Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.apz.19740110 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves fORM" C. f. ~OECKEL B. a. II L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 10, 1974 Meeting was called to order by Acting Chairman Bruce Gillis at 6:10 p.m. with Chuck Vidal, Bryan Johnson, Jack Jenkins and Spence Schiffer. Also present City/County Planner Herb Bartel and Assistant Planners Donna Baer and John Stanford. Vidal removed himself from the Commission table for the meeting in order to represent the project under discussion. CLARENDON CONDOMINIUMS Gillis pointed out to the Commission that they must make a decision on the project at this meeting. Com- mission could either approve, approve with conditions, disapprove, or the applicant could voluntarily with- draw their application. At the request of the Commission, Rick Farrel submit- ted a copy of the study made on low cost housing for that area, and reviewed the report with the Commission. Farrel stated that the land cost would be $425,000 for 1.627 acres. Stated the plan would be to build small two bedroom apartments consisting of 500 square feet each. Further stated that they were assuming there would be no parking costs since the location would be near enough to the core area for the employees to walk to work. Also assuming that all costs in addition to the land would total $12,500 per unit, or $25 per square foot. Farrel outlined in the report the comparison between the number of units (from 50 to 100) and the density, land cost per unit, construction cost per unit, total cost per unit, required rent per month and the annual rent per square foot. The report further stated that the rent calculated in the report was based on the following assumptions: (1) Capital Structure: 80% debt, 20% equity; (2) Per- manent Financing at 8-3/4%; (3) 10% vacancy; (4) 40% of gross for operating expense; and (5) 15% return on equity before tax required to attract investors. Far- rel stated that these figures were supplied by Kit Mason, who had done a great deal of research in these areas. Jenkins pointed out again that there would be no way to insure that these would be rented to employees of Aspen. Further pointed out that he was not satisfied with that density in that area. Gillis stated that he, too, was not satisfied with that density in that area. Vidal pointed out that if they were to add parking, it would have to be underground parking, which would raise the cost of the project considerably. General concensus of the Commission that due to the ex- treme density which would be required to make the pro- ject economically feasible, would prefer to discard the idea of low cost housing in that area. Attorney Jim Moran was present representing the devel- oper and questioned the Commission on the affect of ap- proving the project incrementally. _.._"_..,,-,-.--. ..,..~_._..~~~~.'"".._-- r" RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 'I C. F. HOECKEl e. B./l: L CO. continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 10, 1974 Ms. Baer stated that the Planning Office had not changed their original recommendation to the Commision on the project, which included the following: (1) A covenant restricting rental to no less than 6 months; (2) Phasing the development for next year's building season to 12 units; (3) No parking provisions; (4) No fireplaces. Moran again questioned what benefit the City would de- rive from the phasing of the project, but stated that the applicant would be amenable to the phasing, if the entire project were approved. Vidal stated that the applicant still felt that the applicant should be allowed to provide parking faci- lities, and stated that the applicant would be willing to remove such facilities at such time as the City had established a viable transportation system. Vidal further stated that the applicant felt that the resulting pollution due to fireplaces was minimal, but that through negotiations in the design aspect of the project, would be willing to decrease the size of the fireplaces. Gillis stated that he would prefer to postpone a de- cision on the project until the Commission could gather additional information, including a report from the Urban Economist. Jenkins stated that he, too, felt that a better deci- sion could be made after receiving additional infor- mation. Felt he would be able to make a decision at this point, but would not necessarily be the right decision. Schiffer stated that he felt the additional information would be valuable, but did not want the project to pro- cede in the same manner as the Villa, Phase II. Moran stated that he felt that if the Commission did not have enough information to make a decision on this project, felt they also did not have enough information to make a decision on the rezoning of this area. Gillis stated that the meeting on the 29th of January would only be a public hearing, and a decision would not be made at that time. Stated that he felt that he would like to receive more information in order to make both decisions. Moran stated that he felt the proposed rezoning offer- red by the Planning Office was a "cop-out", and that rather than refining the definition of Mixed Residen- tial, the Planning Office had opted to just rezone the area out from under the developer. Bartel stated the Planning Office position that the plan that Stanford and he had come up with for the Ute Avenue are is not a "cop-out". Moran stated that it clearly is a plan to rezone that area since there are applicants here under Ordinance #19. -2- ,.., ,..... RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves FORM 50 C.f.HOECKELO.B.1l L. CO. Continued Meeting Aspen Planning & Zoning January 10, 1974 Jenkins stated that the reason for the rezoning pro- posal in that area was because that area has turned in- to a problem. Ms. Baer stated that such action was one of the pur- poses of Ordinance #19. Stated that it provided a method for discovering development trends. Gillis questioned if the applicant would be willing to withdraw at this point. Moran questioned if that would mean that when the ap- plicant came in again, would the Commission consider it a new application. Stated that the applicant would be willing to postpone a decision until the first available date after the public hearing on the re- zoning. Commission and applicant agreed to make a decision on the project on February 5, 1974, at the regular meet- ing of the Commission. As there was no further discussion, Johnson made a mo- tion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Jenkins. All in favor, motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. 'J I '-'-'_.~ / ') I / i " G I ',,)' ~', Secretary