HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ex.Chatmas Amendment
.~ ---".~~~._.- II
~.--<:....--_._--~.,...
..-
Reception No. Loretta Banner,
.'~'"cQ55 August 14, 1980
,<,(,~. Recorded at 4:01 P.M.
Recorder
.:t)u~ 393
r/<t
13
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, ROBERT W. CHATMAS, (hereinafter referred to
as "owner") is the owner of a parcel of land located in the
City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado, more particularly
described at Lots N & 0, Block 52, Aspen Townsite, also
known as 222 West Hopkins, Aspen, Colorado, on which there
is an existing structure containing six (6) dwelling units,
\.
and
WHEREAS, owner has requested an exemption from
subdivision regulation for the purpose of subdividing the
existing sixplex through condominiumization, and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at
its meeting held on the
3rd
day of
June,
1980,
determined exemption from subdivision regulation is appropriate
and recommended that the same be granted, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado,
has determined the subdivision of the existing sixplex
through condominiumization is not within the intents and
purposes of the subdivison ordinance set forth in Chapter 20
of the Aspen Municipal Code, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado is
willing to grant an exemption from subdivision regulation
provided owner is willing to agree to place certain restrictions
on the property, and
WHEREAS, the owner is desirous of effectuating the
condominiumization of the property and is willing to place
certain restrictions on the property,
'''Ti---''~-------~-"
~~._~""--""""-'-""--~~-~~_._""
.
.
CJW~ 393
.iA:j~
14
.'
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of Aspen, Colorado
and the owner, in consideration of the granting of an exemption
from subdivision regulation and the placing of certain
restrictions on the property, hereby agree as follows:
1. The City Council of Aspen, Colorado does hereby
determine the proposed subdivision of the sixplex located on
Lots N & 0, Block 52, Aspen Townsite, pitkin County, Colorado,
by its condominiumization is not within the intents and
purposes of the subdivision ordinance and does, for such
reason, hereby grant an exemption from subdivision regulation.
2. The owner hereby agrees to place the following
restrictions on the property:
(a) Any existing tenant shall be given written
notice in the event that tenant's unit is offered for sale,
which notice shall specify the sale price. Each tenant
shall have an exclusive nonassignable right for the ninety
(90) days following the tenants receipt of the notice to
purchase his or her unit as the price specified in notice.
(b) Each tenant shall have a ninety (90) day
exclusive nonassignable right of first refusal to purchase
his or her unit, which shall commence when a bona fide offer
is made by a third person, accepted by the owner and notice
of the offer and acceptance and a copy thereof have been
delivered to the tenant. In the event this notice of offer
and acceptance is delivered to the tenant while the ninety-
(90) day right set forth in subparagraph (a) above is still
in effect, the tenant may purchase the unit for the amount
of the initial specified sales price or the amount of the
bona fide offer, whichever is less.
- 2 -
r
II
,'-
tJlJu"393 rlor 15
(c)
Each unit of the sixplex shall be restricted
to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2)
shorter tenancies per year.
3. Owner agrees that Unit #6 of the property shall be
restricted to the moderate price guidelines for rentals for a
period of ten (10) years and to make any necessary improvements
to Unit #6 affecting health and safety.
4. The owner agrees to enter into a sidewalk
improvement district if and when one is formed.
Dated this
1'1
~
, 1980.
day of
$~
HERMAN EDEL, Mayor
. ".. "
~: . ATTt!~'l'~.
:e~'Ar.<: , 4.~
,;f -~
{'"'.,"''",, ,,'
.... 1;.lll,/\J "",
I, Robert W. Chatmas, owner of the herein described
property agree to the terms set forth in this Agreement.
&Iut' lA;, ~
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
Lj fH
Acknowledged, subscribed and sworn to before m~..'€pt:s:",
day of A~,~~r , 1980, by ROBERT ~~ ~A~~S.
witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: <;~ /1./(If""(.
~/~
,-
" ..;' j /' ~
. '1',-!/
~ =::: -,''v ''i'
. -. "/, ''f-< '"', .
,c_. ." '::> r. :: - ..
, --!:/ ~I " .' .0'
..1'"''.1..... ".'
, ' '., ,.,,"
'J.. ".)f",;\:,,\I'\'
-"",,, ",",
,
" J
;.: I
i
- 3 -
J
. ,
No. 46-80
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
, City of Aspen
1. DATE SUBMITTED: 8/22/80
STAFF: Jolene Vrchota
2. APPLICANT: r,;n~Q~ ~aufmaR
3. REPRESENTATIVE: same
-
4. PROJECT NAME: Chatmas Request for Amendment of Condominiumization Conditions
5. LOCATION:
6. TYPE OF APPLICATION:
Rezoning
P.U.D.
Special Review
Growth Management
HPC
Subdivision
Exception
Exemption
70:30
Residential Bonus
____Stream Margin
8040 Greenline
View Plane
Conditional Use
~Other
~""'-P.",f -10 w;f',uhl1-v'//4 tvt1A-thlh;n...
7. REFERRALS:
L-Attorney
____Engineering Dept.
...K-Housi ng
Water
____City Electric
Sanitation District ____School District
Fire Marshal ____Rocky Mtn. Nat, Gas
Parks ____State Highway Dept,
Holy Cross Electric ____Other
Mountain Bell
8. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS: P-+ t tc
, )
..
.
9. DISPOSITION:
P & z Ii" Approved /' Denied Date~
P-e~~~i~ -h/e-r~o'
/lO~Jy'0-h~ 1~ -Pr-~ /0 WCULa, .(~
.' fj ..'. J U ;,1\
7'-" LA' o-v..d~/J/U.{j"'(J'()K...o ~A>'.~)
~hr ~ C-..;;~ hwdff~,z(->2-ff:A;hu;,d.A/
~j Q /Ledu/~'oYv .-r;.dYU- ~H' -fu ~~_
.kd/v~-, /~ dtM'~ 0-}, ,; -It 0 ~~
~ ..; ~ /'lP .'l)-v,~ jY~ ,
Counci 1 V
Approved
Denied
Date-3l-z.. /..-}/i0
{ I
'/}'ff"'v-f j f1.(dJJ. ~'o'>-./ friJY>oV ~ - lotLd-:-- fu
r, ~~ .' ~'cd'
-f->v-e- - d~-" . , t'A r..e - /1 . I (J7. ./
10. ROUTING:
~Attorney
~Building
X Engineering
Other
CITY OF ASPEN.
MEMO FROM JOLENE VRCHOTA
/O(Ir/ilO
JI >",- p~. +5 (f1u\J S;~.;:.(;
d t' /' eel ~ ,....) ,c;>+cL +!' ci .f-t...Lvf
~ v ,,,-)0 v 'i.::f.r:,oL ~
s- - /...RAt' r.,-, ~
lY'tr"......Ll ~~4A-~ v:--
~ )z..t rd '-V.t'L~ ~L>"'- ,-,"'--~
c~;rJ) .tk~+ L-r:
../i~~JJj /...--if ""....lei c'-v "f, t:C/ ~
/' r//J /'I_
f y~ !f-1 r.-ljl.LX~.- L_ -I'uY
}-----/ / s J~ ~ +-v
1-\~' k/k"~1_,,
~V
~--,"~,.,-~,,,~-"'-'--"~""-~ ..
. w_.'~."..,_,__~,>~,_~",_~~....._...~,_~,_l-__~,___~
r
To: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Chatmas Condominiumization Amendment
Location:
222 West Hopkins (Lots
DATE: August 28, 1980
Zoning:
R-6, 6,000 sq. ft. lot
Property:
The Garret Apartments is a six-unit complex with one owner-occupied
unit and ~~rental units (3 one-bedrooms and 1 two-bedroom and
1 five-bedroom). While the lot is conforming in the R-6 zone, the
structure and use of the structure are non-conforming. (City
Council previously determined that condominiumization of legal
non-conforming structures is appropriate.) Only one of the smaller
units fell within the City's moderate housing price guidelines.
Background: The Garret condominiums received final approval from City Council
on July 23, 1980, with the following conditions:
(1 )
(2)
(3)
Six-month minimum lease restrictions;
Notice and option provisions (90 day right-of-first refusal)
for current tenants (which each tenant was asked to waive); and
A ten-year moderate price guideline restriction on the five-
bedroom unit.
Note that a larger unit was restricted rather than the one which
fell within the price guidelines, for a period of ten years
rather than the standard five years. These restrictions were
generously offered by the applicant and accepted by City Council
and the P&Z, although the applicant was not willing to allow
an inspection of the unit so the Council and P&Z could see pre-
cisely what was being accepted. This is understandable and
justified since the code does not require such inspections of
all condominiumized or price-restricted units.
Current
Request: A potential owner of the five-bedroom unit (No.6) argues that:
(1 )
(2)
(3)
The unit is substandard and should be replaced to provide
more satisfactory employee housing,
It is not possible to obtain financing for reconstruction of
a unit with a ten-year price restriction, and
Therefore, he requests a reduction of the price restriction
term from ten years to the standard five years (maintaining
the moderate-income category).
Attorney's
Comments:
The City Attorney feels that it is appropriate for the applicant
to request this amendment to condominiumization approval conditions
by requesting a recommendation from P&Z and approval from City
Council.
Housing
Di rector's
Comments:
In the attached memo, the Housing Director feels that it is pre-
ferable from the City's point of view to have a newly-constructed
employee unit for five years than to have a substandard unit
for ten years.
Planning Office
Recommendation:
P & Z
Recommendation:
Ci ty Counci 1
Motion:
Memo: . tmas Condo. Amendment
Au~ust ~tsl 1980
Page Two
The two alternatives which the P & Z and City Council are
asked to select from are:
1) Continued use by employees of an old five-bedroom
unit for ten year~ or
2) Use of a new four-bedroom unit for five years. The
applicant bases his justification for requesting
the price restriction term reduction on his statement
that the existing unit is "substandard". The
Building Inspector (Fred Crowley) inspected the five-
bedroom unit prior to the P & Z meeting. He reported
that it would be very difficult (both physically,
given small rooms and other problems, and financially)
to upgrade the unit to meet basic health and safety
standards. Crowley recommended strongly that the
unit be replaced. Therefore, the Planning Office
concurred, recommending approval of a reduction of the
price restriction from ten to five years.
At its regular meeting on September 2, 1980, the P & Z
recommended approval of a reduction in the term of the
,moderate price restriction on the existing 5-bedroom
unit from ten years to five years, and a reduction
from five to four bedrooms contingent on the unit being
rebui It.
P & Z noted that they had requested a site inspection
when this condominiumization was first presented. It
was not possible under existing code requirements, and
P & Z would again urge immediate action to require con-
dominiumized units to meet health and safety standards.
Move approval to reduce the term of the moderate price
restriction placed as a condition of condonimiumization
on July 23, 1980, from ten years to five years.
I'''' S
>,,__JI.," '
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COL.ORADO 81611
DAVID G. EISENSTEIN
August 21, 1980
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925-8166
GIDEON r. KAUFMAN
Sunny Vann
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Rental Restrictions - Unit #6, The Garet Condominium
Dear Sunny,
Please consider this letter a formal request on my
behalf to amend a condition of the Chatmas condominiumization.
At the time of the hearing, an offer was made on Mr. Chatmas'
behalf to deed restrict one (I) of the units for ten (10)
years as opposed to the standard five (5) years. This was a
gracious and sincere offer on Mr. Chatmas' behalf and was
accepted by the Council. I will be purchasing that unit and
upon investigation I have ascertained the best course of
action would not be to make minor renovations, rather to totally
reconstruct the unit. This is because I do not wish to
rent out a unit that is in substandard condition. Because of
the extensive costs involved in totally rebuilding the unit
as opposed to renovating it, providing good employee housing
is not financially feasible with a ten (10) year restriction.
Additionally, a ten (l~ year restriction makes it very difficult
to secure financing and places a tremendous burden on the
renovation. I therefore request that the restriction be reduced
from ten (10) years to five (5) years and would be happy to
accept as a condition to the reduction that the building must
be totally rebuilt. I have discussed the matter with Jim
Reents, the housing director and he supports my proposal.
If you have any questions in this matter, please
feel free to contact me.
VYXl/F
Gideon Kaufman
.
TO:
The Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:
Jim Reents, Housing Director
Jjtvr
~
DATE: August 25, 1980
SUBJECT: Chatmas Condominiumization
I have discussed the problem facing Mr. Chatmas with regard to
his restricted unit with Gideon Kaufman as well as his proposed
purchase and reconstruction of the unit.
I concur with the problems of financing restricted units and feel
that a newly constructed unit restricted for five years is more
desirable than a ten year restriction on a substandard unit from
the City's point of view.
In accepting the original ten year restriction, I do not believe anyone
was considering totally rebuilding the unit. With current costs of
construction as well as the conservative nature of the financial
community with regard to financing restricted units, I believe the
reduction from ten to five years is appropriate.
JR:ds
./
LAW OFFICES
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
BOX 10001
611 WEST MAIN STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 8161'
GIDEON I. KAUFMAN
DAVID G, EISENSTEIN
August 21, 1980
TELEPHONE
AREA CODE 303
925.8166
Sunny Vann
Planning Office
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Rental Restrictions - Unit #6, The Garet Condominium
Dear Sunny,
Please consider this letter a formal request on my
behalf to amend a condition of the Chatmas condominiumization.
At the time of the hearing, an offer was made on Mr. Chatmas'
behalf to deed restrict one (1) of the units for ten (10)
years as opposed to the standard five (5) years. This was a
gracious and sincere offer on Mr. Chatmas' behalf and was
accepted by the Council. I will be purchasing that unit and
upon investigation I have ascertained the best course of
action would not be to make minor renovations, rather to totally
reconstruct the unit. This is because I do not wish to
rent out a unit that is in substandard condition. Because of
the extensive costs involved in totally rebuilding the unit
as opposed to renovating it, providing good employee housing
is not financially feasible with a ten (10) year restriction.
Additionally, a ten (l~ year restriction makes it very difficult
to secure financing and places a tremendous burden on the
renovation. I therefore request that the restriction be reduced
from ten (10) years to five (5) years and would be happy to
accept as a condition to the reduction that the building must
be totally rebuilt. I have discussed the matter with Jim
Reents, the housing director and he supports my proposal.
If you have any questions in this matter, please
feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours,
CXIPJ = __.....
Gideon Kaufman
"--,------.1-----
To: v/Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
Aspen City Council
FROM: Jolene Vrchota, Planning Office
RE: Chatmas Condominiumization Amendment
,
DATE: August 28, 1980
Zoning:
R-6, 6,000 sq. ft. lot
Locati on:
222 West Hopkins (Lots Nand 0, Block 52;Aspen Townsite)
Property:
The Garret Apartments is a six-unit complex with one owner-occupied
unit and six rental units'(3 one-bedrooms and 1 two-bedroom and
1 five-bedroom). While the lot is conforming in the R-6 zone, the
structure and use of the structure are non-conforming. (City
Council previously determined that condominiumization of legal
non-conforming structures is appropriate.) Only one of the smaller
units fell within the City's moderate housing price guidelines.
Background: The Garret condominiums received final approval from City Council
on July 23, 1980, with the following conditions:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Six-month minimum lease restrictions;
Notice and option provisions (gO day right-of-ftrst refusal)
for current tenants (which each tenant was asked to waive); and
A ten-year moderate price guideline restriction on the five-
bedroom unit.
Note that a larger unit was restricted rather than the one which
fell within the price guidelines, for a period of ten years
rather than the standard five years. These restrictions were
generously offered by the applicant and accepted by City Council
and the P&Z, although the applicant was not willing to allow
an inspection of the unit so the Council and P&Z could see pre-
cisely what was being accepted. This is understandable and
justified since the code does not require such inspections of
all condominiumized or price-restricted units.
Current
Request: A potential owner of the five-bedroom unit (No.6) argues that:
(1 )
(2)
(3)
The unit is substandard and should be replaced to provide
more satisfactory employee housing,
It is not possible to obtain financing for reconstruction of
a unit with a ten-year price restriction, and
Therefore, he requests a reduction of the price restriction
term from ten years to the standard five year~ (maintaining
the moderate-income category).
Attorney IS
Comments:
The City Attorney feels that it is appropriate for the applicant
to request this amendment to condominiumization a~proval conditions
by requesting a recommendation from P&Z and approval from City
Council.
Housing
Di rector I. s
Comments:
In the attached memo, the Housing Director feels ,that it is pre-
ferable from the City's point of view to have a newly-constructed
employee unit for five years than to have a substandard unit
for ten years.
,
"
-,
'-",...""
Aspen Planning & Zoning
Ci ty Counci 1
Chatmas Condominiumization Amendment
P. 2
8/28/80
Planning
Office
Recommendation: The two alternatives which the P&Z and City Council are
asked to select from are:
(1 )
(2)
Continued use by employees of an old unit for ten years
or .
Use of a new unit for five years. The applicant bases
his justification for requesting the price restriction
term reduction on his statement that the existing unit
is "substandard." The Planning Office feels that the
need to replace the unit can only be decided with a
building inspector's description of existing problems.
The applicant's representative will discuss the issue
with Fred Crowley prior to the P&Z meeting. The Planning
Office will make a recommendation subsequent to receiving
comments from the Building Inspector. '
~
p.f~
q(2-/BO c ~
C1~ - 0rdec/
GYD5S~ ~-
~b~
-r--: {<., ~N_ d _ (' "~~
tI _,-C~ -rr~ 7T .., ~~
C~ ~~.~;/~
5fy0.~1Jf; ~~
~~~
t;~~ :r(j vey/Y, J1J'~
?~ +0 ~~j?te ~ I(~ A~ ~+ocok
i
:1
':~~1~i.'-,o~ ~P~.~~ (~_~/6Df ,
jlz..,cit~ ;&C(~,I,'- L----C6'-Crce ~.'o&~ ,,~~mj 4W/~.J
:",~~lorf.p.L;._.h ~ Jlc~ of~,~
'. '! l -h~{~ J-v~~:;y<-
, dJ5ad~'
I
",' . t'.
I
: !
W~4k 1f?~c/JfA ~k~~~:-:ttJ -
tJ krhW wa-.Mct +v ~ ft-.-v-{;-'
~~~,~
~ u...J~ ~~/ j~ /vcll! h
/U1~ )
~*~ ~ IV-a' /lJ2:rfr,c/;~
C.... ...~ ~vv, ar-~ 5, r <( Ix,) ~j-. _ .
L p,.Jv<-~c~ ~ if ~hrJ~~) ~ ~
~J~~
~ ~ ~~ rtf -r7/ ~-/) ~ pifJ
~~ ~7 .~-rd"1- ~
.-".p/J::.?J5:--V-r~p~ pi ~ E~J
\"lJUlI{..;.1..1.UIOll Dell.LC;!l\...I.I... .::Ja....r...... ...~~....... ....... '...~.I ......."':l ........ ...______ _ ___~. ----~~I-,.
the housing problem. Councilman Van Ness pointed out that no additional jobs are being
created, this is attempting ~'...... relocate employees and allow them live in town. Council-
man Collins argued you cann< Iring in more people without i easing the work force,
teachers, fireman, pOlice. ......Jere is no question but that grc._h begats growth. Council-
woman Michael said new generation happens but it is not so radical as 1-1/2 employees
until the problems of substandard and overcrowded housing in town is solved. Ms. Smith
told Council the housing action plan was framed as an evolutionary document and does not
claim to have all the correct answers. The plan identifies a deficit and an annual need;
it can be reviewed and changed.
All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Behrendt asked the Mayor to write a letter to
all participants in the housing task force and plan.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Chapmas
c'+; (!Ou~1
JUt! 1_3{ 11So
lit
Sunny Vann, planning office, told Council this is a proposed condominiumization for a
structure located at 222 West Hopkins. It is zoned R-6, and is 6,000 square feet. It
is a non-conforming use and a non-conforming structure. This structure contains 3 one-
bedroom units, 1 two-bedroom, and 1 five-bedroom units. Five units are renter occupied
and one falls within the city's housing price guidelines based on the size of the units ,
and the rents charged. The engineering department recommends approval subject to revision
and resubmission of the improvements survey and agreement to enter into a sidewalk
agreement. The city attorney recommends approval subject to the notice and options
provisions and the six month rental restrictions.
lyee
The applicant has offered to deed restrict the five-bedroom unit, rather than the one-
bedroom unit which falls within the guidelines, and to restrict it to moderate guidelines
for rent or sale for 10 years. Vann stated this is a non-conforming structure; however,
Council's recent revision of 24-9(c) allows condominiumization of non-conforming structures.
The planning office recommends approval subject to the engineer and attorney comments.
Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council the smaller units are in front
and the large unit is in back. The plan is to upgrade the front unit and the back will
be sold to business as employee housing. Councilman Behrendt asked if Council could make
a site inspection before a decision is made. Kaufman told Council they are complying with
the laws on the books; putting an inspection on this applicant is not standard rules. ,j
'I
11
Councilman Isaac said the rent prices look very consistent with the city's housing price
guidelines and asked how much higher they were. Kaufman answered $50 to $100 over for ,
each because they are so small. Councilman Isaac said this is loosing low income housing.
Councilman Behrendt asked to see a set of blueprints. Kaufman objected because other
applicants are not asked to do this. Councilman Behrendt said this proposal would be
totally gutting employee housing. Councilman Collins asked if these units have to meet
certain standards of the city, size, wiring, exits, etc. City Manager Chapman said if it
is going to be remodeled up to a certain extent, they have to meet code. Vann told Council
the engineering department did ndecode violations which came up at P & Z. The P & Z
felts strongly about this and asked the planning office as part of the condominiumization
changes to look at health and safety violations. However, the P & Z felt it was inappro-
priate to burden this particular applicant when it has not applied to anyone else.
Councilman Van Ness said Council has passed ordinances; they have complied with these
are entitled to approval
and'
:1
Councilman Van Ness moved to approve the Chaprnas subdivision exemption subject to the
engineering comments; six month minimum lease restriction, notice and option provisision
and a 10 year restriction on the five-bedroom units in the moderate price restrictions;
seconded by Councilman Parry. (The engineering comments are resubmitting improvement
survey including area and structures for common use; location of existing driveways and
parking areas; and required to join a sidewalk improvement district) .
Kaufman asked that once the employee unit is upgraded, the ap~licant has the right to
come in and raise the price from moderate to middle income pr1ce range. Reents told
Council that any applicant has this right if they can justify an increase because of
improvements made and money invested. Council has the right to say no.
All in favor, with the exception of Councilmembers Isaac and Behrendt. Motion carried.
SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION - Duvike
In
Sunny Vann told Council this building is located in the commercial core on the Hyman
Avenue mall. The structure is on a 3,000 square foot lot. The basement and ground
floor are commercial space; second floor is commercial and residential purposes. The
residential units are 330 square feet and the rental prices exceed the housing price
guidelines and have not been used continuously for employee housing. The engineering
department recommends approval subject to resubmission of a plat to show various items
and agreement to underground conduit. The planning office recommends approval subject
-to the engineer's memorandum; p & Z concurred with a change, "Applicant shall resolve
electrical cab~problem to the satisfaction of the engineering department prior to sale
of anY individual condominiurnized units".
,QlIlM'lI C.'.MQECKEl....al.CO'
-3-
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
June 03, 1980
Regular Meeting
Chatmas Subdivision
Exemption #14-80
.....~..~ 1__ ~..1-..::J": .....: _.: __
Richard Grice introduced the Chatmas Subdivision Exemp-
tion located at 222 West Hopkins and being a multi-
family structure which contains three one bedroom units,
one two-bedroom unit, and one five-bedroom unit and one
owner-occupied unit. The applicant has proposed to deed-
restrict the five-bedroom unit in exchange for the one-
bedroom unit which currently falls within the low-moderate
income guidelines. The Housing Office has no objection to
this proposal subject to #1 and #2 as stated in the Plan-
ning Offices memorandum dated May 27, 1980.
After some discussion on the problems associated with
the health and safety and inspection of said property,
the members understood that they could not require for
improvements to be made before approving the applica-
tion. Lee Pardee moved to recommend approval of the
Chatmas Subdivision Exemption, subject to conditions
outlined in the Engineering Department's memorandum
dated May 22, 1980, first two conditions which are; #1
The owner shall revise and resubmit the improvement
survey plat to include the following: A) Identify areas
an/or structures reserved for common use. B) Location
of existing driveways and parking areas. #2. The
owner/applicant shall be required to join a sidewalk
improvement district if and when one is formed. Also,
conditioned on the notice of option and six month lease
restriction of Section 20-22 and the imposition of a
ten-year deed restriction on the five-bedroom unit as
proposed by the applicant, additionally approval is
conditioned on the Fire Marshall and Building Inspector's
approval. Due to some conflict of policies and the
changes to be made of condominiumization the members
revised the motion to read: Lee Pardee withdrew his
motion and stated the motion is the same except the
revision to exclude the comment -"additionally approval
is conditioned on the Fire Marshall and Building Inspec-
tor's approval." Perry Harvey seconded the motion. All
in favor, Roger Hunt and Joan Klar voted nay. Motion
carried 4 to 2.
Lee Pardee moved that the Planning and Zoning Commission
instruct the Planning and Zoning Office to submit to us
a code amendment requiring applicant's for subdivision
exemption for purposes of condominiumization to comply
with health, safety and welfare standards.ana-a~5e-~ha~
we-ne~-een5iaef-e~hef-5Hhaivi5ien-exemp~ion5-Hn~i~ .
Joan Klar seconded the motion. All in favor, motion
carried.
n.:....l-...._A ,-.......:......... .......j..._....A"........A .j...'h.... ....,....,.,....:I...."';.,.,.;"m;..,.:.i-;I""'I.1'\ 1""\4= i-no