01/12/1988 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..».i..w... ?t?..i?.??i..>..? .?i.i?.?.....?f.)...). ?.......>??... ?. •.?ii?i.?..i.i?....r?.....?.?.?.?.?............i... ...... - ........?.? .................... PLANNING COMMTSSION JANUARY 12, 1988 PAGE 3 Commission studied site plan of the originally approved condominium development. Mr, 'Corris reaues_ted that complete set of plans for pagt phases be brought. to the next meeting.. Mr. Valarian then quoted Section 1149:05(b) of .the Zoning Code and reiterated the concern of the owners who have the responsibility for half of the maintenance of a road which 3.s to be used by the apartment dwellers. Members of the Hyde Park Conodminium Asssociation, Mr. and Mrs. Borrelli and Mr. and Mrs. Hunka expressed many of the same concerns that were stated pre- viously and also mentioned concerns about property values, since they were told construction costs of apartment would be 3.2 million dollars, then later told each unit would cost $40f000.which would add up to onl_y $2,160.000.00; about adeq.uacy of parking.since 54 suites could have 2 cars each, and there might not be space for guest parking; they are questioning if.access roads confoxm to fire equipment access requirements; if building goes condomi.nium and.owners sublet a nortion of a unit, parking needs could double; at time units were ,purchased buyers were told of condominium plan, never told of plans for apartments .(condominium will be sandwiched between two..apartment comnlexes); pointed out that their condominiums do not conform to the nlans.that were approved by the city (each unit was supnosed to have a front.and back door, and. . they have one.entrance);.every tenant .did.not receive a disclosure state- ment as stated by developer; they believe that developer.is morally obligated to develop nroperty as promised. Mr..King responded: developer has been trying to meet with association since December 2nd, the_y have not resvonded (letter submitted: documents these attempts); statements.. ? made regarding costs taken out of context, stated units could not be built.for less than $40,DOOtwhich would dictate rental prices; other issues mentioned are private law matters;.what was represented to owners is not a matter to be considered by the Commission; plans are to be. reviewed for conformance to code and zoning elassification; tfie duty of Commission is to refer to the Architectural.Board of.Review; rights of unit.owners described in disclosure statement which contained a copy of easement document which set forth rights, duties, and,obligations of the respective vroperty owners with respeet to.parcels of land in the develonment.. Mr. Morgan q_uestioned."if these duties and obligations had not clianged since the proposal has ehanged. According to Mr. King, the more units.that were built on the phase III parcel,:the greater the cost to the.owner of that parcel, the pro rata,amount to be paid has been established as based upon the number of living units.on the respective p.arcels, use is still multi-tamily, and under this proposal the developer of phase III wo.uld incur a greater share of the cost if he were to develop more units. He stated, that if the Association does not blieve the deed.of declaration does not adequatel,y.address a faix avprotionment of-the costs they would be willing to discuss it, ' but he maintains that the document adequately addresses the.issue. Mr. Valarian countered that the association was now paying one half of the•maintenance of the roads, and Columbia Village Apartments were pa_ying one half, but no agreement has been reached considering parcel 3 as apartments. Chairman Morgan questioned that the parking which. might not be adequate, and Mr. Mongello stated that some of the pro- ? posed green area could possibly be landbanked for additional parking. Mr.. Morgan stated that it is regrettable that.the developer did not. . keep his promises to the owners, b ut this is not an issue the Commission can address and the proposal must be fozwarded to:various_bodies for .\ ?