HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19930824
v
~x
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING , ZONING COMMISSION
AUGUST 24. 1993
Meeting was called to order by Chairman Bruce Kerr.
Answering roll call were David Brown, Sara Garton, Roger Hunt and
Bruce Kerr. Jake ViCkery, Tim Mooney and Jasmine Tygre were
absent.
COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
David: I would suggest we have discussion on designating certain
si tes in the community to AH as a way to preserve some of the
historic cottages as a means of providing inexpensive single family
detached homes.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were none.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were none.
UTE PARK GMOS EXEMPTION AMENDMENT
Kim Johnson, Planning: Made presentation as attached in record.
,/
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend amendment to a 1992 GMQS exemption for
the ute Park Affordable Housing Units to raise the category 3 units
to category 4 and to support the Housing Board request that the new
category units be specified to sell for a maximum of $135,000 and
preference be given category 3 households.
Sara seconded the motion.
Bruce: I have 2 comments I want to make. I am a little concerned
about the possible perception that somehow we are doing something
to help bailout the private developer. Secondly I understand the
logic behind bumping them into category 4 but I am just wondering
if we couldn't have achieved the same thing by leaving the 3 units
in category 3 and just raising the price a few thousand dollars
more. It is not raising them that much more. My calculations show
it raises them to $186,750.00 instead of 180,000.00.
It seems to me rather than going through the hoops and trying to
change the categories, the same thing could have been accomplished
this way.
Roll call vote:
David, no, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce, yes.
tI""
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planner
RE:
Ute Park Affordable Housing Subdivision: Amendment of
GMQS Exemption Approval of Deed Restrictions
DATE:
August 24, 1993
=================================================================
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the
restrictions for three of the seven affordable townhomes.
request is supported by the Housing Board.
BACKGROUND: The Applicant, James Martin, received approval for
this first AH (Affordable Housing) zone development in 1992. The
subdivision/PUD consists of three free market lots and seven deed
restricted bownhomes located at the far east end of ute Avenue.
As part of the entire review, Growth Management Exemption was
granted by City Council (upon recommendation by the Planning
Commission) for the affordable units as allowed within an AH zone.
deed
The
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant seeks to amend the 1992 GMQS
/" Exemption approval to change the deed restrictions on three
townhome units from Category 3 to Category 4. The remaining four
,~, units will remain at Category 4. This request is necessitated by
increased costs associated with the project which have arisen since
its approval. Please refer to the memo dated August 13, 1993 from
Tom Baker of the Housing Office for more details, Exhibit "A".
STAFF DISCUSSION: Staff has determined that the proposed change
is substantial enough to warrant a replication of the original
review process via P&Z and city Council. Because the entire
project is blanketed by a PUD approval, the Planning Director will
be able to process a staff-level PUD Amendment upon approval of
the revised GMQS Exemption by Council.
GMOS Exemption for Affordable Housinq: Pursuant to Section 8-104
C.1(c) the Council shall exempt deed restricted housing that is
provided in accordance with the housing guidelines. The Commission
shall review and make a recommendation to Council regarding the
housing package. According to the Code, the review of any request
for exemption of housing pursuant to this section shall include a
determination of the city's need for such housing, considering the
proposed development's compliance with an adopted housing plan, the
number of dwelling units proposed and their location, the type of
dwelling units' proposed, specifically regarding the number of
bedrooms in each unit, the size of the dwelling unit, the
rental/sale mix of the proposed development, and the proposed price
categories to which the dwelling units are to be deed restricted.
'-
1
\
PLANNING~ONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT , APPROVED
19 BY SOLUTION
"....
r
MEMORANDUM
'-
FROM:
Kim Johnson, Planning Office
Tom Baker, Housing Offi~
TO:
DATE:
August 13, 1993
GMQS Exemption: Amending ute Park Affordable Housing
Development Category Mix
RE:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memorandum is to initiate a GMQS
Exemption amendment to the approved category mix of the ute Park AH
project. The Housing Board has directed its staff to apply for a
change in the unit mix on behalf of the developer, Jim Martin. Jim
was the first person to use the City'S AH Zone.
/"
The current approval allows Jim Martin to construct seven (7)
affordable housing units: four 3-bdrm, category #4 units; and three
3-bdrm category #3 units. As you are aware, attached 3-bdrm units
can be sold for a maximum of $193,500 (category #4) and $126,000
(category #3).
-,
Jim Martin originally priced these units as follows:
o category #3.......$126,000
o category #4.......$162,500
During pre-construction Jim discovered his costs had increased
substantially for two reasons: first, interest rates had increased
since the time he started the development review process; and tap
fees (primarily sewer) were significantly higher than expected.
Apparently the sewer tap fee is high due to down stream line
improvements which are necessary in this portion of the city.
Due to these cost considerations Jim Martin requested that the
Housing Board grant him the ability to increase his prices $91,000.
Jim proposes to do this by increasing the sale price of his
category #4, 3-bdrm units to $180,000 and increase the sale price
of his category #3, 3-bdrm units to $135,000.
Therefore, the new unit pricing will be as follows:
o category #4.......$135,000
o 'category #4.......$180,000
1
-;.
-'
r~
PZM8.24.93
'-
ASPEN MEADOWS TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW
Bruce opened the public hearing.
MOTION
Roger: I move to continue the public hearing and table action to
date certain of September 7, 1993.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
KASTELIC PUD/SUBDIVISION
Leslie turned in affidavit of mailing. (attached in record)
There was discussion regarding incorrect address in the mailing.
It was decided between the 3 attorneys present, the applicant's
representative and the Commission to proceed with the hearing.
/""'
Bruce opened the public hearing.
Leslie made presentation as attached in record.
After discussion--
"............'
MOTION
Roger: I move to recommend subdivision and PUD review for the
creation of 2 residential parcels at the Kastelic property with
conditions to be hereafter listed in the Planning Office memo dated
August 24, 1993. They are conditions #1 amended to read "Only a
single family home is permitted on each lot because of lot size in
the R-15 Zone District.
The deletion of Planning Office condition #2.
The inclusion of condition #3, #4 and #5.
The deletion of condition #6.
The inclusion of condition #7 through #16 inclusive with and
additional binding note that would encourage the City to request
a 14 foot trail easement along the Roaring Fork River through the
property.
David: I second the motion. I would modify the condition slightly
to allow condition #12 to read "A drainage analysis performed by
an architect or engineer registered in the state of Colorado".
2
"
PZM8.24.93
,,-'"',
Leslie: Can we say "If I can include it". I will add that if we
can add it.
Bruce: I have a problem with this. By us adding it in we imply
that somehow we know that an architect is qualified to do that.
We don't know that. If the state has issued standards that say it
must be a registered engineer and that is what staff puts in their
memo I think we need to accept that. I am not prepared to say
whether you or any other architect is qualified to do this.
If you want to go to staff and go to the state to get them to
change the standard that is fine. But I am not prepared to change
the condition of approval at this point. I don't think this the
form to deal with that issue.
Roger decided to leave the motion as stated.
David then withdrew his second of the motion.
Sara then seconded the motion.
Roll call vote:
David, yes, Sara, yes, Roger, yes, Bruce, yes.
"."'~., .
MOTION
Roger: I make a motion to recommend consolidation of the PUD
review for the Kastelic application to a 2-step process.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor.
Roger moved to adjourn.
Sara seconded the motion with all in favor. Time was 5:35 P.M.
""""",
3