Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Planning Commission 1978-01-17BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.» DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission v/January 17, 1978 Chairman Petrocine, Members Blair, Hix, Sager, Graves, Sutter, and Wagner Chairman Petrocine, Members Hix, Sager, Graves, Sutter, and Wagner Also Attending: Town Administrator Hill, Town Engineer/Planner Widmer, Former Town Engineer/Planner Van Horn Commission Attending: Absent:Member Blair OFF-STREET PARKING ORDINANCE: Chairman Petrocine conducted a public hearing on the proposed amend­ ment to Section 17.64.040 of the Municipal Code regarding off-street parking fees and payment schedule. There were no persons present speaking in favor of the proposed ordinance. James A. Durward and Greig Steiner spoke in opposition. No: correspondence was received in favor of or in opposition to the ordinance. Chairman Petrocine declared the hearing closed. Member A1 Sager moved the ordinance be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees. Member Petrocine seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion received the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Members Sager, Wagner, Petrocine. Those voting "No" Members Graves, Hix, Sutter. Whereupon the motion was ruled defeated due to a lack of a majority vote. Member Rollen Sutter then moved the ordinance be favorably recommended to the Board of Trustees changing the $815 in lieu of parking fee to $750. Member Wagner seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed by the following votes: Those voting "Yes" Members Hix, Sager, Sutter, Wagner. Those voting "No" Members Graves, Petrocine. LOT SPLIT - SCHROEDER - LOTS 9, 10, 11, GRAND ESTATES: Attorney George Hass appeared representing Harry Schroeder in his request to rearrange the existing boundaries of Lots 9, 10, and 11 oi Grand Estates to create one lot each for the restaurant and motel, and one vacant lot. The Commission referred to the Water Superintendent s letter of August 8, 1977 regarding water service and discussed imposing a condition which would require adequate waterline sizing to be pro­ vided by the property owner according to the proposed development. Member Graves moved the request be tabled until next meeting in order to obtain a legal opinion on the legality and ramifications of this condition. Member Sutter seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion unanimously carried. LARIMER COUNTY LAND USE PLAN: Dennis Swain of the Larimer County Planning Department presented the Larimer County Land Use Plan which is the third of five ma:)°r of the CompreLnsive Plan. The first element, the Goals and Objectives, was adopted in 1974 and the second element. Policies, was January 1976. The remaining two elements will be the Housing Plan and SrSSn Space Plan. Mr. Swain explained that the Land Use Plan does not cover Estes Park extensively because it is hoped the Estes Park Master Plan will become an element of the County Land Use Plan. requested and the Planning Commission agreed to submit a Larimer County Commissioners and Planning Commission Fc?tes Park Master Plan be incorporated as an element of the County Land Use Plan and that joint County/Town; Board and Planning Co^ission meetings be held to establish a review process of county proposals affecting the Town. BRADFORD PUBLISHING COM DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Planning Commission January 17, 1978 Page Two (2) LOT SPLIT - MARDEN - LOTS 9, 10, 11, BLOCK 1, TOWN OF ESTES PARK: Mr. Michael Marden submitted a request to divide portions of Lots 9, 10, and 11 of Block 1, Town of Estes Park, in order to separate his real estate building from the surrounding "rooming house" prop­ erty. If granted, two lots would be created rather than the existing six lots. Member Sutter moved the land division be favorably recom­ mended to the Board of Trustees and that the Planning Commission finds the following facts with respect to the request: (1) That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property; (2) That the exception is necessary for the preservation and the enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner; (3) That the granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the neighborhood in which the property of the petitioners is situated or in conflict with the purposes and objectives of Title 16 of the Municipal Code. Member Graves seconded the motion, mously carried. Upon roll call the motion unani- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Joan/ Van Horn, Acting Secretary /