Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 Resolution 80-153 DeniedSTATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield E3. a Ata .....rssu.l a Commissioners for held at t}re Court House in Glenwood Sprinqs on.....,.,, ..............r1.v..!,tt ......A. D. re.:....99.., .......8.'i.ch a r.d...C.,....r1o.1. -""Ti'3 of.the Board of County n.q3,y............"zfBt County, Colorado, ..............day of there were present: .]..gy............... , Commissioner Chairman ...........E.1.a.y.en....e.e.ri.s.e :: .::: ::hll'fiil;Ifil li8ilifu;u;:,; : ...........N.anqy...5prr.q.K...P.qs.9.,....P.qpH.-tJ_. wtrcn the following proceedings, among otlrers were had and done, to-wit: Commissionet , Commissioner , Cou:ety Attorney , Clerk of the Board RESOLUTION NO. 80-I53 RESOLUTTON CONCERNED WrTH THE DENTAI OF SUBDTVTSTON EXEMPTTON REQUEST By BRUCE KTSTLER IIr, SCOTT WRITER, AND EMTLTE KTSTLER. WHEREAS, the Board of County Conrnissioners of Garfield County has receivedan application from Bruce Kistler IfI, an application from Scott Writer, and anapplication from Emilie Kistler, for subdivision exemptions relating to tractsof land in SE,/4uwr/4 of Section 23, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the SixthPrincipal Meridian; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the saidapplications together with the recommendation of the Garfield County planning Di-rector, and has further viewed the site of the proposed exemption and has consideredthe cirsumstances surrounding the said subdivision exemption reguest and the subjectpropertyr and WHEREAS, tions of fact: the Board. of County Conrnissioners has made the following determina- 1. That the public highway most nearly serving the subject property, GarfieldCounty Road 112, is incapable of safely carrying additional traffic which would begenerated by the granting of the requested subrlivision exemptionsi 2. That Roaring Fork School District RE-1 has indicated its unwillingmess toserve the proposed tracts, or the access points from the tracts to Garfield CountyRoad 112, with public school bus service, and that in the absence of such servicethe creation of add.i-tional tracts in the area poses a threat to the public safetyand health of both chitdren inhabiting the proposed divideil sites and the safety ofother travelers on the subject roadways; 3. That the Pressure on the County Road 112 in its present condition generatedby additional building sites which would pose a threat to the safety of travelers onsaid County Road 112 rnay not, within County funding constraints, be alleviated in ananner which would lessen the aforementioned hazard and permit the said roadway tobear the additional traffic generated by divisions such as that presently before theBoard; 4- The applicants, individually and jointly, have effectively attempted thesubdivision of the subject property through joint and repeated applications for sr:b-division exemptions from this Board. of County Conunissioners, which requests threatento create a subdivision of the subject property with neither public services orsafeguards whose provision is the purpose of the Garfield County Subdivision Regru-lations and Colorado 1aw relating to zoning and subdivision control; 5. That the method of disposition adopted by the applicants i:r this and pre-vious;zubdivision exemptions has been adopted for the purposes of evading the Garfiel-dCounty Su-bdivision Regrulations and Colorado law relating to su-bdivision process, dueto the fact that the proposed divisions are the part of a 1arger development plal; 6. That one of the grounds for the proposed division is the increase valua-tion of the subject property by approximately five times, which increase in valuationthis Board has determined to be irrelevant to the question of subdivision of 1and,in that the increased valuation should have reasonably been foreseen by the presentowners of the ProPerty when purchased and converted from agricultural use; 7. That the argument of the applicants that the division of land would createadditional tax revenues for the County is without basis, due to the increased pres- sures which would be created for public service as a result of additional population inhabiting the area were the subdivision exemption request approved, which population would demand additional public services in excess of the tax revenues generated bythe additional properties; r T.r- 8. That the applicants' argument that they are entitled to the most intensive use permitted by the zoning resolution is without foundation due to the fact that this Board is required to examine any proposed division of land against the require- ments established by statutes relating to the subdivision of land and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations; 9. That the proposed division of land falls within the purlrcses of the Garfield County Subdivision Regulatiorsand the statutes of the State of Colorado relating to the subdivision of land within this State; 10. That the proposed division of the subject property, because of steep toPo- graPhy and potential natural hazard.s, features, and conditions associated with the subject property, makes the division likely to be harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the future residents of the proposed divided lands; 11. That the growEh pattern characterized by the proposed division of land is of such form and physical shape that governmental inefficiencies and unnecessary public costs and financial burdens will inevitably result from the natural require- ment that the County provide extensions of public services and public suPPort faci- lities to the divided land, which services and facilities extensions cannot be accom- plished in a planned, ordered, or effective manneri L2. That the subject lands are not suitable for subdivision under criteria established by the carfield County Subdivision Regulations for each and aI1 of the following reasons: a) That the proposed division of land will not be adequately served by existing streets and roads and presents significant problems related to the intensive use of land and the provision of utilities and servicesi b) That the proposed division of land is part of an existing and potential J.arger land development project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RXSOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Garfield, State of Colorado: That the request for exemption from the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations and the subdivision laws of the State of Colorado by Bruce Kistler III, Scott Writer, and Emilie Kistler be and hereby are denied. ATIEST:BOARD OF COUMTY COMIT{ISSIONERS GARTIELD COUI\I:IY, COLORADO ty the Chairman Upoa aotioa duIY nr6g vote: CO--i..iOnCrS STATEOFCOLORADO tl Co,uaty of Garfield L .---...-.....- ---.., County.Clerk and cx-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners to end for ihe County ind St"tc afoiesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Order is truly mpied from the Records of tbo Proceedings of the Board of County Commissibners for said Garfield County, now in my office. lN WITNESS UIHEREOF, I havc heterurto 3et my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, th1r....................&y of ....... ..-.. , A. D. 19 ............. County Clerk and cx-officio Clqrk of ths Board of County Commissioners. tsP i.