh Side, explains. "Senior citi, zens. of necessity, will be displaced by such conversion because it is econom- ically both unwise and infeasible for them to underrake such ownership." Most elderlv and low- or moderate, income rente~s cannOL, purchascthe converred units, usualh- because their income is too lowt'; support the higher monthly cash outlay con, dominium ownership demands. Util, hies. heating and' water costs, tax payments, monthly maintenance fees, and morrgage payments usually add up to 30 to 35 per cent mote than the rent charged for the same unit. And those few e1derlr who ('an afford the monthly p"ym'ems frequently find it difficult to obi:lin a mortg~lgt'. SOO1(.' renters become (ondomin~ ium purchasers involuntarily when their apartments arc (onvent"d. But,as Chicago attorney Frank Reidn told the JlIinois U.gi,lative Condominium Study Commission in 1'174, "Th,-re art" no benefits wthe ({'oallt when a building is conn'fled loa f{mdomin- .-, ium. The cost of Iivin): in the apart, ment is increased, and rhcopponuni,'; tics for resale, if resale is required, arc very difficu It. " Condominium owners who try to sell their unit before their buildin): is sold Out frequently find it difficult to compete with the developer and often take a bath to sell their unit. The elderly who purchase generally do so for health reasons. Lon):,term residents may not want to move be- cause of their attachment to their apartment. They may not be emo, tionally prepared to seek or choose new housing. Interviews co'nducted in New York City, the District of Co- lumbia, and Palo Alto, California. re, veal tbat many of these reluctant pur, chasers buy because they are fated with a Jack of alternative housing in the community and fear [hat, whercq:r they more, the building also will he convened to a condominium. One long,time resident of Chi, cago's Hyde Park neighborhood. which has experienced widespread condominium conversion, didn't pur. chase his converted apartmcnt wil/- ingly. "I had no choice; it was either buy or get kicked OUt," he said. "Any decent apartment I'd find in this neighborhood would probably he converted to a condominium soon after we moved in. I feel zero pride in ownership. But thanks ro all the con, do conversions in Hyde Park. there just aren't any good rentals ro be found any more." The HUD Co>/dOlJ//IIl/llll Cooper,]- live Sludy (U.S.G.P.O.. Wa,hing.ron_ DC 20"02: 1975; 3 vols.; SCUO a set) summarizes the magnitude of the problem: "In a city where remal Iva, cancy] rares are low and where remal units ate occupied by the eldcrly, who are often on fixed incomes, and bv low- and moderatc-income famili(,'~ the displacement potential of this conversion process appeared 3.\\.t'~om(,'. ,. The impart of conversions has nt'cn awesome in Evanston. llli!wis, tht. first suburb north of Chicago and homt of Northwestern Uni\'ersi!~'. where brge numbers of cldt'tly and even middle-in((,)mc housdlOJds lun' been forn'd to leave tht, rOIumunit\" due to massive (ondominiurn coI1\'(,'c". sions, Convt'rsions ha\'e dried up the supply of f(.ntal hou:-;ing :md forced September 1977 25 ~ ~ 1 f/~ IJ(i:, 3A II .~' \ - . J-.a;.-.U ~'"t.. ~~lfF~~.l.<;l~~r..~. .. .' ....' _.~~..~..~_. ,~ ,.' . . . . . ' t""" ~ - I I I I \ rents up to extraoldinalily high levels. Evanston's rental vacancy ratc, conse. quentfy, is less that.' 1.6 pel cent. Evanston fits the image thc HUD study and othcr studics havc used to dc-scribe communities that are prime candidatcs for widespread condom in, ium conversion, Land for new dcvel, opmentis scarce or nonexistent, prices fOl single. family detachcd homes ale very high, tenants ale militant 01 have been given eXpanded lights to balance theil relationship with land, 10lds, a supply of good qualitYlental plOjects exists, and thele is no Iegisla, tion to regulate condominium conver~ sions. However. an increasing number of communities fitting this desuiption ha\'e enacted $tlong condominium com'cIsion -ordinances that not only plOvide such common tenant plOtec' cions as adequate notice of conversion and light of filst lefusal to pUlchase, but also ease, the difficulty and ex, pense of lelocation. Some of thcse oldinances even act to keep displaced tenants in the community and effec, ~ive1y regulate the rate of condomin, 1um converSIon. Recognizing the lelationship be, tween lental vacancy lates and the im, pact of condominium conn:rsions. severn I jurisdictions ha\'e established vacancy lates below which condomin, ium con\'elsions ale plOhibited without tenant appto\'al. FOl example, \\7ashington, D.C" had 22,300 vacant apanments in 1970, a 404 pel cent vacancy !':lte. In 1974, the vacancy rnte had dlOpped to less than one per cent, largely because of widespread condominium con\'er, sion and the construction of few apartments. Finding a moderately Pliced apartment is difficult. if not impossible. in that kind of markct. A nOlmal housing market usually has a five to eight pel cent \'acancy rate. Housing experts consider a three per-cent vacancy r~l[e to be the mini- mum neccssary for the housing malket to function ptoperly. As one condominium unit owner re- mindcd HUP, "HUD's own Economic and Macke:t An~dysis Di\'ision eecog. nizrs that. when ;l rent~li vacancy ratc.' falls bdow six pcr rcnt, l11;!rket parity is deSlloyed and tcn""ts arc forred to pal' high"l tems than the}' ";!n ;!nold, 26 Planning accept housing bdo;" Plevious Stan, dards, 01 uproOt theil families and movcto diffelent jUlisdictions with highel vacancy rates." In response to theil low vacancy late, Palo Alto enactcd an ordinance in 1974 that declared a housing shOT[, agc whcnevel thlec pCl CCnt 01 less of thc total lental stock is vacant. When thelC is a housing shonage, thc oldi, nance plOhibits eonvelsion of lcntal units unlcss two,thilds of. thc devc!, opment's tenants apptovc the con vcr, sion. Palo Alto planners use the postal vacancy survey and thc daily COUnt of inactive utility meters to determine the vacanc}' rate twice a vear. Malin COUnty, Califomia, mob: lished fivc pel ccm as 'thc thrcshold below which convelsions may bc pro, hibited \\'ithout tenant consent. since many housing expcns fcel that this highel \'acancy late is ncccssal'}' fOl thc low, and modclate.income housing malket to function ptopedy. Both Palo Alto and Malin Coumy base their condominium conversion plOvisions on the goals and policics established in thcil compl'chcnsivc plans and housing policy statcmcnts. Thc Pimict of Columbia's Emcl' gency Condominium Regulation Act of 1976 followed a two'yeal mOtalO' rium on conversions, \Xlhile it does not severely restrict conversion of units classified as high lcnt-thcil convel' sionwon't dilccdydisplace evcn avcl', age, income houscholds_it docs pto, hibit convclsion of all units not classi, fied high lent when the city's l'ental vacanc}' rnte falls to thtee pcr CCnt 01 less. Conve1'5ion is pClmitted, though, if mOle than half thc lcsidellts of a building applO\'C thc cOl1\'e1'5ion. So fat, \\7 ashington h;!s glalltcd eligibilit}' fOl convCl'Sion to UOO high'lcnt units in 24 ptojccts. Whilc these lcstrictions ha\'e cffertiwly slowcd 01 stoppcd convcrsions of non-high,rcnt buildings. thcy do not prohibit convc.;rsions. At least two cities requirc tenam apprO\'aI of conversions. no maner \Vh;!t thc vacancy talC is. In San Fl;!n, cisco.com-eesions invol\'ing buildings of 5001 morc units mUSt be appnwcd by 35 pCl C<'nt of the tenants. In New YOlk City, 35 P"l C<'nt of thc tenants must sign pun.:hasc.' ~lgn"'e- meors Within one.- ye;u of the iniriaJ dcdaration bl-forc convtcs;on is :lfl ptoved. Those who do not wi,h I" purchase cannorbt evicted until rill end of theil lease or for two yeah whichevel is 10ngcL In every city whtrc' some form (ll tenant apploval is required. dcvd oper.tenant contacts a.re carefulh monitored to assure that no (()crc.:iu,", is used to persuade tenants to appro\'( a conversion, Montgomery County and Lowl'r Mction Township, Pennsylvania, a/', protect tenants from early evictjon ,~\ thcy'lI havc sufficient timc to find rl' placcmcnt housing, Thcsc iurisdi,. rions automaticalh' eXl:end a, tenant' 1ease....at no incre~sein rent, W Oil. YCal from the filing date of the con dominium's subdi\'ision plat. Long, lcascs must bc honorcd. If 51 pel' cm of the tenants approre the conversion, the lease extension period is wan'cd" Several jurisdictions go to eV('f, gleatel lcngths to assist and prottr; thosc households most adve"eh' af- fected by conversions, San Fran'cisl-( tenants who arc permancnrJ}" 'di:-.-" ablcd, 01 O\'Cl 65 \'ears old. or wh,.' have at 1east rwo mi~or children jivin:; in the household ale gi\'cn an C\rta L months bcforc thc\' ran be c\'icted. In addition, the dcveiopcl is lcqui,cd '" provide free relocation services for Jow~ and moderate~income tenant~ and pay actual moring expenses:, Raymond Wong of S"n Ftanri5CO" Depanmellt ofPubIir Works sal's elL!! the rate of condominium com:ersion therc has slowcd down sincc thc Con- version ordinance was enacted in 1975. "I'm SUlC there would be a lor more conversions withOut this 1.1\\:," hc said. \\,rong cites thc case \',f thl' 350,unit Lakc Merred dcvelopmt'l1l. where the owner has tried in v..in to Obtain the required t{"nant apprl.)\':d" San Francisco's vacann' ratc is k.....~ than on(' per ccnr. . Alamcd;!, California. l('quire5 dl'- velopers to pay moring expcnscsl.)f:!l least S150 and the Dimin of C"llllll. hia fequirt's a minimum p:l}'IlH.'!lI ui $125. Howerel, W;!shington, D.C.. goes ('ven further in m~lkjng it Pl)S- sible for low- and modc:r;'I{(.'-inll\llK households to relocate within tbe lit", Dn'dopl'rs are tl'quirrdto make huusing assistanre pa~'ml.nts h) e:I(/1 eligible housdlOld for t\\'o.~'l"ars, ~lf[l'l '..', " -- .,"'" ., " , . which the city makes payments for three years, In San Francisco, if a converted unit had been P~ll-'!f the ci\x's..lliJ!ciy of ~ld.JJlQdcrat(,incom(.Jlll~ciug, thccitv nJaonjnf!; rommjssion can rc~ Quire that thch.Qr!ce of the unit ",not be such-as. to . rCffi0vcit effectively from said low, or moderate,income housmg stocK$:"'- Based on ItS comprehensive plan and housing policy statements, Marin County amended its subdivision ordi. nance to allow the county planning commission to "require that a reason- able percentage of the converted units be reserved for sale or rental to per. sons of moderate income. The per, eentage shall conform to that nor, mally required in new develop, ments." The commission set this quota at 15 percent. An additional criterion helps the commission evaluate condominium conversion proposals. The com mis, sion can deny a conversion' 'if it finds that the proposed conversion will be detrimental to the balance of rental and owned units in the countv." The planning commission set ,a ~atio of one rental unit to every three owned units. A conversion that would reduce the rental stock to less than 25 per cent of the total housing stock can be denied. According to attorneys Charles and William Rhyne in their book Munic. ipalities and Multiple Reside11tii11 Hot/sing: Condominiums and Rent ContTol, published by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers in 1975, these ordinance provisions probably meet U.S. constitutional tests. Although the courts have yet to rule explicitly on the validity of per, eentage approval requiremems, con, version moratoriums, or the other provisions discussed earlier-most of which have not been challenged in the courts-the Rhynes report that major decisions in the c10selv anal, ogous area of rem control ~ugge5t probable judicial approval. In Illinois. home mle communities can enact the kinds of cO{ldominium conversion ordinanl'<.'s examined here. However, state kgislation would he necessary to allow non-h.omc rule municipalities to adopt these kinds of laws, , .........'.. N"""'_"""""~ ,-.. Many state legislatures and local governments arc' carefully examining these locally developedtedllliqucs for proteering tenants when conversion-is proposed. Even the Ceder...1 govcrnme'lt is considering ena<:ting some of them. LastJanuary, U.S. Congresswoman Cardiss Collins of Illinois introduced House Bill 249, which would require referendum approval by 51 per cent of a building's tenants if a conversion is to be federally financed. In addi, don, referendums could be held no more frequently than once every 18 months, and coercion is prohibited. Tenants would have at least silO-months . -.. in which to decide, and no lease could.. be abridged without the Illutual con., sent of tenant and landlord. By enacting provisions. that allow conversions only when the rental va- cancy rate is above a critical level or only when tenants apI",)ve, or by re, quiring rclocadon assistance or fe. serving units for low, and moderate. income households, cities throughout the country can alleviate the problems causcd by widespread condominium conversions. 0 Dllni~/l,Juba iJ a unior p/dnna with th~ Office (i RcJt'drch and P/,l1lniJlg. II/if/oi! Departmmt of !t)(.;J/ GOI'emf/unt AjfiliTJ. Six cities where it's working o Palo Alto, California. Three per cent rental vacancy rate required for conversion. or two.thirdsof the ten. ants must approve when vacancy rate is three per cent or less. Had six, month moratorium on conversions. See Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 21.33. and 16.38. Contact Lois Atchison, Department of Plan, ning and Community Environment, City Hall, Palo Alto, CA 94301. o San Francisco, California. Thirty, five per cent of the tenants must ap' prove conversion in developments of so or more units. Tenant eviction de- layed up to 18 months for elderly or disabled persons or for families with more than twO children. Some low, and moderare,income units must be retained. Developer pays reasonable relocation COStS for low, and mod, erate,income households. See San Francisco Subdivision Ordinance, par, ticularlr Article 9, "Conversions." Contac; Raymond Wong, Depart, ment of Public Works, City Hall, San Francisco, CA 94102. o Marin County, California. Five per cemrental vacancy rate required for con\'ersion. Fifteen per cent of the units must befor low. and modt'r:lte. income households. Sce Marin Coun, ty Subdivision Code, Chapter 20.72. Contact William, Schenck, ~"'rin County Planning Dep~utment, Ci\'ic CC'lller, San Rafael, CA 9.j903. o Alameda, California. Developers must pal' $150 for displaced tt'nants' moving expenst's. Had Il,molllh "...--. moratorium on condominium conver. sions. See "Investigation and Report. Condominium Conversion Subdivi- sions in Alameda, California." Con, tact Alamcda Planning Department. City Hall, Alameda, CA 94501. . Washington, D.C. Three per cent rental vacancy rate in non-high. tent buildings required for conver. sion., Fifty,one per cent of the tenants must approve conversion when va- cancy rate in non-high,rent buildings is three per cem or lower. Some units must be retained for low, and mod, crate, income households. Developer must pay $125 for displayed tenants moving expenses. Developer required to pay housing assistance payments to displaced low, or moderate,income tenants for 24 months and city for three years after that. Had ~4,molllh moratorium on conversions. See District of Columbia Emergency Con, dominium Regulation Act of 1976 (Act No. 1,144). particularly Titles IV and V. Contact Beth Marcus, Depart- ment of Housing and Community Development, Government of the District of Columbia, 1350 ESt" N.W" Washingron, QC 20004. o New York City. Thirty,five pcr cent of the tenants must agree to pur- chase condominium units. Tenant eviction delay,'d two years bcyond term of lease. See New York States Goodman,Dearie Law, 1974. Contact Daniel Furlong, Offiet. of the N,'\\' York Statt' Attotlwv Gentml, 2 World TmdeCentc'r, Ne,;York, NY 10048. September 1977 27 \.... . , . " J.~ -1 ~~\ ,~ ~ . t ,-, ,-, HOUSIfiG OFFICE SUGGESTIONS REGARDING ~lUL TIFN1ILY CONDOr1INm1IZATION POLICY The hous i ng admi ni s tra tor was asked to s ugges t s peci fi c and genera 1 a 1 ternati ve cri terea for the approva 1 of mul ti fami ly condomi ni umi za ti ons at the last discussion of the subject by the planning and zoning commiss- ion. Preceding this assignment, the housing office had presented the l'e- sults of severa 1 s tudi es into the effects of multi family condomi ni umi za- tion, In summary, the effects of rental apartment conversion can be cat- egorized into ilrul1ediate and long term impacts: Immediate Impacts: 0 with the condominiumization of existing rental apartments, existing tenants are forced into the crisis decision of purchasing their units or finding housing elsey/here. Fully 63% of the existing tenants in the survey were forced to move out, and an additional number purchased only to resell within a short period thereafter. o the affected units were condominiumized by three prime motivators: landlords; tenants; and third party i nves tors. The tenant I s interest was bes t served in those ins tances where a 1 arge tenant participation OccUrred, o survey units tended to be priced at, or only slightly below comparable market levels, This fact resulted in subsequent owners paying monthly ownership expenses which were far in excess of the amounts whi ch rents coul d have been expected to rise during the same period. o further research revealed that condominium conver- sion of existing multifami ly rental buildings re- sulted in a replacement of long-tenure locals of low and moderate incomes with newer locals with higher incomf's. The reasons for this discrimin- ation were predominantly financial, dealing with the tenant's ability to qualify for financing and come up wi th a dovmpayment. Long-term impacts 0 a reduction in the stock of long-term rental housing in favor of more expensive ownership housing is considered undesirable for a city which is so heavily dependent upon tourism and relatively low income service industry em- p loyees. o speculation in converted units can be expected to qui ckly elevate unit pri ces far out of reach of persons of low and moderate incomes. This price appreciation in a short time period is far in excess of expected rent increases over the same period. ~ ~... i""""'> ~ In order to mitigate these long and short-term impacts, it is proposed that condominiumizations be regulated. The controls placed upon conversions may be designed as general or specific criterea and reflect an underlYing philosophy of laissez-faire or strict regulation. The housing office rec- commends strict regulation with either general or specific criterea for condom-iniumization approval. The fonowing is an outline of suggested re- quirements for submission and sets Of general and specific approvalcriterea: SUGGESTED REQUI REi0ENTS FOR SUBI1ISSION a list of tenants, their places of empl1yment, job description, tenure in the community, and telephone number. evidence that notice has been delivered to the tenants stating the owner's intent to condominiumize, the expected unit prices, the tenant's right of refusal or option to purchase at these prices, and the date of conceptual subdivision hearing or. exemption request. a summary of the expected tenant participation in the conversion eviden- ced by sales contracts, ri ghts of refusal, or other means. subscription to a six month or other adopted short-term rental restriction. rights of first refusal or options being given to the existing tenants. SUGGESTED GENERAL CRITEREA FOR APPROVAL evidence that il1ustrates there win be minimal tenant displacement as a result of the conversion. evidence that the convel^sion will not be eXClusionary (unaffordable by persons of moderate income. evidence that future prices of unit resales will not become eXClusionary. evidence that tenants who cannot purchase their units are relocated to Similarly affordable housing if they so desil^e. evidence that future occupancy of the units will be made available to local employees of moderate incomes. SUGGESTED SPECIFIC CRITEREA FOR APPROVAL Sales contracts or long-term leases evidencing no more that a 10% tenant displacement upon condominiumization, Sales prices in conformance with current PI1H guidelines: s tudi 0 one bedroom two bedroom th ree bedroom $20,000-$25,000 $25,000-$30,000 $30,000-$35,000 $35,000-$40,000 subscription to the housing authority'S right of first refusal on resale ..,. ;.;-- "" 1"""', . ~ ME 1\ 0 RAN D U'M TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Planning Staff (HC) RE: Duplex Condominiumization DATE: March 23, 1977 The Planning Office has been assisting Nick McGrath in assembling documentation on the effects of condominiumization of duplex units in. the City of Aspen. The record of sales of the units appears to be generally earnest. We wish to summarize for your convenience the projected ownership of those duplex condominiumizations which are currently pending for review either before City Councilor the Planning and Zoning Commissions. PENDING DUPLEX CONDOMINIUMIZATIONS DUPLEXES ANTICIPATED OWNERS 1. Alpine Acres (64) Lots 1, 4, 5 Alpine Acres Unknown 2. Inte~est Realty Lot 15, Block 1, Snowbunny (unbuilt) Unknown 3. Ward Duplex Lot 9, Block 1, Snowbunny Jon Mulford (L) Jim Hard (L) (rents) 4. Dukes Duplex Lot 13, Filing 1, West Aspen Subdivision Jon Seigle (L) Holland and Hart, Attorneys (L) 5. Doremus Duplex (unbuilt) Smuggler, 7th John Doremus (L) 2nd unit to be sold (?) 6. Nancy' Edlin/Kimbrough Party agreement to Condo. Edlin - 7 yr. resident (L) Kimbrough - 3 yr. resident (L) 7. Winchester Duplex Lot 18, Block II, Snowbunny (Jenkins) Bob Winchester - 1 unit (L) 45 year resident Charles Rowars and Bruce McDonald will rent to present tenant The accumulated data shows clearly that of the "actually plfttted",units or. those recorded of record with the Clerk and Recorder (18 units) i~ of the units were purchased by local residents; 3 units were unsold; and 3 units are rented. Of the eighteen units, which are pending review by Council, at this time we know of 9 local owners. 1""". ~ Memorandum Aspen City Council Page Two March 23, 1977 In summary, the Planning Office recommends that the duplex condominiumizations be treated via the Subdivision Exemption procedure but that we develop amendments to the City Subdivision Regulations to require the following: 1. A minimum 6 month lease restriction on each unit to coincide with the language of the present R/MF zone restriction which allows occasional short term rental. 2. A right of first refusal for 90 days be given to the existing tenants of the duplex units to allow appropriate notice for vacancy of the premises or PUr~hase of these units. "ti ~, ,~ ....-~----- ~ LAW OFFICES OATES, AUSTIN, MCGRATH & ..JORDAN 600 EAST HOPKINS STREET l..EONARD M. OATe:S RONAL.D D. AUSTIN J. 'NICHOLAS McGRATH. JR, WILLIAM R. ..JORDAN m ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 March 23, 1977 AREA CODE '303 TELEPHONE 9Z5w2600 ROBERT W. HUGHES SARRY D. EOWARDS Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office City Hall, 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 City Council City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Planning Commission City of Aspen 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Mr. Brian Goodheim Director of Housing 506 E. Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Luke Anthony (Alpine Acres), AEM Partners, and Craig and Suzette Jacobie, all of whom have pending applica- tions for subdivision exemption for the condominiumization of existing duplex (Anthony) or multi-family structures (Jacobie and AEM) , action on which has been tabled by the City Council. We also represent Mike Annan who will soon apply to condominiumize two duplexes he owns. The purpose of this letter is to address your concerns regarding the effect of condominiumization of existing apartment units on the local housing market, as well as to sum- marize pertinent legal and policy considerations for your review. We have, with the assistance of John Doremus, acting asa consultant to us and in his own behalf for his pending duplex condominium application, prepared factual data separately submitted. The data is not totally complete, but it is the best we have at this time. Perhaps the most logical starting point for this discussion is ~20, of The Aspen Municipal Code, which is the subdivision regulations ordinance. As is stated in ~20-2, the purpose of the regulation is to assist in the orderly integrated development of Aspen and to "encourage well-planned subdivision." The primary import of the regulations are the control of new development, with the requirement of detailed data from the developer as to lots, roads, utilities, plat details, landscaping, and the like at each stage of the subdivision process to insure that the purpose and intent of the subdivision regulations are met. To a much lesser degree do the regulations speak to existing structures. Though condominiumization of a duplex or multi-family structure, by virtue of Senate Bill 35 as amended in 1974, is technically a ,-., ,~ OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH March 23, 1977 Page Two "subdivision", the purpose and intent set forth in !;20-2 does not really speak to regulation of the design and improvement of existing structures. Moreover, the building permit and zoning criteria have necessarily obviated any need for a great portion of the review called for by the subdivision procedure concerning existing structures. Suffice it to say that exemption from the full subdivision procedures is perfectly proper and advisable where, as in the case of existing structures, the purpose and intent of the regulation has already been met or cannot be efficiently and fairly achieved by requiring further review, since the regulations speak mostly to new, not existing build- ings and development. The exemption process set forth in !i20-l9(b) of the Aspen Municipal Code, is not merely a convenience to the applicant, as several council members have on occasion stated. It serves as a more efficient, less expensive, and time-saving device from the point of view of the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council itself. The elimination of the detailed three-stage review process\for projects which cannot, by virtue of their already having been designed and constructed, fully compliment the purpose of the subdivision procedure, is obviously adesira ble ' end from everyone's standpoint. The applicant avoids additional surveying, engineering, design, and legal costs, which of course contribute to the cost of the project; such savings can be passed on to the purchaser of a condominium unit, just as the concomitant costs of compliance with the subdivision regulations are necessarily passed on to the purchaser. The concern of the City Council with the rising cost of condominium units in Aspen is well-served by the cost reductions made possible through the exemption process. The time savings represented by the subdivision exemption process would also--hopefully--free the Planning Staff and Council to concentrate on important and significant planning matters, such as a complete Master Plan for the City, as is required by Section 31-23-203, C.R.S. 1973, and of course the Growth Management Plan. The Planning Department and Planning Commission, with minimal staff objection, have recommended that, as a ma'tter of course, existing duplexes be exempted from the subdivision process on proper application--indeed that they be treated as a simple pro forma matter by you. These recommendations have been made after thorough review of all pertinent facts in view of proper planning considerations and repeated discussions with the applicants. Such well-considered opinions by the staff and Planning Commission should not be taken lightly by the City Council, for the expense incurred and time expended by the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission members ~ /-- OATES, AUSTIN So MCGRATH Harch 23, 1977 Page Three are substantial. If the City Council deems it appropriate to consider all applications "on a clean slate", or "ad hoc" basis, then perhaps it should consider the tremendous expenditure of time and effort by not merely the applicants, but the Planning Commission members themselves. As the information regarding duplex condominium sales provided by your staff and the accompanying data tabulations show, Aspen residents have purchased the great majority of available duplex condominium units. Thus, the concern of City Council that local housing is somehow reduced by such condominiumizations is not substantiated in fact, although a different local market may also be involved. Though the data is not complete, we also believe that multi-family structure condominiumizations will give rise to the same basic fact--that Aspen locals buy the large majori ty of. available condominium units. And this can be encouraged by your standard long-term rental restriction. There may be some reason to question whether a majority of pensons who presently rent apartments can afford to purchase them when condominiumized--but that does not mean the condominiumized units are not meeting a' legitimate local need. As is discussed in the AEM Partners application, and reiterated at the last meeting of City Council, the ability of an Aspen resident to finance the purchase of a condominium is much greater than his ability to finance the purchase of an entire duplex. Even more significant is the inability of a person to finance the purchase of a unit in a multi-family building unless that unit is a condominium. Not only does a condominium serve more adequately the loan security needs of lenders, but it also allows a purchaser to be more financially liquid due to the lack of necessity of becoming personally obligated for a loan used to purchase an entire duplex or multi-family structure--which most of the locals involved could not do anyway. The City Council has expressed concern over the rising housing costs in Aspen, and the inability of local residents to purchase housing or find rental units at affordable rates. Directly related to the rising costs of condominium housing are the procedures which some applicants must comply with if not granted exemption from the subdivision regulation. Also, the required park dedication or fee in lieu of dedication directly contribute to the cost of such housing. Such a dedication or fee is arguably discriminatory against the applicants, since the apartments presently existing are of the same density and require the same municipal services, yet are not required to dedicate land or pay fees for parks and recreation purposes. ,-" ,-, OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH Harch 23, 1977 Page Four There appears to be no rational basis for the distinction drawn by the Municipal Code between requiring such dedication or fee of subdivision condominiumizations and not requiring it of existing apartments. The legal basis for upholding the park dedication require- ments of ~20-l8 of the Aspen Municipal Code and Ordinance 63, particularly with regard to existing structures, is not unassailable. The only significant Colorado authority which speaks to the issue of dedication or fees exacted by a municipality is Stroud v. City of Aspen, Colo. ,532 P.2d 720 (1975).~1 In Stroud, it was held, inter alia, that a fee exaction by the City of Aspen for off-&reet parking which was not used to provide such parking specifi- cally to the persons paying the fee was unjust and unreasonable, and therefore unconstitutionally exacted. Applying Stroud to the facts in the condominiumization of existing structures situation, it would follow that any dedication or fee in lieu\thereof exacted by the City of Aspen upon granting subdivision approval or exemption must necessarily be applied within a reasonable time to the specific benefit of the condominium units, rather than to City public purposes at large. This rationale is supported by the Colorado Supreme Court in Stroud [at 532 P.2d 723]: "Although the record shows that Aspen did acquire some additional land for off-street parking and made certain @inimal improvements to a previously Owned parking lot, these and other traffic improvements, as far as we can determine, were very minor and paid for not only out of the earmarked lease fund, but also from other general revenue sources. Moreover, the improvements were of benefit to the people of Aspen as ~I In City of Colorado Springs v. Kitty Hawk Development Co., 154 Colo. 535, 392 P.2d 467 (1964), the Supreme Court, in a split decision, upheld a cash payment to the city of eight percent of the value of land which \vas annexed to' the city at the instance of the corporate developer of a subdivision. However, the cash payment was upheld solely on the contractual agreement of the developer to make the payment; thus, the case does not represent approval in Colorado of land dedication or fee exactions without consent. r". ,-, OATES, AUSTIN a MCGRATH t1arch 23, 1977 Page Five a whole and have not been for the use and benefit of the Strouds or other lessees of off-streeet parking. The City has no present plans to devote any portion of its parking lots to the enumerated spaces speci- fically paid for by the lessees, Strouds, or others who also opted for the [fees' payment] . "In short, Aspen has undertaken little or no solution of its parking problems for the fees collected for that specific purpose * * *. But the power to impose fees under perti- nent statutory authority presupposes the obligation to construct and operate the services contracted for. An ordinance fee imposed but unfulfilled is unjust and unreasonable and there- fore unconstitutionally applied." Although there is authority in other jurisdictions upholding the validity of exaction of dedications or a fee in lieu thereof upon subdivision, virtually all of the cases address lands which are to have new structures placed on them. Such new development necessarily requires new and additional public services, such as parks, schools, other public iMprovements, etc.; thus, the justification for requiring such dedications or fees. See, for example, Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek, 94 Cal. Rptr. 630, 484 P.2d 606 (1971). No such increase in residents or demand on public facilities arises in the case ofcondominiumization of an existing apartment structure, be it duplex or multi-family. Thus, the cases supporting the exaction of dedications or fees upon subdivision, even in their most liberal interpretation, as in the City of Walnut Creek case are not applicable to condominiumization of existing structures. Additionally, the majority of jurisdictions have held that land dedicated, or fees paid, must be used for the direct benefit of the future inhabitants of a subdivision, and not for the benefit of the community at large. See, generally, 43 A.L.R. 3d 862 ~~2, 3, 8 and 9. Stroud, supra, follows this majority rule. The majority rule is based on the simple yet fair rationale that if the benefit of an exaction is shared by all, so should the burden be. Thus, unless the City of Aspen uses the fees required of applicants upon subdivision or exemption in a manner which is specifically and ,-. ,-, OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH March 23, 1977 Page six uniquely attributable to the activity generat~d by the condominiumiza_ tion, it arguably is invalidly exacted. That is, the majority rule is that subdivision land or fee exactions are valid only if the fees go to benefit the particular subdivided land. See Board of Education v. Surety Developers, Inc., 63 Ill. 2d 193, 347 N.E. 2d 149 (1976). Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Planning Com. of Danbury, 27 Conn. Supp. 74, 230 A.2d 45 (1967); Annot., 43 A.L.R.3d 862.~'- Therefore, perhaps in view of the possibly dubious legal validity of dedication fees for condominiumization of existing apartment structures, the City Council should consider dropping the park dedication fee payment since it results usually in a major cost increase passed on to the local buyer, reducing the market, which is precisely the opposite of at least part of your articulated policies. Section 20-l9(b) of the Aspen Municipal Code is a legisla- tive mandate to the City Council to exempt from subdivision procedures those projects 'which do not come within the intent and purpose of the subdivision regulation. The language is taken directly from Senate Bill 35. The City Council may not refuse to exempt from the definition of subdivision a project simply because it arbitrarily feels that the project does not come within the purpose and intent of the subdivision regulations, or because it feels too many exemption applications are on file. In Stroud, supra, at 532 P.2d 723, the Supreme Court found that the disputed ordinance did not provide sufficient standards for an objective review of the lease terms in dispute in that case. Similarly, in the instant situation, the exemption procedures provide no standards whatsoever for the City Council to consider in determining whether. or not exemption is justified under any particular set of circumstances. Thus, as in Stroud, the City Council is under a duty to formulate objective standards which can be fairly applied to all applicants--and relied upon by them--for subdivision exemption. It is therefore suggested that, in the interest of fairness and legality, the City Council formulate such standards so that all persons applying for subdivision exemption may be treated predictably and equitably. Attached hereto are the standards adopted in the Pitkin County .Land Use Code which were modeled on Boulder's standards. */ In order not to mislead you or the City Attorney, we 0 course acknowledge the minority rule as represented by California cases as allmdng subdivision exactions for any general public purpose whether or not directly related to the particular subdivision. But the Colorado Supreme Court's opinion in StroUd would seem clearly to place Colorado in the majority rule column. --- ~ '-', OATES, AUSTIN & MCGRATH March 23, 1977 Page Seven In conclusion, based on the foregoing authorities and the factual data submitted herewith, it is strongly suggested that the City Council reevaluate its policy regarding inaction on or denial of requests for subdivision exemptions for condominiumizations of existing structures. While beyond the scope of this presentation to you for this work session, we also believe it would be illegal (as well as unwise) as discriminatory to deny sUbdivision approval for condominiumization of existing apartment houses. That is, the traditional.use category is "multi-family dwelling;" a condominium is merely a form of ownership, and it is authorized by state law. If you wish to preclude tourist accommodations, you may do so in other ways more clearly legal, by providing better definitions in the use sections of the zoning ordinance. Next, we would urge that no matter what you do, you should process'alleKisting applications under existing rules. All of our clients have relied upon those rules and your practice under them--and all have spent substantial sums for surveying, appraisals and legal fees. To change the rules as to pending applications, is not only unfair, but again quite possibly illegal, although of course many of those affected probably could not afford to sue the City. As to estoppel and reliance, the City Attorney may wish to consult Heeter, "Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes," 1971 Urban Law Annual, pp. 63-98, a copy of which I will make available of course. We all in this community recognize and share the Council's (and for that matter the County' s)concerns on moderate housing. Bu.t precluding all condominiumization of apartment houses and duplexes is neither reasonably related to those concerns, nor fair, nor in our view legal. Finally, I would like to indulge in a personal,yet hopefully relevant, note. I lived for two years in a studio in Aspen; a client condominiumized a l2-unit apartment house, so in 1972 I was able (with believe it or not some scrimping) to buy a condominium. In the condominiumized apartment house, a local pluwber, a stero shop owner, an employee of a property management firm, several ski bums of a permanent nature, a real estate employee, and other locals also bought units. Some still live there. With the appreciation of my unit, I was able to make a down payment on . a IS-year old Capp home. I like it a lot: without the house, I I"'. ~\ OATES. AUSTIN 8: MCGRATH March 23, 1977 Page Eight probably would have moved on. Without condominiumization I would not have obtained the house. Thank you for your consideration. If we can provide further data or assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, OATES, AUSTIN, McGRATH & JORDAN By U~U~.. J. Nicholas McGrath, Jr.- JNMjr/gc >< riI :> r><~ ::>'0 Ul(l) +' ::E:+' ::>Ill Hrl Zp, H ::E:>' orl Qrl Z III o::l u+' tl :><:<I: riI~ ...:! p, ::> Q .s:: 'Ill '0 l-l o ,.., '" .c: +' III l-l o tl ::E: .. l:: :>I-d 00 ..Q+'::l (J) S 'O::l(l) (l) <I: l-l +' 0 +' - Q ,...I (J) S (l) l:: ..Q+'.c: ::1 r,JO UlOi':J 8 riI~ N H' UlCJl Ul Q 1i10 8Q <I:Z QO U Ul 8~ ZOO 1i1r>< QriI tri~ \QS 00 :>4 r>< ~ \Q (l) 'lill::rl (J) N::S (l) III (l)'rl0 CIS (l)'OS .c: l-l'rl ::l rl p., tl (J)'rl*' CIS s::-.....l:: r>< -MO-r-!. .. oS (J) . (l)OOl-lS tl\O'O(l);3: ,...I 1 l:: l:: l-l U) 0 :;: N p.,<Il- tlO*' . . tJl CIS tJl CIS l-l (l) l-l (l) rl rl tH .4-1 . +' +' N4-INLH ~ . X . - tJ'- tJ' l{)OOLO U) N N ~r- ~r- ... M'" M o:::1"r-1<qlM Nr-IN.....-{ r- r- >. l-l CIS ::l l-l ..Q (l) ~ .. ~ ...:! ...:! '" ~ l-l'rl (l) l:: +' l:: .c:o tn:>. ::l 0 CIS-rl 'O0l-l (l) l::S::+' ::l 0 tJl l-l o Q'rl 0 ~(l)+' ::E:rl OS:: CIS (l)0 . (l) ...:!tJl0r>< 00 riIriI ...:!U <I:H Ulr>< p, o 0 o 0 0'\ 0 - - rl rl r- r- <Il- <Il- Z o H 8 <I: U o ...:! . 0'O.c: N'O+' 1<I:l-l \0 0 rl(J)Z S (J) CIS l-l +'rllll o rl (l) ...:!ClSS:: :c: 4-1 . Oo'\+' o'\Ul +' l-l~.c: . Illrl+'+' P,:r:""'Ul ~ ~<I: rilZ ...:! P,O ::>Q QZ o U (J) l-l CIS ::E: ~'< :> ,...I (l) 0:r: I'" (l) (l) Srl o CIS r><Q -. . ,r:: tU .r-! tl o (l) rl:> ,...I Orl +' (J) tJl l-l tJl +,(l)+' l:: l::.rl OJ:;: l:: r><0::l tJ' tJ' tJl (J) rl U) \0 \0 o 0 rl rl . . rl+'N+' *4-1*4-1 r- r- >. l-l CIS ::l s:: CIS ,.., ~ ...:! ...:! l:: CIS S 4-1 ::l CIS :>4 l:: o (l) '0 ,...I o o o U) rl U) <Il- N CIS ~(J) rl(l) :r:::E: -l:: N'rl ~ +'+' 0'...1 ...:!P, tJl o l-l 'O(l) l::..-i Orl U (l) :c: :>4 ~ "'tl ....1 :>4Z ~ tl ....1 r><rl *' N '" Np' "'" CIS '0 ....-i..-itJlOJ (J)rlrl(l):> l-l (l)'rl tn 0 (l)l-ltll-ll-l\O :;: l-l.rl ::l p.,r- l:: (l) l-l +' p.,-..... O~P,Ul<'l;\O ..-i o rl *' N o ..-i *' '" r- l-l (l) 11 (l) tl (l) Q tJl s::~ o . 1'18 OJ ..-i(l) P, s:: ....1 .::E: :><:~ o o U) U) "'" <Il- '0 ..-i o tJl +' o s:: o o o M U) <Il- - +' . '0 (l) (l) :> l:: ::l l-l.rl CIS l:: CIS '0 rl OJ tn..Q '0 :> l-l ::l.rl <I: ClSoo::E: ::E: ~ tJl l:: l-l - :;: (l) CIS N 0 (l) P, '0 :;: +'CIS+''O o (l) (l) l:: "':!:>::..QCIS tJl :;: o '0 (l) cdN.r-\ OJ s:: ~-tJ~ 00 +,...:!:r: (l) rl l-l "'rl CIS 0 (l) tn'O ~ l-l l-l l:: tl l-l CIS 0'...1 (l) :>::ur><~ .~ . +'1 tlClS t<l ....1 l:: ~ '" :>ClSOJ P, p.,..-i..-i _ p.,..-i >. '0 tJl + ::l'rl..Q tJl (l) +' 'O+' :;::> ,...I OJ tJl '000 S::tJl(l) (l)l-ll-l'" ::l::l'O:r: s:: l-l p.,..-i 00"':;:::l p.,-..... M.c:..Q<I:O:r:<I:M . tJ' tJl tJ' tJl (l)tJ' tJl tJl ::l 0'" :C:M r- o o "'" (l)0 '00'\ 00'\ .0 CIS 1 I +'1 l:: . . u CIS<I:+,:r:+"rlU+' p,*,4-I""4-I:>*,4-I '" r- ..-i '....1 l-l fi: ...:! ...:! tJl ~ k l-l ::l :r: (l) s:: s:: <I: l:: ,...I ..Q l-l o U CIS .c: tJl l-l CIS :>:: l-l o 4-1 '" 0 tJl >.0 l:::;:+'rlO ....1 o.c: +' - ..Q l-l tn s:: 0 l-l l-l ::l.rl L() O::lOOrl u:r:..Q'r\<Il- o Nl-l (l) ~rl rltn :r:tn ::l ooS '00 r>< ''0 CJll:: CIS tJl +,.c: O+' ...:!U) tJl o '0 r:: tJl 0:;: uo l-l l-ll-l (l) ::l ..-i:r: tn tnOJ ::l r:: S r:: 00 <I: . +' +' 4-1 4-1 . tJ' tJ' tJl tJl U) U) rl ..-i 00 00 1 I rl N o 0 ..-i ..-i *' *' '" r- >. l-l CIS ::l l-l .0 (l) ~ rl CIS tl o rl .. ...:! ...:! tJl (J) +' +' r:: r:: CIS CIS p., p., ::l ::l tl tl tl tl o 0 CIS. rl tl l-l (l) l-l.rl (l)::lOJ..-i r::r::r::rl :;: CIS :;: 0 0:>::0:>:: l-l o 4-1 CIS >.0 tl+'..-iO 'rl.c: +' 0 ,r-! trl ~ ... ..-i ::l'rl'" 000r- :>:: .0 "r\<Il- N CIS ~(J) rl(l) :r::>:: -r:: M'rl ~ +'+' 0'...1 ...:!p, tJl o OJ '00' r:: k 00 UOJ o +' ..-i 4-1'0 OJ CIS r::::l .c:ClSr:: Ul CIS CIS:>:: OJ tl ..-i ....1 +' .o..-iClS ::;:s.--l P-t 00 Q:>::'" 1\ H <Ill ~'O ~.-I 00 t.') I .>>:,r:: N~+J o cO." .-IH" ""l'.!tIl .-I .-10 .-I'" .-I'" , "\ .[;-l fill'.! "" H 000 .(1) I I .-IN 00 .-1.-1 """" \.I) ..... : 0\ filO ~gl 00 :U H <Il .0 o +J o o '0 <Il ~ '0 tIl ." <Il::1,r::H +J +JH ~ H 0 <Il <Il<ll.ol'.! H ~ I ~ H tIl ,r::O<ll+J +J ~." o H ~ ~ .000::1 x o H p., p., cO 1M '" .-IX 0- .-100 ""'" \.I) ..... .-I '" H ~ ~ ~ H H ~ ~ "-.,, ,-" I .>>: cO ~ tIl <Il <Il <Il H <Il 0.0 ~ ." +J .-I H+J<IlcO p., 0 .0 ~ tIl <Il ," H <Il.-l ~ tJ> <Il .-I.... ~." ~ cO <Il 0 H ~ (I) H'O 0 0' .-IN 00 .-1.-1 *"" 00 00 ...... .-1.-1 I I .-IN 00 .-1.-1 ** N ..... ... ..... H <Il ~ :> o Z <Il ~ ::1 I") ~~ HH ~~ ~~ HH ~~ " .-I tIl +J :>'(1) N .-I ~ .>>: cO .>>: +J :>. .-I tIl .-I ," H .>>: .>>: <Il ~ <Il ~ U<Il .-I:>' .-I :>. :> Z ::E: 0 .>>: ~ ~ ~ ~ H 0 .... -<Il ~ ~ ::1 H '" ~ 0'" \.I) <Il -::1 -::1 (/) ~ .-I." "'.-I ......0 N.o " .>>: +JZ ~ ~ ~ U +J+J H .>>: +JO +J 0 ::1 0 0." cO _.-I " o ~ o ~ ," H Hp., p.,::E:~fiI H(I) H(I) ~ ,,, " 0 ~'rd I <=:~ ~ 0'0 0 U(j) U +J x+J H ~ +J (j)cO ",,r:: (j) ," ,r:: '" .-1.-1 tIl 0 .>>: p., 0 p,p., o ~'" <lJ cO <Il 'O+J ::1 fiI 'OcOH <lJ ~ H ::r: tIl .-I +J 0:>' :E: ~""" r-l tJl.M 000 .-l :><:<>: O+J.-I ~"H <lJ '" 'O~o ..-1 filZ UtIl(j) ::1 H tJ> ~H.-I " cO H ::1::r: .-r-! Q) ." tIl ~ 0<>:0 +J::1 p.,0 .-II") fiI<=:1'.! <Il 0 cO U :0;: ~+J ::>0 ;l <lJ '" Z'O'O .>>: 00' PZ ",.0 :> ...,,~ ~ H :0;:0'0 0<<: 0 o 0 cO .-IO<lJ cO 0 0 "'," ;l ~~ U 2:CQQ rl'O:O<: HUI") <>:o~ .. ~ >-oM Ul .o+':::l Ul S rcl:::l<!J (j)O<H +' 0 +' ~O -r-lOO S (j) s:: .o+,.c: :::lr<lO WOr) ~ (j) +' <!J ..-i ~ o s:: .M r<l +J r<l rcl (j) :><0 1':1 s:: ~2:l P 001 ::;:rcl p<!J H+' Z (j) H..-i ~~ 00 ZO o U~ Xrcl 1':1 (j) H+J g;+, o r<l ..-i 0, +' o s:: >- ..-i +' ~ (j) H r<l 0, 0, r<l ~ s:: r<l rcl H o t-:> '" .c: +' r<l H (,9 O. ::;: 1\ 8 1':1"-< oo H' ooOl 00 o filO 80 O<Z 00 U 00 8~ ZOO 1':1"" 01':1 HZ OOl$: ~S 1':1 i3\ HU O<H 00"" p., ~J I':1Z 0 H s:: p., 0 OM PO rcl OZ :::l o r<l U (,9 o (j) UJ rcl+' s:: s:: r<l :;:UlO..-i o +' 0 OM ..-i OS::OOIll S:::::l"'\> oM p., 0 rcl.c: H It) :::l+'+'0'.... r<l0 0 0,0'> (,9.o(,9Ill..-i +' o Z 6 H ~ U o H rclUl o H o (j) :;:+' Hill (l)l$: rcl r<l ..-i"'<!J III H Urcl III s:: ~1':1 (I) .. :::l +'S:: +JUl(l) o (I) \> Hl$:O< I""" s:: OM ~ o +' 0 r<l.o ..-i o,+, r<l O..-i Zo, . . S S H H rcl rcl .0 .0 N.c:N.c: +' +' ... cd ... ct1 0.00.0 o 0 O'\NOOr-l <!J \> r<l .c: +' s:: o rcl 0'\ H <!J .0 s:: 'M (I) "-< rcl H r<l ~ ::r1 ..-i "'" H (I) S 'M <!J .c: +' Ul <!J l$: ..-i ..-i -M ~ N "'" o o o o o o ~ 0'> .... <I} M '" <I} ". rcl s:: 1':1 +' Ul (I) l$: o rcl s:: o UN +' S s:: r<l (I) ..-i~ ..-i r<l'" ::r1 (I) '" (I) rcl .c:H , +J r<l ",p., ~ .-I III \> o H 0, 0, r<l .... oo.... "''' p.,N rcl s:: 1':1 +' Ul <!J l$: Ul s:: ..-i :?;.... ctl OUl\> (I) 0 rclrclH HOM 0, lllUlo, l$: r<l .c: .... S+'oo.... "M 0 "'...... t-:>.op.,N +J o s:: ~.~ HH ~~ rcl H o \l-I .-Ircl :::lH ::;: r<l s::l$: .c:S O-M t-:>t-:> 'It) ..-i Ul "'<!J H ..0 0< ~ .-1>- ~s:: s:: ~:::l 0'>.0 :;: +'0 Os:: HOO ~ .-1(1) s:: UloM +,0, 0.-1 HO< Ul S r<l OM ..-i .-I 'M l$: r<l .c: Ul H r<l :E: Ul>- (I) s:: X Ul H 0 (I) (l)0.c: .-I XO<+' 0, (I) s:: :::l .-1(1)0< 0 o,s:: :::loM (I) rcl o o,~ H ..-i:::l r<l MO<H l$: ,-, .-I III Ul UJ \> s::+'0 :;:'M H Os:: 0, :::lo, UJ r<l (I).c: .... ~+,oo"" :::l0"''' O.op.,N +J o s:: ~~ HH +J H r<l <!J::r1 .-I 0'\'" -M >- (l)rcl (I) ooS::~ r<l H S::.-IO .c:.-I+' OO+' t-:>::r10< . \> .-I'M rcl 0'\.0 S:::::l <!J .M 00 s:: .-I r<l OM s:: H "-< (I) 0,>- ~ Ul H MO<(I) .-I +' +' <!J +'UlS o (I) (I) Hl$:U Ul (I) ~ :::l o ~ ,"""""" 1\ r- tJl r- I': " OM NM ~'<::<<l I':+,p.rl (1) 0 ro 1-)..0 " :> tJl 0 ~ tJl (1) H tl I': '0 p., ro :;:"M p., I-) 0 tJl ro ll-l rl ro .<:: I': 6 .<:: tl ro '" . +' ll-l ~tl H . 0001 00 tJ1 tJl .<:: o U oro ro(1) 0 - ",0 ~~ +' +' 00 0 0 \:J I': I': (', ~~ ..:l ..:l ..:l..:l H '0' 0) rl , . +' ro tJl ..:l tJl I': H (1) I': . (1) o ro +' 0 I-) 00 .<:: o :;: "M tJl r,;".... U tl 0 O)rl ?1 zoo I':I-<::;:P:; :>1-< ..0 ",p:; 'M 0 r,; ro I-< 0'" :3:+,(1) . U '00) HZ rltl,C 0) 0)..0 00:3: ,.Qro::lU +'(1) 1':..0 122- 00) H ro ::l :;: (1) j:QP:;j:Q<<l ~oo 0:3: '0 rlO 00 "'~\ 00 00 tJlO 01.0 ..:l\:J ~ ><t:H +'0 >.Or- ooP:; 0>.0 r-r- p. 1':<1> <I> <I> 0) . I': :> O"M . '0 '..0 0>..0 ::l N I': ::l 00 'M 00 :;: ~ rl rl 'M I': 0 j:Q?1 ~ (1) '0 6 !:: p., ro ~ I': ~ Ul (1) H ro::l N><t: ::;: ~ rl,.Q rl :;: +' +' U +' 0 +'Ul tJl 0 01': 0(1) (1) ..:l ..:lOO ..:l:3: :3: x (1) rl p., 0) ::l U o tJl ro I': I-< '" I-<"M H - (1)~ (1) x~ +' I': r,; ",Z Ul 0) ..:l (1)1-) (1) :;: P-<O .<:: +' 00 PO U~ 'M '0'0 PZ I': tl 0) ell !:: 0 .M (rj :> (1) 0 U ;.s:t-). r,; ::;:u I""'" ,-, Ul I +l ~ ~ '0 Q) CO :3 "' cU'<::Q) "" ,,"0 Q) "" :><>:f[l '0 ~. '0 0 ..co 10:0'0 CO M;" >< CO . Q) Ul - P< UlP< ~ cU'.-I P< ,",+l Q);"P< +'~><~ Q) 0 0 ~+l <<: Q) :> CJ) 0\0 r-ICi.l ~ :::.-40 Q) ;., '0 '0 '0 cU..-I '0 ,.-I lH +l '0 r-- 0".>< '0 1\ '.-IO..-lS~>< ~ Q)\O~ S ~ Q) ....-I'd..-lUlQ) .. UlM'.-I ~ Q) cU cU'.-I ~ cU 0 :>r--O Q) ::l :> Ul..-l~cUQ):> Ul..-I ;., <<::> :E: .0000<<:00 C) 0,0 0" 0 ;., Q) ::l'<:: ;., 0 '"' ;"0":;: 0\0 IN I I ;.,r--+l ~.<::;.,\O Q) 10: Q);.,r-- Q)~O" ><><r-- Q)r--N 01 +' p,N ..-1 +' p,r-- ~ 00 ~ Q) +' p" ~cU~~'dp" gJ Ul"" , 0 p,,0 ..-lOP,' :3 :3 10: ~ p,0 :3 >< cU 0 ::l p,o ~..-I..-I ..-I Z <<:r--Z :><>:,OcUoo o CO 0 0'.-1 cU..-I 0~t90t-)",..-I ~t\ H . 00 g\ '0 - 0 '0 ~ .~\ 0 C) +' +' +l +' +' 80 0 0 0 0 0 ",Z Z Z Z Z Z 00 C) ~~ ~ HH H ...:I ~~ ~ +' 10: Q) Ul Ul '0 Q) ~ ~ ..-1 10: 0 oo~ ..-1..-1 ro Ul Q)..-I 800 ~ Q) 10: S Q) ~ P,:> Z~ ..-Iro Q)'>< ;., Q) Ul I-l r>lr>l cU'<:: ..-I~ Ul <<: Q) OZ :><>:P, ..-1'.-1 10: S :3 >< 00 H:::'; ro o I-l ro I-l cU I-l I 000 ><~ C)o:l S Q) oro 0" gJ~ Q) Q)+' +l= ~ ..-IUl ><>< 0" ,.-I Q) P< ..-1 I-l'.-I 1-lQ) 10:0" I-lI-lH Ul ,.-I ;:l I-l+' ..-110: Q) o:r: ;:l '<::0 cU Q) ..-10 '<::Q)C)O Ul...:l o:lP< :><>:...:1 OOUl= :r: Q) 0 0'0 0 ..-1 0 0 0..-1 0 ol-l Ul 0 0 00 0 oP, r>lr>l 0 0, -00 - - '"' :;n~ - 01 ..-I oQ)r-- 11) 01 o+l 0 M~' Ul~ 11) M ..-10 ..-I ..-100 P< {f}.' {f}. <n-Z {f}. {f}.~..-I '0 . ..-I'"' :> 0..-1 ..-1 01 '0 Ul - 01 O"c:c: .0 Q)11) Ul 01 ~ Q) 0 ::l :>..-101 .><..-1 ..-I .,..j P, 00 cU ..-10 .>< .>< ..-IUl~ Q) r>l;"+''>< o:l ~ ..-I ,.-1",0 Ul >< t90..-l cU ..-I >< o:l >< lH ,.-I I-l I-l CO ...:IP'lQ) - ;., Z o:l c: ~ +' Ul ::l 0 - '0 O~ 0 10: - ~ ... oo-r-I 0 +l 'dUl - ....M CO H - ::l M::l MQ):>O ~ ~ ~ X r-- Ul C) . 8 00.0 ..-1.0 N S:.r-! 11)0 cU,.-I Q)..-I I-l :;: '" :3 :3 'dlH +'~ ..-1.><..-1 Q) Ul C) +' 0 +l0 +lQ),O..-I '0 P, p''d :> +l..-l 0 o ~ o c: o ~ ::l 0 o I-l ,.-10 ::l 10:..-1 ON ...:I ...:100 HOO ...:I 000 0" ...:IP< ;;:::r:oro~ ...:1\0 Ul c: ~ 0 cU S S ..-1 .>< ..-I 1>1 00 c: ..-I :E: ..-1 ~ Q) x<<: CO I-l ro ~ r>lZ ..-I P'I S Ul ...:I Ul Q) Q) , P<O ,.-I cU I-l 0" ~ Ul PO ..-I .<:: Q) ~ cU '0 0:2 ..-I P, +' ..-1 10: Q) 0 ..-1 cU Q) ..-I ~ & u t9 P': P< ~ .0:: ,-, ,~ U) g ~ [:g '" '0'" " p., o '0'0 I': Q) 0:> tJO<n Hl'- +' 0,...... o 0,0 Z"';.-i Q) .-i '" :>.. +' '" o +' 'rl p., 0.r::1': Ul O1::lHO'O -rl.r::::l 00 Q) +,0Q)'H0:> H 1':..0 H - 0 Q)'rl .rlU10Hl'- I': H 0 +' l'- .-i o,l'- " Q).r:: I':'-.-i 0,'- 0:> "Q)O'I<J>eU.-i I:-< ~\>.t '" H- U)()l U) Ul Q) '0 'rl Ul o O.r:: U1+' -0 N..o r4 ~\ I:-< A :H5 t; o I': +' o I': +' I': eU o,~ ;3 tJ U) tJ Q) - .r:: 8- tJ 0,:> 01 Zrn o tIl Q) ::l ~P:; I A '0 eU A~ H I': I': H ~~ Q) Q) - eU ~ I':H:;:: .-i ~O :=:. ({j . '0 .rl P:;--' 0;';0 ~ ;.; 0 0 -0 -0 ~~I 0 xoXo 0000 ..:10 U1 H -H - "';H U1 0,0 0,0 tIlP:; .-i. 0,0'1 0,0'1 p., <J> eU<J>eU<J> :>.. H Q) +' - Q) Q) 1'1 Q) ~ .-i Q) I': eUo eU ~Ul ..:1 Q) .-iQ)'" Z '0 iQ:;:: :>.. 0 .rl " H H Ul - I': Q) Q) I:-< H .-i.rl.rl +' ,.,; Q) .><::> Q) eU 0 :> +'+'1': ~ Q) 0 ,rl O.rl +' I': H ..:1 P:; ..:1p.,:;::..:1 0 eU ~ Ul Q) .r:: +' 01 eU ::l - 0 eU ZO H I:-< ~ ~ ::Z.><: H X~ tJ 0 .rl ~.rl .r::1': ~ ~Z :>Z 1:-<0 I ..:1 H- '-Ul '0 p.,o I:-< 1':..0 I': :::>A ,.,; - 'rl 0 eU QZ ~:> Q)'><: .-i 0 P:;~ +'eU '0 0 00 U)r, I'il ~, ~ , ' . ~ il S ~ ~ .rl 0 :>t ~'rlM .rl-l-''"O SmQ)~ o ~ tll tll '"0 m 0-1-' ~ M 0. tll o 0 o..rl o Q) ~ X ~'"OtllQ) ~~I H . UlO Ul tll ..<:: --I-' . m tll.Q + S ~N 0'"0...... O.Qrl o Mll)<I' tll tll S S ~ ~ '"0 '"0 .0 .0 N"<::N"<:: -I-' -I-' ... cO .. m 0.00.0 o 0 t.Or-lO'\N '"0 ..<:: NQ)~ -I-' - Q) Q) ......tllrl m '"0 '"0 rlmrl tll .0 tll .,.j 'rl "<::Q) S S tll rl tll ...("1) 0 ~ ~'"OM ~ rl ~Ul '"O~ '"0 ..<:: -..<:: m - ::J...... .om - .0 ..<:: 0 . 0 -I-' .o.~ . 0 m tll m o en-res M - tll Mtll m Q)SQ) -I-'S ~ -5 ~ ..<:: Q) ~ ~ tll ~ --I-' 0'"0"<:: .....'"0..<::..: om'"O om 0 ll).Q-I-' ......0-1-' 0.0.0 0.0 0 0 m ..... m:>t 00 00 0 rlN.Q N"'.Q.Q r-1NN MN M '" fiI ..... '" '" '" ..:1 ...... '" ..... '" '" ..... ..... '" fiI": '" ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ...... ..... E-iUl rl ...... '" ...... ...... '" M ...... ..: ...... N M N N M rl ll) Q", N ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... tll 0 M en en en 00 en ll) N Q) M m tll ~ fiI tll'" g; Q)..... xen PQ)M UlM 0.Q) :<:::JO P Q,,.j :<: :> H'H~ ZOQ) H tll Ul :<: tll E-i~ OQ)(J) zoo QM..:1 fiI~ zm:<: Q[ij OUl HZ U ~ (J):;;: " .jJQ) filO \ x~o. ~~ fiI Q) tll ..:10": ll< Q) ::>P:;~ Q (j) 0. tll 0 0 0 0 m 1J:) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ul ..... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fiIfiI 0 C> ll) - 0 ..:1C,) en - C> ll) 0 - ,,:H ll) M en '" 0 M M '" (J)~ M 1J:) ..... en M M M en ll< <J)- <J)- <J)- <J)- <J)- <J)- <J)- <J)- tll rl ~ 'H ~ - 0 :::'H N.rl N M rl 00 '"0 .I<: -.0 M '"0 ~.I<: 0. 01 M ::J .I<: S m m -W..- mM 0 ~ - (J) rl m::r:: (]) (fl . 111::r:: 'rl M -I-' 111'"0 rl :<:~(j) 1J:) ~ M:>t .rl :>t '"0 rl'H 'n :> rl - ,rl Q) .I<: ~ Q) -..: m 0 .~..: .....Q),"o ",rl M:>t PM Z <I' ::r:: fiI ...r-l Td $:l M 111~ M 0 I tll ~..<:: ''"0 ll) .rl m - m ~ - m H rl S . Q)-I-' -:> ~ rl'Htllrl <1':> -~ M:> ""' m 1;:;>0 ~ 1..0 M'rl m O~'"O '" <1'.0 rl ..: tllrl p~ '"OM tll Q)',.j . :::. . u -I-'rl <l'0'Cl -1-'.0'"0 -I-'N:>:<: -I-' ~ -1-'0 +' ~ 0 Om MO~ o ~'rl O.......,.j O+' o ~ 0.jJ ..:1 ..:1::r:: lJ:)~m ..:1(J):<: ..:1rl~'" ..:1:<: ..:1(J) ..:1:<: x X Q) Q) X rl M Q) 0. 0. X M ~ -;cil fiI ::J Q) g. Q x~ 0 rl 0. 0 tll tl filZ ~ ~ 0. ..:1 0 Q) 0 tll .rl X <0<0 tll (j) Q) rl N -Q) PO M '"0 4-l :> rl +' MM O:z. ~ ~ rl m .rl ~ MO.. 0 m m 0 ~ ..<:: Q) m ~ u U <0< :;5: t9 ll< ~ :;;:0