City Council Minutes 1994 10 04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hoyt stated $110 - 140,000. He commented that they were targeting to be $20 - $30,000 below the average price of a single family home. He stated that on average it would take a $45 - $50,000 income to purchase one of these townhomes. Howard commented that this is a higher income required than an average $35,000 income in Boulder County, which did not make this "affordable housing." He asked of the City Attorney, on the question of an agreement, if there was a contract between the city and McStain. Griffiths explained that there was a belief that a contract existed through a series of documents, including the 1985 agreement. Unagreeded upon at this point was, what was the nature of the contract? Did the contract include an advisory master plan or did it include a binding PUD? Howard wondered, given what had transpired at this meeting, if it was a foregone conclusion that the doctrine of promissory estoppel was in force, or was there a question about whether or not promissory estoppel being in force is the case. Griffiths believed there was still a question. Howard wondered, since there was a PUD in process in 1985, was there any clear indication as to why it was not used in the document. Griffiths: No. Howard wondered, in the absence of a contractual agreement or agreement on the substance of the contractual agreement, could one Council bind another? Griffiths stated that it is possible, under certain circumstances, for one Council to bind another Council. She felt the question in this case was whether there was a legally valid and binding contract. Only a Court will know for sure and only the Supreme Court in Colorado knows for sure. She stated that she has consistently recommended to Planning Commission and this Council that they apply the city's current ordinances in making a decision as to whether or not to approve the Special Review Use, PUD, or the Subdivision Agreement. She explained that the applicant asked that the Council not apply the Special Review Use criteria, because the applicant believed that it had a legal right to multi-family use. The applicant also asked that Council not apply any PUD requirements applicable to density to the extent that the density is less than 162 units, because the applicant believed that it had a legal right to 162 unit density. Howard wondered, if someone met all of the criteria of a Special Review Use, must they be granted that Special Review Use. Griffiths: I would say yes. That's the purpose of the criteria set forth in the city ordinances, to guide the decision of the Council. 13