HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.110.1978 � ,M.;y, ...
� � ;�t. :.; .
, _�;.
a+� , _
'�i�.���;,, _
� , _ .. " �-, .'�
�,
i
�
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO,
DENYING GENERAL SUBMISSION APPROVAL FOR
THE CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF THE SII,VERKING APARTMENTS
Resolution No. 78- ��n
WHEREAS, Jay Kuhne has made application,..under the
provisions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code,for subdivision �
and related approvals for the condominiumization of the 304 �
(presently rental) dwelling units comprising the Silverkinq
Apartments within Pitkin County, and
WHEREAS, a public hearing onthe app.lication was conducted
before the Board of County Commissioners on Monday, August
28, 1978, and the matter tabled for consideration by the
Board at its special meeting held September 5, 1978, and
WHEREAS, the Board is qenerally of the opinion, with
respect to the conversion of multi-family structures from
rental to ownership units within Pitkin County, that:
1. It is the ob].igation of local and county govern-
ments to maintain, when possible, a balance between
rental and ownership housing to provide housing
opportunities for households of varying sizes and
tenure.
2. This need is accentuated within Pitkin County
��
where a predominately skier based economy attracts
and requires seasonal employees with little interest
in (or ability to purchase) ownership housing.
3. Although condominiumization results in few physical
• chanqes to existing improvements, considerable social
and economic impacts may result from the condominiumization
o£ rerital apartment buildings including (a} the
displacement of tenants unwillinq or unable to
purchase, (b) the creation of an imbalance between
rental and ownership opportunities, (c) i�ncreases
(over the long run) in monthly housing costs because
of the costs incident to the original sale and
z
� {�.
,��c�=..
��........
.� �.W.�..� � _ .
"s
. . p�"��Tj,�i: _ . .
�� �. �
,
..:�,.
.�s .;
, :. ...._..
_ , _ . _ _,...... __ . ,..
y _ _. . ,`
Y�
��
I;.
�'.
inflated prices on subsequent resale and (d) change
of use from long term resident to tourist use,
among others.
- AND WHEREAS, the evaluation of the impacts of a proposed
condominium conversion of a multifamily complex is difficult,
but, nevertheless, the Board has unanimously found with respect
to the application before it, that:
1. Approval for the construction of the Silverking
Apartments was qiven in 1971, subsequent to a
rezoning of the land (property was previously zoned
' R-15)�to satisfy "a critical problem aonsisting of
a shortage of resident and employee rental housing"
(see agreement dated May 13, 1971 of record in Book
255 at Page 540 of the Records of the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder). Silverking was designed to
satisfy an enormous demand for rental housing;
it continues to supply a substantial portion of .
; our rental housing; and there is no evidence that
the need for rental housing has(or will in the future)
diminished.
2. It has been established to the Board's satisfaction
that no project of the nature and scope of the
Silverking Apartments could be constructed, at this •
�
time, for an amount anywhere near the original
construction price o£ the Silverking (and certainly
not at its present book value) even with the
improvements agreed to be found necessary to
continued operation. Consequently, any project
designed to replace the rental units lost by
condominiumization must result in higher rental
cost to its occupants.
3. It is recognized that the applicant offers to
assist in the relocation of existing tenants who
would be displaced. However, the applicant must
displace many tenants (present and future) who
-2-
a
rP
''��'-`°.��;t.��.,,i,'
���'
1 }. i' -
,,,�.u`'�t� '. �
' �4��7��� ' . ..
« .
,. . . . .. .. . - . . .. .. . . .... . . _ ........,..... ..., ... . ' . '. � .,. ".....�_ ... '_ '
. . - .�... . �.... ..._: .. . . .. ..... � .:.:.... ..�.._ ...._,. K
. . . . _ M�.,.
tli:
5t
� .
�
(a) now reside in units that will be sold in the open �
� market or o£fered to local employers, (b) are
seasonal or transient workers with no desire to .
gurchase, (c) cannot qualify for financing {d).
- are without the necessary down payment or (e)
- generally do not desire to purchase their housing;
: and the.Board is not satisfied that there is adequate
rental housing within Pitkin County to absorbe these
displaced (present and future) tenants with similar
accommodations and rental rates.
4. And while the Board is advised that many occupants
wish to purchase �he units they now occupy, the
Board aannot merely compare the total numbers of
� � these wishing to buy as against those wishing to
rent, but must look at the overall impact of the
proposed condominiumization and its effeat on the
area's available housing supply.
� 5. The Board is convinced that the Silverking Apartments,
as now constructed, financed and operated, can and .
will support necessary improvements to the project
out of revenues generated, and that the social
costs in terms of loss of rental housing are not
outweighed by the physical amenities offered by the
applicant.
6. Approval of the proposal must result in pressure for
additional rental housing within the Aspen area
or otherwise within Pitkin County, and thus create
a new demand which will conflict with the growth
management objeotives of the Aspen/Pitkin County
Growth Management Poliay Plan (third draft) adopted
by both the Aspen City Council and Board of County
Commissioners (and implemented through their �
respective requlationsj.
-3^ �
� �
f
,. ..:.,_.__.. ... ..,...,,. „
�:at�,,'y,�`
v ..._. .._ . .
k i-+-_;
� �Jd...�f.. . , .
��.:j ` .
��f
�
Y.;':
[y��+
t�'
7. Nor would the sale of some of the rental units
: as "free market" units satisfy any objectives of
the Growth Management Policy Plan; but would, rather,
defeat some of its purposes. Again, any purpose
served by sale of some units exclusively to local
employers may be equally well achieved by offering
the same units to them for sublease by their employees. _
8. Approval of the project must also result in increased � `
demand for other existing rental units within the
County and resultant increased rentals (because of
the increased demand on an already short supply of
rental housing) .
9. And, finally, the Board does not wish to encouraqe
the present owners of the Silverking Apartments to
continue their method of operation so as to create
pressure for relief for condominiumization because
of the precedent it will set for other owners
of other multifamily structures to attempt to do
the same. �
AND WI�REAS, given the foregoing findinqs and conclusions
_ the Board cannot grant the application of Jay Kuhne before it,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado, that it does hereby
deny approval of the General Submission for the condominiumization �
of the Silverking Apartments.
Approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin
County, Colorado on September 11, 1978.
;.;;'ti,:
� �
.1 ` �'j THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
� '�f� )' OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO �
/�.,�',,t�j't,'�S+L":��� 3
�V Y�i..� ' �. 1 . . .
�lr � �-. �a �� //�� U` !/(/• � �
�t�� I. r ,� •' By /
�` ti_��.. � . `��- #
's•• Robert W. Child, Chairman �
�� �e k and ecorder
4,'D�rP.�. Y.rC .,:
�RPPI#(�VE� AS TO FORM: � "
a
�
� /./i.i �a . �
�u_:�Z��l� �
nty A • rney
i
_q_
� .
::`i*4,',•s;`.,'"a