The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Resolution 80-153STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield sc. iI $ I , t i I :::::::::::h:l[:[il*ti:ffiiliin-iii; ::i:r; : :: : :::: : ::m:::", .....:.:.:.N.an9r...S.pri'.eK...P.eg.g.,....P.e.P.gH , crerk or the Board wbcn tJre following proceedings, among others were had and done' to-wit: RESoLUTToN No- go-153 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DENIAL OF SUBDMSION EXEMPTION REQUEST BY BRUCE KISTLER III, SCOTT WRITER, AND EMILIE KISTLER. WHEREAS, the Board of County Conunissioners of Garfield County has received an application from Bruce xistter III, an application from scott writer' and an application from Ernilie Kistler, for subdivision exemptions relating to tracts of 1and in sE,/4NW/4 of section 23, Township 7 south, Range 88 west of the Sixth Pri.ncipal Meridian; and WIIEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the said applications together with the reconunendation of the Garfield County Planning Di- rector, and has further viewed the site of the proposed exemption and has considered the cirsumstances surrounding the said. subdivision exemption request and the subject proPerty; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Cormnissioners has made the following determina- tions of fact: 1. That the public highway most nearly serving the subject Property, Garfield County Road 1I2, is incapable of safely carrying additj'onal traf f:-c whlch would be gorr"rit"d by the granting of the requested subtlivision exenptions; 2. That Roaring Fork School District RE-I has indicated its unwillingmess to selive the proposed tracts, or the access points from the tracts to Garfield County Road 1I2, with public school bus service, and that in the absence of such service the creation of add.itional tracts in the area poses a threat to the public safety and health of both children inhabiting the proposed divided sites and the safety of other travelers on the subject roadways; 3. That the pressure on the County Road 112 in its Present condition generated by ailditional buil-j-ng sites which would pose a threat to the safety of travelers on said County Road 112 rnay not, withi-n County funding constraints' be alleviated in a manner which would lessen the aforementioned hazard and permit the said roadway to bear the additional traffic generated by ilivisions such as that presently before the Boardi 4. The applicants, individually and jointlyr have effectively attempted the sr:bdivision of the sqbject property Lhrough joint and repeated applications for sub- division exemptions from this Board of County Conunissioners, which requests threaten 'to create a subdivision of the sgbject property with neither public services or safeguards whose provision is the potpo=" of the Garfield county subdivision Regu- lations and Colorid.o law relating to zoning and subdivision control; 5. That the method of disposition adopted by the applicants in this and pre- vious Subdivision exemptions has been adopted for the purposes of evading the Garfield county subdivision Regulations and colorado 1aw relating to subdivision process' due to the fact that the proposed divisions are the part of a larger development plan; 6. That one of the grounds for the proposed division is the i:rcrease valua- tion of the subject property by approximately five times, which increase in valuation ttris 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 present owners of the propertil- .,,.hen purclrased and coi.lver-uec] jrorn agricuitural use; 7. That the argrument of the applicants that the division of land would create additional 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 hrere the subdivision exemption request approved, which population would demand additional public services in excess of the tax revenues generated by the additional ProPerties; 8. That the applicantsr 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 reguire- ments established by statutes relating to the suMivision of land and the Garfield County Subdivision Regulations; 9. That the proposed division of land falls within the purposes 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 thti subject property, because of steep toPo- graphy and potential natural hazards, features, and conditions associated with the subject property, makes the division like1y to be harmful to the health, safety, and welfare of the future residents of the proposed divided lands; 11. That the grrowth 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 Garfield County Subdivision Regnrlations for each and all of the following reasons: a) Trhat 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 larger land development project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\IED by the Board of County Conurissioners of the County of Garfield, State of Colorado: That the request for exemption from the Garfield County Subdivision Regnrlations and the sr:bdivision laws of the State of Colorado by Bruce Kistler III, Scott Writer, and Eurilie Kistler be and hereby are denied. ATIEST:BOARD OF COT]NTY COMMTSSIONERS GARFIELD COUNIY, COLORADO the Chairman upon noti,oa duly rnade -unTSfiSFA*i.Resolution was adoptcd by the following vote Fl aven e SC *:-:*-::.Ii{!:ii- : YF-1 ii-ili uez .....................4ye Coarirrioncrs t, : |: lr-ir STAIEOFCOLORADO t3 Can4y of Galield L ...-............. ..-., County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of tbe Board of Couaty Commissioners !n rod for the County and Statc aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Ordcr is truly copied from the Records ol tho proceedings of the Board of Couaty Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN IIIII\IESS VUHEREOF, I havc hcreunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs' of .................- ' A. D. 19.......'...... County Clerk and ex-officio Clcrk of the Board of County Commissioners. tblr d:w