The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.0 Resolution 80-312STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield v l" At a,,..,,99n.!.+.+.9g.d..., .,..,.meeting of the Board of County Comrnissionerr for Gariieid County, Colorado, Pesemhe- , .Irrll;+rirr*l:'irF"i":r:- t- , : :::I::::r chairman #?ilfi:l- fi::iff i;ffi.iP-; : i; ;: :: : , ::ffi,i:::", .....9..h.9ry.]..,.{..,,....K.9.s.p-.r....!l.gp.t+.Iy................ , crerk or the Board when the followilg proceedings, antcltrg others were had and done, to.r.;it: RESOLUTION NO. 8O- 312 RESOLUTICIN CONCERNED WITH THE DISAPPROVAL OF TTIE SKETCH PLAN SUBMITTAL FOR CARBONDALE LAND DEVELOPMENT COR.PORATIO}I. wllEFtEAS, Carbondale Land Development Corporation has f iled an application with the Planning Department of Garfield County for the approval of a sketch plan of The Compound Subdivision in the Agricul- tural,/Resridential,/Rura1 Density zone District; and WHEREAS, based on the material submitted by the applicant and the cominents of the Garfield County Planning Department, this Board finds as follovrs: 1. That the sketch plan does not conform to Section 4.01, Sketch PIan Reqtrirements, of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution; 2. Ttrat the sketch plan has been reviewed and found not to meet aIl souncl plannirrg and engineering requirements of State and County 1aw; 3. Ttrat the traffic problems related to County Road J-J-z, which is the only public road serving the property, are sufficiently serious that the increased '.ra:fic generatei b1, the p::oposed subdivisi-on would result i-n a substantial d.anger to public saiety if the suboivisircn were alloweo; 4. That Roaring Fork School District has indicated its unwilling- ness to $erve the propose4 tracts, or the access points from the t::acts to Garfie:Id County Road 112 , with public school bus service, and thatin the atrsence of such service the creation of aclditional tracts in the area poses a threat to the public safety and health of both childreninhabiting the proposed divided sites and the safety of other travelers on the strbject roadways i I 5. That the pressure on the Countlr Road 122 in its present condition generated by the additional building sites created by the proposed subdivisj-on which would pose a threat to the safety of travelers on said. County Road 112 may not, within County funding constraints, be alleviated in a manner which would lessen the aforementioned hazard and perrni-t the said roadvray to bear the additional traffic generated by divisi.ons such as that presently before the Board; 6. That one of the grounds for the proposed division is the increasevaiuation of the subject property by approximately five tirnes, which increase in valuation this Board has determined to be irrelevant tothe quesi:ion of subd.ivision of land, in that the increased valuation should have reasonabl]' been foreseen by the present owners of theproperty when purchased and converted from agricultural usei 7. That the argument of the applicants that the division of land would create additional tax revenues for the County is v,'ithout basis, due to ttre increased pressures which would be created for public servi.ce €rs a result of additional population inhabiting the area were the subdivisj.on exemption request approved, rvhich population would denrand additional public services in excess of the tax revenues -- L-jt t--t !t-^ --1.f.: !.: ^--.I nranarli ac.Y U r r<-:! <1 ggL. u J 1 :y 8. That the proposed subdivision constitutes a division ofland which is premature for subdivision, due to the fact that growthpatterns are of such form and physical shape that governmental inef-ficiencies, duprications of raliiities and unnecesia.y pubric costsand financial burdens would result from providing the extension ofpublic services and public support facilities whlch cannot be accom-plished in a pranned, ordered,-or efficient mannei, ina due to thefact that the submittal indicates that services or resources necessaryfor the viability of the proposed subdivision are neither assurednor reasonably certain; 9. That the appticants I argument that they are entitled to themost intensive use permittea by ihe zoning resolution is withoutfoundation due to the fact that this eoari is reguired to examineany proposed division of 1anc1 against the requirements establisheCby statutes relating to the suUdivision of l-and and the GarfieldCounty Subdivision Regulations ; 10. That for the above-stated and other reasons, the proposedsketch plan is not in the best interest of the health, safety, mora1.s,convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of GarfieldCounty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the sketch plan of CarbondaleLand Development Corporation for The compound subdivision be ai;;rr-proved. ATTEST:BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARIIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Commissioners STATE OF COLORADO County of Garfield l" I' """"""""" ..... , County Clerk and ex-offieio Clerk of the tsoard of County Commissioners ln and for the County and state aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foreooinq order is truly cooied from the Records oi thc Proceedings of the Board of Cbunty Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN MTNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, *f-county clerk and ex'officio clerk of the Board of county commissioners.