HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application• •
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO
JOINT PETITION FOR EXEMPTION
Pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stats. (1973) Sec. 30-28-101(10)(d)
as amended, RIMLEDGE URANIUM AND MINING CORPORATION, a Utah Cor-
poration, (RIMLEDGE) and MICHAEL L. STRANG and KATHLEEN S. STRANG
(STRANGS), respectively petition the Board of County Commissioners
of Garfield County to exempt by resolution tracts of land more
fully hereinafter described, from the definitions of "subdivision"
and "subdivided land" as the terms are used and defined in Colo.
Rev. Stats. (1973), Sec. 30 -28 -101(10)(a) -(d) and Subdivision Regu-
lations, Garfield County, Colorado 40.02.01 (Sept. 1972), as amended,
for the reasons set forth below:
1. RIMLEDGE and STRANGS own certain contiguous tracts of
agricultural ranch lands in Garfield County, Colorado, Township
7 South, Range 87 West, situate in Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, and
30, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference made
a part hereof. The lands owned by RIMLEDGE appear in purple and
the land owned by STRANGS appear in green. There is a county
road running in a general northerly and southerly direction through
Sections 18, 19, and 30.
2. The natural boundary between the RIMLEDGE and STRANGS
tracts and the boundary which the parties have been observing be-
tween themselves is the county road referred to.
3. Petitioners desire to exchange quitclaim deeds whereby
RIMLEDGE will convey the land easterly of the county road situate
in Lot 12, NWnSE4 and SW4SEk of Section 18, and the SW4NE4 of
Section 19 to the STRANGS, and the STRANGS will convey to RIMLEDGE
the land they own in the Lots 5 and 7, Section 19, lying westerly
of the county road, all in Township 7 South, Range 87 West, 6th P.M.
4. All lands are agricultural land.
5. Attached hereto and by reference made a part is Exhibit
B, which shows the land in purple which RIMLEDGE desires to convey
• •
to STRANGS and the lands in green which the STRANGS desire to con-
vey to RIMLEDGE. The parties represent that they will not convey
such separate tracts to other parties subsequently other than as a
part of the land ownership contiguous thereto without further proceed-
ings as provided for in the Subdivision Regulations, Garfield County,
Colorado (Sept. 1972) , as amended.
6. Access to each of the tracts of land to be conveyed is
available by virtue of the County Road adjoining each tract.
1Lf
Dated at Glenwood Springs this � / day of - (+6 ui , 1975.
John D. Lawye , Attorney for Petitioner,
Rimledge Uranium. and Mining Corporation
1011 Grand Avenue
P. 0. Box 129
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Edward Mulhall, Jr., rney for
Michael L. Strang and h.thleen S. Strang
818 Colorado Avenue
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
•
J
7000
410
•
7024--
If.
II ,•
•_
n .
II` 9
Pitz
7066
•
I
N
r
7/22
7334 N`
-
ION A'
4370
'---. 2730'
fl \
— -`--
i
•
'.6875
a
6285
reek
,_•.. J
i /. I 1
,
II
1
•
1
;170/ 6
+6805
1
IIJ
Ii�.
\\- --=cam
11 i
/ I I
II
4369
\ \ 4368
•-•N1
w_
–
Wto
/).< ' 4367
- -7092
,
4366
9
N
' - - "�.- 6289
—
N
6400
X7193 �)
)
•
--/
. \ V'1 • 16284
Catherine =,"
36 R
0
G b
i. -. .. M„1rnrd F %• ,..,.,
'6273 DE��ER
..� 4364
•
.__ ►_ 82
o •
-16349
•
43163
((
/ 1
\p'iiy
-1000
7,9
()707
\�cit U
los /!/
'1��� a �
„
NOO
00
0
� J
4370
— 27'30”
4369
•
•
v
7 ) W
22
,
Wa
24 _
=reek
Ufa i
6927'
�1 %i
15' 2l
/0
7092
a
4367
4366
6805
v
6295
;
X7193 --�
-1
6400
__-- -- 6289
---------:+
-_'�, 6228"
.-- 1
II A284,
Catherine • =�� v •, Ill
ii
o
11
===o o IV-E'R=' 32
3 6
�IN
Mulford -
Zi
+364
CID
4363
2014 BLAKE AVENUE
GARFIELD COUNTY
410,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601
PHONE 945-B212
October 10, 1975
Board of County Commissioners
Garfield County Courthouse
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Re: Request for exemption from Senate Bill 35 Provisions -
Rimledge Uranium and Mining Corporation and Michael
and Kathleen Strang
Gen t1 emen :
The above request for Senate Bill 35 exemption represents a boundary
adjustment between the two parties, requesting the exemption. No
third ownership would be involved nor would the density of the area's
development be affected. Both parcels of land will meet the minimum
lot size for the zoning of the area.
I would recommend favorable action on the request.
RAW/ka y
Sincerely,
ij/1 4
Robert A. Witkowski
Director