Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />4.Public Comments – Items Not On The Agenda <br /> <br /> <br />Lipton asked for comments from the public for any matter not on the agenda. None heard. <br /> <br /> <br />5A.Regular Business - Items Recommended for Continuance/ Withdrawal <br /> <br />Lipton noted that no regular business items were requesting either a continuance or withdrawal. <br /> <br />5B. Regular Business - Public Hearing Items <br /> <br /> <br /> Resolution No. 17, Series 2004a right-of-way vacation <br />, request for a portion of <br />Front St. located in Murphy Place Subdivision between the houses located at 221 and <br />224 Front St. Lots 10 and 11, Block 8 and Lots 16 and 17, Block 9, Murphy Place; <br />224 ½ S. Front St. Case #04-015-RW. <br /> <br /> <br />Case Manager: Paul Wood, Planning Director <br /> <br /> <br />Applicant and Owner: Philip & Denise Ehrmann <br /> <br />Lipton opened the public hearing and requested public notice certification. <br /> <br />Public Notice Certification: <br />Staff member, Kenneth Johnstone, Principal Planner, stated that the public notice was published <br />in the Daily Camera on Sunday, June 27, 2004 and posted in City Hall and mailed to the <br />surrounding property owners on Friday, June 25, 2004. <br /> <br />Lipton requested that it be noted that Commissioner McAvinew arrived at 6:35 p.m. <br /> <br />Conflict of Interest and Disclosure: <br />Lipton asked for Commissioners conflict of interest and disclosures. None heard. <br /> <br />Staff Report of Facts and Issues: <br />Lipton called for staff report of facts and issues from Johnstone. <br /> <br />Johnstone summarized the application with the following points: <br />A right-of-way request located between Lots 16 and 17, Block 3 (221 Front) and Lots 10 <br /> <br /> <br />and 11, Block 9 (224 Front St.) Murphy Place. <br />Community Park Concept Plan reflected a pedestrian access from the Park at this point. <br /> <br /> <br />Position of applicant is the City has already vacated the ROW based on the installed <br /> <br /> <br />water and sewer tap for the property. <br />Position of staff is the ROW has not been vacated based on the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />No record of a vacation ordinance has been found in City records. <br /> <br />Legal description does not reflect the inclusion of the ROW. <br /> <br />An Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prepared in February 2002 did not <br />reflect incorporation of the ROW. <br /> <br />Boulder County Assessor’s database has record of the inclusion of the ROW. <br />Discussed the possibility of a partial ROW vacation. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Johnstone concluded with a review Resolution No. 17, Series 2004 that recommends denial of <br />the ROW vacation application without conditions. <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />