Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.05.2014Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing Exhibits Roadway Vacation Request for a Portion of County Road 106 (File RVAC-7772) Applicant: Colorado Rocky Mountain School May 5, 2014 Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Proof of Publication 2 Return Receipts from Mailing Notice 3 Photo evidence of Public Notice Posting Public Hearing Notice Form 4 5 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 6 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 7 Application submittals including both Location & Extent and Roadway Vacation 8 Staff Report — Roadway Vacation — dated 5/5/14 9 Staff Presentation — Roadway Vacation 10 Memoranda to the Board from Kelly Cave, Assistant County Attorney 11 Planning Commission Resolution PC 2014-01 12 Draft Vacation Resolution Prepared by the Applicant 13 CRMS Proposed Conditions of Approval 14 CRMS Presentation to the Planning Commission 2/12/14 15 Referral Comments from the Town of Carbondale 16 Referral Comments from RFTA 17 Referral Comments from Carbondale Fire Protection District 18 Referral Comments from County Road and Bridge 19 Referral Comments from Garfield County Sheriff's Office 20 Referral Comments from County Consulting Engineer 21 Referral Comments from Source Gas 22 Referral Comments from CDOT 23 Referral Comments from RE -1 School District — Rob Stein 24 Excerpts from Carbondale Comprehensive Plan 25 Excerpt from Carbondale Parks, Recreation and Trails Comprehensive Master Plan 26 Excerpts from the Hwy 133 Access Control Plan 27 Road and Bridge Utility Permit Email & Correspondence from CRMS 28 Comment Letter from Dale Will 29 Comment Letter from Brad Hendricks 30 Comment Letter from Bill Spence 31 Comment Letter from Patrick and Rae Ann Hunter 32 Comment Letter from Pat Bingham 33 Comment Letter from Sue Edelstein 2/4/14 34 Comment Letter from John Armstrong 35 Comment Letter from John Burg 36 Comment Letter from Sylvia Wendrow 37 Comment Letter from Sheila S. Draper 38 Comment Letter from Teresa Salvadore 39 Referral Comments from Xcel Energy 40 Comment Letter from Elizabeth Murphy Comment Letter from Andrew Braudis 41 42 Comment Letter from Lindsey Utter 43 Email from Dale Will and Attached Rails to Trails Study 44 Comment Letter from Chris Bromley 45 Comment Letter from Nancy Draina Hanrahan 46 Comment Letter from Michelle Greenfield - new 47 Comment Letter from Alexandra and Peter Blake 48 Comment Letter from Faber/Raaflaub 49 Comment Letter from Alleghany Meadows 50 Comment Letter from Chelsea Congdon Brundige 51 Comment Letter from Joe and Debra Burleigh 52 Comment Letter from Jane Hendricks 53 Comment Letter from Jake Menke 54 Comment Letter from Julie Albrecht 55 Comment Letter from Jesse Steindler 56 Comment Letter from Thane Lincicome 57 Comment Letter from Dru Handy 58 Comment Letter from Amy Butowicz 59 Comment Letter from Doug Graybeal 60 Comment Letter from Andrea Marsh 61 Comment Letter from John Armstrong 62 Comment Letter from Sue Edelstein 4/27/14 63 Comment Letter from Bill Spence 4/27/14 64 Comment Letter from Teresa Salvadore 4/28/14 65 Comment Letter from Barbara Dills 66 Staff Report Location and Extent dated 5/5/14 67 Comment Letter from Julia Marshall 68 Comment Letter from Kent Wilson 69 Copies of Letter to the Editor Submitted to County Administration 70 Referral Comments from Qwest Corporation/Century Link dated 5/1/14 71 CRMS Power Point Presentation 72 73 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Updated Public Hearing Exhibits Roadway Vacation Request for a Portion of County Road 106 (File RVAC-7772) Applicant: Colorado Rocky Mountain School May 5, 2014 Continued to June 16, 2014 Exhibit # Exhibit Description 72 Supplemental Staff Update Memo (dated 6/16/14) & attachments 73 Comment Letter from Robert Comey (dated 5/5/14) Comment Letter from Bill Spence (dated 4/27/14) 74 75 Comment Letter from Sue Edelstein (dated 5/8/14) 76 Comment Letter from Stacey Simon (dated 5/20/14) 77 Comment Letter from Debra Burleigh (dated 6/6/14) 78 Comment Letter from Michael Gorman (dated 6/9/14) 79 Comment Letter from Jake Menke (dated 6/6/14) 80 Comment Letter from Nancy Smith (dated 6/9/14) 81 Comment Letter from Edward Tiernan & Christine Worth (dated 6/11/4) 82 Comment Letter from Thomas Delessandri, Colo. Protective Services 83 Photographs from John Armstrong (entered at the public hearing) 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 AVIA EXHIBIT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION Y Please check the appropriate boxes below based upon the notice that was conducted for your public hearing. In addition, please initial on the blank line next to the statements if they accurately reflect the described action. • My application required written/mailed notice to adjacent property owners and mineral owners. Mailed notice was completed on the April 3, 2014. All owners of record within a 200 foot radius of the subject parcel were identified as shown in the Clerk and Recorder's office at least 15 calendar days prior to sending notice. All owners of mineral interest in the subject property were identified through records in the Clerk and Recorder or Assessor, or through other means [list] e Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. ■ My application required Published notice. �l L Notice was published on April 3, 2014. • Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. 1 My application required Posting of Notice. /---/L Notice Notice was posted on the 8t'' day of April, 2014. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public (photos attached). I testify that the above information is true and accurate, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. By: Date: Chad J. _ , 9 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the Colorado Rocky Mountain School Inc. (CRMS) has submitted an Application to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for Vacation of a portion of County Road 106 pursuant to Section 4-108 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. The designated representatives are Michael McCoy, President CRMS, Larry Green and Chad Lee, Balcomb & Green PC. Legal Description: See Attached Exhibit A which includes a description of the County Road 106 Right of Way requested to be vacated. Practical Description: That portion of County Road 106 running through the CRMS campus, approximately 1,223 ft. in length and 60 ft. in width. It is located in the general vicinity of 1493 County Road 106. It extends north from County Road 108 to a point of intersection with Dolores Way in the vicinity of the Satank neighborhood. Description of Request: The proposal is for the vacation of that portion of County Road 106 that runs through the CRMS campus. The right-of-way was closed to vehicular use in 1979 and is used today for pedestrian and bicycle purposes. Alternative vehicular access and pedestrian access is proposed along Dolores Way, a portion of which is located in unincorporated Garfield County and a portion of which is located within the Town of Carbondale. The Property is zoned Rural (R), All persons affected by this action are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to approve, approve with conditions or deny the Roadway Vacation request. The Application may be reviewed at the office of the Garfield County Community Development Department located at 108 8th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. This public hearing has been scheduled for May 5, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. which will be held in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. A resolution to vacate the subject county road right-of-way will be presented at the hearing. Community Development Department Garfield County EXHIBIT A Legal Description CR 106 CRMS Vacation A portion of Garfield County Road #106 being a strip of land Sixty (60) feet in width situated in portions of Government Lot 15, Section 28 and Government Lot 3, Section 33 all in Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, all in Garfield County, Colorado and more particularly described as follows: Said Strip of land being sixty (60) feet in width with thirty (30) feet lying on each side of the following centerline description, the exterior lines of said strip are to be shortened or lengthened to form a continuous strip exactly sixty (60) feet in width: Beginning at a point on the centerline of said County Road #106 also being a point on the northerly limit of the County Road # 108 right-of-way from whence the S1/4 Corner Section 28 bears N06°50'08"E a distance of 1084.18 feet; thence the following three (3) courses along the centerline of said County Road #106, N24°01' 11"W a distance of 316.30 feet; thence 126.69 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet a central angle of 24°11'49" and a subtending chord bearing N11°55'17"W a distance of 125.76 feet; thence N00°10'37"E a distance of 917.07 feet to a point on the southerly limit of that right- of-way as described in Book 681 at Page 692 from whence said S I/4 Corner Section 28 bears S48°02'43"E a distance of 377.76 feet, said strip of land contains 1.89 acres more or less. BALCOMB & GREEN, roc A FULL. SERVICE LAW FIRM SINCE 1953 Via Certified, Return -Receipt Mail: To Whom It May Concern: CHAD J. LEE, ESQ. Direct Dia! 970.928.346S Reception 97O.9'-5.6546 i•iee(balcarnbgreer:.:::'r Please be aware that the Public Hearing that was scheduled for April 7, 2014 has been rescheduled to May 5, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. We have enclosed a Public Notice for the rescheduled hearing. Moiling Address Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. f1 �� By Chad-- dee' E-mail: Glee@balcombgreen.com Glenwood Springs Office Aspen Office COLORADO ROCKY MOUNTAIN SCHOOL COUNTY ROAD 106 VACATION PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET Andrew S. and Rachel J. Braudis 1244 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 Edward M. Tiernan Christine A. Worth Living Trust 1262 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 Amy Butowicz 1234 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 MINERAL OWNERS Mitchell and Lucille Dyer c/o Perry Coryell 427 Lake Loop Drive Kalispell, MT 59901-8705 Maggie Suetta Cockburn P.O. Box 386 Artesia, NM 88211-0386 Gregory A. Forbes 1227 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623-2365 Ad Name: 10064963A Customer: Balcomb & Green Your account number is: 1001205 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE RILE CITIZEN TESRM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD I, Jim Morgan, do solemnly swear that I am General Manager of The Rifle Citizen Telegram, that the same weekly newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, and has ageneral circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than fifty- two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as a periodical under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof, and that said newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly newspaper for the period of I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/3/2014 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/3/2014 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this 05/02/2014. Jim Morgan, General Manager Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 05/02/2014. amela My Commission Expires 1110112015 £Notaub1ic My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the Colorado Rocky Mountain School Inc. (CRMS) has submitted an Application to the Garfield County Board of County Commis- sioners for Vacation of a portion of County Road 106 pursuant to Section 4-108 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. The designated representatives are Michael McCoy. President CRMS. Larry Green and Chad Lee. Bal - comb 8 Green PC. Legal DescristiomSee Attached Exhibit A which in- cludes a description of the County Road 106 Right of Way requested to be vacated. Practical Descnption:That portion of County Road 106 running through the CRMS campus, approxi- mately 1,223 ft. in length and 6011. in width. It is located in the general vicinity 011493 County Road 106. It extends north from County Road 108 to a point of intersection with Dolores Way in the vicini- ty of the Satank neighborhood. Description of Request: The proposal is for the va- cation of that portion of County Road 106 That runs through the CRMS campus. The right-of-way was closed to vehicular use in 1979 and is used today for pedestrian and bicycle purposes. Alternative vehicular access and pedestrian access is pro- posed along Dolores Way, a portion of which is lo- cated in unincorporated Garfield County and a por- tion of which is located within the Town of Carbondale. The Property is zoned Rural (R). All persons affected by this action are invited to appear and state their views, protests or support. If you can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to slate your views by letter, as the Board of County Commissioners will give con- sideration to the comments of surrounding proper- ty owners. and others affected, in deciding wheth- er to approve, approve with conditions or deny the Roadway Vacation request. The Application may be reviewed at the office of the Garfield County Community Development Department located at 108 8th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 401. Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs. Colo- rado between the hours 018:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.. Monday through Friday. This public hearing has been scheduled for May 5, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. which will be held in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs. Colorado. A resolution to vacate the subject county road right-of-way will be presented at the hearing. Community Development Department Garfield County EXHIBIT A Legal Description CR 106 CRMS Vacation A portion of Garfield County Road *106 being a strip of land Sixty (60) feet in width situated in por- tions of Government Lot 15, Section 28 and Gov- ernment Lot 3. Section 33 all in Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, all in Garlietd County, Colorado and more particularly described as follows: Said Strip of land being sixty (60) feet in width with thirty (30) feet lying on each side of the following centerline description, the exterior lines of said strip are to be shortened or lengthened to form a contin- uous strip exactly sixty (60) feet in width: Beginning at a point on the centerline of said County Road *106 also being a point on the north- erly limit of the County Road a 108 right-of-way from whence the S1/4 Corner Section 28 bears N06°50'08'E a distance of 1084.18 feet; thence the following three (3) courses along the centerline of said County Road 9106. N24°01'11'W a distance of 316.30 feet; thence 126.69 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius 01300.00 feet a central angle of 2491'49' and a subtending chord bearing N11 °5597'W a distance of 125.76 feet: thence N00°70'37'E a distance of 917.07 feet to a point on the southerly limit of that right-of-way as described in Book 681 at Page 692 from whence said S1/4 Comer Section 28 bears S48°02'43'E a distance of 377.76 feet. said strip o1 land Contains 1.89 acres more or less. Published in the Citizen Telegram April 3. 2014. (10064963) rs) cS] 11..1 •a 4'U Return Receipt Fee i J ;Endorsement Required) Restrtcted Delivery Fee 1n (Endorsement Required) f�! • Tota m • Sant [r.- • or P( Ctv, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (omestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) Far delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.com,, Postage Certified Fee e e Gregory A. Forbes 1227 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623-2365 PS Form 3800, August 2006 PS Form 3811, February 2004 m ru E3 1.3 Lr"). r-9 0 See Reverse for Instructions Domestic Retum Receipt U.S. Postal Servicelr., C -EI TTIFIED MAIL„., RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www , Postage Certlfed Foe Returr: Receipt Fee 'Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee Endur:serrtent Required) Total F Sent>a itreet, 4 )r PO & City, Ste! $ © Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery tom item 1? ❑ Yes • lien address below: 0 No r IWI D Express Mail i 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise all 0 C.O.D. rlivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 102595-02-M-1540 S SECTION ON DELIVERY Andrew S. and Rachel J. Braudis 1244 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 PS Form 3800, August 2006 See Reverse tor lnstructlons D Agent o Addressee cress different from item 1? 0 Yes delivery address below: 0 No flail 0 Express Mail 1 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise , ail 0 C.O.D. 1, thy' (Extra Fee) 0 Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt U.S. Postal Servicer CEPT'F!ED MAIL.- RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) Postage Certified Fee iii • Rerun Receipt Fee C3 rEndorsement Reoulred) t� Restricted Delivery Fee • ,Endcrsement Required) 0 m-'1 Total Po Sent To r3 I _._ .5eeef. Alp N or PO Bo: City, Staff I Mitchell and Lucille Dyer c/o Perry Coryell 427 Lake Loop Drive Kalispell, MT 59901-8705 PS Form 3800, August 2006 ee everse or ns ructions 102505-02-M-1540 SECTr tv ON DELIVERY c i�� 1:1 Agent 'tinted Name) C.(Date of Delivery :sr different from item 1? AYes livery address below: No ❑ Express Mail 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. try? (EYra Fee) 0 Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt 1025.96-02-M-1640 m 0002 6.248 U.S. Postal Servicetr, CERTIFIED MAIL- RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com;, Postage Certified Fee Retum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Foe rEnaorsement Required) r_1 t41 rota! n t�- Sent TT Street, or PO City S Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 PB,Form 3800, t 2006 tor Instructions PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt ss ti ioNDEW'RV Y 'Printed ) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C.2e' Del/very bees different from item 1? 0 Yes delivery address below: 0 No fail 0 Express Mail 1 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise ail ❑ C.O.D. !livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes U.S. Postal Servicer., €F;TIFIED MAIL,., RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com Postage Certified Fee veturn Receipt Fee raorsement Required) Resu cted Delivery Fee Endorsement Required) Then Postal �:aniro Street, Apt. Na or PO Box No City, State. ZIP :.;yf t u8riN Edward M. Tiernan Trust Christine A. Wortb Living 1262 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 0 oosfmark Here to r SOT : rq ugusr See Reverse tor Instructions 10259502-M-1540 S SECTION ON DELIVERY 11 jj. I i/' ✓l.'"L.p.�v Addnressee (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery iress different from item 1? 0 Yes delivery address below: 0 No 4a11 0 Express Mau i 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise ail 0 C.O.D. !livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 a a 7011 3500 0002 6248 3581 0 3q 3 Wii29 2000 DOSE tai w 7011 3500 0002 6248 3611 gEtvb It WhM PLiT€ lilts atTION ▪ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. e Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. is Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Mitchell and Lucille Dyer c/o Perry Coryell 427 Lake Loop Drive Kalispell, MT 59901-8705 'OMPLETE .4EcTiOON Ohl f7tattRY A. Signature �. �rlOA' c"4" C,- ❑ Agent B. R= • by (;°;Entad Name) C. Date of Delivery D. is delivery addre- different from item 1?,,s❑1p, Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: /GP No 3. Service Type ® Citified Mail 0 Registered 0 Insured Mail ® Express Mail 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article a ansf 70111 3500 00f3a 6248 3598 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt SEhltiEN GtMPLETE 714CS SECTION is Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. si Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. e Attach this card to the back of the maiipiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Edward M. Tiernan Christine A. Worth Living Trust 1262 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 102596.02-M-1540 COMPLETE TFf(S SECTION oN DELIVERY A. Signature 12/1A 21 2 e ❑ Agent 1A,Li k9z B. Received by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery air.lisidetkriry address different from item 1? YES; enter delivery address below: ❑ Yes ❑ No a Service Type ❑ Certified Mail ❑ Registered 0 Insured Mail O Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Nur- (Transfer f; PS Form 3811, February 2004 70113, 35tIl 0002 6248 3628 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1540 • SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: regory A. Forbes 1227 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623-2365 n COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY X ,40-4 Signa9,,.s a� dr diffe m item 1? ❑ Yes ter. eli ery address below: 0 No . In 1 ❑ Agent. ❑ Addressee Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery le n 3. Service Type ❑ Certified Mall ❑ Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article, (Tian) 7011 3500 0002 6248 3574 PS Form 3811, February 2004 SENDFR: COMPLETE THIS SECTION Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1540 • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Articfe'Addressed to: .i Andrew S. and Rachel J.." 3 a � 1244 County Road 10 cc Candale, CO 81623 �J B. Received by ( Printed Name) ❑ Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No twice Type Certified Mail 0 Registered ❑ Insured Mail ❑ Express Mail ❑ Retum Receipt for Merchandise ❑ C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2.; 7011 3500 0002 6248 3635 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595 O2'M 1540' r E ' TIFIED MAL MIEE!!!!1M0 GIEEI!!!!!!EMB m 7011 3500 0002 6248 1 2s1 2 EXHIBIT Board of County Commissioners 5/5/14 Roadway Vacation RVAC-7772 GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS APPLICATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ROW DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: County Roadway Vacation Request for a Portion of County Road 106 Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) Lawrence R. Green & Chad Lee, Balcomb & Green PC Michael McCoy, President CRMS That portion of County Road 106 running through the CRMS Campus, approximately 1,223 ft. in length and 60 ft. in width. A legal description of the right-of-way (ROW) is included in the Application submittals. The ROW is located in the general vicinity of 1493 County Road 106 and extends north from County Road 108 to a point of intersection with Dolores Way in the vicinity of the Satank neighborhood. It runs through the CRMS property known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2393-331-00-012. ZONING: Zoning adjacent to the ROW is Rural (R) I. BACKGROUND — PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION At a public hearing held on February 12th, the Planning Commission considered this Roadway Vacation request. After hearing the Staff Presentation, Applicant presentations, and extensive public input the Commission voted 6 - 2 to forward to the Board a recommendation for denial of the Application. The motion included reference to the Review Criteria contained in Section 4-108 of the Land Use and Development Code and a determination that the Application does not meet Criteria #3 that " ... a satisfactory alternative route for the existing or future County road or public right of way purpose is available or will be provided." The Applicant has prepared proposed draft conditions which are included as an exhibit to the Board's packet and labeled CRMS's Proposed Conditions of Approval. They have also prepared a draft Resolution for the vacation as required by the Land Use and Development Code which is also attached as an exhibit. The proposal is for the vacation of that portion of County Road 106 that runs through the CRMS campus. The ROW proposed to be vacated is approximately 1,223 ft. in length and 60 ft. in width. It is currently used for vehicular access to the CRMS Campus and educational facilities, along with pedestrian and bicycle purposes. Alternative vehicular access and pedestrian access is proposed along Dolores Way, a portion of which is located in unincorporated Garfield County and a portion of which is located within the Town of Carbondale. The Applicant has provided copies of correspondence and minutes from the CRMS request for closure of the roadway in 1979. In summary, at the direction of the Board of County Commissioners this section of County Road was removed from the County Primary Roadway System and restricted to non -motorized traffic at that time. Those discussions resulted in development of Dolores Way as an alternate vehicular route. CRMS and Garfield County cooperated in the establishment of Dolores Way including right-of-way dedications from CRMS. In 2010, the County heard another request to vacate the same stretch of County Road 106. After extensive testimony at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners the Applicant (CRMS) withdrew the Application on April 5th, 2010. VICINITY MAP Dolores Way Alternate Trail County Road 106 ROW through CRMS Property 2 The Applicant's current proposal includes creation of an alternate pedestrian and bike path connection along Dolores Way (see plans included in Application Submittals). The proposed improvements would create a pedestrian connection between the Satank neighborhood and Hwy. 133. The trail connection would also provide improved pedestrian access for students at CRMS and the nearby Carbondale Community School. Information is also provided in the Application demonstrating how this new trail would connect with future trail improvements including those planned for the west side of Hwy. 133. The Application includes a pedestrian and bicycle traffic analysis on use of the existing ROW and includes a conclusion that with the construction of the proposed alternate Dolores Way trail the proposed vacation would not result in degradation to current travel by pedestrian and bicyclists. The Application includes specific responses to the Roadway Vacation criteria as follows: • The Application indicates that this section of County Road 106 does not provide access to public lands (i.e. property owned by the Federal or State government) • The Application indicates that this section of County Road 106 does not abut or connect to any public park, recreational area, or trail. • The Applicant represents that they have committed to provide a satisfactory alternative bike/pedestrian path along Dolores Way. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the Applicant has proposed a revised set of conditions of approval addressing several issues. The proposed conditions include CRMS's commitment to fund and construct the alternate trail alignment and to complete required improvements at the south end of the vacated right-of-way (south entrance to campus) within two years of the approval of the roadway vacation. II. REVIEW CRITERIA & DISCUSSION A. The consideration of the Roadway Vacation request is contingent upon approval of the Location and Extent request and a finding that the request is in general conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. B. The request is being considered in accordance with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-108 Vacation of a County Road or Public Right -of - Way. The Review Criteria are noted below in italics along with staff analysis: C. Overall Criteria Roadway Vacation Review Criteria - Section 4-108 (C) A petition or request to vacate a County road or public right-of-way may be approved so long as it meets the following criteria. However, meeting these criteria does not preclude the BOCC's denial of a petition or application for any other reason. 3 Staff Analysis: This section refers to the specific criteria (noted below) but is also inclusive to allow the Board's denial of a petition or application for any other reason. Accordingly we have included sections in the Staff Report referring to Comprehensive Plan topics and referral comments from a variety of agencies including the Town of Carbondale covering a variety of issues. Pursuant to this section any number of topics can be cited to demonstrate support for the request or the basis for denial. D. Review Criteria 4-108(C)(1) 1. The subject County road or public right-of-way does not provide any access to public lands (for the purpose of this subsection, public land shall mean any property owned by the Federal government or the State of Colorado). Staff Analysis: Pursuant to Roadway Vacation Review Criteria #1, Section 4-108 (C), the section of roadway proposed for vacation does not provide direct access to any public lands (Federal or State). E. Review Criteria 4-108(C)(2) 2. The subject County road or public right-of-way does not abut or connect to any property, including any easement owned by the Federal government, State of Colorado, municipality, County, or special district, where such property or easement constitutes a public park, recreational area, or trail. Staff Analysis: Pursuant to Roadway Vacation Review Criteria #2, Section 4-108 (C) the section of roadway proposed for vacation does not directly abut a public park, recreational area or trail. It is part of a bicycle and pedestrian circulation loop that depending on where travel originates provides for connections to recreational areas or trails (i.e. Rio Grande Trail and Carbondale Gateway Park and river access via County Road 106 and the Satank Bridge, West Main Street Trail south of CRMS, and County Road 108 access to Spring Gulch). F. Review Criteria 4-108(C)(3) 3. The subject County road or public road right-of-way is not currently used nor will it be used in the future for any County road or public right-of- way purpose unless the BOCC makes a specific finding that a satisfactory alternative route for the existing or future County road or public right of way purpose is available or will be provided. Staff Analysis: In regard to Roadway Vacation Review Criteria #3 the Applicant has proposed an alternate route in lieu of the right-of-way proposed for vacation. A determination of adequacy and a finding that a satisfactory alternative route is available or will be provided is required in order to meet the criteria. 4 • The Applicant's proposed trail alignment is detailed in the Application submittals with an excerpt inserted below. It calls for an 8 ft. wide bike path, some landscaping and fencing improvements, driveway crossing delineation/striping, with some sections detached from the roadway. The Applicant's proposed conditions of approval now include commitments for funding and constructing the alternate trail alignment and provisions to ensure agreements are in place regarding maintenance of the trail. Dolores Way Alternate Trail Plans • The County has received public comments outlining the ongoing use of the right-of- way through the CRMS campus and expressing concerns regarding future use should the vacation be approved. Public comments also expressed reservations regarding the timing and design of the future trail along the west side of Hwy 133 which is an essential component of the Applicant's alternative trail route. Concerns regarding the character of the Hwy 133 trail and the number of driveway crossings have also been noted. 5 • In regard to the alternate trail proposals put forth by the Town of Carbondale including additional road right-of-way dedication for a realignment of the Dolores Way intersection with Hwy. 133, significant questions remain regarding implementation such as construction funding, maintenance, timing, details on alignments, and right-of-way/easement dedications. Resolution of these topics warrant additional coordination between the Applicant and the Town of Carbondale. • Based on its review the Planning Commission formalized a recommendation to the Board for denial of the Roadway Vacation based on a failure to meet this Approval Criteria, Section 4-108(C)(3). G. Other Considerations The Applicant has provided extensive information on campus safety including public testimony, comment letters, and a supplemental consultant report prepared by Firestorm Solutions titled Colorado Rocky Mountain School Summary Report Review of Easement Exposure (Tab B of the Application). III. GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Designates the CRMS property surrounding the County Road 106 ROW as Urban Growth Area for the Town of Carbondale. That portion of the property adjacent to the Crystal River also has a Flood Plain and Greenway Trail Designation. Details on the County Comprehensive Plan are contained in the Section 111 of the Location and Extent Staff Report dated 5/5/14 and attached as an exhibit to the Board's Packet. IV. TOWN OF CARBONDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Excerpts from the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan have also been included in the Commissioners packet with a focus on Chapter 3 Multi -Modal Mobility. Figure 3.3 from this Chapter is shown below and includes the location of the County Road 106 ROW proposed for vacation in relation to other trails and multi -modal corridors. The plan identifies critical issues and notes "Another challenge is creating connections with the existing trail and pathway network between critical destinations such as schools, downtown, and the Third Street Center". The CRMS property is also shown in the Comprehensive Plan as a Significant Parcel in Figure 4.33 and in the Phase 1, Potential Annexation Infill Area on Figure 4.34. Referral comments from various Town Boards and Commissions have been submitted and are addressed in the Referral Comments section of the Staff Report. Excerpts from the Carbondale Parks, Recreation, and Trails Comprehensive Plan are also included in the Commission's Packet (see attached Exhibit). Highlights were added by the Town representatives indicating key trail connections in the area of the CRMS campus. Both the County Road 106/Main Street Trail and the Crystal River 6 Market Place Trail from Main Street to Highway 133 are relevant to the discussion of alternate trail connections. Dolores Way Trail EXCERPT FROM CARBONDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CR 106 ROW Alternate Trail Alignment (behind Hwy 133 Properties) Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings P(iaiir Mvumodat Coa dors am Fars Corr>,caions 0 Crnui+gs •1 Tbwn Boundary Svsw - Putfic R.crasbon Land - Courtly Roads 1111X /111 V. REFERRAL AND PUBLIC COMMMENTS A. The Town of Carbondale was a referral agency for this Application and they provided extensive referral comments (see attached exhibits). Comments are summarized as follows: • Town Board of Trustees: The Town requested that the BOCC exercise its discretion to deny the request and preserve the present county right-of-way unless certain items were addressed. Considerations they requested to be addressed include: a) provision of utility easements on the original ROW; b) pedestrian/bicycle access on the old ROW with night-time restrictions or in a to be determined alternate alignment (east side of the CRMS campus behind the commercial properties on Hwy 133); c) improving the alternate route with a paved bike path; and d) maintaining emergency vehicle access along or near the original ROW. In addition the Town noted the request for CRMS to consider additional right-of-way dedications to facilitate potential future relocation of the Dolores Way/Hwy 133 intersection further south. • The Town also provided comments and input from their Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Commission which are attached to the Town's referral letter. B. Other Referral Comments: Comments from other entities are included as Exhibits and summarized below. 1. Utilities: The Application submittal contained referral comments from all affected utility providers. Additional referrals were provided to the utilities as part of the County's Review process. In general utility providers requested preservation of the utility corridor including creation of appropriate easements. One utility provider was still in the process of confirming locations of their installations. Utilities providing input and maintaining facilities in the existing County Road ROW include: • Century Link • Source Gas • Town of Carbondale (water and sewer) • Xcel Energy 2. RFTA: The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) commented on the need for bike and pedestrian connections and supported the Town of Carbondale requests for alternate routes and potential additional ROW Dedications. 3. Carbondale Fire Protection District: Comments from the District were included in the Application Submittal with supplemental referral comments also provided. The District has requested clarification/correction to a number of addressing issues and described the emergency access route through the CRMS Campus. Gated access ways provide for Fire District access through Knox Box Padlocks or a coded electronic gate. 4. Garfield County Sheriff: The Sheriff's Department supported the vacation request noting improvements to the emergency response to the school and surrounding areas. 8 5. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Provided comments noting the need to establish responsibility for maintenance of the proposed Dolores Way Trail Extension (County Road and Bridge is not currently equipped for trail maintenance) and provided the vacation request moves forward CRMS will need to bring their south access up to County Standards. 6. CDOT: Comments received from CDOT did not support the vacation request indicating that Dolores Way inadequately provides connectivity in the future. Acquisition of other right of way was recommended to ensure good public connectivity for the future. Also included as an exhibit are excerpts from the Hwy 133 Access Control Plan which contains information relevant to alternate transportation modes, and roadway connectivity. 7. Garfield County Consulting Engineer: Mountain Cross Engineering commented on the need to confirm that additional utility locates from Century Link had been obtained and whether addressing issues have been resolved. 8. RE -1 School District: Comments from the school district supported the Applicant's request noting school safety concerns. C. Adjacent Property Owner & Public Comments: Letters from neighboring property owners and other interested parties have been received by the County and included as exhibits for your review and consideration. The letters received did not distinguish between the Location Extent and Roadway Vacation review so they have been included as exhibits to both public hearings. The general themes from public comments received at the Planning Commission's public hearing are summarized below. An audio transcript can also be reviewed at the County's Web Site under Planning Commission past meetings, February 12, 2014. •. General Safety Concerns— changing environment and trends in school safety. • Extensive usage of the current alignment by diverse population and citizenry. • Proximity of the right-of-way to facilities including dorms, classrooms, dining and student activity across the right-of-way. • Other options for the school to improve safety should be considered and address how open the campus is in terms of overall safety and other points of access. • The school as a valuable part of the community, desirable programs and outreach. • Alternate route adds distance to some trips, isn't convenient for certain connections such as County Road 108/109 to the Rio Grande Trail and Roaring Fork River. • Concerns regarding strangers on campus during nighttime hours and the need to control access to campus at night. • Character of the alternate route is perceived as not as safe or as pleasant with more traffic and the potential for future driveway crossings along Hwy 133. • Safety for students and families is important for student recruitment and success. • Work on a better plan with community, create another safe option. 9 VI. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION OPTION 1: Disapproval The Planning Commission recommended denial of the Roadway Vacation Request based on the Section 4-108 (C) Review Criteria #3 that a satisfactory alternative was not provided for the vacated right-of-way. Action on the part of the Board to deny consistent with the Commission's recommendation would require a motion of the Board including reference to the suggestion disapproval findings noted below: Suggested Findings for Denial 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Roadway Vacation request for a portion of County Road 106 has been determined to not be in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. 4. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Roadway Vacation request for a portion of County Road 106 has been determined to not be in compliance with the Review Criteria contained in Section 4-108(C) of the Land Use and Development Code, as amended. OPTION 2: Approval with Conditions This option is most effectively implemented through the following two steps based on review and consultation with the County Attorney's Office. Additional detail is provided in a separate memo from the County Attorney's Office and included as an exhibit to the Board's Packet. Step One: Formalizing a motion and subsequently a resolution for approval subject to conditions noted below including a condition that the Roadway Vacation shall not become effective until such time as the Applicant provides evidence to the Board of County Commissioners that all conditions of approval have been met including construction of the alternative trail. A two year period is suggested for completion of all conditions of approval. Step Two: Upon receipt of evidence of completion of all conditions of approval the Board would approve a final Resolution vacating the County Road right-of-way. 10 Suggested Findings for Approval The following findings support a decision for approval. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, approval of the Roadway Vacation request for a portion of County Road 106 is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the application is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. 5. That the application is in conformance with the Review Criteria contained in Section 4-108, Vacation of a County Road or Public Right of Way of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code as amended, subject to compliance with conditions of approval including the provision of a satisfactory alternative route for existing or future County Road or public right of way purpose. Suggested Conditions of Approval The following conditions of approval as prepared by Staff are provided for the Board's consideration in implementing this approval option. 1. The Board's approval is based upon the representations of the Applicant contained in the application submittals and made during the Board of County Commissioners public hearing and said representations shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. The utility corridor along the current right-of-way alignment shall be maintained and easements established for existing utility providers, as well as for future utilities so long as said future utilities are reasonably consistent with the current utilities in place, and are underground. Written easements shall be prepared by the Applicant, and reviewed and accepted by each existing utility company, the Town of Carbondale, and the County Attorney's Office each of whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The easement shall be subject to additional utility location surveys including but not limited to surveys currently being completed by Century Link. 3. CRMS shall formalize an Agreement with the Town of Carbondale and Garfield County ("Agreement") setting forth the terms and agreements associated with additional trail improvements to be constructed along Dolores Way, as said trail improvements are 11 consistent with the drawings submitted by the Applicant. CRMS shall provide any additional right-of-way dedications as necessary for creating the trail. The trail shall connect from the north end of the County Road 106 right-of-way being vacated to the existing trail within the Town limits on Dolores Way. The Agreement shall formalize maintenance responsibilities for the new trail segment by an appropriate entity other than Garfield County. 4. CRMS shall dedication a trail easement along the east side of the CRMS Campus behind the Commercially Zoned property along Hwy 133. The easement shall connect Dolores Way with Main Street west of Hwy 133 and shall be a minimum of 20 ft. in width adequate to accommodate a minimum 8 ft. wide trail. 5. CRMS shall dedicate a new minimum 20 ft. wide access easement on the original County Road 106 right-of-way which easement and related dedication documents would set forth terms for allowing pedestrian and bicycle access during normal daylight hours and would set forth CRMS's rights to further limit access as may be necessary to ensure safety of the CRMS campus. 6. The Applicant shall fund and construct the Dolores Way alternate trail consistent with the drawings submitted by the Applicant in its Application, together with all associated improvements. 7. The Applicant shall address referral comments from the Carbondale Fire Protection District and Garfield County Sheriffs Office regarding clarification/changes to addressing for emergency response and shall maintain a signed emergency access route through the campus. Access to the campus shall continue to be assured through the use of Knox Boxes and provision of access codes for any gates located on the emergency access route. 8. The Applicant shall apply for and receive an Access Permit from the County Road and Bridge Department for the southerly campus access onto County Road 106/108 and complete all required improvements. 9. The Applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence that all conditions of approval have been met no later than two years from the date of this resolution of conditional approval. Upon receipt of satisfactory evidence that all conditions have been met, the Board of County Commissioners shall execute and file for recording a resolution vacating the portion of County Road 106 Right-of-way as requested in the Application. Prior to said action the right-of-way shall remain in place and the Applicant shall maintain the current level of public access through the historic County Road 106 right- of-way. If said evidence is not provided within two years the Conditional Resolution of Approval shall be void. 12 VIEWS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY South Entrance Additional views of the right-of-way are attached to the Location and Extent Staff Report dated 5/5/14 and included with the Board's Packet. 13 IVI (J 1 j f I TA lf c SCHOOL COIJNTY it Cr w 0 u Roadway Vacation Request EXHIBIT Colorado Rocky Mountain School 1 u0 U) ,_ -.V: (f) ..' cci° E.EJ 7. g o C Ebo 75 ciz cu �0 cn (75 �U •+5J(.� +.A i4-, — cn -i-; r -J cr) ,te- CU aCI) cn te, VS cu U.� c v E �—+ Q v 0 c75 0 r'.� M CZ 0 4-a CICS0 u '-' c,c5 7-j 4 ' '4—' 77-1) -F-' ()) ;! � u ct ��-+ Cr) > 0 I O ;-"-c5 �-, c1_'. cn Ou o N 0� u0`+-'� c�� cCCZ � U T4 ii cu .4-41.-4 ` � c" . '� 0 MI v iffc u .5p0,4_4:_61) bc, mu H g 0O ,((fZ) t U o 2 ;) FtiL ;) .: cZ 0 • '4 �.,cnw N c� 0.. v cz :a' cf) a.) tii"' e-,`"-- uis *4-, (-) ,-. >-cf) ct) &T:j � �44 CD .4 O407 o v0 >UHH7dUQHU<—ci.'7/)OU U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tiC '+ m. tit ,7.-4 a, o CC w o O •� rd C -1n CU 4 0 v p• •O cls 0 oU foo o2 au 4_'O ?-" cI . ct u o N CU Ch4 1.5) A• cu u o cr cu oau 4 . 7-4 0NEl c1.4 U cv-ri cu r1;1 • m4 -J • k -P4 T -Cr (1) 0'Ct CO tXt C75 O 5.4 k/ Ct :N � a'# .� ct Cr) CI) a) 4_0 „7„, ,L) 00 4-J kt CU CU "ti E 0 cu II01t ,cnU?ct vim ct 0El .O�.,pO •0.U�.�°� p., 0 • 0 ucu �H c� �U E� o� v o b� u p p 0 E 6") Uv uu�,� ittO ¢+v,_, �- 7 o•r-4 ma. "C5 CU ) oQ u CICS .1C, •U ;_4 4J u 4-4 • t15 0 ci) cu 4, 0 v� cuE cu 7,1 O _ 0 v cn cu O �, u u o Zoo cucucu cu H "-(74 -x o Juv b1 • CU O N cu 7:5c� • Hcu cuo ctS H - U a, ooQ u v _ J O v 0 c O o u) cu u � ccs 0°0�1 u cu p .}.0 u w 0 • U u u w-ci 0 a, v • cO bA E cLui ,.� Ual 7 v 3° El 0 `U (ICS bA • as O E "77O cicl 4 z v '41-4arcj, ct o -0ora, u V ccS a, Uo �o vvc1) C7 0 U • 0 O vUo;1 O o 0�0 175 4-j U 0 0 7:5.0 O O cv Ei75 c) '�Qo cu cL; O ) O0c Q U el Ncu � biD O O CU u a) o `n • cin rt 4 � � 0r(2): -.5,t N ›-,vv bt} uv a) 0 • Q-, the school district ty concerns. O cn cn to 0 cn 0 � �11)1 .1 - V U ES. a U -II1 o� o:_, •�,0 cnu C7c0 N .. � u 2 O ccj ,-TD • b0 av E u 0 V ¢• t • r '5 cn m cu . r. � � N • -4 cz5 O 0 a) cn ccs ,-n"0'� U '� , f, -l-J "0 ' cn,�p V ccs %4-4 ccs V, '5 M Cr).M cn 0 X �, , O v '--, ccs r+ 3 o o o o 0 CZ W-4 -c5 05 0 coO 79 cn u ,� N ccs E N O °r c, O v �.., CZ ccs LJ v oO,4'O v • -r v • v-,w'.,n cn � O cri (-, •,rr_, a) 0 .� • _ O 3 V �, .+' cn cn O cn '0cu a)b1J .' 3 0 0 0 v 5 v N O r, as ,.,'ZS . ,-4 4-1 CU e—I cn .G� OV0 cn ��4,,-sem �'cu 7'� � �w.... '� 76 -D N r u' U Q" •� 7:1 .btJ z-' -+-, Q-, ,--, c� ccs .� cn ¢, a 504, u ��+, U N a) D acicl s V Ti O ct v LU 0 (t v-0 cn O v• O ^, O� 0 0.) O ccs es (I) v CZ .� 0 ¢,, c2� v . ".I 0 u C O r-, O .+� 4 �' • --+ v ; 0 f)n v � •,- ,E U .4-, ,. cuasbA b4 X ° ;.-4 U e.: ti). 0.2 4 ,�Op p04 '-'f•-)-- E oo� 0) T.) U 4 C.)4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O c;1 u x.65 a)cu 0 cu cn cu cu -e)+. r. �(75 V 44-1 U.��3 •� ;�, bo co O a/ •,-, cn w > •V X u� ce) p CI)O cu U . o o•_ :44 74 cn J LI p p N ci) cu '° cu v U0 u, -OU v +'w • u p bo v ctS '—' gr� O 4J X .? v CU ...TA cu Uo 4-4 • cc$ 0T4 Ocn , oCU • Ua H .r, cts bIJ M •-CU •- E CU •� ‘r--.) 0 I (75 CU •0 E ' U 3• � • o u u a) • ,74 e, o c H v, .0 O -c#4!.).1 TUU cCY � •moa) CU N • O CH • ti r, 1--1 U • Cn c4 u •� cu „tyi O cu ^p • O a CU Or o•;�s CL) tz coCD -' r- 0 O o a 0 0 Z O O C L`i J , N :•• ••• , o.' N eL • 1, 'V `ti eL ...4 -� O O O e� N.ti U'N ;.1.".-• ",:".•_•. ti ��� CI O e6)0 U �O ti —4l'1 N • N GQ . U (I) 4.4 cn %) N C >) �• OC) O'� O U 0. C O b0 v O N O_ CO Z: wcS 161 •N��•NN�� oUZt o bo v, o, o r N rL Com, (i) C 4-4 C tip � O- • N �`�' i � O Nu ��, "4.'1 Ute^ UvU�O.tio M Tliar. boo 4;z1 O Z./j4 • N 4) cn 4-) ?•. L.; (t,, 7,- ' H is •p ., O N ~zts� ft N N M C.11: 0 0 co 4 • •T.1 'N 14,4 ot O • • N.l 0 ricu O 0 =, .- •� •CID �6r-1 •� 0 Cn cu O 0 -+-, 01.4;1u 4-jc . i . . -,'Y' E 1 • •-, CU ""; • cz cI V) a,1 +, 0 CI) 1;i e iu • ,, t' R Cn ci i. • po 0 z 'V N •' o 0 a4 0 Cr0 .—CiCCICF] •E "ci•c4 a) O , co •� 0 %.4..4 . a;-4 cu Ct � O c t 'O , L.. t 2 O U O 5 .0: � - O > v0 0 ,,%) cn.� a) CJ 001' . 4L2t,..L., • Ta.7, "4::.,,,,::) ...„) ,..••_•._...„ ,...z t ,P -A ,..z, v-T471b . ZA r-4 :).4 �. - 4.) ' _'�O 78 O v' '�litt U E'"`�oU < c o O Ct '-lt E t4._, it 0 CU 1Z cf) Cubl as � N ^ `nom O CU CT.; 4.4 N 21-,p cn- ('U oCK) u)Z0� •.s>cuc v Tzt �� o U Uo. .2 4c), 1•7 0 a) gi ccp, .v.i c4_, t).04,:,_, t,, ;.. ci.) cl, c..) cl'i ,•,L..-,) › , c44)� 4.4v CI) �'� •Ncl, cu al . r."4 U C4CZ 0PI 4.,%...U ✓ (C5 U (� ct• 0 O -►.� -pi ,N � �0 0 0 c ai 0 ct 0 CL) ...0 — Et -1 "rli ci �"'4-4 4� 4a'ccS > v O O 0U) _,, � o.��O��ztt v '� -4..,a5 o.,� o It "' -44 ' °�.' }moi { a' ,�1 (j) cn cc; 74 t x44 Cn S~ .. ks) H 0 I 1 4_1N Cn Roadway Vacation Review Criteria - Sectio tO_C o o •�'u r_, vv0"i semi u 0J �G •' v c uv ozlU-. � i cn 00c� G'" 5013 Hvv0 bc1 ›-,v• E� v b1J cn �+ • C— 0 .� az O O G E O as J 4_1 X0" v t u '—'-Gur � ,Ste, a5 <1(K5 J i-• r G EOLU O O as as oTi O d" O cou o U 0 _ TJ O Ct c c c c/) New 0 � v O ci) `O ct5 1111 .74) � a o �., oo v 4 .� .- O 4L5 (;:_04 u4 0 ai c_10 cn 0 0 79d co cn a) ;-, • '4'4 75 r• 0 c-4-4 cn '4e-.) • ,-.1 . 2 72, ,.," 4c-,), 72, 4.-',0 E 0 .4,7)J 7:5 a) ,_ v -K -i "-) E •,4-2, a) (/) 4-) . C-14 0 to a) cz5 '" ° ro c') cl) U tit) 4t P 4 - E.4-) ,, -4--e cu cz5 cf, cn cz5 4 (i) a) 0 0 cl),• T21 -e- 0 4-J ;_4 _c Tii °= a� 'tfo , p - o ,-0 U ;. a) co .2 Ei < 4a' 7:i 46 .74 cf) • ,-4 4) a) a) •-4 a) • . • r -i > • 4.-) ;••, > cz > p u (1) -) ;1•4 E 2ct • (7)b4J -+ (4) .5 cl., o �a ' , 1:412 1 u ,,, ° o ma —1 8 , .+--+ • r moCO �'44 -� 'a' ct 1-- ;-.4 • ,-4 1 -Ci 1-1 > 0 4 .2 0 f_da) '' o rzl u Pti 4.J = .- va, v,4 (1) 2 ‘-`4 ':4) "ci E rti 2i., 4 -4_, (J) al 1%-i 0 ;- m H 7,8 ,,a) •4•J u ..4_1 u (t,,, , j 5 u) O n cn i > GQ = OPTION 1: El 0 1-4 U � N CU cz5 Oc�Q"' . — '-C .� v+U+ E u� t U E1 O a' bAO0 (1) CU as O � U O '� cn U r E U • E U 4-0 V)0 rU CD T. 0 (3 .44 U� O O r- 72, O O C� C.50 U 111 v � O OU 4_, • 0O o 412 ci, cn vTi CLP- -• CI • -CI• • O c75 O ou� �' ;. -7J co ,-4 v 0�CO CO CL) � 4 raq "J c' (_ (/) 0•� co u ;,•- -4-0 I 4-P 0 Approval with Conditions z 0 0 bt 1 O .4J O O O� 14 4)4 CU •O ct 5u v (I) a) Ci.) 174) 00a.; •,`=4) v 3O • I t 10 0 v E c14 o cu cu �3 0 O (1)ctS j ;_4 ;-4 CU OO ou �'� 4 � u •N u CI) -4-0 au u 71Z.o�•� ^c�0cu0 p0•"CS tAD Cao b.0 � �v u� cc5 4< 0 O 11. o a)0� cu O Ora o v4 MI� 1:11.1= O • CU C115� CU 0 � `5U Z) CU O (u� 0 0 a 0 a biD • CZ a a 0 a • v cts • 0 CU Q) 0 0 C:).O U ¢io �U O '.O CU 0 u O U.)4 3�� ti) - a 43 -4c -t' E as Ocn„ U a 0 O� 0 as a r- v CO --1 ) 4.54 O c ccs a 41 a 0 E-4ucn a O c‘l as �a C75 O ° o CZ v czs u� cn (ncm) U cu 7:5 C a O o o as• 0(i) U v a`.�' O • 0 u O O o • ors cu � o� 0 (1) a 173' p:s4tiH Cr) as a a a 0a •• O �-i O O Cu CZ ra bfJ HCZ Ch c ,-, vi .- N 0 '� b1J .� c T� p O a. v '.O '4 b� u, >, , E E V a/ '' '—' a5 0 ci.) ,.-..-C >-, Q 5 —. c V c -LC 1) ,C) ; .4 a) 2 ..... ;,_, (f) U -cn '>U iV• NOr. -. cnOccs - -' a.p O O & 0 8.- — >�..0 � 3 r N, 4, r, ., "774 0 N v cZ cz cn •-. c4 8 ' X `,--) O C N CZ " C3 >, 4-1 Opo 3�^ U3. U v0 v��, ccS Gs"'� Cta tt-i09.� O�Uc�'T��%4-74�, ate'• a) 2 o ctT �v cu `l boC"_Zmax= N��cn���'�5 ,oa .S�cn (- 4.— pasti0 CL).0 G•'" �0u)•=v,-Nab �0�, �V Ti x., '6102,_,• cn 0 0 "r-1 (I) co v.�, u p ' O >bz 8u 'p v i'' � , ct a, 3 E - v ct "� 745cC ,. 4) cu .4_,•,, CP -4 , ' N C 0 "C3 x • v ' , s''., O' O.cnN�NO.'� ct+,acn�r-'Na. �Gp'r �3cCi4. r z `4 c, -E1/3) ct '1 T,,t2_,t, ._.0,-(3 t..Ba ',6u__ 2,, 4,-t 'i%) ,r-1 u c� �, '-' "0 CA p .�, •� O &.-- 0.) u CI) E � a cf.) bJJ.^, Cn aua,� a,�a�vcz HI CIS as Pn 5�0°°u U�.533.Q°') UUP i U�7zU M Recommended r- 412 V O 9,1 cn (13 0 — -4 v CZ/ CD 7r,o . O cu o~ O �. cu cf) V • .� O ¢,, u crS u v stx 0 - u�btJ+ �8 0 ›. as �' O 'vCa v �Ilph r.�c�3oU N 4N r v }.40U cnCuCU0 cu as cz 14;.r"N ��o "iOs, oc 0 .—,- 4- O s+E 0u (J) �, — ¢, •'-' ;,4 rwCCS ;-I c r v ter,,, ;'' (/)+-e O u .0 Q) 2 '�0 ,—'v,41 im tuUov¢,O 4y(bOfa, <ESOO O s.O _40)�› OOucn pq v E•-4 U ct Roadway Vacation Review Criteria - Section 4-108 (C) p.' oJ O . CI) ,..ZG (:: • 4. U G v" a. �� • U Q6)G p.) (1), • N 41.4 ". :::: "tt a , (a -4-..z,-4-,, (--) -� a , ti G , .1I -moi 4. bO G ,- , ; ,„ r,:, , ,) ..., ,., N . _G4.., . ct ••�� z U .,..t ,.._...: N �G„.. G O GNa Z ,S... ,—,t) O U O O O 4.4 0 -4.: ti".1N..I •N U -4... , . -4-' O a, p C �` cn , O G �+-� 0� U rZt • ti '4-1 O O. N Z.: `O ��c1 c%) "Z ti G , - • b0 U N 2 '� '� LL • N C ti O cn ' i ;�, r�O p� . yam" G v -L, O L” 4 G ,� cn ti O CO w; O p p ' "4, r G .-0 Z. O U �-. •Z-.1". 1 '- b�- N N O pj p C-t--J-Z:.., Z- Ci' V •""6:° (19 E•ewi N �r OU Cj CZ' G ' cn 4� O O �•e- v•� N v (2) •••'s v '- Zi • a `0 (2) �ti O O •ti ti O b y ULA ��;� ��;•,� �``�p p) '� O O O �U'a O GU G U O N D, O Z �G 0,� N U -4-4,�, 4. G• - cn y G4-4 �'p 46., r...1 dog. �� �, "� =• •e".s =NUS .moi • o '� N • '� . ,..i, ' " ;� o N .N U '..' tf)ev 04�p� O N � � O �N 6 UUvNZU�OPo eL cn 4/ p�.) p?► cn • N Cf) ": • O • �G "--41cU ,•a 0 '..� o o N C) o 2, tU E-+ tic o Garfield County MEMORANDA TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Kelly Cave, Assistant County Attorney DATE: May 5, 2014 RE: Location and Extent Appeal and Proposed Roadway Vacation of CR 106 In anticipation of the Board of County Commissioner hearing scheduled for May 5, 2014, staff asked me to summarize the legal issues presented with Colorado Rocky Mountain School's ("CRMS") request to vacate CR 106 located on the school property. Process for Vacation The vacation of a roadway requires: 1) approval of location and extent (L&E) review under Garfield County's Land Use and Development Code ("LUDC") Section 4-111 and C.R.S. Section 30-28-110(d); and 2) approval of vacation of a County road or public right of way under LUDC Section 4-108. Under C.R.S. 30-28-11.0 and the LUDC, a location and extent review provides the County an opportunity to review and approve or disapprove a proposed public project in relation to the County's Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to LUDC Section 4-111(A), "Location and Extent Review of certain public an quasi -public projects is mandated by State law including, but not limited to, C.R.S. Section 30-28-110, 22-32- 124(1)(a) and 22-32-124(1.5)(a). In the event of any conflict between these procedures and applicable State law, State law shall govern." The CAD's office interprets this language to require approval of an L & E as compelled by State law in the vacation of a roadway. Procedural History On February 12, 2014, the Planning Commission denied CRMS's application for a location and extent pursuant to C.R.S. Section 30-28-110(1)(d) and LUDC Section 4-111. The Planning Commission determined that the project is not in general conformance with the Comprehensive MEMO — Glenn Hartmann April 28, 2014 Page 2 Plan. The Planning Commission also motioned to recommend denial of the roadway vacation request under LUDC Section 4-108. Appeal of L&E Denial Hearing The first public hearing on May 5, 2014 will be in regards to the appeal of the L&E. Pursuant to C.R.S. Section 30-28-110(1)(b), in case of disapproval by the Planning Commission, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") of the county in which the public way is located. The BOCC has the power to overrule such disapproval by a vote of not less than a majority of its entire membership. BOCC Procedure Procedurally, the BOCC shall first consider whether to deny the L&E. If the BOCC upholds the Planning Commission's decision to deny the L&E, the roadway vacation hearing shall be cancelled. If the BOCC overturns the Planning Commission's decision to deny the L&E, the roadway vacation hearing shall proceed. Roadway Vacation Hearing In the event that the BOCC approves the appeal of the L&E, the second public hearing shall be in regards to the roadway vacation. LUDC Section 4-108(4) provides that the BOCC review and decision shall be considered a legislative act. Subsection (5) provides that the BOCC may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application or take any of the following actions: a) continue the hearing to receive all relevant information within 90 calendar days; or b) modify or alter the resolution presented by the applicant by motioning the staff to make such alterations. Such motion shall also include a continuance to allow staff to revise the resolution and present it in final form as part of the continued Public Hearing. Subsections 5(c) and (d) state that no rights shall vest in the vacated right-of-way until final action has occurred by the BOCC by resolution at a Public Hearing, signed by the chair pursuant to motion and recorded with the Clerk and Recorder. Possible Two Step Process for Resolutions In the Event Road Vacation Approved The vacation of CR 106 will require several conditions to allow for timely construction, payment, and maintenance of a satisfactory alternate route as required by LUDC Section 4-108(C)(3). CAO's office recommends completion of the alternate route in a timely manner prior to final vacation of CR 106. As such the CAO's office recommends signing two (2) resolutions to allow for adequate proof of completion of the alternate route. The first resolution would provide conditional approval of the vacation upon satisfactory evidence of completion of the conditions of approval within a two (2) year time period. If the conditions of approval are not timely completed, the conditional approval of the vacation would be void. Upon satisfactory evidence of completion of the conditions of MEMO — Glenn Hartmann April 28, 2014 Page 3 approval, the applicant would return to the BOCC for final approval and signing of a second resolution formally vacating CR 106. MiliffiliffilleinPrAiglIMINVICILMOSIKV111111 Reception#: 848029 104/09/2014 ofRec Fee:$PJean r 0.00DocFee:0.00GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF GARFIELD )ss. At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room at the Garfield County Plaza Building, 108 8th Street, in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, on Wednesday, the 12th day of February, 2014, there were present: Bob Fullerton John Kuersten (absent) Sean Martin Greg Shaner Greg McKennis Keith Lammey Stephen Damm Michael Sullivan Eric Rudd Wendy Haskins Kelly Cave Brooke Wiening , Commissioner, Chairman , Commissioner, Vice Chair , Commissioner, Secretary , Commissioner , Commissioner , Commissioner , Commissioner , Associate Commissioner , Associate Commissioner , Associate Commissioner , Assistant County Attorney , Clerk to the Commission when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to wit: RESOLUTION NO. PC -2014- ® j A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH A LOCATION AND EXTENT APPLICATION FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 106 (CASE NO. LAEA-7811) Recitals A. Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado for which the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to act. B. Pursuant to law, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County has appointed the Garfield County Planning Commission (the Commission). C. Colorado Rocky Mountain School Inc. (CRMS) the "Applicant", has applied to the Planning Commission as Case No. LAEA-7811 (the "Petition") for Location and Extent Review for the pro- posed vacation of portions of the County Road 106 Right -of -Way. The proposal requests vacation of that portion of the right-of-way that extends through the CRMS campus, approximately 1,223 ft. in length and 60 ft. in width extending from County Road 108 to a point of intersection with Dolores Way. D. The affected right-of-way is located in the general vicinity of 1493 County Road 106 and is more fully described on the attached Exhibit A. 4 ril"'.lr.' iM FEL Q°116fMIVR AlfdUWre TM ;'ISM ®III Reception#: 848029 04/09/2014 03:19:06 PM Jean Alberico 2 of 4 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO E. Pursuant to Section 4-111 (C) of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended, and C.R.S. § 30-28-110(1)(d) the Commission is required to review the location and ex- tent of the road vacation to determine whether the road vacation and improvements are in general conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan of 2030, as amended (the Comprehensive Plan) and its Master Plan. F. In accordance with state law, the Planning Commission has adopted a Master Plan. The Master Plan applicable to this Petition is the Comprehensive Plan. G. The Commission opened a public hearing on February 12, 2014 upon the question of whether the proposal is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. H. The Commission closed the public hearing on February 12, 2014 to make a decision on the request. I. The Commission, on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforemen- tioned hearing, has made the following determinations of fact: 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all per- tinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That the Planning Commission hearing included consideration of the Public Hearing Exhib- its, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Plan, entered as Exhibit "5", the Staff Report dated February 12, 2014, entered as Exhibit "7", referral comments from the Town of Carbondale entered as Exhibit "9", referral comments from the Roaring Fork Transporta- tion Authority entered as Exhibit "10", excerpts from the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan entered as Exhibit "16", excerpts from the Town of Carbondale Parks, Recreation and Trails Comprehensive Master Plan entered as Exhibit "17", excerpts from the State Highway 133 Access Control Plan entered as Exhibit "18", and comments from the Colorado Department of Transportation entered as Exhibit "H". 4. That the Planning Commission, based upon consideration of the Public Hearing Exhibits, including specific reference to, but not limited to, Sections III and IV of the Staff Report, and referral comments received from the Town of Carbondale, the Roaring Fork Transporta- tion Authority Colorado Department of Transportation and other reasons, determined that the Location and Extent for the Vacation of a portion of County Road 106 to not be in gen- eral conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 5 ®m in engin itisinritinkcrfurkricrkiB rm Mi & 'i'Ii ®I 111 Reception#: 848029 04/09/2014 03:19:06 PM Jean Alberico 3 of 4 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of Garfield County, as follows: A. The foregoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference as part of the resolution. B. Exhibit A describes that portion of the Location and Extent review reflecting the proposed CRMS roadway vacation request for portions of County Road 106. C. The Location and Extent request for the vacation of portions of County Road 106 is hereby denied. DATED this 12t day of March, 2014. ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO Sean Martin, Secretary Bob Fullerton, Chairman Garfield County Planning Commission Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the follow- ing vote: Commission Chairman Bob Fullerton Commissioner John Kuersten Commissioner Sean Martin Commissioner Greg Shaner Commissioners Greg McKennis Commissioner Stephen Damm Commissioner Keith Lammey _ Associate Commissioner Michael Sullivan P 3 0 Associate Commissioner Eric Rudd Aye Associate Commissioner Wendy Haskins t\y C Aye (absent) Aye Ave =)1jQ. Ave 6 III Eirdrytupz Reception#: 848029 04/09/2014 03:19:06 PM Jean Alberico 4 of 4 Rec Fee:$0.00 Doc Fee:0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT A Legal Description CR 106 CRINIS Vacation A portion of Garfield County Road #106 being a strip of land Sixty (60) feet in width situated in portions of Government Lot 15, Section 28 and Government Lot 3, Section 33 all in Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, all in Garfield County, Colorado and more particularly described as follows: Said Strip of land being sixty (60) feet in width with thirty (30) feet lying on each side of the following centerline description, the exterior lines of said strip are to be shortened or lengthened to form a continuous strip exactly sixty (60) feet in width: Beginning at a point on the centerline of said County Road #106 also being a point on the northerly limit of the County Road # 108 right-of-way from whence the S1/4 Corner Section 28 hears N06°50'08"E a distance of 1084.18 feet; thence the following three (3) courses along the centerline of said County Road #106, N24°01' 11 "W a distance of 316.30 feet; thence 126.69 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet a central angle of 24°11'49" and a subtending chord bearing N11°55' 17"W a distance of 125.76 feet; thence NO0° t0'3T'E a distance of 917.07 feet to a point on the southerly limit of that right- of-way as described in Book 681 at Page 692 from whence said S1/4 Corner Section 28 bears S48°02'43"E a distance of 377.76 feet, said strip of land contains 1.89 acres more or less. 7 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF At a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held ) ss. EXHIBIT tj on the , 2014, there were present: John Martin Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky Andrew Gorgey Frank Hutfless Jean Alberico in day of , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Manager County Attorney '• Clerk to the Board when the following proceedings, among others were had and%done, to wit: RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH _ _ . __ OTHERWISE KNOWN AS A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD Recitals A. Garfield .County rs a legal and political srtbdivision of the State of Colorado for which the Board of:County Commissroners is authorized to�act. B 'Colorado Rocky*ountain School, Inc. (the "Applicant") has applied to The Board of County CornInissioners to vacate a por"tton of a public road right-of-way, as such hes within the property of tte:°;Applicant as setforth below. The right-of-way was is more fully depicted in Exhibit "A" attachedhereto (the'; "Right -of Way"). C. That portion`(of the• -°Right -of -Way as set forth below is no longer needed as a public road right-of-way since, among -other things, a satisfactory alternative route for the Right of Way will be provided by Applicant. D. The Board of County Commissioners is entitled to vacate a public road right-of-way by resolution pursuant to the provisions of Section 43-2-303(1)(b), C.R.S. and Section 4-108 of the Garfield County 2013 Land Use and Development Code , as amended ("LUDC"). E. The Planning Commission considered this request at a public meeting held on February 12, 2014, at which time the Commission recommended disapproval to the Board of County Commissioners. Page 1 of 4 F. The Board of County Commissioners opened a public hearing on the 5th day of May, 2014 for consideration of whether the proposed road vacation should be granted or denied, during which hearing the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the request. G. The Board of County Commissioners closed the public hearing on the 5th day of May, 2014 to make a fmal decision. H. The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether �tovacate that portion of the right- of-way which is no longer required for road purposes. I. The Board on the basis of substantial) Ac ,etent evidence produced at the -/ . i. aforementioned hearing, has made the following deternImations<a ,fact: 1. That proper public notice was revided as required ji the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. ��'� /!bioi/�,. 2. The hearing before the Board of "'oun %ohunissioners Vis; extensive and complete, that all pertii facts, matters n - Tissues were submi• d and that all interested parties were heard ameeting. tin ./7.•O ;,. •/ i,. 3. That for the ,above stated , d otherzeaso s the , ro, osed RoadwayVacation of a portion of G'o � %odd 106 is e -ahe bests t� test of he" health safety, convenience order, prosperity anthvAlfare of theiciti'ns of C arpeld County. /ice, %Q � 4. That the AO icatio , is in genet/%conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive P an fas. amended �/%%///• j ry/�%///// A. That su1 j ej to pliance with/conditions of approval, the application has 'Adequately met%ihe re uir<erxients of the Garfield CountyUnified Land Use Resolution //i�. ii, q ".. 4 008, as amen s,, specifically the Roadway Vacation Criteria contained in Section 4-18)(1-3). NOW, THFORE,B jIT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, as fdi-lg : 1. That the foregoing Recitals are incorporated by this reference. 2. That portion of the road right-of-way no longer needed for road purposes described as follows and as depicted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, should be and hereby is vacated: A portion of Garfield County Road #106 being a strip of land Sixty (60) feet in width situated in portions of Government Lot 15, Section 28 and Government Lot 3, Section 33 all in Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, all in Garfield County, Colorado and more particularly described as follows: Page 2 of 4 Said Strip of land being sixty (60) feet in width with thirty (30) feet lying on each side of the following centerline description, the exterior lines of said strip are to be shortened or lengthened to form a continuous strip exactly sixty (60) feet in width: Beginning at a point on the centerline of said County Road #106 also being a point on the northerly limit of the County Road # 108 right-of-way from whence the S1/4 Comer Section 28 bears N06°50'08"E a distance of 1084.18 feet; thence the following three (3) courses along the centerline of said County Road #106, N24°01' 11 "W a distance of 316.30 feet; thence 126.69 feet along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet a central angle of 24°11'49" and a subtending chord bearing N11°55'17"W a distance of 125.76 feet; thence N00°10'37"E a distance of 917.07 feet to a poin' $the southerly limit of that right- of-way as described in Book 681 at Page 692 whence said S1/4 Corner Section 28 bears S48°02'43"E a distance of 377.76 ee /aid strip of land contains 1.89 acres more or less. ljj 3. That pursuant to the foregoing Talon, title to sued property shall vest in the adjoining property owner(s), Colorado Roc l fountain School, Ins.�a Colorado nonprofit corporation. //z/ 4. The foregoing vacat t Ii does not right-of-way without an establishedipuli road public road. leav Vjatip perty adjoining said public road connectag said land with another established 'iii,,. 5. This vacati emdoes not leave/any pubs' and withaut% ccess to a public road. 6. That Vis. vacation n the bes . < t ;est and lb the health, safety and welfare of the general public. DAT*this H,,��this tt of ATTEST: Clerk to the Board , 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO By: Chairman Page 3 of 4 Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: John Martin Mike Samson Tom Jankovsky Commissioners , Aye , Aye , Aye Page 4 of 4 CRMS's Proposed Conditions of Approval Request to Vacate a Portion of CR106 EXHIBIT '3 1. County approval is based upon the representations of the Applicant contained in the application submittals and made during the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioner public hearings and said representations shall be considered conditions of approval. 2. The utility corridor along the current right-of-way alignment shall be maintained and easements established for existing utility providers, as well as for future utilities so long as said future utilities are reasonably consistent with the current utilities in place, and are underground. Written easements shall be prepared by the Applicant and reviewed and accepted by each existing utility company, the Town of Carbondale, and the County Attorney's Office, each of whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. 3. CRMS shall enter into an agreement with the Town of Carbondale and/or Garfield County as necessary setting forth the terms and agreements associated with the trail improvements to be constructed along Dolores Way, as said trail improvements are consistent with the drawings submitted by Applicant. CRMS shall provide any additional right-of-way dedications as necessary for creating the trail along Dolores Way. The trail shall connect from the north end of the County Road 106 right-of-way being vacated to the existing trail within the Town limits on Dolores Way. The agreement shall formalize maintenance responsibilities for the new trail segment. 4. The Applicant shall maintain emergency access through campus. Access to the campus shall continue to be assured through the use of Knox Boxes and provision of access codes for any gates located on the emergency access route. 5. The Applicant shall apply for an Access Permit from the County Road and Bridge Department for the southerly campus access onto County Road 106/108 and complete all required improvements within two years of approval of this vacation. 6. Applicant shall be responsible for funding and constructing the Dolores Way trail consistent with the drawing submitted by Applicant in its Application, together with all associated improvements. 7. Applicant shall maintain the current level of public access through the historic CR 106 right of way until the alternate trail and associated improvements are constructed along Dolores Way and approved by Garfield County, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. ExaieIr 1 ffff f U N L U _ Gu tQ �-oho w • o E M }' Oi I— c Q tQ Garbondatek, ogA kiiiii lIZ'of Community • 'Ar?.."1 ;School % .-_,---• c-, 4 ,k. • V; •'; ... MI .... - ..s\ • !Ix qk .• .,V • • mA,._ • . ", • • "tw ., , N. • • • • t ir• , Law i4 • • %,,.. ;I _.... fe. 't 41 V • 4A ,, • \ VelociRFTA 1.k*IV % 10 Park & Ride vo •-• if lk.,, • . , A 414 • ' ..' Existing • • LEGEND sm. Gee NM IN Exisiing Bike Path Pancling BM Path CP,MS Bike Pai:n • 1 • OR1* / I Main Stret-- • CarbondalVibitts.littir Community N 'School • '1,`m Ve o �._No .__--``Y ,� d • CRMS campus • VefociRFTA °s0 Park & Ride ` ., .� v.: • • S•,P , w..� •• yy • 'ti`s•'' 1 • • ''' , 4ii • ♦ ♦ Road Crossing ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Streets/ Driveways LEGEND ---- Existing Bili Pat — Penriin' Eike P th Prop. ed Cis IV , Bi Path �` 14 A r pf".;-v: -Mair, Stret-- i ♦ J . 13, • 111: te} WY, .11,S 311 S3S121,12131193 A1VCI oPtu-100'atumucpir3 looLPS utglinzoi kpow opmcfc0 HIVd D18 snap !; 3 ge 5 .A 5 0. t g 0 twrfj Or%4St, t .§; • 4,1/•:--.:%.„, • • ----- ":ff"-r era --,7447fitFiz \ A --; t • )2js„,...., , 4,4 09 =0 Xr. c.o A 2 6 ce ; . . 4 e • ,•1-• 1.; Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 111.11111111111111. Adopted: November 10, 2010 Last Amended: October 9, 2013 Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings olmm•t, Priority Multi -Modal Corridors 70= Future Connections 0 Crossings 7 s r _ Town Boundary Streets NMI Public Recreation Land F-- County Roads CARBONDALZ aeCrki eomsncwETIAVE 1, Inn 4 CarbondaliA, Community • ifitt 'School •.p.% 4 \\V> •c& ,timistaw,•,,,, • • s • - • - i4 • • • 441Ptel‘; • • • #4, Ism me- ItE;4;7. 1.7 isio ‘,/ fliNtr°""lir!!" it" Park & Ride VelociRETA • •o .0„ ••• • EE L AemLI6!1-1 • tit 4 • • Road Crossing Aral - ,0 4416, k14, Streets/ Driveways • • , Exinitg BiVP Ppridinc,Aike P Prop- ,eci CR . % ilk A •••••i■Qmo, 11 ) • Pair) • • • A • --Maiii Str,?et-- s„ OP , 4 .'...'rs' 4 • . ,.. OLD SIAGI .• POTATO CELLAR,— KAYAK BUI10INGE-' Li • _ _ .4% • it (AUX I t • INDEED • \CY, b"." HOMO • \ 1\t,,,,\ CRYSTAL • \ (000100 10(0 DOM 1, NOUSE DONA *000r (1 r PASTURE '--- • - NOUN \ DOM ATHLETIC ' FIELD FACULTY •BN, RESIDENCE • J PABST DINE 1004100 coura: STUDENT I -- i NOUSE 1 / / \FINTESS / PARKING SOLAR DOOM "L=1 1 • 11 •ft, ACADEMIC QUAD > 110101On DORM • TOTT \\•-•-•\ - • - RAS IOU NNW. Crum/ 114500 CANN -.----‘ THOMPSON CILEEK ROAD •. ',.,.., \ .... '.••• - -- \ \ - \ \ \ CRYSTAL \ .", \ RIVER \ WEST NOVSE..) < .; MX BIDGE \ " PAST NORTE \\ s \ MK INGE \ ' ,N \ PERTY \ ROPCRMS \ \ % \ \ ,..); • \ (Ili. \ SCALE r. Kw NMI ONENNINI '012 I \ I I , ; 9v \ k 1so 0 IN I CENTRAL CAMPUS r., A SOLAR ARRAY • • • *1 ; 1 * CNDIUGIIE LOSSLUN - ..st,• -1 • ACNDEBUCEuKINNEL Se. SCIENCE EUKLILNG N NILE DONA / GARDINs "t, \ 11Els DOM rl 7...,,,,, ,m9s.t, GnENNOUSES ‘, •• . ' 1 ..., i' 100404 2012 • 1.. GARDEN atElert_..2 AINNTENNIGEo .1E4 AVENUE LORCA . cULAMR_S, FABLING •;,[ j C3 .Li VIIHouVIR Colorado Rocky &fountain Se.11,301 • COUNTY ROAD 106 ./ ADOBE AN '--' BUILDING t 0(0(05 01(0(0 I • MUSIC BUILDING - KAYAK 6UILIXrLGO 16.11 CRMS Campus 2005 OED STAGE STOP, POTATO CDA eRJ M RSMENGE NILSON CAW 0 KAYAK BUIEDING� 'Ill 8 Fy , F9 ROARING PON ..'`MOUSE DORM'R' HMO \� P \ \ 00 i ATHLETIC fIELD j FACUEi RESIDENCfE PAW DRIYf „NNWS I, sruova __I SOLAR ARRAY t f OAK Dole\._ F - • • ,-9 �••_ . 4 ° 2 -7-----; • �; CHANGERJOSSAS ACADEMIC UAD ACADEALcivaDmG SCIENCE IU0DIIFG f]oss f / 1 T omP50NC1if =KtMM N GTMUSE/\. Mcanoot v EASTNOOfi CMS PBOPHBTY Colorado Rocky Mountain School SC ALF. I'• 100' ® ® 0002 100 30 100' CENTRAL CAMPUS GREENHOUSES ,FRAW CEFN0 DARDEN 86EKI ] I, EHRAKEM • AVENUE - TEN,I,00 HOVSC - COUNTY ROAD 100 FOt0E E. CEIAAYCS PAIRING _ O AMIE Rei IHMENNG • GEORGEWESER MUSIC &MUSING ,0 M _ ,��w tib, •`cR' -'C • �•� R A . • ' �cnity Map' t :106 Road. Vaea al • Colorado Rocky 41ggn , iarbondaleiJr it r,, j•i OPEN SPACE ANDj AGRICULTURE { BUFFER . •i' ••s a,• H r. • • rt a • 0 AND AGRICULTU BUFFER ti ..<. . ••._ r * bN?CC ro ..rw .+. W .�:. .a c..ne. o.. •WN, ...rt'T :. ,wrAwn 11 s,.-. aa....a..3 ,:i ,0,6:1 • "4 a .f T C r • 141, 04DVSTRI4 PLAZA •' t dltr, i . MAIN STREET .-,- • - oir M4t1(Ci ti. Ata J,10:101 D a• 01/08/10 G Iro • County Road 106 Vacation at CRMS Carbondale, CO ax Exhibit Map • 4 J ffits 1• `I!v!'Y>:.Y .33 ti jr F rj • .771140 # • 1 � b V � cts a O. ..r1 ( ; .., , �H • r v: + . ,rr4lr".. -0 lis VI trc �r r Y � • b • .04 til3 Carbolic:WIN .-01.14119T Community 'School . • • I, <‘ cc, "N, • I 1. t I 464' toi% 11 ft.- • t 4.. • • ./4A • • ,0 VelociRFTA • 0 SPark & Ride \„ : aitailaf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t LEGEND 0,p • a IN a WM • AAA • Ant • • • a 1 AIM a a a MA NMI • mor 1 AM a am a MA AM OA. MA We On Existing Bike Path III Pending Bike Pahl Proposed CRMS B1 Path • • • %. I 4 • —• 4 *,J. 1 1 • . 1 tt t 4,04, • z t Main Stwet-- rj - _7 4".11 — • -. 'ie I t. Garbondarek .,tr1 V1T• 0. •' Community Community ♦ �• ,. ;- `(i Schooi 1 1__ ,., . • V8 • VelociRFTA 1 ° %,,0 Perk & Ride qh 1 Abaft� fd 4 .s • • • • • • 1 It 1 1 • • •1 f 1 I Ai ■ `1 ■ 1 Existing Bike Path M Pending Bike Path! Proposed CRMS Biles Path • • • • 1 , • 0 Wain, Street-- . 1 Air rhb+es 80UNDARYJ L ••x imrSOPRI �- MN MI MN - ££l AVMHOIH R Oalora+ 60' R;gt-o;-W0y —Boo• 54:. X591 Se22 Book 691. 'rove 6`32 Soc•i'ion 28 Begin '33-1117 Found Alumis 0 t5 — 81/4 section 28 YU Town Sewer • n 1ator tatio i' R•' • . .j• '4 ,w i 58 nine; ip provided Os O ✓su0l refersnCt IJ plc: • 'pining POreels olor1' Deiorea *Oy in *00;;inn in8 a rox;mote nistoeic road corr;d0r n; ;ounty .O0 ;G4 5 it Grc9Se5 160 Idn05 of the COICrodo Delay Mou Sin 5Ch04I for the purp0!e •3 40.0:ion Of la corrIco by 010 Corfield County COmrnisS bner6. Tna vt1e510 '' 6n0*5 neresn is 0 SoSt fit bleed O rnn:ainfig ee Ines, utility ;mp(eveeAent5, and ;;rren; o6sting 0n44ion5. The loco:Ions of hese i fpm/ea;en:< OO 01 reflect o field Survey — Aa eufsrOr605 tn txrd0;; nee been 00 C,erflpld County Arises wr1eras;5 rl1iect64 w. :h wed from the rocord9 0 rs Olflce. Bike Path CRUS BOUNOAR • it w � MAIN STREET t 0 Ct 0 10. -;lz4n4 Carbondale Community School % • .1 4, 4 • • • • • ' :$14,„ • Road • _ I, Crossing • • • • • • • • -?rq • 4. f 4. 1 • • • • • • • • 0'1 , ••011 • • • • _ • 1 . m• .1;411 • ft %;').40' ' V ,.. v it '• " •=1 I ':*-1. . • .° ' t tl..,:- I Ilt- - iie r atiii pl ?!1,:. t 4.p. oolf if 1 : • .Ali fr, ' - C.', . • I 'N •rt‘i%,4- . ' A -11.:',-,.."--‘1,•1 ," ,', N, ,,..kr,a ' \lot •. ti il A -A2tt ,. 4 '') . • row:, - %. )*„ , VelociRFTA •o ..or Park &Ride 44 ,0‘.4 .• e Streets/ Driveways — Bit- Perdin�ik Prop 4 ft 4fr ftel•ftro.. I 3 r '4' $ • 4, • 1 - 141 • — — — Mairi Stret— - • C a'bondak k � , Community • !School ♦ac, 1,,.1._. 1'.♦ �.1. • k.� • • • • • 4 ti CD • VelociRFTA •a, Park & Ride •O••• ` ••,,, W • di14. • ...•, i I! r 7rsrarr II $ . I g 4 i\a. rIj'4ilk. + • 1 ■ 1 ..i..1 a 1 ) rA ', 1 ■ ► -•. r 1 ."'l••_, um 1 +. _ -I ■ 1 rt ® 1 1 • dry• • 1 •• 1 1 1 • 1 • • LEGEND a 1 1+ 1 a,,,,vo or_ ..._. .. 1 1 s 1 I. r Existing Bike Path 12 ; L Pending Bike Path 1.!., • Proposed CRMS Biles Path _y • .1 s ' 'i. I. t 4: % Main January 31, 2014 TOWN t'k'11 OF CARBONDALE 511 Colorado Avenue Cf boadalo> CO 8162 www,cal.tol idaiegoV. wg ;97c» 9&3.2133 Fax: 970) 96a,-9140 1 EXHIBIT I Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Community Development Director 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Colorado Rocky Mountain School Roadway Vacation Request for County Road 106 Dear Mr. Hartmann, After significant public input and review by the Town of Carbondale's advisory boards, and a public meeting before the Town's Board of Trustees, the Town of Carbondale is submitting these referral comments on the request by the Carbondale Rocky Mountain School ("CRMS") to vacate the portion of the public right of way for County Road 106 that runs through the school's campus. While the Town is very sensitive to the student safety issues of CRMS as we are of our public schools, (particularly after dark and before dawn) and therefore generally supports efforts to secure the CRMS campus, it is also concemed about preservation of existing access to water and sewer mains that run through this right-of-way, and the history of use of this right-of-way as a pedestrian and bicycle route linking Satank (including the Rio Grande Trail) to West Main Street, County Road 109, and the Spring Gulch recreational area. The Town would therefore respectfully request that the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") exercise its discretion to deny CRMS' request and preserve the present county right-of-way unless the following items are addressed: 1. Prior to the BOCC taking action on this matter, the Town would request that CRMS be required to agree to grant public utility easements to the Town in a form and with title assurances acceptable to the Town in order to perpetuate Town access to the right-of-way route for purposes of operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of underground water and sewer facilities. The Town would further propose that, once approved and executed, the easements be held in escrow pending final action on the vacation request, and recorded in the event that the vacation is approved. 2. The Town also desires a mechanism to ensure continued, perpetual public access across the CRMS campus for bicycle and pedestrian purposes, both for recreational purposes and for general non -motorized transit. The Town therefore requests the County to require a public easement dedication by CRMS for these purposes, either in the location of the present County Road 106 right-of-way (in which case the Town would be comfortable with limiting usage to daylight hours) or in a to-be- Town of Carbondale Referral Comments re CRMS vacation request January 31, 2014 Page 2 of 2 determined alternative location running north/south from West Main Street to Dolores Way along the eastern boundary of the CRMS campus behind the existing commercial lots/properties that front Highway 133 (which route would not have a time of usage limitation). If this alternative route is selected, the Town would further propose that the Town be the recipient of the trail dedication and that CRMS be required to improve the new right-of-way with a paved bike path. 3. Regardless of which bicycle/pedestrian trail option is pursued, the Town also supports requiring the existing County Road 106 right-of-way through CRMS (or near the County Road 106 right-of-way) to remain available to the public for vehicular emergency ingress and egress. In addition, during the various public meetings in Carbondale regarding this matter, the potential future relocation of the Dolores Way/State Highway 133 intersection to a point further south on Highway 133 was mentioned. As such, the Town would request CRMS to further consider dedicating additional property along the back of what is presently the Ajax Bike shop in order to potentially facilitate relocation of this intersection in the future. Finally, by way of further information, attached are summaries of the discussions that the Town's Parks and Recreation Conunission, Planning and Zoning Commission and Bike, Pedestrian and Trails Commission held concerning this request. The Town of Carbondale appreciates the opportunity to offer comments on this proposal. Respectfully submitted, John Hoffman Mayor pro -tem Town of Carbondale enc, 2.44 of 288 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Board of Trustees Agenda Memorandum Meeting Date: 1-23-14 Tlfii'l.i::: Garfield County Referral re: CRMS application to Vacate County Road 106 SUBMITTING it PARTMSN ': Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Figure 3.3 (Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossing) Sign -in Sheet from the 1-16-14 Planning Commission Meeting E-mail from Jason White and Sue Edelstein E-mail from Davis Farrar and Sue Edelstein (duplicate) Garfield County sent the Town of Carbondale a referral for the application from Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) requesting that Garfield County vacate the segment of County Road 106 which runs through the CRMS campus. The Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at its Januar 16, 2014 meeting. The Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding the street vacation, and at its end, there were two Commissioners in favor of it, four opposed, and one Commissioner who felt there should mediation between CRMS, the County and the neighbors. There were a number of eleven (11) members of the public present. The sign in sheet from the meeting is attached, Staff also received e-mails which are also attached to this memo. The Commission's comments are as follows: Comments in orposition of the stre;>t vacation: • During the Town's Comprehensive Plan process, the community expressed a strong desire to maintain pedestrian and multimodal connections. Figure 3.3 (Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossing) in the Town's Comprehensive Plan clearly shows that there is a need for a pedestrian and bicycle corridor in this area. • There was concern about Dolores Way being the only access point to the Satank and the Kay PUD neighborhoods, particularly with the possibility of additional residential units and commercial space being constructed in that area. Trails are essential with the increased traffic on Dolores Way. The County Road 106 route is a key pedestrian connection used by Crystal Village and Satanic residents. • he proposed berm and continuous fence appear to be a barrier for continued pedestrian use of CR 106. 245 of 288 > CR 106 is a historical access. • One Commissioner was in favor of the street vacation if CRMS provides a pedestrian and bicycle easement along the back side of the 25 acre property located at the intersection of Main Street and Highway 133 to provide a connection between West Main and Dolores Way. Comments in favor of street vacation: > CRMS has gone to great lengths to create an alternative trail along Dolores Way. However, there should be clarification on the location of the proposed trail as tie site plan shows it in the Dolores right-of-way and the narrative indicates it is on CRMS property. If it is on CRMS property, a public pedestrian and bicycle easement should be executed prior to approval of any street vacation. > If pedestrians use the new Highway 133 trail, that route will bring them by retail, the BRT station, housing and downtown. A The challenge is the traffic at Dolores and Highway 133. The vacation doesn't make it better or worse. • During the Highway 133 process, there was quite a bit of discussion about controlling access points along the highway to limit the number of driveway cuts. There was an effort to make the future trail on the west side of Highway 133 as safe as possible. > It is not CRMS' responsibility to create a trail through the campus. 9 CRMS should be able to control what is on the campus. An easement is difficult because anyone can use it. The integrity of the campus should be maintained. Comments in favor of allowing time for mediation: • There should be additional time to allow for more discussion between CRMS, Garfield County and the residents. It would have been better timing to submit this request after the trail along the west side of Highway 133 was built. Prepared by: Janet Buck JH Town Manager TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Board of Trustees Agenda Memorandum t:11 January 28; 2014 Al Ee Garfield County Referral CRMS application to Vacate County Road 106 `UDtITTItat;;; Carbondale Parks & Recreation Commission CC. Garfield County Planning & Zoning Commission Garfield County sent the Town of Carbondale a referral regarding the application from Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) requesting Garfield County to vacate the segment of County Road 106 which runs through the CRMS campus. At its January 15, 2014 meeting, the Carbondale Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the CRMS request to the County. The Commission had a lengthy discussion regarding the street vacation. There were five (5) commission members in favor of vacating the road, and one (1) opposed, Their comments and thoughts from the meeting minutes are as follows: r Larry Ballenger presented an overview of the CRMS request to vacate CR -106. The purpose is to allow CRMS to have more control over who can access their campus property. CRMS indicates that this is not an attempt to not allow access to campus, but to have more control due to safety concerns for their borders and for school security. Their intent is not to keep neighbors off of the property, They have submitted a proposal for a new trail outside of their property on Dolores Way by extending a trail that now dead -ends at the road junction to the Carbondale Community School, This trail would be an alternate around the campus, - The Commissioners discussed the value of the existing easement and what would happen if it is gone. with the alternative trail on Dolores Way proposed. They discussed the historical precedent and the decisions made in 1979 when Garfield County decided that their intentions were not to vacate CR -106, but to change it to non -motorized use. Jeff Jacket mentioned a discussed considered proposal held over a decade ago regard+ng the CRMS property zoned "open space" where Main St, ends and CR -106 begins at the bend of the road. His idea suggested was vacating CR -106 as part of a trade for securing this open space parcel for a future park to servo CRMS students and faculty, as welt as the Carbondale community. This might be an Opportune time to discuss this option. 243 of 288 D Heather Henry stated that pedestrian trail improvements that are planned along the west side of Highway 133 will connect the community in a satisfactory manner without the need for public access through the CRMS campus. D New trail route proposed on Dolores Way would need to be public with CRMS maintaining it. D Becky Moller is worried about losing the circular trail loop option that now exists, and that replacing it with a pedestrian path along a busy Highway 133 is not an ideal solution for pedestrians walking a north -south route on that side of Town. > The existing pedestrian route on CR -106 through CRMS serves Carbondale residents living in Satank and within the Crystal Village, Crystal Acres, and Hendrick Ranch subdivisions who wish to access the Rio Grande Trail via the historic Satank Bridge. Motion was made by Rob Comey to recommend accepfance of this CR -106 vacation, along with the acceptance of the new CRMSpath along Dolores Way that they are proposing, and to make sure the new path is addressed as a public path. Motion was seconded by Heather Henry. ➢ Further Discussions: Marty Silverstein wants some assurances that CRMS maintains this new path as a public path to maintain access. D Tracy Wilson provided some CRMS history regarding a gifting of property on the east side of the CR -106 road, after the main campus was purchased on the west side of the road, which split the campus, and was not intentional. The school wants to legally take care of their security on the campus. Traffic study says it is Tess that 20 to 30 people per day that use this CR -106 easement. 9 Hollis Kerier consideration is weighing the usage of the trail against the risk of giving up a trail, but would not be able to live with herself if something bad were to happen on campus due to allowing public access to the campus resulting in a security breach. > If a new CRMS trail is built located on the eastern edge of the CRMS property, that would abut and run alongside a proposed future 25 acre "Market Place / Village at Crystal River" development project, this would be an alternative trail that would satisfy pedestrian movement on the west side of Carbondale.. Motion went to a vote and was passed 5 to 1. Yes votes: Heather Henry, Marty Silverstein, Tracy Wilson, Rob Comey, Hollis Kerier No vote: Becky Moller Prepared by: Jeff Jackel Jay Harrington Town Manager TONA' N OF' CARBOND E: Pt • I. (' \%,T()RK,.; 511 Colorado At cane Carbondale. CO 8162. TO: Jay Harrington, Town Manager FROM: Larry Ballenger, Public Works DATE. January 23, 2014 RE: County Road 106 Vacate Request: We have asked members of the Carbondale Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Commission for their input on the Colorado Rocky Mountain Schools (CRMS) request to the Board of County Commissioners to vacate County Road 106 through their campus. Members of the Commission responded with support of the vacation request based on safety concerns of the school. Commissioners would support the vacation request if CRMS would work with the community to develop an alternate pedestrian casement around their campus. Commission members also recognize that once the new SH 133 pedestrian trail is constructed, along with the Dolores Trail extension as proposed by CRMS, there would be an alternate connection to the Satank area, Satank Bridge and the Gateway River Park. Glenn Hartmann From: David Johnson [djohnson@rfta.com] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 9:12 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Dan Blankenship Subject: CR 106 Vacation Referral Mr. Glenn Hartmann: EXHIBIT Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Colorado Rocky Mountain School's request for vacation of the County Road 106 public right-of-way through its campus. RFTA believes that a north -south connection between West Main Street and Dolores Avenue should be maintained to enhance bicycle and pedestrian mobility throughout the Town of Carbondale; and to support bicycle and pedestrian accessibility to RFTA's Carbondale transit station and to the Rio Grande Trail. This accessibility may be accomplished by preservation of the CR106 right of way for bicycle and pedestrian transportation, or by the establishment of an alternative north -south bike/ped route along the eastern boundary of the CRMS campus connecting West Main Street and Dolores Way, as proposed by the Town of Carbondale. RFTA supports both the preservation of the CR106 ROW for emergency access purposes, and the Town of Carbondale's request that CRMS consider dedicating additional property near Ajax Bike to potentially facilitate relocation of the Dolores Way/State Highway 133 intersection to a point further South on State Highway 133. We appreciate your consideration of RFTA's comments. David Johnson Director of Planning Roaring Fork Transportation Authority The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message. 1 FIRE • EMS • RESCUE January 31, 2014 Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Building & Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 1 (7 RE: Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Vacation of County Road 106 Dear Glenn: I have recently commented to Mr. Larry Green. Those comments were included in the application. I have a few additional comments: 1. An emergency access exhibit is included in the application. The route indicated in red is maintained year around and provides access to and from the campus off Dolores Way. Access to it is controlled by an electric gate. In event of a power outage the gate is designed to fail in the open position. 2. There are two additional routes of egress through the campus that are available seasonally. One, connects to Dolores Way north of the Solar Dorm and the second, connects to Satank Road just north of the school's CR 106 Rd, right of way. Both gates are normally locked and Fire District has keys to the Knox padlocks on both of the gates. 3. The school has recently announced that it is changing its primary address to 500 Holden Drive, This should help alleviate some of the confusion that occurs with the Garfield County Emergency Communications Authority when emergency calls are dispatched to the campus. Please contact me if you have any questions or if I may be of any assistance. Sincerely, Bill Gavette Deputy Chief Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 300 Meadowood Drive e Carbondale, CO 81623.970-963-2491 Fax 970-963-0569 Glenn Hartmann From: Michael Prehm Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 10:54 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: CRMC County Road 106 Vacation Request Glenn, EXHIBIT iB Currently as you travel on Deloris Way from Hwy 133 their is a sidewalk on your left. This sidewalk is in the Carbondale city limit. If this sidewalk was to be extended into the County along Deloris Way to the entrance of the Satank subdivision, who's will be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the sidewalk? Providing the Vacation request is granted, I would request a driveway application be obtained from R & B and the applicant bring their driveway up to current Road and Bridge standards at the intersection of CR 108. Any questions please let me know. Thanks Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 CeII 1 SHERI Of eARFIELD couNTY LOU VALLA RIO 107 8T"' Street GCen'woodSprings, CO 816o1 Phone: 970-945-0453 Fax: 970-945-6430 January 29, 2014 Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT 1 19 RE: Vacation of County Road 106 through Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) Attention: Glenn Hartmann 1o6 County Road333-.2 Rif &, CO 81650 Phone: 970-665-0200 Fax: 970-665-0253 After review of the above mentioned request for vacation of County Road 106 through CRMS, the Garfield County Sheriff's Office agrees that this request would be in the best interest of all parties concerned. The Sheriff's Office agrees with the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District that vacating this portion of County Road 106 will ultimately improve emergency response to the school and surrounding areas. Please contact me if you have any questions. Emergency Operations Sergeant Garfield County Sheriff's Office EXHIBIT 120 January 31, 2014 Mr. Glenn Hartmann Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Road Vacation of CR 106: RVAC-7772 Dear Glenn: MOUNTAIN CROSS ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Vacation of County Road 106 Application by Colorado Rocky Mountain School. The submittal was found to be thorough and well organized. The following comments were generated: 1. It seemed that all the utility providers except Century Link was satisfied with an easement being provided. Century Link needed additional information. The Applicant should address if that concern was addressed. 2. The Fire Chief had recommendations for changing addresses for clarifying emergency response. The Applicant should describe how these are being addressed. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mount in Cross Engineering, Inc Chris Hale, PE 826 '/z Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Glenn Hartmann From: Westerman, Carla [Carla.Westerman@sourcegas.comj Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:31 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: RVAC-7772 CRMS EXFEIBti 111 Glenn, I've reviewed the plans to vacate the portion of the old County Rd 106 through the CRMS property. I believe that someone is already working with our ROW agent, Tim Atwater regarding the gas line ROW. SourceGas has no issue with the plans in their current state. Thank you, Carla Westerman `:r, mo`' _ Field Coordinator Glenwood Springs, CO 970 -928 -0407 -Office 303 -243 -3794 -FAX 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Roussin - CDOT, Daniel [daniel.roussin@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 2:52 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Tamra Allen; Iballenger@carbondaleco.net Subject: Vacate CR 106 Glen - Thank you for the opportunity to review the vacation of CR 106 next to the Colorado Rocky Mountain School (School). I realize why the School would like this public right of way to be vacated. As their narrative indicates, the CR 106 right of way was a historical connection to surrounding private properties to connect to the local street system (Main Street). The narrative indicates that Dolores Way was a way to help connect private properties with the general highway system. However, after exhausted review of the highway accesses; it has been determined the long-term viability is to restrict Dolores Way in the future in accordance with the SH 133 Access Control Plan (ACP) of 2013 (which was signed by Carbondale, Garfield County and CDOT). The Dolores Intersection is slated to become right in right out in the future because of close proximity of the signalized Village Road. The ACP indicates developing other public access to the Dolores intersection. The current CR 106 right of way is the only other public connection for this isolated part of Garfield County. It is my recommendation not to approve the vacation of this section of CR 106 because Dolores Way inadequately provides connectivity in the future. If the County allows the vacation of the CR 106 then the County should acquire other public right way to insure good public connectivity for the future for those that use Dolores Way in the future. Once there is good alternative public connection, then I would not have an objection to the CR 106 vacation. If you have any questions, please let me know. thanks Dan Roussin Region 3 Permit Unit Manager State of Colorado, Colorado Department of Transportation 222 South 6th Street, Room 100, Grand Junction, CO 81501 office: 970.683.6284 'fax: 970.683.6290 email: daniel.roussin@state.co.us 1 Board of County Commission 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 February 3, 2014 Dear Board Members: XH IT 1 23 I am writing in support of the application to vacate a portion of CR 106 in the interest of school safety. I have two simple points to make: first, that our community has given us a clear mandate to ensure that our schools are safe; and second, that schools need the ability to control their environment in order to ensure student safety. I hope that you will achieve a resolution to this issue in a way that does not compromise the safety of our children. 1. We have a clear mandate from the community to ensure student safety in all schools. As you probably know, the Roaring Fork School District conducted a large-scale visioning process this fall in order to ask the broader community what they want for our students and what they want in our schools. From September 25 to October 10, 2013, in collaboration with various community leaders and partners, we hosted sixteen community engagement sessions with over 960 parents, students, teachers, administrators and community members from Basalt, Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. The findings were published in a report and submitted to the school board and community on November 13.1 Among the findings was a resounding message from all stakeholder groups that school safety is among the paramount interests of our community. As one student is quoted in the report, "If you aren't feeling safe, it's difficult to learn." Participants in all meetings gave us the clear message that they expect us to keep children safe at school. In the final analysis, our community has told us that safety supersedes all other goals. A safe school environment has therefore been affirmed as one of the top strategic priorities of the school district. Our visioning process was inclusive of all schools and children in the valley; we did not distinguish between district, charter or private schools, nor is it consistent with our vision that any students be less entitled to go to school in a safe environment than others. 1 The full report, "A Vision for Education in the Roaring Fork School District," can b found at il!!!, ‘1.!'is d.1% 1: 2(,5-lindl bl:,luliill:' 2. Schools need the ability to control their environment in order to ensure safety. As an experienced school administrator, having served as principal of three schools over an 18 -year period and now serving as assistant superintendent in the Roaring Fork Schools, it is my professional opinion that school administrators need the ability to monitor and regulate their physical facilities, determine who may come and go when, and ask unwanted visitors to leave at any time. It is, of course, also important that our school properties be places that can be enjoyed by the broader community and that we recognize that school facilities are valuable community resources. But schools must have the authority to remove any threats to the safety of students immediately. Unfortunately, in the post -Columbine era, we have learned hard lessons about the importance of monitoring and managing our school environments in order to ensure student safety. We try to do this in a way that feels welcoming to visitors and community members, but it would be reckless not to regulate and restrict access to our school properties. School administrators make countless safety decisions on a regular basis, some of them unpopular—asking unwanted visitors to leave, restricting use of cars on campus, cancelling events in icy weather, asking parents to show an ID before picking up a child—knowing that we can afford to be unpopular but we can't afford to make a small mistake that could put our children in jeopardy. I have attended too many funerals, visited too many hospitals, filled out too many police reports, and consoled too many parents, due to tragedies that have befallen my students over the past years. As an adult responsible for their care and safety, it hurts whenever misfortune strikes one of our children. I don't know how I could live with myself if a decision I had made contributed to, or allowed, that misfortune to occur. I don't know who would want to take on the responsibility of keeping kids safe if they didn't have the authority to act in that regard. I ask you to join with the wishes of the broader community and find a resolution that does not compromise the safety of our children. Sincerely, Rob Stein Assistant Superintendent and Chief Academic Officer Roaring Fork School District Introduction This section of the plan provides a framework far attaining a continuous, well connected system of streets, sidewalks, and pathways so that getting around Carbondale without an automobile is a viable and attractive option. Maintaining and enhancing pedestrian and bike mobility is among the top priorities for the communi- ty, The multi -modal mobility element of the Comprehensive Plan centers on a network of priority multi -modal corridors (Figure 3.3). Future multi -modal improvements in these corridors will result in a consistent and func- tional bike and pedestrian network, Completing the gaps in connectivity along the priority corridors identified in Figure 3.3 is a top priority. While the multimodal corridors extend throughout town, streets mapped as multi -modal corridors possess site-specific conditions that influence their design and implementation. Information such as street right-of-way width, neighborhood character, and traffic volumes, all need to be considered when integrating streets with sidewalks, pathways and other multimodal improvements, For example, detached sidewalks can be integrated with naturalized storm water treatment practices as an alternative to the traditional tree lawn and curb and gutter. One of the most pressing challenges is how to make Highway 133 mare functional for the shared use of pedestrians, cyclists, vehicles, and busses. Currently Highway 133 is a barrier for cyclists and pedestrians mov- ing across town. In order to achieve full multi -modal functionality, Highway 133 will need to accommodate the needs of all users. This chapter addresses improvements to the roadway and right-of-way with the priority of connecting neighborhoods across Highway 133 with safe bike and pedestrian crossings, and pathways and/ or sidewalks along both sides where spacing will accommodate them. Another challenge is creating connec- tions with the existing trail and pathway network between critical destinations such as schools, downtown, and the Third Street Center. There are several gaps in this existing network, but the existing facilities serves as a good foundation for continuing to enhance the bike and pedestrian mobility throughout town. The Roaring Fork Valley Transportation Authority connects the community with the region, however there is current not a local circulator system to transport people throughout town. Many citizens are hopeful about the possibility of developing a local transit system, adding evert more options to the multi -anodal system, . Multi -Modal Mobility Goals and Strategies Throughout Tov+na. * Indicates a top community priority, Strategies are listed in order according to community priorities, *Goal 1- Develop multi -modal improvements tailored for Carbondale streets right-of-way width, neighbor- hood character, focusing first on priority mold -modal corridors and priority connections (Figure 3,1. 3.2 and 3.3). Strategy A - These are the priority connections (not listed in order of importance): - Pathway completion along Snowmass Drive connecting to Main Street. - Pathway completion along Meadowood Drive connecting to Highway 133. - Pedestrian/bike connection from Third Street Center to Highway 133.. - Connect Snowmass Drive and Meadowood Drive through Roaring Fork School District Campus. - Pathway and/or sidewalk along Main Street connecting Highway 133 and CRMS. - Sidewalks along 8th St. between Village Road and the sidewalks on Cowen Drive. - Complete the gap in the sidewalk along Sopris Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets. - Bus stop across from Subway on Main near Highway 133. Goal 2 - improve multi -modal connectivity throughout town, * Strategy A - Improve and expand connections between neighborhoods and the Highway 133 Trail/Crystal Valley Trail. *Strategy B -Capitalize on the Rio Grande Trail by connecting to it, prioritizing connections near downtown and connections in future developments and redevelopments along the trail, *Strategy C - improve general connectivity to the 3rd Street Center. Strategy D -improve connectivity from schools to the rest of the town, emphasizing safe routes from resi- dential neighborhoods to school and routes from the campuses to downtown. Strategy E - Continue to pian for and pursue funding for a local transit circulator service with routes that reach more of the neighborhoods in town. Strategy F - Continue to work with Roaring Fork Transit Authority and Colorado Department of Transporta- tion to maintain safe and convenient transit facilities and services. Strategy G - Establish bike and pedestrian facility design standards. 34 terraapg - I - a r:p._ Parapet panty -, Drive r ono Drive � 4 Paiar!ar P e Figure Example street design customized for Oft riahf of tip width Walk Parallel Pkg. Drive Lane Drive Lane Diagorbi Porting i Landscape Figure 3.1b -- Example street design customized for 70ft right of way width Walk Multi -Mobility Goals and Strategies for the Highway 133 Corridor * indicates a top community priority. StrateKies are listed in order according to community priorities. Goal 3—Connect the east and west sides of town across the highway. *Strategy A - Improve safety and convenience for pedestrians and cyclists crossing the highway. Strategy i3 - Prioritize sate highway CfOSSirigs to access buss stops.. Strategy C - Establish a new multi -modal street connection between ath Street and Highway 133 Main Street. Goal 4— Improve the quality and continuity of pedestrian and bicycle mobility along the highway. *Strategy A - Develop pathways and/or sidewalks along both sides of Highway 133 where right-of-way vvidth can accommodate these facilities and minimize drivevvay curb cuts across them to limit conflicts. Strategy 4 - Manage highway access to minimize driveway cuts arid street intersections along pathways and/ or sidewalks while allowing adequate access to property and promoting the visibility of businesses to pass- ersby. Goal 5 — Improve the safety, convenience and funs tion of the highway for automobiles. Strategy A - Improve the safety and fonctic nality of town street intersections with Highway 133. Strategy B - balance safe anti convenient autcnnobile access to arid from properties along the highway with safe pedestrian and bike mobility. Strategy C - Develop access to bias =taps that does n7Jt impede the flaw of traffic or endanger motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. norm of Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings fiffinffia Priority Multi -Modal Corridors =Hz Future Connections c Crossings Idi w Town Boundary Streets IIIII Public Recreation Land County Roadsefit 36 CARIONDAI: CAMS • • cathenge Storrs Hodil • A• �\��trry Figure 3.4 Existing Pathways and Sidewalks Pathway Sidewalks Both Sides Sidewalk One Side Town Boundary Streets 11111 Public Recreation Land CountyRoads(5)b Criti C rtEKDAL4 Building Masi and Scale, Buildings can be up to 3 stories tali. Building facades and roof lines should be bro- ken -up to develop visual interest, avoid monotony, and a box -like structuresappearance. The street/highway should be faced with three-dimensional architectural elements such as windows, doors, and dormers, contrib- uting to an interesting streetscape. Parking° While site design should emphasize convenient automobile access and parking, parking Tots should be sited on the sides and behind buildings in smaller scale Tots broken dividedup by landscaped islands with shade trees and landscape islands . Encourage consolidated Consolidated driveways should be encouraged to main- tain the continuity of sidewalks/pathways along the street, Parking structures should be sited and designed to be disguised and integrated intointegrate with the primary buildings architeturearchitecture. Connectivity: Facilitate convenient and obvious multi -modal connections to the Rio Grande Trail and to the nearby RFTA park-and-ride facility. Take advantage of proximity to the RFTA park and ride with transit oriented development. CRMS Dolores Way Mixed Use Figure 4.14 - Dolores Way Mixed Use Designation Figure 4.14 „ Dolores Way Mixed Use Designation 7 CdRBQRBdL' Are," 74 Protected Lands and Signficant Private Parcels Town of Carbondale Periphery 111 Conservation Easements ' Public Lands Significant Parcels iJ N Eli 626 6 s rain. rrCC�ARBQRDALeCtigt« V Town Periphery Future Land Use Designations - Phase 1 Potential Annexation- tnfill Areae - Phew 2 PolamialAnnexation: Will Areas Phase 3 Potential. Annexation: Conservation Development COMITIUMOVANT e ,/ River Corridor and Ftood*lain Conservation Ames Priority Agricultural Lands N Jf J dM1!in 75 Level of Difficulty 1) With the exception of CRMS lands, phase 1 areas are already mostly developed and ownership is frag- rnented, complicating annexation. 2) The Town would need to promote incentives for owners of residential and commercial lots in phase 1 areas to petition for annexation: utilities/services, better zoning, law enforcement: Small ScaleConservation Design Sbdivision Figure 432 = Conservation Development Examples Town Periphery Future Land Use Designations The following designations describe preferred future conditions in the town periphery (see map, Figure 4.34). The annexation areas are prioritized as phase 1, which would provide several opportunities and public benefits and phase 2 and 3, which are also logical areas for annexation but more distant in the future. In some cases, phase 2 and 3 annexations may need to wait until phase 1 annexations bring the town boundary out to the property. The designations also include conservation areas: agriculture and river corridors. By coordinating with land conservation entities to purchase land or conservation easements and annexing conservation orient- ed development, the town can secure its geographic limits while allowing just enough expansion to meet the needs of the community as it evolves. Phase 1 Potential Annexation - !nf ll Areas The intent of the phase 1 annexation area is to promote infill and redevelopment in adjacent areas that already function as part of town, but are not yet annexed including the Colorado Rocky Mountain School, which is closely connected to town. These are the most logical areas for annexation because infill and redevelopment in these areas would maintain the town's compact footprint while promoting walking and biking. An existing pattern of mixed density and fragmented ownership means that annexation and redevelopment could span decades of incremental change in some phase 1 areas. The challenge is to plan for the long term and maintain consistency throughout the transition, Opportunities 1) Gateway enhancements. 2) infill and redevelopment. 3) Sales tax revenues from existing and future retail uses. 4) Establish contiguity with larger, intact parcels for future annexations. 5) Eliminate individual septic disposal systems, 76 Guidance for specific, areas: • The north gateway near the intersection of Highways 82 and 133 should create sense of arrival and way - finding for visitors. It also hosts several businesses and has the potential for redevelopment and infill. • The south gateway along the Crystal giver on Highway 133 consists of several large lot residential subdivi- sions. Annexation and redevelopment in this area would be complex due to the need to coordinate with multiple property owners. • The remaining parcels in the County Island should be annexed and developed with a diversity of housing types. • The mobile home park along Snowmass Drive near Main Street is fully occupied today, but property own- ers could seek redevelopment in the future. Redevelopment of the park should follow the guidance con- tained in the Downtawn/Old-ii)wn Periphery Future Land Use Plan designation, listed earlier in the future land use plan. • Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) is currently operating as an independent high school for boarding and day students and is an important component of the Carbondale community and economy. In addi- tion to traditional classroom education, the School's property is used in its diverse programs in a variety of other ways including agricultural production, recreational activities, renewable energy production and ecological studies. CRMS also provides employee housing, CRMS programmatic needs, and subsequently its land use, has and will continue to evolve over time to support the organization's mission. The majority of CRMS property is located in unincorporated Garfield County. Portions of CRMS land outside the Town of Carbondale are designated as Phase 1 Potential Annexation Infill Area because of its prominent location on the west edge of Town. Should development occur on CRMS property, either on its open space parcels in Carbondale Of on property designated as Will Area, the densities should be gradually tiered from high den- sity near Highway 133 and Main, down to lower densities near the river corridor. The Town of Carbondale recognizes that the needs of CRMS will continue to evolve. The Comprehensive Plan is not intended to limit CRMS private property rights and it encourages dialogue between the Town of Carbondale, and Garfield County regarding future land use. Phase 2 Potential Annexation - infill Areas The mobile home park and the Satank neighborhood are lower priority, but already function as part of town, Future redevelopment or the demand for town hewer could motivate petitions for annexation in these phase 2 areas, but the opportunities for public benefit are fewer than those associated with phase 1 annexation areas, reducing the level of priority. Opportunities 1) Infill and redevelopment, 2) Establish contiguity with larger, intact parcels for lunare annexations, 3) Eliminate individual septic disposal systems. Level of Difficulty 1) Phase 1 areas are already mostly developed and ownership is fragmented, which complicates the co- ordination of annexation: 2) The Town would need to promote incentives for owners in phase 1 areas to petition for annexation: utilities; services, better zoning, law enforcement. 3) Residential units do not generate enough revenue to cover their costs for basic town services and facili- ties (See Chapters Background information). Figure 4.37 - Planned Parks, Open Space and Trails Improvements Gateway Park & RV Campground Improvements Hwy. 82 Underpass & Trail Access to Red Hill Trails Snowmass Drive Trail (Sopris Ave. to Main St.) Widen 8th Ave. Sidewalk Hwy. 133 Trail - City Market to Hendrick Park Hwy. 133 Trail - Triangle Park to Meadowood Dr. frail Connections - Gateway Pk. to Rio Grande Trail Extend CRMS Main Street Trail to Hwy. 133 RVR Parks Improvements: briiiees, picnic area, river bank restoration Renovate outdoor pool 3rd Street Community Partnership Park Gus Darien Riding Arena improvements and expansion Carbondale Nature Park development USFS Property Acquisition - next to Sopris Park and 11 acres on CR 100 Promenade Park Modifications RE1 School District and Town Sports Complex Parks/Open Space Dedications The upcoming parks, open space and trails master pian update can help identify pressing needs and priorities. These priorities can be applied to the open space requirements in the land use code subdivision standards For example, the master plan could include minimum acreage and amenity standards for defined types of parks and open space, including pocket parks, neighborhood parks, community parks, trail corridors, and other types that are useful for the community. These minimum standards in turn could be adopted into the land use code. If a development cannot offer land that meets the standards of acceptable types of parks and open space, they will have to fulfill the land dedication as a fee in lieu. Figure 4.38 -• Gu, Darien Riding Arena Glenn Hartmann From: Jeff Jackel [jjackel@carbondaleco.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:40 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Janet Buck; Larry Ballenger; Jay Harrington Subject: Emailing: Carbondale P&R&Trails Master Plan Attachments: Carbondale P&R&Trails Master Plan.pdf Hello Glenn: Attached is the section within the 2004 Town of Carbondale Parks, Recreation & Trails Master Plan that references the Town's desire on a perimeter trail between the CRMS property and the then called "Crystal River Marketplace" property. Jeff Jackel Recreation Director (970) 510-1214 The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Carbondale P&R&Trails Master Plan 1 Projected Cost: $125,000 with Public Works Department constructing trail; or $250,000 if contractor constructs trail. GOCO trail grants are available to off -set this cost. if a Garfield County and RFTA GOCO trail grant is pursued, a recommendation would be for the Town to participate as a partner financially ($25,000 suggested) to strengthen the grant application regarding partnerships and the local funding commitment. The Trails Committee has also recommended partnering with RFTA to extend the Rio Grande Trail, approximately one mile, from Highway 133 to the Satank Bridge. As mentioned above, RFTA currently has plans to finish the Rio Grande Trail from Glenwood Springs to Aspen, which would include this section. However, the section connecting Glenwood Springs and Carbondale is not currently funded. The Carbondale Trails Committee has received grants to restore the Satank Bridge. Connecting this bridge to the Rio Grande Trail will provide an additional bicycle/pedestrian access to the Gateway Park trail network. Crossing Highway 133 will require a pedestrian crossing light, and it's recommended that the Town partner with the RFTA and make a $20,000 contribution towards the funding of this light. Potential Action 2: The Town should partner with Garfield County and the RFTA to construct the trail to the Satank Bridge. Projected Cost: $125,000 with Public Works Department constructing trail; or $250,000 if contractor constructs trail. GOCO trail grants are available to off -set this cost. If a Garfield County and RFTA GOCO trail grant is pursued, a recommendation would be for the Town to participate as a partner financially ($25,000 suggested for trail and $20,000 for crossing light) to strengthen the grant application regarding partnerships and the local funding commitment. Total: $70,000 (Recreation Sales Use Tax Fund, plus possible GOCO trail grant funding) d) Widen the sidewalk along Eighth Ave from Village Road to the Rio Grande Trail Currently the sidewalk in this area is narrow and does not provide sufficient connectivity between the Rio Grande Trail and the trail along Village Road. Projected Cost: $35,000 e) Construct a trail from City Market to Hendrick Park This would be a 3/¢ mile frail on the west -side of Highway 133 that will tie into the new 2004 trail segment connecting Hendrick Park to RVR Triangle Park. Projected Cost: $50,000 (Recreation Sales Use Tax Fund, plus possible GOCO trail grant funding) f) Expand the County Road 106/Main Street Trail Currently there is an asphalt trail that parallels the east side of CR 106 adjacent to the CRMS property. This trail ends at the western terminus of Main St (where there is a turn in the road and it becomes CR 106). This trail should be extended along Main St. to Highway 133 (where there is a bus stop that is serviced by busses connecting to the local ski hills), This extension would provide safe passage for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling between CRMS and Highway 133. The cost of this trail, or a portion of it that abuts the future possible development of the Crystal River Market Place project, should be paid for by the developer as part of their project. Projected Cost; Unknown Town of Carbondale Recreation, Parks and Trails Master Plan August 2004 Page 121 g) Crystal River Market Place Trail from Main Street to Highway 133 This is a proposed by-pass connector short-cut trail between the County Road 106/Main Street Trail (listed above - (f) that would pass behind and abut the west and north side boundary of the future possible development of the Crystal River Market PIace project, and would connect to Highway 133 at the northern end of the project. The cost of this trail should be paid for by the developer as part of their project. Projected Cost: Unknown h) Construct trail from RVR Triangle Park to Meadowood Drive Recommended above is the construction of a trail along Highway 133 from City Market to Hendrick Drive. A trail is now being constructed in 2004 from Hendrick Drive to RVR Triangle Park. Rather than terminating at Triangle Park, this proposed trail should continue South and terminate at Meadowood Drive. This additional section of trail would connect Triangle Park and North Face Park (via the Meadowood Drive trail). This additional section of trail would also connect to the River Valley Ranch trail network and to the trail paralleling the base of White Hill, which is proposed to connect to the Rio Grande Trail and the Gus Darien Riding Arena. Projected Cost: $25,000 (seed money for possible GOCO trail grant) i) Connect trails between Gateway River Park, Carbondale Nature Park and the Rio Grande Trail There is potential to develop a trail between the Gateway River Park trail network and the Carbondale Nature Park trail network. This trail would require the Town to acquire an easement through private property, or purchase a portion of private land on which to build the trail. This trail could continue through the Nature Park and connect with the Rio Grande Trail. The section between the Nature Park and the Rio Grande Trail would also require private landowner participation. Dialogue should be initiated with these landowners in order to explore the feasibility of these trail connections. Projected Cost Until a plan is complete for these trails, the project cost will remain unknown. j) Highway 82 Underpass A trail should be provided from the proposed Gateway Park pedestrian bridge through the old cattle underpass. The underpass should be re -opened, providing direct off-highway non -motorized access to the Red Hill Recreation Area. Projected Cost: included in costs for Gateway River Park k) Continue to Financially Support Red Hill and Spring Gulch Nordic Trails Continue to financially support the Red Hill Recreation Area and the Spring Gulch Nordic Trail System. Five -Year CIF Funding Impact (A thru E): $315,000 From Recreation Sales Use Tax Fund: $315,000 Recommendation #5 Provide "seed money" funding of the Carbondale Nature Park The Town should consider developing the Carbondale Nature Park through a partnership with the Science Outreach Center (SOC). A grant writing capital campaign should also he initiated. The Town should consider a long-term lease of a small portion of the property to the SOC, along with $25,000 partnership "seed money" for the SOC to pursue GOCO grants and private foundation funding to build a Nature Center. The Center could leverage its tax-exempt status to gain grants and Town of Carbondale Recreation, Parks and Trails Master Pian August 2004 Page 122 EXHIBM St. -e `tier'.way 133 Access Control Nan ESA Executive Summary ACCESS CONTROL PLAN Recent growth in Garfield i;ourity (County) and 'specific:ally in and around the Tcwn tsf Carbondale (Town) has resulted in ars increase in traffic ori ttie State? Highway (SH) 133, which passes through the middle of the Town. Looking to the future traffic volumes In the area are expected to Incrsas.e by mens than 5$% in the next 20 years Without changes to the study roadways, the protected increase it traffic v011.lrne's wdl rssult in increased delay, higher levels of congestion and pollution. an increase in the filAiTIDer Of PACi:idenis: and consumers choosing to conduct melt Ousirie 3 tri othelcommuli 1 es Furthermore, i16' ACP was developed in an effort to assist the Town achieve Its goal of proiiding safe movement for all ioadwey LIsreia, including pedestrian and bicyclists Thus ttie tiriai recommendations of itie ACP cio not prorlhli the implementation Of future non -motorized facilities In 2012. the Town. County and Region 3 of rhe Colorado Department of T rarlspertation (COOT) successfully developed an access control plan (ACP). whicri will guide the agencies' decisions regarding tree fi.iiure access conditions and support the planning ObleCiive3 Of itle Town. Couriy• _incl COO I T tie ACP wa developed through an extensive collaborative effort Deiween iii sialce.noIceis. a sigeificani pl.imiic outreach effort to ensure all concerns were heard and appropria. rely addressed. and ifii3 fffiai3Ofl_it pre sefiiatiOns 10 elected official, The final recommendations of the ACP provide benefit to foul primary ?real vt the traiisporigiion system operations. safety mufti-r-T',oCiai and future iffipiC,v Niierit8 :i �r'ii;> iii i ti llati�i irrri,iiiir�'� diel benefit . of the: ACP included • Implementation of the ACP. rrsost Ii .sl) iu prlE ed approacrl, will re,diice coortgestion and delay on the roadway thrpt.igh the aciclitioii Of ad;.litionai capacity, hili! !"cilias, arta turd restrictions al appropriate locations which will extend the life of the :'risiirig fOaciway and CIE -day tri& need 10 eNpanC1 the roadway width • Changes in access conditions such as the eiim rrathorr of an acres EsiriciiOt) ori lite type of tern movements allowed ata specific location are Identified Triese recoil ii r ociatioi1s writ result in a reduction in the number of Conflict points (locations Wrier& vee clr . Iriiln;Jf p.-'1.1eatrlaf15 cross paint; with each other) which wiii ;mprove overall safety trsr ati transportation iiiccles • Intersections that may warrant the need fol a traffic signal of e0rlveisI ii 10 a r0l.lric1abeut In thin future are also clearly identified These changes in traffic control will reduce the severity int accidents provide a safety benefit to pecerirlans/Bicyclists, maks lefe runs of i-il.uris safer afid easier to accomptise reduce vehicle. speeds. and r50uCs' itis overall width 01 the fuadway (no auxiliary lanes are required at roundabouts). • The recommendations and conclusions contained in the ACP do not prohibit feiure improvemienis 10 the transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities in and around the Town • The recommendations and conclusions c;Oriiairied in Inc ACP do not prohibit future improvemenie i0 the roadway system in and arounri.the Town Efforts were made t0 identity possible. filter& connectivity or roads. which meet iris future planning goals of ins T ew1i uici County Another key pan of the ACP is the identification 01 itis implemientaiion process 11 Is imporianii to fernembei that the ACP is intended to represent a long range plan for the study roailwaya Implementation of ins' full plan can Occur as a single project. of over the long term in smaller Ific reriiertii>< as a ptiaCseii approaC;ri Implementation of the full plait at a single time is unlikely to be feasible aria would wily Or<:C.r.ir ea pari of a transportation improvement. pr c eC1 that included all Oi the study roadways. The most likely approach will be implerrientaiion of interim rcOatway improvements That w0utd'leIay the neer to implement the ultimate reoommsndations of the ACP Implementing a rwo-way-left-turn-lane (T1rUL.TL-) for portions of the study roadways is one way that the Town could prolong ills lite of the Brit` ting roadway ATKINS sH 133 CARBONDALE ACCESS CONTROL PION State Highway 133 Access Control Plan CDOT. the Town, and itis County ais currently ptn uing improvements to the SH 133 corridor north of Main Street, including the possible. ithplt meriiahon of t otJrrdabouts ai critical intersections The ability for COOT, the Town. and the County to nilly irrrplernerit Improvements is acc c,untEid for in the ac[:eSS control pians final recorrimendations The next ph lse of the implementation would be to identify locations where raised rrtedianls. trafsiC fiignalG, roitandabotai&. or other forms of traffic control are warranted Ttie most common trigger for the phased approach r0l140$ 10 When a property along SH 1;33 develops. redevelops, or If a driveway experiences a traffic volurlle increase of 20 percent or more all of winch require a new CDOT access permit. The final aspect of the implernerttation process Is how access Is granted to new developments -The Town, County. and CDOT Should work with the owner/developer to ensure projects are designed with consideration to where wi l he permitted in tfis ultimate ACP Access will he provided to triEv property as shown on the ACP uriie ii i> riot feasible 10 irnplerrient at tits time of the development Then. an interim access will be permitted. yvhu:h %Nill chariot once the ultirnatee access conditions can De achieved Finally. ite prror;ees used to clevelop the ACP was coil;;aborative arid morouJri. ensuring the many rieecIS pi the different staKeholcier5 were considerei1 ai each step of the way The propei balance tietwe U e Ctifter`~^ni Interests rerstllisd iii an ACP triai vya s 9aslly adopted by the local elected officials arid hilly rilewI ; COOT expeciaiionE. and reauirsrfleriis lrflpletne nation of the ACI' (full or phaed) vvll! s Provide the appropriate. level Gf ar_C:e.. to f rope;rliea cldiaceni io the. study roadways ie Provide Sates %IiGulaiiofl routes for all forms of transportation ivehicular transit, arid pedestrlar Keep cli%utalion touter 1:onSi&Ien1 with the Town's goals for future development • ProvidecffilAeiii InOveineiIt of traffic: aiid other iMOdefS of irani;portation within free 3iudy area +F Piavide a balance beivveerl ihie• investment in alternative transportation mode and vehicular transportation fllDcic . Piovide de3ign ilexibilay including the ability to take a priaseri approach to improvementthat will minimize Irieefficl&ricies in Iris construction i;i overde igned roadway widths and lengths o Provide opttirial access with the potential ti);e..Iuc;e the ritimber and severity of accidents ink'oivii'i'J vehicles and/or pedestrians and biOyclraiB ✓ Reduce tree delay experienced by cnoionw., pedegtrians. and other alternative moCles of transportation • Redube aii pollution creaiK1 by congested trail: coririitiona t Rcdun:e trle nurnbei Di COAStaiii5f :•oiltiii.tiriing bI.ISrrir?k° wlSewhHra ATKINS SR 133 CARBONDALE r.ccess CORinoi FLfl: SlaiE) i Iigrivwly 1:i:; Acces:; C.coirol Pian Figure 11 Recommended access locatimrs. (Sheet of 7y Ulimate ACP Recommendations I_ Full Movement (Signal/Roundabout) Full Movement (Not to be signalized) 0 314 movement (no left turn) A Right -in, right -out only G Right -in only A Right -out only X Close Access ID Emergency Access Only Potential Future Roads Existing Pathways --- Future Pathways +4 Required Cross Access Town Limits Parcels Page 2 of 7 (� ATKINS s4 • SH 133 CARBONDALE ACCESS ca41no1 Pion State Highway 133 Access Control Plant Accident analysis Although future accidents ;:i nnot bd accurately predicted. the recommendations of the ACP will have an impact ori the Overall safety Of the: study roadway by reducing Mei-Kill-Mei of Conflict pointer and providing better traffic control at ifttem-seciton;. The ACP will have an Irnp ir:t on safety t,ecause tree recommendations reduce the rlurnbei of conflict pOIf1f along the study roadway A conflict point is the location where the paths of twC iaaCiWay users (vehicles. pedestrians. of biCyC:IISia) eros€ each Oihei The ACP rnaices recortrr e.ndaiions Thai reduce the number of locations wrtere paths of the different users crc8g each Uthet T followii-ig are exanipleS of conflict point reductions • Coiwer$.orl tat ac e3S froiTl fall movC stent ID right -in iigni-out • Restriction of access ftorn fulI'moverneni ;o "'•s nlf�veil erI1 • Combining multiply access 1rivevvays into a single Shared Cirtvewa} All of mese exmpleS E31fiTnriai: ith:A points along the rtJdelwaya By reducing the number ui posS11.) conflict patois along Et roatiw iy. t;?wer accidents ate t'."Kpecgekii0 Occur reSuliing Irl Ei solei roadway Pedestrians and bicyclists Evill have fewer intersections to :'.riiS3 and io:atiortr vvrlere they will ilei move to worry about left -turning vehicles The ACP aiso identifies several interseciiori. that may requtrs. a change in traffic Conroet such a3 rite Installation Of a traffic signal for rounciabotii ;t: tilt, The iihanyel. in traffic L-ontliot can have a positive impact on the overall safely of a roadway vvniie traffic signals may result ill a higher number Di real eric1 accidents. they also pfVvide an vpportunrty io reduce the rtum.wi of left-iuir,Iitrj.' irlaferi crashes by providing pr 4eci ort for left -turning movement Traffic signals also provide + to ;;I0S3.ng opportunity for pedestrians bicyi liiis as they wilt be able to cross ire roac1way wit i i r= -, i 1,:, ;,i iii= signal Roundabouts also provide a rrllicli Safer intersection experience fol v nic:e i as they rech.ICC Inc severity of crashes while providing a safe iocatiort for drivers [0 rriaice left iiirns C,i u -turns to reach their 'dessiinations Roundabouts reduce vehicle speeds and reCiti'.'c me overall vt.i 11l ,if theroadway (no auxiliary Lanes are required) Mai the pedestrian bicyclists riii.isr cross They a;si}>>1:.•• i•r its Safety benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists as well The recommendations for changes to accest3 along SH 133 should have an .i-, ;tf: safety tai ins study roadway to ire future Even as traffic ycll.,n-ie5 Conlinr.iN ire increase. i; „! . !,itflii:t pUit'iI and the introduction of beater traffic control along the study roadway will have =t ^.tiiv5 imp 1 i in the overall safety for me different modes of transportation 7.5. Alternative transportation modes The recommendations and cnnclusiona contained in the SH 133 ACP do not prohibit future Improwerller,IS 10 the transit bicycle. and pedestrian, facilities in anis around the Town Although not spec rtir:aliy addressed in the ACP. Figure 11 through Figure 1' show areas where the Town pians to irriprove the pedestr tan! ncyclist facilities parallel to arks near 133 witriI(i TOM) boticiaeries The ACP does ICcEsnli y areas where new sidewalk':!pathwayta lDtilt1 be added to the system to 81111iit-taic gape and Irilprovc overall Grine rniliy f0i rion-motorized iriavelefS 1n the area where new 'raciltitcs could be added, it 15 not nese%eery that the facilities be constructed directly adjacent to the iCAL1Way• but Mai as development occurs the Town should wort: with the property owner'Iri ensure. Mai the final design provides for pedestrian facilities to be constructed The facilities may be alcrly trt4 back Df the property or rhrot-igh rhe middle of the property. as long as the gape are eliminated Improvements io the pedestrian/bicycle path System should be afIconipht tied Through the ideveli?pmcnt/recievelopmeni pitoceF.•s and should be a requirement for inclusion before projects are accepted Of notice io occupy i£s issued The Town. Coi.inty. and CDOT should irvork together ib make sure That ice•' ATKINS 4l State Highway 133 Access Control Plan SH 133 CARRONDALE ACCESS CONTIO1 PEAS: roadway improvements within the study area include improvernenis i7 existing facilities or addition of new facilities in an effort tt to • Meet the Towns goal • Complete COnneCtivity in and through the area • Encourage alternative modes of transportation • Provide safe and ffici if filovemeni: of tion moioflZeii nncwerns`rii in the are RFTA participates in the proieCI during iti& early development phase of the proieci and provided itloughts regarding possible impacts to Transit service in the are, The. following Crier:al ;;ornmsnis were provided by RFTA • Patter connectivity of pec inaihioiCycia fa:,iiihes ic7 stops • FRoadway improvements siloulci nol bu operation's Althougg.ri these issues are not specifically -ddleSSed In an ACP. iriey are Ifflpt)riarti ISSueS mat $hpuI0 be planned for as this area c:,nonuse to groIN and C1ev&tc p The recommendations bontalned m the ACP vvOuld not prohibit ine improvements that would address RFTA's concerns As previously discussed. irn:rovements to the sidewalks/pamways to eliminate gaps arid provide better connectivity would not only improve safety but could promote the use of transit services and help reduce the volume of traffic On rhe study roadway Future imprOvernenis to the goody roadway could be designed io provide bus pull 0(113. which would improve safety for the buses and Trie transit niers as they enter and exit rhe bus Finally. transit vehicles are on ssctheduies and with Trie introduction of traffic crintrol devices &Licri as traffic signals anti/or roundabouts iteeiv i;. it potential io iniioi:lucectetay for the transit vehicles Proper design of roadway ianeage. roundabout 31Zir1y. and signal ;lifting could pati accornpii hed in a manner to mininhlze possible delay to transit venicles and Thus not hinder Operations or scheduiing of Services It should be noted the T owri wants to maintain a friendly environment for alternative modes of transportation. especially pedestrians arts! bicyclists The Town would also I:ke to see the addition of a future local irarisii CIrCuiator service to trig Community 1,Vhile rhe eieveloprneni of an ACP is anticipated to have smarty benefits for automobile traffic: triE 'I :Avn gives equal importance. to the CNC1.111i1:,i) of alternative mosey Implementation of tree ACP snood consider metrrodS such as colored crosswalks. safe crossings at signalized intersections separated/protected areas for Cr;is5lrig over/under busy foaduways or warerwaye signage to encourage roadway snaring. and implementation of bicycle lanes, all nave rile potential to aselst the Town in achieving the Opals as sei forth In Me Town Comprehensive Plan 7.6. Future roadway connectivity Figure 11 throug t Figura 17 include, opportunities for roadways that would help improve the overall connectivity of tete transportation aye -tarn These new roads were identified based on future developments input from stakeholders, and iri an short to provide drivers wan ChOiCeS On how to get to their final de.stinat ons t o Thai local traffic making local tripe may be able to do so Without the use of SH 133 This mil reduce tine traffic voiurnsS ori St'i 133 aria may rlelf, extend the life span of the existing ::ystern and delay Inc steed to make capacity relaters improvements to SI -I 133 The future roadways. displayed in the figures are Concepts of wriere more connectivity could OCCur In trig future The exact location and design of these roadways wOuICJ neeci io lie determined by completion of a more detailed traffic analysis at the. time of irte improvements It should be noied the potential future roadways shown on the ACP shnai lc be Included in the pngotng c::prnpreheri;sive Plan being completed by inciTown E 42 /1TKINS XNJN 21 - J Glenn Hartmann From: Michael Prehm Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 8:41 AM To: jwhite@crms.org Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Utility Permit Attachments: Utility-Permit-Application.pdf Joe, Attached is a Utility permit. Put N/A on anything that does not pertain to this project. I will fill out 30, 31, 32. When Yancy contacts me, I will just have him keep me in the loop on the design of the sidewalk. Thanks Mike Prehm Garfield County Road & Bridge Foreman/Glenwood District (970) 945-1223 Office (970) 945-1318 Fax. (970) 618-7109 Cell 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Joe White [jwhite@crms.org] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 4:52 PM To: Michael Prehm Cc: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Access and Utility Permits Dear Mike (cc: Glenn), We're still not excited about linking the driveway access reconfiguration to the road vacation issue. We do understand and appreciate your point of view however. As you know, this work on the south end of campus is something that we want done anyway when funding allows. Your referral comments did not mention that we had already started working with you on this last summer. It's looking more and more like CRMS will be on the hook for the Dolores Way path extension which may push the south end work timeline a little further out. We are willing to commit to ensuring the driveway access is resolved in a reasonable time frame - less than 5 years (hopefully much sooner) if the road vacation is approved. I would have to seek a higher level approval to solidly commit to an earlier time frame. If we could get some financial support from the county (i.e. the school zone and reduced speed signage) I think we could move sooner. Anyway, we would be very grateful if you would send Glenn a note for his file indicating that the access design work is complete and that CRMS is willing to commit to the access permit process as a condition of approval (within a reasonable time frame). Also, your referral comments did not address whether you would accept the Delores Way path extension. Is it possible for you to comment on it in the absence of full blown engineering plans? Sopris Engineering indicated they would like to do this work but we won't have the utility permit application complete before the Glenn's report deadline. Thanks for considering and sorry for the extra email clutter. Have a good weekend. Regards, Joe Joe White Director of Finance Colorado Rocky Mountain School (970) 963-2562 www.crms.org 1 Glenn Hartmann From: dalew@sopris.net Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 9:53 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: John A; John Hoffmann; bills; Franz; DaveS; gret Hi Glenn - I am writing to urge Garfield County NOT to vacate the public's right to traverse the CRMS campus. My daughter is a graduate of CRMS. There is a terrific bike/ped loop which makes use of the historic Satank Bridge which Garfield County invested in and traverses the campus. Carbondale similarly invested in a bike trail on the south side of campus. This route is an important asset for our community. Please keep it open for Garfield County residents to use. Regards Dale VVill 134 Sopris Ave Carbondale Garfield County resident and voter Febuary 4th, 2014 EXHIBIT 111 .Glen Hartman and Planning and Zoning members: I am writing a hurried letter today, February 4th as I just got word that today is a submittal deadline for comments on the County Road 106 vacation application by CRMS. Although I helped CRMS with it's 1979 appeal to close 106 road to motorized traffic, I am opposed to the very different action of vacating that public property. Not looking at the pros and cons, the vacation of public rights of way for the benefit of private parties, with no offsetting compensation shouldn't even be considered. Who couldn't think of a good reason to be given some land by the county? My thinking in regards to this particular action is as follows: 1. Future development by CRMS or their successors. There are hundreds of acres of CRMS property with may be developed in the future. CRMS can maintain control over this by not developing. I think the road vacation would be followed promptly with some development with no threat to improve access. 2. Highway 133 access. This is a mess and will be greater soon, so now is not the time to be giving away any possible solution. (Opening 106 rd. or by negotiating for a real solution with the threat.) There is a real safety issue here for the general public. 3. Trails. Important for many and nothing being talked about is near as good as the existing route on the public right of way of 106. A sidewalk along Highway 133 or some path on the east side of the school doesn't leave access to Rd. 108 or Sweet Hill and the Thompson Creek area. 4. Safety. At the hearing in Carbondale, CRMS stressed safety above everything. Safety for their students but overlooked the safety of the general public. a. The safety of the general public and Garfield County residents should not be ignored in the business interest of CRMS's need for safety in promoting their product. 133 access or a trail along 133, basically a sidewalk, both present safety issues with likelyhoods of harm much greater than CRMS's "incident" fears. b. A teenage girl in a CRMS dorm has no need to be safer than our children sleeping thirty feet away from public roads open to all manor of creepy Garfield County individuals. c. CRMS has a very valid point in that they have a control problem, but that problem was created by their unwillingness to define and post their property. It was CRMS's decision to keep that access ill defined that causes fewer people to use it (their intention) and the ensuing control problems. I ask that Planning and Zoning recommend keeping the ownership of County Road 106 in it's current form and suggest to CRMS that they can control and manage their property with proper marking of their boundries Brad Hendricks (307) 699-0145 �W(ice 678 North Bridge Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.963.2163 Phone; 909.548.8464 Fax bilspence(gmail.com February 4, 2014 Garfield County Planning Commission and The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Proposed abandonment of CR 106 Dear Commissioner: EXH6WT 130 am writing this letter as a private citizen, having retired within the last month from over nine years as a member of Carbondale's Planning and Zoning Commission. I appreciate the long-standing support from the County towards the towns within the County and towards Carbondale in particular. The historic CR 106 is used frequently by bicyclists and pedestrians, not only by citizens of Satank and the Kay PUD but also by Carbondale citizens living on the entire west side of CO 133. It has provided access for over one hundred years. CR 106 is 60 feet wide, about 1,200 feet long, and has an area of about 1.89 acres. It has value not only because of its size but also because of its critical location within the campus of the Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS). I think that Garfield County should not abandon CR 106 to CRMS without assuring that something of equivalent value is given to the Town. CRMS is an important and valued piece of the fabric that makes Carbondale so special. Their petition to have CR 106 abandoned reminds me of the original proposal for RVR, which was for the latter to be a gated community. In that case the proponent made concessions to the Town which ended up strengthening the Town and also leading to a very successful development. The proposal by CRMS is to mostly substitute the loss of passage along CR 106 by a paved bike/ped path along Dolores Way (in Town of Carbondale right of way) and having this path connect to a new bike/ped path along CO 133 (in the CDOT right-of- way and funded by CDOT). In neither case has the CRMS proposed giving land in exchange for their gain. The proposed routes, although necessary for safety and access, are much more inconvenient and less desirable to many users than the traditional use of CR 106. I see two ways that CRMS could help the citizens, the town of Carbondale, and Garfield County in exchange for the County's vacating of CR 106: (1.) A route that would provide more direct and improved access for west side users would be for CRMS to provide an easement of at least 20' wide, along the back side of the 25 acre parcel at the intersection of CO 133 and West Main Street, connecting West Main to Dolores Way. This route would have the additional benefit of not being associated with the ever increasing traffic along CO 133. (2.) Making left turns onto CO 133 from the junctions of Dolores Way and of the street from La Fontana Plaza/Carbondale Public Works/Grand Junction Pipe & Supply are often exceedingly difficult. This situation will only become more difficult as traffic increases. It is my understanding that, under the upcoming improvements to CO 133, neither of these junctions will have traffic signals to make left turns easier. If the angled east end of Dolores Way were redirected behind Ajax Bike & Sports, on present CRMS land, to meet CO 133 directly across from the second junction being discussed, then a future signalized intersection or round -about could solve the problems at both of these junctions. These options together comprise far less area than the 1.89 acres of CR 106. It is my opinion that Garfield County should not vacate CR 106 to CRMS until both these options are guaranteed to be put into place in a timely way. I feel that the County has a fine opportunity to fashion a win-win for CRMS, the Town of Carbondale, and Garfield County. Sincerely, Bill Glenn Hartmann 2-4-14 Planner Garfield County ghartmannAgarfield-county.com Re: 106 Road crossing CR.MS campus. EXHIBIT 31 Dear Glenn, I am very much opposed to the CRMS proposal to take over 106 Road. I believe Garfield County gains nothing by relinquishing the right of way and loses present and future options by granting their request. Satank has an access problem that seems to grow worse by the day. There is a large amount of pasture land west of Satank that could be developed. CRMS has opened a "back door" to Dolores. CRMS land along Dolores could be developed. Highway 133 traffic is on the rise. The better choice at this time, from our point of view is to reopen, not give away, the road crossing CRMS. At the very least, the existing blockage should be removed and replaced with a typical emergency gate that would allow for emergency vehicles as well as regular vehicles if the main access is blocked or development makes it necessary. The historic bike and pedestrian access must be maintained under any scenario. Much has been said about security issues. Sadly, the terrible tragedies of recent years have been mostly the work of people connected to the schools or the victims. Only security on the level of a prison can keep out those kinds of people. And still, the incidents occur in only a tiny number of schools. Should we be putting barbwire and gates around the other County schools? The offer of extending a paved bike path up to Satank gains nothing. In fact, Satank does not appreciate the recent increase in general bikers and pedestrians on our narrow roads. They are a traffic hazard for us. Unfortunately, RFTA made the main bike path almost inaccessible. Ajax bike does a good business with folks looking for the bike path. The residents here are more than capable of riding up to Dolores or over to the south end of 106 without a "path". The addition of a bike path on the west side of Hwy 133 would be good for the general public. According to the plan, that path should make a better connection to the existing downvalley trail. The west side path would have fewer access points to cross; at least for the near future. Again, I would prefer that the county consider increased public use of 106 rather than the opposite. The right of way will only become more important in time. Best regards, Patrick and Rae Ann Hunter 1131 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 379-0274 hunter@sopris.net Glenn Hartmann From: Pat Bingham Ipat.bingham@pitkincounty.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:22 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Fwd: : CRMS Road Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Pat Bingham <pat.bingham@pitkincounty.com> Date: February 4, 2014 at 4:20:42 PM MST To: "ghartmann@garfieldcounty.com" <ghartmann@garfieldcounty.com> Subject: : CRMS Road Hi Glen, EXHIBIT I hope you can share my concerns with P&Z and County Commissioners about the CRMS Road situation: I believe the County should maintain ownership of the road across CRMS and NOT vacate it to the school for the following reasons: It's a county road, paid for with our taxpayer dollars. It was bad enough when CRMS closed the campus to cars some years ago...but I can understand them not wanting a lot of vehicular traffic there...so that's OK..but creating private property that will eliminate pedestrian and bicycle crossing is wrong. I live in Crystal Village. I use the bike trail that runs along the pastureland to the campus. The bike trail ends abruptly on the outskirts of CRMS even though traveling by bike or on foot across the campus on the PUBLIC road provides direct access to the Rio Grande Trail near Satank Bridge. I think the trail should continue along the county road across the campus. If CRMS wants to do this because of security concerns...I think that's a weak argument. I can think of many other school campuses that have public bike and pedestrian trails across them including the Aspen Public School Campus, Basalt High School Campus, and Carbondale Public School Campus. In fact the bike trail that runs through Aspen Public School Campus provides a much safer, quieter route to Maroon Creek Road that avoids heavy traffic and a sharp corner. There have never been any security issues that I've heard of by letting the public ride and walk across school campuses. 1 The CRMS offer to build a bike trail along Hwy 133 is not good enough. It is less direct, less scenic, noisy and dirty. There is already a noisy, dirty bike trail on the other side of 133 in the same area. Not many cyclists use it. Garfield County OWNS that road and as a taxpayer I'd like us to KEEP it. Thank You, Pat bingham 130 Crystal Road Carbondale, Colorado 970-319-6634 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Sue Edelstein [suereally@gmail.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:11 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Proposal to Vacate CR106 Through CRMS Dear Mr. Hartmann, I am very concerned about the CRMS request for the county vacate 106 road through its campus. I do not think it is in the best interest of our citizens, but do have an alternative solution that might meet all needs. The Town of Carbondale's proposed bicycle/walking/running the path along 133 will provide a fine access to future commercial, albeit one with crossings that will need extra attention. However, there are several reasons that it does not replace the 106 corridor. They include: • The proposed 133/Delores trail is a commercial trail, not a recreational one. We work to make our recreational trails run off-road or on low -traffic roads, to be away from fumes and pollution, to be in a nice aesthetic environment, and to connect to other parts of our network of recreational trails. It really will not be part of that network. • It is the only direct, low -traffic, and low development access from the 108 bridge and from the path along west Main that leads through to Dolores Way . Many runners, walkers, and bikers use that route for commuting and recreation. There is no good access to this area from either the RFTA park and ride or from the newly -reconstructed Satank Bridge (and the Rio Grande Trail), to which the county contributed a great deal of money. This is how most of the many, many County and Carbondale residents who live west of 133 or off 108 Road access those points. • It also provides safe access to the Community School for youngsters from all the neighborhoods to the west of 133 and south of Main Street. • The loss of this trail would detrimentally affect the quality of life in our community. • It is also a fact that giving away government land — and this is a fair amount of land when one takes into account the length and the width of the road including rights-of-way — is often a bad practice and not fair to taxpayers. Any action with disposal of public land should be in the PUBLIC interest, for the good of the greatest number, not the interest of a private organization. Trades that compensate the public, not giveaways, can be more appropriate. CRMS is certainly a valuable part of our community and their concern for their students is understandable. On the flip side, however, they chose the placement of the dorms and buildings KNOWING that the 106 access exists, themselves creating the jeopardy they now discuss. In addition, this request for vacation 106 is not new and has been turned down in the past by the County, so they knew what they were risking. I think this vacation would serve the interests of CRMS but not of the public. PROPOSED SOLUTION: Perhaps a solution to this situation would be for CRMS to build, to the same standard as the Rio Grande Trail, an alternative trail that is on their land on the east and south edges of the campus and connects to 108 road. This would serve everyone's interests. 1 I ASK that the County keep 106 open to pedestrians and cyclists or trade the 106 corridor for a completed path as described above. If that cannot be worked out, then the request to vacate should be denied. Thanks so much for your consideration. Sue Edelstein 678 North Bridge Drive Carbondale 970-963-2163 2 Response to Request to Vacate Garfield County Road 106 To The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Board and the Garfield County Commissioners, am John B. Armstrong and I am a resident of Satank. My family lives on the corner of 106 Road (Satank Road) one block up from the newly restored Satank Bridge. My family uses the 106 Road extensively to access City Market, the stores, restaurants, neighbors in town and The Third Street Center. It is our connection to the Thompson Divide/Dry Park area, The106 Road is our trail connection which links us with the popular Hardwick Bridge/Rio Grande Trail bicycle loop which we use often. The Town of Carbondale and Garfield County have worked hard and spent good tax dollars to create a trail along West Main Street and to restore the Satank Bridge, all positive efforts to create a wonderful and efficient trails system. The natural and historical connection that citizens use between these points is the 106 Road. This right of way is an important and valued access for residents of Crystal Village and the Town of Carbondale. EXHIBIT 13* am a trails ranger by profession. Hands down, the most dangerous and unpleasant trail Zink in the Roaring Fork Valley is the "trail" along Route 133. The crossings of busy streets and business accesses along this route create a dangerous and stressful situation for cyclists, pedestrians and drivers. The truck noise, dust and fumes make this route very unsafe and undesirable. The CRMS proposal to create a trail on the west side of route 133 still have driveway crossings with future development and will not mitigate any of the other problems. This proposed route will almost double the time for many local residents to access amenities or trail access while degrading the quality of life we cherish, living in Garfield County. This is not a positive option for our residents. Furthermore, creating a route along route 133 is not dependent on any concessions from The School. Vacation of the County Road will remove any control and options the County would have for future improvements in the area. It is critical that the County maintain it's decision making power in issues of public access. The School has been granted the closure of the 106 Road to motor vehicles which has created a harmonious and symbiotic pedestrian right of way. This cherished right of way is used quietly and peacefully by residents, students and faculty. This historic right of way has been a valued asset of Garfield County for 125 years. Steady growth in Carbondale and the County, possible development of School Property in Lower Satank by CRMS, future trail needs and emergency access are all reasons for Garfield County to retain ownership of this road way. Everyone is concerned about the security of our students and young people. The Aspen School Campus has a pedestrian/bicycle trail running through the middle of the campus. Basalt High School has the Rio Grande Trail running directly in front of the school.The Carbondale High School has a trail running right through the campus and another trail, The Crystal Trail, running along the other side of it. I believe that the Glenwood Springs High School abuts the Rio Grande Trail. Are not trails and and schools inextricably linked ? Nationwide, there is an initiative to connect trails to schools. The relocation of the road to Delores Way has created the only hazardous road situation in Satank. The new vehicle roadway has a 90 degree tum which rises over the Rockford Ditch which in turn compromises the sight plane. Morning commuters are turned directly into the sun which again compromises driver sight. The access onto route 133 from Delores Way is very dangerous especially at rush hours. All these compromises in safety and convenience have already been made by Garfield County residents to accommodate the closure of 106 Road through the campus. Loss of pedestrian right of way on County Road 106 is too much to ask at the expense of the public for the convenience of a few. Last year The Rocky Mountain School chose to develop residential buildings along the 106 ROW. The campus already had a residential core to the southeast of this area where numerous dormitories and faculty housing existed. None of this is inconsistent with maintaining public access along the 106 Road corridor. The construction of a 5-6 foot tall 80 foot long earthen berm in the ROW this summer by CRMS, or it's employee, is not legal and should be removed. The School owns lovely and extensive agricultural lands west of Satank, the future of which is unknown. Reserving all options is important in event of significant development in this area. I strongly encourage Garfield County to retain all options to safeguard wise planning and decision making on the County Road 106 corridor. I am a proponent of a pedestrian/bicycle trail along the 106 road to resolve the trail gap through the campus and to insure citizen access on the public right of way. Please do not vacate the Garfield County Road 106. Respectfully, John B. Armstrong 1122 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-618-9825 Glenn Hartmann From: Soraya Burg [suriburg@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 6:57 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Preservation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Mr. Hartman, The purpose of this e-mail is to express support to maintain pedestrian and bicycle access though in Carbondale by either preserving the status quo or by means expressed in the letter of Carbondale officials. Sincerely, John Burg 1604 Bennett Avenue Glenwood Springs, Co 947-9322 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Sylvia Wendrow [sdwjds©yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 03, 2014 11:00 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Oppose CRMS Request for Vacation of CR 106 Dear Mr. Hartmann: As a resident of Garfield County I oppose the request of CRMS to vacate County Rd. 106 and thereby deny public access to a pedestrian/bicycle route linking Satank/Rio Grand Trail with West Main St. and County Rd. 109. I support the Carbondale Board of Trustees position as stated in their letter of January 31, 2014 to you. Thank you. Sylvia Wendrow 85 Prince Dr. Carbondale CO 81623 Sheila S. Draper 69 Spirit Mountain Road Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-5539 sdraper(&rof.net Garfield County P & Z Commission 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 EXHIBIT' 1 37 RE: Colorado Rocky Mountain School Dear Garfield County P & Z: This letter is in support of Colorado Rocky Mountain School's application for Garfield County to abandon County Road 106. I am a resident of Garfield County, a neighbor of the school, a parent of alumni and a current Trustee. Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) has been a community institution since 1953 when it was founded by educators John and Ann Holden who came west from The Putney School in Vermont. Its educational philosophy is to develop the "whole" student through academics, work and outdoors activities in a boarding and day setting. We serve students from all over the world, as well as from Garfield County and the western slope of Colorado. Independent Schools are a vital participant in America's educational landscape. They offer a choice in education for students and families. CRMS gives over $1 million in financial aid and 4o% of the students receive scholarships. The school is a respected member of the National Association of Independent Schools as well as the Association of Colorado Independent Schools. CRMS is also one of the largest employers in the Carbondale area. Teachers, staff, students and families of students contribute to Carbondale and Glenwood Spring's economy. Many of Carbondale's respected citizens have been students of or parents affiliated with CRMS. I urge the Garfield County P & Z Commission to support the school's application to Garfield County for the abandonment of County Road 106. This old county road has been closed to vehicular traffic for over three decades as it bisects the CRMS campus. It is not the intention of the school to prohibit neighbors and friends from traversing our campus, but rather it is the need to be able to control activity on the campus that drives this application. The school is willing to work with our neighbors to provide a suitable alternative bike and walking path. Carbondale& Garfield County have grown so in the last 6o years. It is vital to the school to control access to our campus should the need arise. Sincerely, Sheila S. Draper Glenn Hartmann From: T [utecure@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 9:16 AM To: • Glenn Hartmann Subject: County road 106 closure To: Garfield County Planning and Zoning Board and County Commisioners: I am writing this letter to urge you to keep county road 106 open to pedestrians and bikers. It has a natural alignment to the beautifully restored pink bridge and to the existing bike path along west Main st. leading to CRMS. Routing bikers and pedestrians along highway 133 is not only unpleasant and dangerous but a waste of taxpayers land and money when a more viable route already exists. County road 106 is still a county road and should be treated as such and used for county residents, not just out of state and country school boarders. It is a valuable asset to the county for all who live in Crystal village, Satank, Aspen Glen, and River Valley Ranch. Thank you for your consideration, Teresa Salvadore. 1122 County Rd. 106 Carbondale,Co. 81623 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: McSchooler, Tillmon Bjtillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.comj Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:57 PM Glenn Hartmann RVAC-7772 Colorado Rocky Mtn School County Rd 106 Vacation Request Glenn, Here is the response from Xcel Energy. If Garfield County reserves a utility easement on the vacated portion of the road, Public Service Company of Colorado has no objection vacating this portion of the road. However, I'm not sure what future development plans CRMS has. As you may know, no buildings, structures, mobile homes or. trailer units are allowed on the easement. If you should have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to call me. Thank you, T il!mond IticSchooler Xcel Energy 1 Responsible By Nature DesigrneF-Engineering 2538 Blichmann Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 P: 970.244.2695 C: 970.270.1953 F: 970.244.2661 E: tillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.com XCELENERGY.CO Please consider the environment before printing this email. 1 EXHIBIT . February 7, 2014 Planning Commission 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Planning Commission: Please accept this letter in support of Colorado Rocky Mountain School's (CRMS) request to vacate the public right of way on a portion of County Road 106 - which runs through the center of the CRMS campus. As a current employee of CRMS, possible future CRMS parent, Carbondale Trustee, and concerned citizen, I would urge the Commission to continue to advocate, as always, for the safety of our students, our youth, and the overall health and safety of our community. For almost 6o years now, CRMS has been a model neighbor and good friend to our local community. We have relied upon the kindness of our neighbors and their willingness to work together with the school to ensure the safety of its students and their well being. CRMS is a unique school, in that the majority of its students reside on campus. Families from all around the world trust that the school is doing everything possible to keep students safe at all times. Allowing CRMS the ability to maintain and control the surrounding environment is paramount, and quite frankly essential, especially in today's environment. As you are well aware, neighboring residents have declined the opportunity for additional vehicular/pedestrian access within their neighborhood, for a variety of reasons. Those thoughtful decisions remain in place today, as do the consequences. With that said, I respectfully request granting CRMS the basic desire to ensure the safety and integrity of the CRMS campus and its students for years to come. As always, thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Kindly, Elizabeth Murphy 90 Crystal Canyon Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 emurphy@crms.org (970) 309-7907 Glenn Hartmann From: Fred Jarman Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:10 PM To: Andy Braudis Cc: Glenn Hartmann; Tamra Allen Subject: RE: Vacation of County Road 106 Thru CRMS EXHIBIT Hello Andrew, Thanks for your email. I will make sure it gets into the packet and is reviewed by the Planning Commission this evening. Regards, Fred From: Andy Braudis(mailto:andy0whbconstruction.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:57 AM To: Fred Jarman Subject: Vacation of County Road 106 Thru CRMS Dear Fred, I talked with Tom Jankovsky this morning in an effort to make my voice heard on Colorado Rocky Mountain Schools effort to have the portion of County Road 106 that runs thru their property vacated. I am a resident of Satank in unincorporated Garfield County and live at 1244 County Road 106, Carbondale. I do not know the exact reason for the request to vacate, but understand that it is most likely to close off access thru the property for student safety purposes. While I am sympathetic to this idea, I whole-heartedly oppose this motion as it affects the neighborhoods of Satank, Crystal Village, Midland Point, Coryell, residents of Thompson Creek Road, and many others who reside on the west -side of Highway 133 as far as pedestrian access. • This portion of County Road 106 creates a vital connection between the Rio Grande Trail and Satank to County Road 108. • I have children and many of my neighbors do as well. We are located 200 feet from the access trail. This access provides a safer alternative to access these neighborhoods and the Citymarket complex, which is used frequently. • I feel that the vacation of 106 road should not be granted without a dedicated Right -of -Way or easement to connect metro-Satank to County Road 108 and greater Carbondale. Please share my opinion at tonight's Planning Commisioner meeting. Thank you, Andrew Braudis 1244 County Road 106, Carbondale, CO 81611 H 970-963-2423 C 970-379-3741 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Lindsey U [iindsey.uttera@gmaiicom] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 11:35 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Against GarCo Vacation of County Rd Through CRMS Campus Hi, Glenn. I writing as a resident of Carbondale and as a neighbor to the CRMS campus to share that I am AGAINST the County's vacation of public access through the CRMS Campus. This is a critical pedestrian link between the NW and SW sides of Carbondale, a very popular trail connection. I won't list all the amenities both local and regional that are served by this pedestrian connection but a few of the highlights are the Rio Grande Trail, the RFTA Park and Ride and the City Market Grocery Store. Closing this trail connection will result in more people driving to their destinations when they could have previously walked or biked. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Lindsey Utter 1 Glenn Hartmann From: dalew@sopris.net Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2014 10:33 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: CR 106 4-31.EXII/ ElIT 1 Hi Glenn - Would it be possible to include in the record this study on by Rails to Trails Conservancy and National Park Service regarding the positive public safety impact of trails? http://wwv.railstotrails.arglresourcesldocumentslresource docs/Safe%20Communities F Thanks - Dale Will, Carbondale RAIL -TRAILS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES THE EXPERIENCE ON 372 TRAILS RAI L-TRAI LLS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES The Experience on 372 Trails Written by Tammy Tracy & Hugh Morris Rails -to -Trails Conservancy in cooperation with National Park. Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program JANUARY 1998 This report was conducted by Rails -to -Trails Conservancy to document the extent of crime on rail -trails and review such crime in a broader perspective. The purpose of Rails -to -Trails Conservancy is to enrich America's communities and countryside by creating a nationwide network of public trails from former rail lines and connecting corridors. • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Rails -to -Trails Conservancy is grateful to all the trail managers who responded to our survey. The information provided made this study possible. Thanks to Andy Clarke, Barbara Richey, and Susan Doherty for their invaluable assistance in getting this report through edits, revisions and production. 0 Copyright 1998 by Rails -to -Trails Conservancy May not be reproduced without permission from Rails -to -Trails Conservancy, 1100 Seventeenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 331-9696. Photos — Front cover: Karen -Lee Ryan (Background), Patrick Kraich (trail patrol); Back cover: R. Leidelmeyer CONTE NTS Introduction 1 Previous Research 2 Methodology 3 Study Findings _ 4 Major Crimes 4 Minor Crimes 7 Recommendations Trail Design 10 Trail Patrols 11 Trail Patrol Case Studies 12 RailTrails as Safe Places 14 Conclusions 15 Appendix (A) Letters from Law Enforcement Officials 16 (B) Letter from the President of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail 24 TABLES Table 1: Comparison of Incidence Rate of Major Crimes on Rail -Trails to U.S. Population, 1995-1996 5 Table 2: Comparison of Incidence Rate of Minor Crimes on Rail Trails to U.S. Population, 1995-1996 8 Table 3: National Crime Statistics by Location 14 FIGURES Figure 1: Percent of Major Crimes Reported on Trails 7 INTRODUCTION At it's peak, the U.S. railroad network extended for almost 300,000 miles. More than half of this remarkable system has since become superfluous and in the latter half of the 20th century more than 2,000 miles of track annually have been abandoned or left unused by the railroad companies. Since the early 1960's, efforts to preserve this part of our national industrial heritage have taken hold in community after community and more than 10,000 miles of former rail line have been opened as multi -use trails. In every state except Hawaii, people are bicycling, walking, running, in -line -skating, snow-mobiling and horseback riding on more than 950 rail -trails and there are plans for an additional 1,200 rail -trails stretching a further 18,000 miles. ..,converting an abandoned rail corridor to a trail tends to reduce crime by cleaning up the land- scape and attracting people who use the trail for recreation and transportation. 7,, While rail -trails are hugely popular and successful once they are open, during the development phase trail promoters often have to answer a wide range of concerns that local residents may have about the impact of the proposed trail on their community. Stories of trails attracting drug dealers, murderers and rapists are perpetuated by trail opponents with only a handful of newspaper headlines to back up their assertions rather than empirical research. Despite numerous studies that have concluded rail -trails do not generate crime, concerns persist and fear of the unknown continues to provide fertile ground for trail opponents. The research that has been conducted, along with anecdotal evidence, suggests that converting an abandoned rail corridor to a trail actually tends to reduce crime by cleaning up the land- scape and attracting people who use the trail for recreation and transportation. Recognizing the need to address these concerns, Rails -to - Trails Conservancy (RTC) conducted a survey of all rail -trail managers in an effort to document the level of crime on trails and identify the mitigation measures used by trail designers and managers. The objectives of this study were threefold: 1) to document the levels of crime on urban, suburban and rural rail -trails with current statistics and compre- hensive data, 2) to examine trail management strategies that can mitigate crime and improve trail safety, and 3) to put crime on trails in perspective. A summary of past studies, our methodology, results, recommendations and several case studies follow. RAJI IMI' AWN' SiAI•I CDM•MLJNITII. PREVIOUS RESEARCH Four separate studies conducted between 1979 and 1997 concluded that rail -trails do not increase crime) A study of the Burke -Gilman Trail in Seattle,. Washington relied on interviews with local police officers and residents adjacent to the 12 -mile urban rail -trail. The study found that incidents of vandalism and burglary did not increase as a result of the trail. To the contrary, the rate of vandalism and break-ins to adjacent property was well below the neighborhood average. Police said that they did not anticipate crime being a problem as long as motor vehicle use on the trail was prohibited, citing that the separation of a criminal from his/ her escape vehicle as being a primary deterrent. In the Minnesota study, the Department of Natural Resources interviewed property owners near the proposed Root River Trail in southeastern Minnesota and the proposed Soo Line Trail in eastern Minnesota. The study also interviewed property owners adjacent to the existing Douglas Trail near Rochester and the Heartland Trail in northern Minnesota. The study concluded that residents adjacent to existing rail -trails experienced much less crime than was anticipated by residents near proposed rail -trail projects. A National Park Service study of the 26 -mile Heritage Trail in rural Iowa, the 16 -mile St. Marks Trail through small communities in Florida, and the 8 -mile Layfayette/Moraga Trail in suburban San Francisco found that property owners experi- enced relatively few problems resulting from the existence of a rail -trail. Most adjacent property owners reported that rates of vandalism, burglary and trespassing had remained the same or de- creased since the opening of the trail. The majority of property owners interviewed in the National Park Service study reported that living near a trail was Netter than they expected and also better than living near unused rail corridors. A recent survey of residents near the Mohawk - Hudson Bike -Hike trail in New York asked respon- dents to comment on twelve potential problems that could arise from the trail. The respondents ranked each potential problem on a scale of one to five, with one being "not a problem" to five being a "major problem." The items that were ranked highest as being a major problem were litter (14% of respondents), illegal motor vehicle use (1296), and disruptive noise from the trail (12%). For these three items the percentage of users who indicated that these were not a problem at all was 41%, 4496, and 45%, respectively. All four studies found that while some residents were apprehensive about rail -trail projects most did not experience problems after the trail's opening. In fact, many became users of the trail and the majority recognized the trail's economic and health benefits to the community. The Burke - Gilman and the National Park Service studies both found rail -trails to have a slightly positive effect on property values in adjacent neighborhoods, further testimony to the safety and benefit of rail -trails. RAIL!, -TO -TRAILS Cvw',INVAi-u v METHODOLOGY RTC used several methods of data collec- tion for this report. In January 1997, RTC mailed surveys to the managers of all known open rail -trails (861) in the United States based on contacts maintained in RTC's database of rail -trails. This survey asked trail managers to report any crimes against persons or property committed on their trails during the years of 1995 and 1996. The survey listed several types of crime in each category for the respondent to consider. The survey also asked questions regard- ing the use of such safety features as lights, phones and posted warnings. Finally, the survey asked A locale patroter makes his rounds on the Illinois Prairie Path. (Jean Mooring) about the existence, mode and frequency of trail patrols. From this effort, RTC received 372 usable responses, a 43% response rate, reflecting a diverse set of trail types, lengths and geographic locations. Trail types included 36 urban, 81 suburban and 255 rural trails.2 The length of these trails ranged from one-fifth of a mile to 145 miles. Geographic representation was quite broad with 38 of the 49 states that currently have at least one rail -trail responding. In June 1997, RTC collected supplementary statistical and anecdotal information on the impact of rail -trails upon local crime. Using contact information provided by survey respondents, RTC sent letters to thirty local law enforcement agen- ciess with questions regarding impact of the rail -trail on crime, the presence of trail users as a crime deterrent and comparisons of crime on the trail to the crime in surrounding areas. Twelve of these agencies responded, a 40% return, with letters regarding the safety of rail -trails. Finally, in July 1997, RTC conducted phone interviews with several coordina- tors of volunteer and professional rail -trail patrols to discuss the operation of their patrols. RTC compiled information on the organization, objec- tives and success of seven urban, suburban and rural trail patrols. SALT C.' -NWT). STUDY FINDINGS The summarized results appear in the following four sections, major crimes, minor crimes, design strategies and trail patrols. Major crimes are, defined for the purpose of this report, as those crimes against persons includ- ing mugging, assault, rape and murder. Minor crimes are those against property including graffiti, littering, sign damage, motorized trail use, trespassing and break-ins to adjacent property. Quotations from law enforcement letters are included in the text where appropriate. The complete text of the letters appears in Appendix A. Figures for the actual number of incidents of crimes against persons are reported whereas the incidents of property crimes are expressed by the number of trails reporting any occurrence during the year. This was done because of the difficulty in quantifying some of the types of minor crimes such as litter or graffiti incidents. Overall, results from the study indicate that rail -trails are safe places for people to be. The study also found that trail managers often employ preventative design strategies and patrols to reduce the possibility of crime and improve the efficient management of the trail. MAJOR CRIMES Out of 372 trails included in this study, RTC found only eleven rail -trails in 1995 and ten rail - trails in 1996 which had experienced any type of major crime, 3% of responding trails. "The trail does not encourage crime, and in fact, probably deters crime since there are many people, tourists and local citizens using the trail for many activities at various hours of the day." — Pat Conlin, Sheriff Green County, Wis. These figures are very low considering the 372 trails surveyed cover nearly 7,000 miles of trail and more than 45 million estimated annual users.4 Letters from law enforcement agencies support these findings. They consistently report that rail - trails do not encourage crime; rather, several letters cited heavy trail usage as a crime deterrent in areas of former isolation: 'The trail has not caused any increase in the amount of crimes reported and the few reported incidents are minor in nature... We have found that the trail brings in so many people that it has actually led to a decrease in problems we formerly encountered such as underage drinking along the river banks. The increased presence of people on the trail has contributed to this problem being reduced." — Charles R. Tennant, Chief of Police, Elizabeth Township, Buena Vista, Pa. Following is a summary of major crimes on rail -trails by urban, suburban and rural areas as well as a comparison to national crime figures. Although directly comparable statistics were not available, violent crime rates from the FBI's 1995 Uniform Crime Report provide some comparison by showing the number of crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in urban, suburban and rural areas.5 When compared to rates of rail -trail crime, these figures provide a sense of how infrequently crimes on rail -trails occur. The results are presented in Table 1 and followed by discussion. RAif.,-FO 1 +.r\II Ccjiv,rrvAWcv TABLE 1 Comparisons of Incidence Rate of Major Crimes on Rail -trails to U.S. Crime Rates. MAJOR CRIMES ON RAIL RAILS URBAN RAI L--TRAIL5 RTC found the crime rates on urban rail -trails to be very low compared to the national crime rate for urban areas. Note that one urban trail located in South Boston, Massachusetts is where the majority of personal crimes were experienced: Each year, an estimated 5 million people use the 36 urban rail -trails surveyed, covering 332 miles. T The national rate of urban muggings is 335 per 100,000 inhabitants6; two urban rail - trails reported muggings (26 incidents) in 1995 and only one trail reported muggings (15 incidents) in 1996. 7 The national rate of urban assaults is 531 per 100,000 inhabitants; only three urban rail -trails reported assaults in 1995 (29 incidents) and 1996 (17 incidents). I/ The national rate of forcible rape in urban areas is 43 per 100,000; one urban rail - trail reported two rapes in 1995 and no rapes were reported in 1996. V The national urban murder rate is 11 per 100,000 urban inhabitants; one urban rail- trail reported two murders in 1995. None of the urban rail -trails reported murders for 1996. 1 tt:411 , ....1' SA' T (+).:.... 1995 1995 1995 GRIME National' Dai -Trails' National' Rol-Tra➢s' NatiOnal' Rail -Trails' Mugging 335 0.53 (1995) 102 0.00 (1995) 19 0.00 (1995) 0.30 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) Assault 531 0.58 (1995) 293 0.02 (1995) 203 0.01 (1995) 0.34 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) ForcibFe 43 0.04 (1995) 29 0.00 (1995) 26 0.01 (1995) Rope 0.00 (1996) 0.00 (1996) 0.01 (1996) Murder 11 0.04 (1995) 4 0.01 (1995) 5 0.01 (1995) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 0.01 (1996) 1. Note: Rates per 100.000 population; FR Uniform Creme Reports for 1995. 2. Note: rates per 100,000 users; IEC survey results. MAJOR CRIMES ON RAIL RAILS URBAN RAI L--TRAIL5 RTC found the crime rates on urban rail -trails to be very low compared to the national crime rate for urban areas. Note that one urban trail located in South Boston, Massachusetts is where the majority of personal crimes were experienced: Each year, an estimated 5 million people use the 36 urban rail -trails surveyed, covering 332 miles. T The national rate of urban muggings is 335 per 100,000 inhabitants6; two urban rail - trails reported muggings (26 incidents) in 1995 and only one trail reported muggings (15 incidents) in 1996. 7 The national rate of urban assaults is 531 per 100,000 inhabitants; only three urban rail -trails reported assaults in 1995 (29 incidents) and 1996 (17 incidents). I/ The national rate of forcible rape in urban areas is 43 per 100,000; one urban rail - trail reported two rapes in 1995 and no rapes were reported in 1996. V The national urban murder rate is 11 per 100,000 urban inhabitants; one urban rail- trail reported two murders in 1995. None of the urban rail -trails reported murders for 1996. 1 tt:411 , ....1' SA' T (+).:.... SUBURBAN RAIL -TRAILS RTC found crime rates on suburban trails to be even lower than on urban rail -trails. The rate of crime on rail -trails was also low compared to national statistics of overall suburban crime. 'V An estimated 14 million people use more than 1,100 miles of trail on the 82 subur- ban trails surveyed. ✓ The national rate of suburban muggings is 102 per 100,000 inhabitants; none of the suburban rail -trails reported muggings for the year of 1995 and only one chugging was reported in 1996. ✓ The national rate of suburban aggravated assaults is 293 per 100,000 inhabitants; three assaults occurred on three suburban rail -trails in 1995 and only two assaults occurred on suburban rail -trails in 1996. ✓ The national rate of suburban rape is 29 per 100,000 persons; none of the suburban rail -trails reported a rape in 1995 or 1996. ✓ Nationally, four murders per 100,000 inhabitants occur in suburban areas; there were no reports of murder on suburban rail -trails in 1995 or 1996. RURAL RAI L-TRAI L5 Major crimes occurred with even less frequency on rural rail -trails than on urban or subur- ban ones. These rates are also low compared to overall rural crime rates. ✓ There are an estimated 26 million annual users on the 254 surveyed rural trails covering 5,282 miles. ✓ The national rate of mugging in rural areas is 19 per 100,000 inhabitants; none of the rural rail -trails reported muggings in 1995 and only one reported an incident in 1996. ✓ The national rural rate of aggravated assault is 203 incidents pet 100,000 persons; only three rural rail -trails reported three assaults in 1995 and the same number in. 1996. Nationally, there were 26 forcible rapes per 100,000 rural inhabitants; two rural rail - trails reported rapes in 1995 and one trail reported a rape in 1996. T The national murder rate for rural areas is 5 per 100,000; none of the rural rail -trails reported a murder over the two year period. MINOR CRIMES According to our survey findings, only one- fourth of the rail -trail managers reported any type of minor crime, such as graffiti or littering and these problems were quickly corrected as part of routine trail management. The data indicates the occurance of each infraction rather than the actual number of incidents. Letters from Law enforcement officials attest that the actual volume of incidents such as graffiti, littering, sign damage and motorized use were minimal. In fact, one letter noted that litter was virtually nonexistent on a section of converted rail, but was overwhelming on portions which had not been converted to trail, again highlighting the benefits of converting an aban- doned rail corridor to a trail: 'My family and 1 took part in a community clean-up day ...By the enol of the mile and a haffwe had found ONE piece of litter almost too snail to have noticed....once you leave the path and continue where the railway line had been, the u -ash and graffiti are ove-whelming" — Ross L. Riggs, Chief of Police Louisville, Ohio Moreover, RTC found that the majority of the property crimes committed on rail -trails had only a FIGURE 1 14% 896 6% 4% 296 0% Percent of Trails Reporting Major Crimes 1996 Mugging Assault Rape Murder ID Urban 0Suburban MRural minor effect on the trail and usually did not hay uc adjacent private property. The following letter indicates that trails make good neighbors. "Since the trail was constructed and opened for use we have found that the trail ha.s not caused any inconvenience to property owners along the trail. The residents seem to enjoy having the trail near their honwes. " — Charles R. Tennant Chief of Police, Elizabeth Township, Buena Vista, Pa. A breakdown of the property crimes commit- ted ommitted on rail -trails in urban, suburban and rural areas in 1996 and some comparisons to national averages fallow." The results are presented in Table 2 and followed by a discussion. Many trails dose at dark and patrols help to dear them. (Karen Stewart) Rain "I TZ T1-• an r• •, ; C • ... TABLE 2 Comparison of Incidence Rate of Minor Crimes on Rail -trails to U.S. Crime Rates & Percentage of Trails Reporting Types of Crime in 1995. CRIfv1E BURGLARY National' Rap-Trais2 Na Ral-Trods2 1,117 0.00% 820 0.01% 687 0.01% TRESPASSING GRAFFITI LITTERING NIA 5% N/A 3% N/A 4% N/A N/A SIGN DAMAGE IOC:TGRIZED USE 26% 24% N/A 17% N/A 24% NIA 22% N/A 22% N/A 18% N/A . 14% N/A 12% N/A 25% N/A 23% N/A 23% 1, NoteRotes per t00= population FBI Uniform Crime Reports for [995 for 1995 for burglary, 2. Noterates per 100,000 users; RTC survey results for burglary. Results for other crime types reported cis percentage of trail experiencing that type of crime. URBAN RAI L -TRAILS Very few incidents directly affecting urban property owners occurred. ✓ The national rate of burglary in urban areas is 1,117 incidents per 100,000 inhabit- ants; none of the urban rail -trails reported burglary to adjacent homes in 1996. ✓ Only 5% of urban rail -trails reported trespassing 26% of the urban rail -trails reported graffiti. ✓ 24% of the urban rail -trails reported littering. ✓ 22% of the urban rail -trails reported sign damage. ✓ 18% of urban rail -trails reported unauthorized motorized use. 12 Tr.VAT4tir SUBURBAN RAIL -TRAILS Incidents of graffiti and unauthorized motorized usage occurred less frequently on suburban rail -trails than on urban ones. The number of suburban trails reporting crimes directly affecting adjacent property owners was significantly lower than the rates of trail vandalism. ■ The national rate of suburban burglary is 820 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants; only one suburban trail reported a break-in to adjacent property in 1996. 'V 3% of suburban trails reported trespassing. • 17% of the suburban trails reported graffiti. • 24% of the trails reported littering. it 22% of the trails reported sign damage. • 14% of the suburban trails reported unauthorized motorized usage. RURAL RAIL -TRAILS Rural rail -trails reported fewer incidents of graffiti than both urban and suburban trails. Other incidents occurred at about the same rate. Again, crimes directly affecting adjacent property were rare. 7 The national burglary rate in rural areas is 687 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants; only three of the rural trails reported a break-in to adjacent property in 1995 and three in 1996. • 4% of rural trails reported trespassing. �► 12% of rural trails reported graffiti. 25% of the rural trails reported littering. • 23% of the rural trails reported sign -damage. r 23% of the rural trails reported unauthorized rnotor use. VIET Rd4T1-TitAH ANTT, SATs• Cro,m0Avr rrlts RECOMM EN DATIONS Although this study shows that rail -trail crime is rare, it is nonetheless a legitimate concern for residents and trail users and should be treated accordingly. There are several methods for addressing such concerns and minimizing the potential for crime. Encouraging trail use is one way to help ensure trail safety, as the presence of other users helps to minimized undesirable behavior. In addition, trail users should exercise common sense when using trails after dark and remain aware of their surroundings at all times. Several other mitigation strategies help suppress criminal behavior and lessen the impact of incidents that do occur. In particular, trail design features and trail patrols are useful to keep in mind and recommen- dations for their implementation are included in this section. However since every rail -trail environ- ment is unique, trail managers should assess the need for these strategies on an individual basis. From Trails far the Twenty - First Century, edited by Karen -Lee Ryan. page 132. TRAIL DESIGN Good trail design is an effective way of promoting trail safety. In most cases, the design of the trail should eliminate overgrown vegetation and tall shrubs in order to minimize hiding places along the trail and maintain long sight lines for users. Trail managers may also choose to place security lighting at trail heads and in parking lots to improve trail safety. Emergency phones or call boxes and emergency vehicle access are also important safety features for some trails, Addition- ally, keeping all trail corridors clean and well- maintained increases the feeling of community ownership of the trail and reduces the incidents of minor crime such as litter, graffiti and vandalism. Prohibiting motorized use of the trail deters property crime. RTC found that several trails utilized the above design strategies in order to improve safety. The survey found that at the trail head 18% of the trails installed lights, 12% installed phones, and 51% posted warnings or rules for trail users. Along the trail, 8% of the trails installed phones, 8% had lights and 45% posted warnings or trail rules. Unfortunately, the data collected in this survey was too limited to explore the correlation between the existence of design features and crime rates. TRAIL PATROLS Volunteer or professional trail patrols are also beneficial in improving trail safety. These patrols range from informal monthly clean-up and mainte- nance crews to daily patrols that provide maps, information and emergency assistance. The primary function of these patrols should be to educate trail users and to provide assistance when necessary. They should also be equipped to alert emergency services quickly if needed. Above all, the presence of a patrol deters crime and improves users' enjoyment of the trail. Trail patrol members are on hand at an evening event in Gainsville, Florida. (Karen Stewart) Bike patrol police on the Capita! Crescent Trail, Maryland. (Patrick Kraich ) According to survey results, the majority of trails have some type of trail patrol. The survey found that 69% of the urban rail -trails, 67% of suburban rail -trails and 63% of rural rail -trails are patrolled in some way. Local, county, and state entities, park rangers and volunteers provide these patrol services either alone or in combination. RTC found that 20% of the trails have local law enforcement patrols, 16% of the trails have county patrols, 4% of the trails have state patrols, 9% of the trails have park ranger patrols and 3% of the trails have volunteer patrols. The dominant modes of trail patrol are bike (26%) and car or truck (33%). The study found that 82% of the trails have access for emergency vehicles. TRAIL PATROL CASE STUDIES There are many methods of organizing an effective trail patrol. Depending on a trail's needs and available resources, a daily, weekly or monthly patrol may be appropriate. Below are several examples of volunteer and professional patrols and contact information for their coordinators. These examples are only a few ways to promote safety and improve users' enjoy- ment of rail -trails. Trail managers should be creative in using "friends of the trail" groups, local community organizations and law enforcement to maintain and monitor local rail -trails. MINUTEMAN TRAIL MASSACHUSETTS Several years ago as part of a public relations effort, the Bedford Police began riding bikes along the Bedford to Lexington portion of the Minute- man Trail. Approximately a year and a half later, they initiated a unique youth patrol, the Bedford Police Explorers to assist them. After completing first aid and CPR certification, the Explorers began conducting daily patrols of the trail wearing police t -shirts and carrying radios and first aid kits. Both the police and Explorer programs have been well received by the community. After seeing an officer and several Explorers clearing debris from the trail, one trail user wrote to the Bedford Police: "I was so taken by this... by clearing the bike path, now even more women, men, children of all ages and people in wheelchairs can enjoy nature in the path." Contact Officer Jeff Wardwell at the Bedford Public Safety Department for more information on the Explorer program, (617) 275- 1212, ext. 125. NORTH AUGUSTA GREENEWAY SOUTH CAROLINA Approximately twenty professionally trained police officers voluntarily patrol the three-mile North Augusta Greeneway in rural South Carolina. The effort began as part of a community policing and physical fitness program of the North Augusta Public Safety Department. Three to four times each week, officers patrol the trail as they perform walking, jogging or biking workouts. Captain Lee Wetherington, coordinator of the patrol effort, explained their objectives, "We try to show a presence, deter illegal activity and provide first aid or other assistance to trail users." The patrol is a creative way of keeping officers in condition for duty while promoting trail safety at the same time. For additional information about the patrol, contact Capt. Wetherington at (803) 441.4254. PINELLAS TRAIL FLORIDA The 35 -mile Pinellas Trail is patrolled daily by one of the most extensive volunteer patrols, the Pinellas Auxiliary Rangers. The Auxiliary Rangers serve as uniformed ambassadors for the Pinellas Trail, providing trail information, directions and bicycle safety tips. More than 25 volunteers, 18 years and older, comprise the patrol and are required to under -go background checks and extensive training on trail history, public relations, trail -riding, first aid and nutrition. The majority of the volunteers patrol by bike and use cell phones to communicate. Because the trail has not encoun- tered many problems, an Auxiliary Ranger's primary role is one of educator rather than enforcer. For more information, contact Jerry Cumings or Tim Closterman at the Pinellas County Park Department, (813) 393-8909. RA00.s-TO -TaAII CI'kVA NC�' YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER TRAIL -NORTH PENNSYLVANIA Three local trail councils, headed by the Regional Trail Corporation, coordinate monitoring teams for the 23 --merle Youghiogheny River Trail - North in southwestern Pennsylvania. Each of the trail councils oversees a team of approximately twenty monitors patrolling primarily on bikes, but also by foot and by horse. Easily recognizable in their gold and black uniforms, monitors carry first aid kits and, frequently, cellular phones to report trail damage or injuries. Joe Honick, who instituted this model monitoring program, explained their usefulness, "The monitors serve as the eyes and ears of the Regional Trail Corporation. They assist trail users, explain trail rules and relay users' suggestions and comments." Bob McKinley, Trail Manager of the Regional Trail Corporation reported very few incidents of trail damage or graffiti along the trail. "There is so little vandalism, every piece seems like a major item," he said. The patrol program has been successful in deterring such incidents. McKinley commended the patrol efforts, "The patrols are doing a great job. Their monitoring really does make a difference." For more information on the trail's monitoring program, contact Joe Honick of the MonjYough Trail Council at (412) 829-0467. GREAT RIVER TRAIL ILLINOIS The Great River Trail Council uses several groups to patrol its 28 -mile trail passing through urban, suburban and rural areas. The council coordinates local bicycle and service clubs which have an interest in assisting with trail patrol. Clubs provide trail users with directions and look for maintenance problems. In the summer months, at least one group patrols during daylight hours and police patrol the trail after dusk. For more infor- mation, contact Patrick Marsh at the Great River Trail Council, (309) 793-6300. BALTIMORE AND ANNAPOLIS TRAIL PARK MARYLAND Approximately thirty volunteer Trailblazers, ranging from age eleven to 78, patrol the 13 -mile Baltimore and Annapolis Trail. After receiving three weekends of first aid, CPR, patrol technique and park operations training from park rangers, they take to the trail by in-line skates, bike or foot. Trailblazers supplement park rangers' daily patrols by providing information to trail users, correcting unsafe trail behavior and reporting their findings to the park rangers. Trailblazers are able to quickly identify and repair problem areas of litter or graffiti helping to prevent further incidents from occurring. For more information on the organiza- tion or training of the Baltimore and Annapolis Trailblazers, contact David Dionne, Park Superin- tendent at the Anne Arundel County Department of Recreation and Parks, (410) 222-6245. LAFAYETTE/MORAGA TRAI L CALIFORNIA Several entities monitor the 8 -mile Lafayette/ Moraga. Trail in the San Francisco Bay Area, including a maintenance teams, the East Bay Regional Park District Public Safety Department and several volun-teer patrols. More than 150 equestrians, bicyclists and hikers comprise volunteer groups who patrol the Lafayette/Moraga Trail and other parks in the area. An officer from the Park District provides each group with training and organizes monthly meetings and speakers. In 1996, volunteers provided over 40,000 hours of service to the East Bay parks. For more information on these patrols, contact Steve Fiala at the East Bay Re- gional Park District, (510) 635-0135. RA11-T1AIF.,,arra SAN: CoMMur�rrrr i3 RAIL -TRAILS AS SAFE PLACES Rail Trails are not crime -free. No place on earth can make that claim. However, when compared to the communities in which they exist, compared to highways and parking Tots, and compared to many other public and private places, rail -trails have an excellent public safety record. Compared to the abandoned and forgotten corridors they recycle and replace, trails are a positive community development and a crime - prevention strategy of proven value. By generating lawful activities such as walking, running, bicycling and in -line -skating, rail -trails are also bringing communities together and reintroducing neighbors to each other. Trails are actually one of the safest places to be and the incidence rate of crime on trails is minor in comparison to other locations. Table 3 lists the percentage of rapes, robberies, and assaults that occur in four locations. As these data show, a park is actually one of the safest places to be. Two to three times safer than being in a parking facility or in your own home and many more times safer than walking down the street. These data help to provide some perspective of personal safely in several types of locations in the context of overall crime rates in the U.S. The result being that parks are undeniably one of the safest places to be. In an attempt to add perspective to crime on trails, John Yoder, President of the Friends of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail, Inc. in Indiana has compiled crime and injury statistics for a variety of circumstances to make the point that no human activity is risk free. The entire contents of his list can be found in Appendix B. TABLE 3 National Crime Statistics by Location GIRINE RAPE lac a tx *tTAU PARK/FIELD/ PLAYGROUNIO (1988) (1990) (1991) (1992) ROBBERY ASSAULT (1988) (1990) (1991) (1992) (1988) (1990) (1991) (1992) 6.6 0,5 1.1 8,5 PARKING GARAGE/LOT 3,0 3.0 3.6 6.4 3,6 4.0 4.0 4,4 INSIDE 1/Ot1R HOME ON STREET 7,9 3,4 4.2 6.5 11.6 12.7 11.9 13. 0.3 7.9 10.7 7,3 Nara Percentogas do not add to I CO becaus=, not all location earagonaa oro lerad. Sourco: 10 rdical Absrroct of the unitad stales, vox vacs 25,0 35.0 26.8 16.3 14.0 9.4 9.5 10.1 233 30.2 10.4 38.3 48,3 448,6 51.2 20.7 30,5 31.9 29.7 32,3 Yoder concludes by asking "Does this mean we should outlaw, eliminate, or ban any of these places or activities?" Of course not? But as these statistics demonstrate, every form of human activity has some level of risk associated with it. The question in judging any activity is understand- ing the level of risk associated with that activity and doing everything possible to minimize those risks. Our society accepts approximately 40,000 highway deaths every year because we believe the conve- nience of highway travel is worth the risk. Simi- larly, in 1992 there were 30 murders, 1,000 rapes, CONCLUSION With nearly 27,000 miles of open and project rail -trail, Rails -to -Trails Conser- vancy recognizes that addressing trail users safety and trail neighbors concerns about crime are critical to the creation of a successful trail. This report has shown that crime on rail -trails is not a common occurrence. Past studies, our survey results, letters from law enforcement officials, and comparisons to national crime figures all indicate that rail -trails are safe places for local residents and visitors to enjoy. While common sense and preventative measures should be used on rail -trails to ensure the lowest possible levels of crime, rail -trails remain much safer than many other environments. The findings of this report should reassure those with apprehen- sions about trail projects that converting a former and 1,800 robberies on college campuses however, most people believe that the rewards associated with a college education are worth the risks involved. It is important not to trivialize or deny that bad things can happen on trails, however it is equally important to keep in mind that the amount of crime that occurs on trails as demonstrated by the survey results as well as the data in Table 3 shows that crime on trails is minimal. As with any activity, appropriate safety precautions should be taken to minimize risk. rail corridor into a trail will have a positive rather than negative effect on their community. As the data in this report show, crime on rail - trails is minimal. This becomes all -the -more apparent when put in perspective with risks associated with other activities. The way to mini- mize crime on trails is to ensure that users exercise proper safety precautions, keep the trail well maintained, and boost trail use. Crime generally does not occur in places where there are lots of people and few hiding places. Positive -looking places tend to encourage positive behavior. Crime occurs on roads, parking lots, in shopping malls, office buildings, airports, and at zoos. However, no one would rationally argue that we shouldn't build any of the above because crime will occur there. The same should be true for trails. Emir.—TIirkRI'; AND SAn COMMUNTrots APPENDIX A; LETTERS FROM LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES e • 1- z W X PI 419 r.r-ri 00 lea f+ � n Q � µ d 8 9 � � o • 0 f m" = a D2 4_ 0 c v n iSm� K � S k1d N � m r1 ..d 141 or 25 p y 7.1 1 III !d in RR � • � H 9 Of . g V Ag 0 3 l o Eg a Jo CT O ig 16 1' ;^.. �, 1.1 TRAIT!. Cow ry r4 CIIINAI TWA r'4V. leery 13, 1997 • OE, z I' 10 iv) v) c p ` $0 a nom" 10 7 g • A= 0 EE 15-2 E0c .010 t'U p �b 4ap S 5 Eam � u C S W C 0-f E LIN ui • V ' C TO 1 5treel • Louisssille,Ohio4 R..AT1Tran•, :�iNa S.;t3. CT)h\ 1U rat 711 . -4 .dors Continued r v p g b Po S a a m IEI 4IV�4:y 01000 RAq 4)44 [.44 S Y.0. N )) 5AaQC 9 910.00 .-. EA9.]... Adm 0 Cl2it. 18 T ,vi r+r T1:A11 . (t?1,4%T RV•ANC ] Deaf Mr. Monis. /g; \\ ) R -T■¥! Awe§ATt «u14/ 1' t. 11 •' a rox . a d mnn 4 ox a..mnC y� 4A 414 4)414)14410 e. ro L u a a m H = tl a �. _ W 4 4 .. u tlw+xu.,1j4 40.43®44144 kL '�.��^. N.r. 'Oa' ti n © ...1.,,,,:g 014.0101.10,4 1:'.E n. 444,.Q00 -. 0. �4 "44g., 4 W L c u u `� 4 ,44x.30.4) - m d v '�. 4 41 Y C 4 W e~ c C m e Y R40 E. Jl uL 011 mm.c CM c fi C.0 L Y a t 0 4 m V AI 0 44 � 4)'0 . ,i; p er} 4 L -44..44 ..,� .44-4441a,44 mut - A :4:.*:"' a,aE '� -^a SLiq �4 Y 0, 4 . Eu PQ E .=u 4 .,YM TE T-� 4n.0+> Ce N ro.W . 04000, CCYOel.00 M0 VL. L] tiCn:.E443:sr O.a.4.P. 0441 n.eV OW4tl.di' W@0 ..Ow 1.4 44 Y 4 4414) 4). m .-.a A 4' 0. 10 44 Y E n.0i 0000 U.� ��.W a ,061 0eGC uN444 Nu 4v O4 '7,2',,,,T u�.c•.s Lµ a„,n a yV 4w4am =2 C 0 H 44.10 .y •N Caw WC Vn ww T en0-.a nF VO�9x va4-4+q to Euu 415.CL„Yq•-'"4Y-'*i :419„4)44 „@.xn-- a 4)® N C 4! m 4c4C Y OHS] 44 Y N d 4aauO A O ...H Ca,.00 1314?O Vn 1 .V14. cou. 44A OCC,0.4 >. d0O 44011 m..nM- m.4.00 w,aa ro4VW OS,3:n.0.1 0'4144 • ›,, 440 ....,u”, U Ln C 0, m e 4. :4-0.'.. y Y* 0 0 44 w G 6 N' w O m .. 3940 4 V u O. 040 You a.�rp �- 444440.0.t+ .4 as a wwo.0 l °ucZw m-'rroi aurece•.. ac °'00.4 .01410. u ., E 4 .. i, ,, P. u COO iR4 W4 410@1 U..'m44a 0114 4'C.4141 WcmWa 0 0 4 y'4• 0.>„ alma L 041 4 01 0 0 0 @,4 V .y @ w L x Lw�n4n4 '641414,4410 C@..Ci p' Loa 4gxu 0. 'PtiW 4w U 40. ]W Cas 4 U O 4 W ,..c,..-. 4 ©0 C ),- 2... ?@ n 4 .y 0 D 4V a C,- --.....g,12 ` a-.- 0 S a x 4 4 E e m 4 Y-1 LC0 '01 4.44410 n tl nn 4)044 4010.] J x Cw o........„, 0 040141V#4.,,M muO00 q4q, •n 't.W NTw a•YY aa.uy4. 4 n90 &1Vm•-3E On�4 k4mCE- X40 . n0 003: 44.0. 04, 4 m Nw �(-j Owe 00. .P-. ®ey r 0 Cu L 04) Y4) OPry 400 43 me o Fw.va 04). 0x.]]3 m 4 x4 1111 a q m .a MM 1 i • 0c a +44 4 00x004 w K u C C •0 • Y V 0 3 0 w W =-• m w 3 4 x..10 00 01041 444 Cu3x4fl4.0 v4E+4 n�c.ro 000W0 a e 4104, m0..n 4)aa.141 ®W -H .0,14, 40 44)-- 0.44CCH4t 0444)1 0'41 .r 1 n 4. Mm. .00 0 m • July 33, 1991 Herb 9urfee, Staff Pi Chittenden County Req P. O. Box 10$ Essex Junction, VT 0 Dear Mr. ❑urfeec 3n preparation fi City Council meeting, Phase 11 of the Recre. made inquiries of the their experience with found is listed below. Burlington n,v o c 4)1044 4)n wra 60 ,1� u dP 4▪ i . 400 .14. 11 P W , 41 a xa +1441 404 4401 4.344 We4 Y 1".1'.::1 44 v C • 0 -.104], x. 4cw 10 4 001,0 C.1 01 O Y t, L 0 0 L c 4 0 >40 0 40.0 44 UV4 mm...,,,,,,, . ma ..4410410 44 F. 04 .,. m 0000 00.0- a 4..10 m. 0 4,. , w .. 040 OUgM O 41 7 4 454 4 4 x..44 "" ...0y, n v, C 41 d 0 .. 0 N .4001 Y '0 .. 0. ®.f. 44 P. 0. V 00 '•s t4 01 41 4414114 uS..a 4.41110 0 44 .. 0 444.0 4 00 -1 1 41 �^• C r4 . 40.41 -.0 0m0 ow 0.0 ••446.4--44 • UUP.4, 4140 u 0.41 a+�wc•nn4)w C O.K 41010 1,4],4) C A -4 _ g0.11004.,. - 6.0 00 0 -..1 w 4 4 )4144)3v-µ- N w0 ,44 00: 0.0404..... 44 01 e w A 4) c 100 4.114, 81M - a ca�'eo0" ValK HHm 0.-.)o -i 1,1 7'17�r1s C IN,!RVANt:1' 21 foc less c b 4 a Y p1 .0tv u 4 a >, m • a 0 w 4 Y 4 0.b 4 44 0. 0+1 .i 4 Y 0.i ■ 9'44 .0T} a10 a" a 4 G W v.4 AAA 4 H q M1 r H 0 4 D~ Hoy 4 as 4 7 C 0•.4 1.1 44 441.1 1a Y • 1 .4 O 44• .1 m .w 4 0 40 C A 4 -1 1 14 Na41 01-' 4#1E.0°4 u w C 414 G 4100,- 44,44 a&410 44 ° Cr. Y • 00 4 4444 4 41 4 4440 NY 014 �' 0 41,4 0 Y.00 W 0044110,0 0.41 s4 be 44M44440, :2, 0404 14 C ° 0,14044 0114.1 0.1• g."444 4141 4 0. 44.0444 4 41 1, 100.04011441 40':• 14 a 0104 0.4 .4a., :Fe, 7• 1'D V, ++.1 n •44410 41/40 44144 w 000144 1 4 44 4▪ .4a 0 4 .1 4.144 a 4 .4400 4 y 10.41 L.118 e E 4 ca 0 ac▪ m4 °.',7"8"„' 1". 4444 g822 0,00 .010. 10 .444 3 MW .1 C 0 O r 0 4 441 4473 a 4C 4 Uh4 C 04440.1 ° '4 a 4 L x 3 C 4 4 0 .1 s 71 0 a c a 10 v 0 G 44 C 4. p 0 0 a 4 10 u C 0 0 'Oua 416 .4r y 4004.. rug 4 4 4 745; 4 10 V C w ..;!'/5i. 4 4 B. H O [4 44 v u 4 ..... V 0uu 04.4 2. 0.141 _.0 ° A44 4 10 10 0 4 m ti 4 M C 4 0. 0 8 3.4.7.: 0 2.'",1,.. 0 d. U 414 •1 S.1 "10' 0. IJ 0 +4 0 A .14. a 5 a 0 41 4 E 4 0 .0 0 N 0 1F 0 4414 Yn44 0. 417;! 04444 Wq 4 Cd 441.4 �4YF4 04 0 0 0. u t='.4 N a 0. 0 41 10 1 4 0 0 1 10 41 0 0 4 0.W.'4.. tl c N •.. A 0 W 4 4 451 u g F 4 . FW 0.44 1, 44.-1 W �. r-eili} 413.10 .??:14 4 .4 o V ? 4 P 4 4 10 .x16 0'0,0 4a uo.,a 444.4. e0. w .10 10n 04 424. 0 0 C a Cu 4 lug .41 10.144 44 0 0 .1 4. 4444 401 4 10 4 4 4 0 0.4 b 9 W4 A b 4 04 444 0.0..0 44 0•.1104 44444 4ti 4 4 .1 011 4 .1 5 0 4 R 4 .1 A '2 1". 4), 44010 Nari� 4 .10041 4 i9 P, 0,.- o a 44 4..444 8181' 4 -10... 004 .1 F 4r 0,2t, '474 M044444i y.4 4 S 4T41M 0n"'9 V 14 aV.]4 4 Vy Gi G.ux. Nn x 01014. ....,0 . man OH 1140, 45 u °I' 00 044. RArl-T i ', SAT- CT]•MAIWN11711 L ll NY AY 01C to E 5 .y -N lr6FA .y0 ®H„4 m 4 ? > A 4 R a o 04 u n Q a 0 I' 01 0 .1 01 R 14 • 0 V E Aa 0 4 L Y/'H51 61 A-ti70w C4'W 011 Q q0 04 •u yw R'C D• . Se N.fie k m .w > 6 >. Q 7. 4 m e 11 w N ei H .0 4 q W}; 0 0 P, m .Ci W Y 0 u W u •H 4 m Q Yf t .q E..1 0 0� A '� . ,.• �i m M W -5> 7. C 10•I lc': y 6 r 0 7 16 u R a Qm 04 4. F k u ,�i •�iy, m r - '" m It 7I. 2 e 4e) A.1 0 ▪ i R 6' 0 u 0 .-, u w w. L u O 1 D H 'm y m �mm Y1)1. 5 Q W 3 17 1' • O .-411 S' 3F N T J> itH J - 13 0010G" 0. nam do a 414� '6 m A .i ai LA Q u 0 .d E N 00 p E m 41 u 0 Q> ] H 0 y y •n u C m *1 . a .y •n C .4 Q .c .c u - D mala 130Nmq mm u.l .. O N q 4 0 N . 11 4 O C 1-.03 0 .. .P .21 .0 gcw 4° .cQ s0i44R 4r lmi u a .0 ui8 119 m E m a1 .000E.; . 0 4 EDI 0 9',64.8 .0 L 0 f C a 0 0 4.. q µ -,40., .0 4 03 0 .. '0 4 m 1l 1 U 0 m A R A. ✓ -°_, k 4 C u@ H u C 0.1 0 E 3 0 4 Am V m R m 10 01 11 0 4 40 0 .gy m 14 4 7 4.p+ 0 U.. Q 14-4 rp N0 U 6 9 E A 11 4 b 01 4© tI Q m 11 5 11 di u u tl❑4 3 I.,0 0Z/A0 L N a41 ae p13 .4 .i 00i -.4 > Q H u i 0 W .-41 H 0 'R • m T C +4+ O. 01 4 0. 0 P m 0 .r, m@ .0 0 .. O R 0 41 0 w 11 y 3440 i. Fry 00.0 U 030 . 00001 IR ., 0A.a u a RR� u u4-4 ,,:i pw 0 0 10 0 RkpU.+ C g.4 M 0: 4 41 7 m04maz° 3 E ?0 134 'C6 0 Q Po m m f+ W 4 m l4R 1 C R? m 0 .-.-1341 G R x.++1F .5. m •n ++ IC Hi' U O yA g 9pA Aoo to m 6.G4 0 ., �1. '" H 0. ■J F E >, .8 N ❑ 0 0.0 b u -.p EL m {m .. g y FL 01 QA R .yx kmm m., V m > > C 1' ti � '0 U A Hely B, 1997 AG Q?.4. w. 7 R ai V 40 I 0 0: �•.Qf .� s. 00 44 0 0 b 0. 11.1 1 Tc -T titt1 CONV1? VAN('Y Rarz-TRAI/s. ANT' wnra �r nr�ltawr�ri„ Door Mr. Monis: RAT it7-TR X11 c feh111 RVANit 'r. APPENDIX B: A LOOK AT EVERYDAY RISKS BYTHE PRESIDENT OF THE PUMPKINVINE NATURE TRAIL. Many rail -trail opponents claim that these trails are unsafe for the users and the adjacent landowners. As "proof," they gather anecdotes about crime on trails. Second, they assert that these crimes prove all trails are unsafe. Third, they draw the conclusion that your trail will also be crime ridden and should not be built. I believe this line of argument employs a double standard of safety and risk. Those who attack the safety of trails would never think of applying the same type of risk analysis to other forms of transportation, recre- ation or life in general. It's a neat logical nick: by demanding perfect safety (i.e., no risks) in an imperfect and risky world, they create an artificial and impossibly high standard of safety that trail makers can never meet. Trail opponents don't require promises of perfect safety in other areas of life, or they wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. They ignore all the risks involved in walking, riding in a car or crossing the supermarket parking lot while waving a few anecdotes about crimes on trails. I've gathered some statistics over the years on risks and safety that might help make the point. Dogs, sometimes called man's best friend, provide companionship to millions. Yet in 1995, 3.5 million dog bites were reported to American insurance carriers, with the companies spending $1 billion on the claims (South Bend Tribune, Oct. 6, 1996). Should we, therefore, outlaw dogs? Escalators carry millions of people safely each year. Yet in Boston, 300 people require emergency room treatment every year from injuries received while riding on escalators (NBC Dateline, Nov. 29, I995). Should we, therefore, eliminate escalators? A trip to the grocery store is a usually routine. Yet in one recent year, shopping cart accidents resulted in 25,000 trips to the emergency room (68 per day), including two deaths. Two thousand children were hospital- ized (NBC Today Show, March 20, 1996; data from a study by Dr. Gary Smith, Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio). Should we, therefore, ban shopping carts? Regular exercise can significantly reduce the chances of dying prematurely from heart disease and other ailments. Yet in 1992 many forms of recreation resulted the following number of emergency room trips: table tennis -1,455; horseshoes -4,423; billiards -5,835; bowling --24,361; golf -37,556; in-line skates -83,000; volleyball - 90,125; swing sets -102,232; football -229,689; baseball -285,593; bicycles -649,536 (Newsweek, June 21, 1994, data from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission). No question: let's definitely ban that dangerous table tennis game. Farmers use the latest equipment to produce our food. Yet in Indiana, 28 people die in an average year in farm accidents. Farmers die at more than four times the average rate of all other workers from work- related accidents, according to the National Safety Council. (AP story in the Goshen News. I did not record the date.) Explain that, Farm Bureau. Government sources estimate that air bags in motor vehicles have saved 2,700 lives. Yet at the same time they have killed 87 people -48 adults and 39 children (NBC Nightly News, Nov. 17, 1997). Trains are one of the most efficient ways to move freight. Yet a vehicle -train crash occurs about once every 90 minutes in the U.S. Two motorists are killed daily in these crashes. (Goshen News, July 13, 1994; data from Indiana. Operation Lifesaver.) We send our sons and daughters to college for higher education. Yet colleges are awash in criminal behavior. About 2,400 (1.8. colleges reported their statistics on campus crime to the Chronicle of Higher Education in responds to the 1990 federal law, the Student Right -to -Know and Campus Security Act of 1990. The report states that in the reporting academic year (1991-1992) there were 7,500 incidents of violent crime on their campuses. That includes 30 murders, 1,000 rapes and more than 1,800 robberies. However, they also reported that these violent crimes, thank goodness, were the exception when com- pared to property crimes, e.g., there were 32,127 burglaries and 8,981 motor vehicle thefts in the same period. (1 know I feel better with that qualification.) (Froin the Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 20, 1993. p. A32.) And, of course, the most glaring source of risky behavior -the highways. In 1993, 53,717 motor vehicles were involved in 35,747 fatal crashes, resulting in 40,115 deaths (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety). Does this statistic mean we should, therefore, ban motor vehicles or highways or both? Every form of human activity involves risks. The question is whether the risks are acceptable in light of the rewards. Our society, with some bizarre logic, rationalizes away or accepts 40,000 deaths each year from motor vehicles because it believes the rewards are acceptable. Most people believe the rewards of college are worth the risk of occasional criminal behavior, and most people believe the risk of going up the escalator is worth the risk of getting your foot caught in the mechanism. Once established, trails have proven to be as safe as the surrounding community through which they pass. The rewards of recreation and nonrnotorized transportation they provide far outweigh the risks. While it is important not to trivialize or deny that bad things can happen on trails, it is equally important to examine the logic behind the anecdotes. Are trail opponents willing to apply their let's -close -the -trails logic to other activities, e.g., close all highways because 40,000 people are killed each year; close all colleges because there were 1,000 rapes? if not, then they are using a double standard to analyze risks -a selective use of statis- tics to discredit what is a relatively safe activity. Two final points. First, we need to educate trail users about elementary safety precautions. We should caution people about jogging alone on an isolated trail, just as we would caution against jogging alone on an isolated country road or the mall parking lot for that matter. Second, if there are safety problems on trails, we need to fix them. That's what we do with highways. If there's a dangerous highway curve, we straighten it. If a certain highway intersection has frequent accidents, we redesign it or put up stoplights. But, we don't close the road when we discover a problem, and we don't stop building more of them. Instead, we improve them. Why would it be any different for trails? John D. Yoder, President Friends of the Pumpkinvine Nature Trail, Inc. RAI To -Tr AIH s CONCH VANU., ENDNOTES: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Living Along Trails: What People Expect and Find. Saint Paul, MN, 1980. Moore, Roger L., et al. The Impacts of Rail -Trails: A Study of Users and Nearby Property Owners from Three Trails. Washington, DC National Park Service, 1992. Seattle Engineering Departrnent and Office for Planning. Evaluation of the Burke -Gilman Trail's Effects on Property Values and Cringe. Seattle, WA: Seattle Engineering Department, May, 1987. Schenectady County Department of Planning. The Mohawk -Hudson Eike-Hike Trail: Its Impact on Adjouining Residential Properties. Schenectady, New York, 1997. 'These numbers reflect condensed data. Some survey respondents indicated two or more trail location types or omitted the answer to this question altogether. Thus the original results fell into seven categories: urban, suburban, rural, urban/suburban, suburban/rural, urban/suburban/rural and blank. To facilitate data analysis, we placed crimes from the latter four categories into urban, suburban and rural categories using weighted distributions. All law enforcement agencies for which contact information was provided in primary survey were contacted. Estimate of annual users based on extrapolation of trails reporting number of users by areatype on a users per mile basis. 5 At the time of the rail -trail crime study, the FBI had only released the preliminary Uniform Crime Report for 1996, therefore the 1995 Uniform Crime Report was used as a comparison for both the 1995 and 1996 rail -trail crime rates. The Uniform Crime Report refers to mugging as robbery, "the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or by putting the victim in fear." The Uniform Crime Report measures vandalism by arrest rather than known incidents. Thus only comparisons to burglary were used. _ to _ TRAILS CONSERVANCY Rails -to -Trails Conservancy 1100 Seventeenth Street, NW Washington, DC. 20036 Tel: 202-331-9696 ■ Fax: 202-331-9680 Web site: www.railstotrails.org With field offices in California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania NATIONAL PARK SWE kn•rMNni 01 11111 Inferior National Park Service Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 1849 C Street, NW, Room 3606 Washington, DC. 20240-0001 Tel: 202-565-1200 • Fax: 202-565-1204 Web site: www.cr.nps.gov/rtca/rtc/ rtcahome.html MHUG k4IBPOMLEY 4TIOPNEVS AT LAW, PLLC cbromleyCamchughbrom ley.com EXHIBIT 4q- 330 S. 4' St., Ste. 103 208-287-0991 Boise, ID 53702 February 3, 2014 Board of County Commission c/o Glenn Hartmann, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: County Road 106 and CRMS Dear Commissioners: I am writing to express my support of the Colorado Rocky IUlountain School's application to vacate that portion of County Road 106 that runs through the CRMS campus. I write this letter in my capacity as the present vice chair of the CRMS Board of Trustees, CRMS alumnus ('93), Colorado native, and concerned citizen. I have been associated with CRMS since I began as a 9th grade student in 1989. Over these 2.5 years, I have never seen CR 106 used as a road for motor vehicles through the CRMS campus. My experience has been that CR 106, when it is used, is primarily a footpath for bicycles and pedestrians going between Satank and Carbondale during daylight hours. The ability for bicycles and pedestrians to cross the CRMS campus during the daylight hours should continue to be allowed, and is consistent with promoting a healthy community. CRMS has no intention of preventing bicycle or pedestrian traffic during daylight hours. CRMS does view the ability to control traffic through its campus as critical to long terra success, safety, and sustainability. In addition to the fact that CRMS presently has no plans to close campus to its Satank neighbors, CRMS has also submitted a proposal to create a safer, more efficient bicycle/pedestrian path to Main Street. The path will begin at the edge of the Satanic neighborhood and connect to the existing path near Carbondale Community School which will then link with a new path on the west side of Highway 133. CRMS will also invest in landscaping improvements to CRMS property along Delores Way that will create an inviting, alternate route to Carbondale and businesses along Highway 133. Because I live in Boise, Idaho, I will be unable to attend the February 12, 2014 Commission meeting; however, should have you any questions about my views, please do not hesitate to contact rne. Very Truly Yours, Chris Bromley Colorado Rocky Met&hoe! February 7, 2014 Board of County Commissioners c/o Glenn Hartmann, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 E1 t f3 Commissioners of Garfield County, 1 am writing in support of Colorado Rocky Mountain School's request for the county to vacate the right of way for CR 106. It is important for any school to have control of its campus, and CRMS is Do exception. As we move toward our 60th anniversary celebration, we are reminded of how long CRMS has been an essential part of our community. It is hard to imagine Garfield County without this vibrant academic community. I was appointed Academic Dean in 2006. When I tell people I am lucky enough to work at the school, my statement is always followed by questions, comments, and compliments regarding CRMS. Our school provides a unique academic learning environment for local students and students who come to us from around the world. To the best of my knowledge, no other school has such diverse arts offerings (glassblowing, blacksmithing, silversmithing, drawing, painting, music, drama, and photo). Unique interim offerings such as Solar Car Design, Cargo Bike Building, Digital Story -Telling, and Sustainable Architecture provide students with powerful experiential learning opportunities. CRMS students learn about bio -diversity by designing an aquaponic system for growing talapia and by working in our organic garden. They practice mathematics while researching a responsible, fuel-efficient plan for our bus fleet. CRMS has a powerful program that prepares students for college, and life. We are the only college preparatory school I am aware of in which students spend over twenty days in the back -country and engage in a wide array of mountain sports (kayak, mountain bike and telemark teams). Grit and community are taught and put into practice as students do three days of trail -work during their Wilderness orientation and do manual labor to support our Scholarship Work Day. The reputation of our school, the contributions we make to the community, and the influence we have on the young people who attend are an immeasurable asset to the county. I request that you take this into account as you make your decision. In order to ensure the health and longevity of our school, the CR 106 right of way should be vacated. Respectfully, _ Nancy.Draina Hanrahan Academic Dean PS. You have an open invitation to visit our classes, speak to our students, and take a closer look at our campus. 1493 County Road 106 j Carbondale, CO 81€623 1 970-963-2562 tel 970-963-9865 Fax rvww.crns.or g. To: Garfield County Comissioners From: Michelle Greenfield, 115 Indica Way, Carbondale Re: CRMS request to vacate CR 106 Date: January 29, 2014 I am writing to voice my support for the CRMS request for the county to vacate County Road 106. That road has not been used as a through -way for 35 years. Since it is surrounded by the private property of CRMS and is populated by school children, I believe that the safest thing to do is to let CRMS gain control of it and enable the school to restrict access at night and secure it's perimeter. It is -my understanding that CRMS will allow residents of Satank and others that cut through during the day to continue to do so, and that they are also planning to build an additional pathway down Delores Way to 133 to facilitate access to Carbondale. I am against the possibility of returning vehicle/car traffic to the part of CR 106 that bisects the CRMS campus. Even though this has been closed to cars for 35 years, the fact that the road is still an official county road and that there may be future development in that area, means that there could be the possibility in the future of returning it to a through -way. The dangers of that are many, due to the large concentration of students/kids that live directly on that part of the road. They criss- cross that road many times daily to get from their dorms to their classrooms, cafeteria, library, gym and all the other places on the campus. As a parent of a past boarding student, and a future day student (we recently moved to Carbondale, partly to send our child to CRMS), that worries me as much as the problems associated with allowing that road to be accessible and open at all hours of the day and night. The safety concern of night access was brought up by many at the Carbondale Board of Trustees meeting on January 28 and I echo their concerns. I have been on that campus during the night time hours and know that many kids are still moving about until their study hours are over and it is "lights out" in their dorm. Darkness combined with nearly 100 kids living in that concentrated area, combined with any vehicular traffic or wandering unknown pedestrians sets up a very dangerous situation. It would be a tragedy for the town and for CRMS if there were to be a serious accident because the school was unable to secure it's property. As a school with a large concentration of kids and young people along that road, CRMS should have the ability to secure the safety of it's campus, especially at night. If the road was to be vacated by the county, CRMS could perhaps establish a better foot and bicycle path through campus that could be gated and closed to outsiders at night. I believe it is their intention to let a path remain open during the daylight hours for the Satank neighbors who use it to cut through to Main Street. Regarding SR 133 and Delores Way, I also am frustrated by that intersection and would welcome some kind of improvement in the safety and ability to cross 133 and to turn left at that intersection (or turn left anywhere along 133 for that matter). For pedestrians and bicycles, the idea ofa new bike path on the west side of the street is a great thing, if it is done well. By done well, 1 would like to see it set back at a safe distance from the main road, with perhaps a berm between the road and the bike path. This factor is a larger situation for the city, the county and the planners, and is a situation that 1 believe CRMS does not have an obligation to handle within its request for CR 106 to be vacated. 147 January 26, 2014 Garfield County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear County Commissioners, We are residents of Satank and we are writing in support of the Colorado Rocky Mountain School's application to gain full control of County Road 106, which passes directly through the heart of their campus. in a time where we hear more and more about frightening school attacks and threats, why would we not applaud a schools efforts to improve their campus safety? CRMS is not intending to prohibit all pedestrian and bike traffic through campus, but instead is asking for the ability to control where this traffic occurs. Currently County Road 106 runs directly in front of the schools residential dormitories and while this has never been an issue, we could easily help CRMS manage this potential risk and we should. VVe are fully in support of the county relinquishing their right-of-way on this section of County Road 106. As residents of Satank, there are times we pass through campus to access the bike path to town. However, as I understand it, CRMS proposes to build an extension of the bike path to reach Satank and expand on the Town of Carbondale's plan to install a more direct bike path along the east side of campus. We view this as a positive community contribution as this bike path will not only be a more direct route to town, but will also be continuous with no road crossings. The current bike path on the west side of campus is intermittent and has some dangerous road exposures and crossings. This proposal benefits everyone. Please support CRMS's proposal. Thank you for your favorable consideration and for your service to the community. Sincerely, Alexandra and Peter Blake 48 Glenwood Ave. Carbondale, CO 81 23 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 8I601 Re: CRMS Request to Vacate a Portion of County Road 106 Dear Commissioners: By signing this letter, I wish to indicate my support of CRMS and its application for abandonment of the portion of historic County Road 106 that crosses its campus. I reside, own property, or work in Garfield County. Vacating the right of way will contribute toward the Iong term viability of the School and thereby benefit the surrounding community. I believe the bike and pedestrian route proposed by the school is an acceptable alternative. Name Address Sincerely, Phone 374'7,,,•/-3-----17-/- C w'S, v. S/bv! 94913 -7111 lqS l �a-m T L•-. SQ_.. . ) 1 Alleghany Meadows 73 Rocky Road Carbondale, CO 81623 Board of County Com mission 108 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Board of County Commissioners, January 27, 2014 I am writing to support the application by Colorado Rocky Mountain School to vacate the easement of CR 106 through their campus. Please note my support in the public record. Sincerely, Alleghan M . dows Garfield County Resident EXHll l 16o February 12, 2014 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners Attn: Glenn Hartman, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 BY FACSIMILE: 970-384-3470 RE: CRMS REQUEST TO VACATE OLD COUNTRY ROAD 106 I am writing in support of the application by Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) requesting the County to vacate the public right of way known as historic County Road 106 (CR106). The request by CRMS conforms with the Country's criteria for vacating a right of way, and CRMS has proposed a satisfactory alternative route for the limited number of pedestrians and bicyclists who use that route through the school campus. CRMS seeks the power to control the perimeter of its campus which is one of the largest contributors to the local economy and is a home to many people. As you are aware, when CRMS was first founded, the school was located entirely on the western side of CR106. However, in 1956, CRMS received a generous land donation which included land on the east side of CR106. Thus, CR106 now divides the CRMS campus. Moreover, as CRMS has no authority to control passage along this public right of way despite the fact that the route lies in the center of a dormitory complex in the center of a boarding school campus. CR106 is no longer a part of the primary road system. It is not identified as a bike and pedestrian trail in the Town of Carbondale's Master Plan. in fact, while the route was partially vacated by the County in 1979 or 1980 - disallowing vehicles but maintaining passage for pedestrians and cattle drives when CRMS donated lands for Dolores Way there was never a trail built or paved along the right of way. While the route provides a convenient route for a limited number of neighbors to travel on foot to town, the right of way also poses a significant safety risk to the school, and thus compromises the school's ability to continue to thrive in this community. CRMS' application recognizes that its neighbors travel through CRMS from time to time, and CRMS has no intention of inhibiting traffic of that nature during daylight hours. Rather, CRMS maintains that the ability to control the perimeter of its campus --which is a business and a home to many people-- is critical to its long- term success, safety, and sustainability. 1 couldn't agree more. ,Moreover, CRMS has also submitted a proposal to create a safer, more efficient bike/pedestrian path to Main Street. The path will begin at the edge of the Satank neighborhood and connect to the existing path near Carbondale Community School which will then link with a new path on the west side of Highway 133. CRMS will also invest in landscaping improvements to CRMS property along Delores Way that will create an inviting alternate route to Town and businesses along SH133. I attended the Town of Carbondale's meeting on the CRMS application, and believe that the town's demands in its referral comments are inappropriate and ill conceived. Given CRMS' goals with its request, it is not reasonable to require CRMS to provide an alternate route through campus, nor is it the responsibility of the school to provide the right of way to serve pedestrian and bike traffic through the future marketplace development. That should be the responsibility of the eventual developer. Over many years, CRMS has provided land and access for various improvements and conservation projects in the school's neighborhood. It is the biggest employer in Carbondale, and puts the town on the world map with is high quality international boarding school. And the school maintains a commitment to preserving the agricultural open space that welcomes the eye as one enters the town. I urge you to approve CRMS' request to vacate CR 106 and to provide an alternate pedestrian and bicycle route. Thank you very much. Sincerely, Chelsea Congdon rundige Trustee, Colorado Rocky Mountain School Day Student Parent 1755 Snowmass Creek Road Snowmass, CO 81654 EXHIBIT April 23, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, State of Colorado c/o Glenn Hartmann, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81 601 Dear Commissioners: We are writing to express our opposition to Colorado Rocky Mountain School's application to vacate County Road 106. CRMS made this same request 4 years ago. Unfortunately the CRMS Administration chose to ignore the commissioners advice at that meeting in 2010 (see attached Post Independent Article). CRMS still decided to build 3 new dorms along this road (instead of any other place on their 300 acres) and this past Fall planted trees and created a unauthorized dirt berm to block off the entrance to this road, which now makes vehicle access impossible in case of any emergencies. Across the street from County Road 106 is 5.65 acres that CRMS received approval to separate from the rest of their property. Back in May 2007, the land was under contract with a group called SCOR to be developed into a nonprofit center with residential units. SCOR revoked the contract, but you can still see their proposal by going to www.landandshelter.comldevelopmentlscor. When this piece of land gets developed, we believe CRMS should have to (along with us) deal with the traffic consequences. This could mean vehicle access on CR 106 again or an alternative vehicle road on CRMS property (not a bike path). Longtime Satank resident, Brad Hendricks, suggested that "any agreements between the county and CRMS about the easement include language that, should the property be redeveloped for uses other than an educational institution, that the county could consider re -opening the road for traffic"(Post Independent 512012010). Vacating this road will allow CRMS to write off Delores Way and our Satank neighborhood. In the last 25 years we've lived here, Delores Way has become totally stressed. In this time 12 new homes have been built in Satank, a community school of 135 students (with parents picking up and dropping off ), 10 commercial buildings with housing on top and the Hwy 133 RFTA Park and Ride sending its overflow on to Delores Way. We are now down to one road, in and out of Satank which is maxed now ( both Satank Bridge, & CR 106 have been closed to vehicular traffic). Approval of this road vacation would forever deny any solution to these growing traffic issues. Back in 1980 when the county agreed to close CR106 to vehicles there was the foresight that in the future there maybe a need to reopen the road, and that the right of way needed to be preserved. Please do not take this public right of way from the taxpayers and give it to a non -tax paying entity. Respectfully, 1.4 \PAP' Joe and ebra Burleigh 65 S. Pine Street Carbondale. Colorado 81623 (970) 963-0967 Garfield County balks at vacating road, urges talks instead 1 PostIndependent.com 4 John Colson jcolson@postindepentlent.com Back to: April 8, 2010 EXHIBIT &ANAL, Garfield County balks at vacating road, urges talks instead GLENWOOD SPRINGS, Colorado - The Garfield County commissioners this week declined to either approve or deny an application by the Colorado Rocky Mountain School to vacate County Road 106 as it runs through the campus. Instead, they convinced the school to withdraw its application to have the road vacated, and to try to figure out some other way to meet the school's objectives. The school applied to have the road vacated, according to testimony from school officials, mainly due to fears about "unwelcome visitors" passing through campus who might pose a clanger to students or faculty. The school also hopes to build two new dormitories either very close to or overlapping the road right of way. But neighbors objected, maintaining the right-of-way is an important pedestrian link between Satanic, an unincorporated neighborhood just north of CRMS, and Carbondale's Main Street to the south of the campus. The publicly owned right of way, neighbors said, safely avoids the congestion of State Highway 133 - the main thoroughfare through Carbondale. Before a packed house of neighbors and others, the board of county commissioners urged school officials and community members to get together, talk about the issues involved and come up with a plan that all parties can live with. According to documents submitted to the BOCC, CR.106 dates at least back to 1910, when it first appeared on a map of county roads connecting Carbondale with Glenwood Springs. The school was founded in 1953 by John and Anne Holden, on a small parcel next to CR 106. It was soon expanded onto the adjacent Bar Fork Ranch, donated by Harald "Shorty" Pabst, which put the http://yyww.postindependent.comfarticle f 20100408/VALLEYNEws/1004(59915 Page 1 of 2 Garfield County balks at vacating road. urges talks Instead j PostIndependent.com 4/20/14 2:00 PM school on both sides of CR106. The road was closed to traffic and taken off the county roads inventory in 1979, after the school deeded the land for Delores Way to the county, along the northern edge of the school's property. Delores Way intersects with Highway 1.33 and, since the closure of the old Pink Bridge that once connected Satank to Highway 82 across the Roaring Fork, currently is the only way to drive into Satank. At the time, around 1980, the county agreed to close CR 106 through the campus to vehicles, at the school's request, but not to vacate the county's right of way. County officials were concerned that there may be a need to reopen the road in the future, and felt the right of way needed to be preserved. The school's headmaster, Jeff Leahy, argued that the students at CRMS, who come from "all over the world," do so in large part because of the school's "safe environment ... we have control over the environment in which their learning takes place." Because students and faculty often walk around the campus at night, he said, You want to be able to restrict the unwelcome visitors that come to your campus." A sophomore at the school, Tamsin Pargiter-Hatem, told the BOCC that "the students feel a great sense of freedom and security" on campus. If the road were opened to traffic, or to become "an improved bike path ... the sense of security I feel would be shattered." School officials noted that there are several publicly used trails through campus, and a conservation easement on a large parcel of land, all of which would still be open to use by the public if the road were vacated. Commissioner Tresi Houpt, after stating she was not in favor of vacating the road, told the school representatives, "When you have a right of way in place, you should plan for that as you develop the campus." Her fellow commissioners agreed, and rather than force a vote, the school's attorney, Larry Green, withdrew the application with a promise to open negotiations with the interested parties. The public hearing on the school's application was continued to allow time for those negotiations to take place. jcolson@postindependent.com 0005 _ 2014 Swift Communications. Inc. ht1p:f lwAh w.postIndependenLcomlarticlel20100408/VALLEYNEWSl100409915 Page 2ofZ March 26, 2014 To: Garfield County Commissioners From: Jane Hendricks RE: CRMS/County Rd. 106 Abandonment Dear Sirs, 1 am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed surrender of County right-of-way through Colorado Rocky Mountain School and to list myself among those who are opposed to such an abandonment. Just to be clear on one point: 1 am no enemy of CRMS. Far from it. In the 1960's I was fortunate enough to have been recruited as a teacher by the school's founder, the late John Holden. My tenure there is remembered with great affection, not only for the good friends I made among the students, faculty and staff, but also for the educational, ethical and social standards Mr. Holden embodied and which, I am certain, remain part and parcel of his legacy to CRMS. In addition to considering myself a "friend of CRMS", I have also been a long-time neighbor, having built a log home in Satank, across the road from the school's north pasture in 1972. So it is with a perspective of almost 50 years as both a friend and neighbor of CRMS that I must disagree with those who are petitioning the county to privatize their portion of County Road 106. Here are my reasons: SOCIAL AND CULTURAL: During the decades of 1950's, 60's, and early 70's, CRMS actively participated in the community. Work crews from the school would fan out in the spring and fall of each year helping the elderly and handicapped with chores ranging from yard work to home repair as well as assisting with street cleaning and garbage hauling. Students and staff all played a big part in helping put on events ranging from Potato Day to Mountain Fair. Generous scholarships were available for Carbondale and Satank students and many a local kid received a fine secondary and college -prep education as a result. Any number of community groups were able to take advantage of the excellent venue which was, and is, the CRMS Barn. It was a wonderful place to mix and match the two cultures and the school hosted many a memorable theatrical and entertainment event. There's hardly and old timer around who doesn't have a fond memory of one dance or another held in "The Barn." Many were the partnerships between the school and surrounding neighbors ranging from ditch burning in the spring to food and culinary events in the Bar Fork dining hall. I remember one particular bilateral community shindig when almost half of (current Carbondale town council member and school alum) Pam Zentmyer's class was thrown out of the school's formal graduation for trashing the CRMS headmaster's house during a drug and alcohol fueled senior class party. Pam's folks, Bob and Kathy, asked us to host the graduating miscreants and their parents for an alternative graduation ceremony. Of course, we said "Yes" and the little felons received their diplomas in my front yard. A good time was had by all. Unfortunately, this give and take between the school and its neighbors grows more feeble with each passing year as the school drifts farther away from its friends and neighbors. My fear is that by allowing CRMS to take possession of our walking and biking right-of-way,. they will almost certainly shut us out and even this tenuous thread of connection will be broken. CRMS will become more and more a virtual nunnery and its cloister will be our mutual loss. LEGAL: In the late 1970's, the town of Carbondale and the settlement of Satank witnessed the beginning of an historic population explosion which saw the price of raw Iand and vacant lots in the area skyrocket. Coincidentally, CRMS tradition rich but land poor.....was experiencing a severe budget dilemma which saw its very survival threatened. To help the school out of a deep financial hole, the late Paul Lappala (who was, at the time, both chairman of the Carbondale Planning and Zoning Commission and spokesman for the CRMS governing board) proposed the following: 1. TO THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE: The sale of X -number of acres on the north-east comer of school land to an investment group which would develop the property as a light- industriallcommercial zone. As part of the deal, Carbondale would acquire some CRMS water rights in the Rockford Ditch and agree to annex the land into the city limits and provide it with water and sewer services. The developers would, in turn, deed a portion of their new holdings to be used as a town right-of-way connecting Satank to Highway 133. 2. TO THE GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Owing to the dangerously increased amount of traffic flowing into Carbondale through CRMS from Hwy. 82, the County Commissioners would agree to closing 106 Road through CRMS and divert traffic over the new road north of the school, which came to be called "Delores Way". 3. TO THE RESIDENTS OF SATANK: At a number of community meetings, Mr. Lappala and the school promised the County Commissioners and CRMS's neighbors in Satank that they would retain unfettered access through school property for "hikers, bikers and horses" along a path identical to the old 106 Road right-of-way. Additionally, residents of Satank were allowed vehicle access through school property on a service road which then, as now, crosses just in front of the soccer fields, through the Bar Fork parking lot and exits CRMS onto West Main Street in Carbondale. Over the years, the situation on the ground has changed significantly. With the closure of the old one -lane Satank Bridge over the Roaring Fork River, County Road 106 is no longer an alternative route into Carbondale from Hwy. 82. Despite the absence of any foreseeable traffic impacts, CRMS has shut down the former Satank vehicular access road on the north side of the soccer fields with coded electronic gates and narrowed the pedestrianlbicycle entry path along the old 106 Road right-of-way in an obvious attempt to discourage "outsiders" from entering. In light of these moves, I don't think I'm being paranoid if I assume that once they gain private domain over our public right-of-way even the skinniest of us will no longer be able to squeeze through the golden gates of the People's Republic of CRMS. I do not claim to be any sort of Roaring Fork Valley pioneer. But in my early days here in the Valley, I met many of those selfsame people with names like: Cerise, Nieslanik, Diemoz, Tona7li et al as well as later settlers who shaped our country: Martin, Perry, Strang and, yes, John and Ann Holden. To a man and woman, they would say: "A promise made is a debt unpaid." CR1 IS made me and my neighbors the promise that, if we didn't fight the road closure, then we could still cross their ground. I believe they mean to break that promise. As my representatives in this matter, I am asking you to hold them to their word and pay their debt. Respectfully yours, Jane J. Hendricks Satank, Colorado 970-640-1784 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Hartmann, JAKE MENKE 0 menkel@msn.cofn] Friday, April 18, 2014 11:44 AM Glenn Hartmann CR 106 and CRMS I am writing on behalf of myself and my disabled father to strongly oppose the vacation of right away of CR 106 through CRMS property. We have lived in Satank since 1977 and own the property just North of CRMS and Dolores Way. My dad has Multiple Sclerosis and spastic quadriplegia, but still manages to navigate the roads of Satank and CRMS via a head controlled power wheelchair. The students and faculty have always been a big part of his life over the past 35 plus years and I remember riding my bike on CR 106 before Delores way even existed. We often take walks through CRMS with my wife and daughter and my dad with his wheelchair. CR 106 is currently closed to through motorized traffic, which 1 think is a great idea for the safety of CRMS students, but I think it is important for the small community of Satank to have the potential to reopen it if CRMS tries to develop the 6+ acre parcel just North of Delores Way. In 2007 CRMS tried to get this 6 acre parcel rezoned from residential to commercial where they wanted to build over 30 buildings and a hundred parking spaces. My dad fought very hard to have that land be zoned residential instead of commercial property. Sutank cannot sustain any more commercial property since the addition of the Community School and several commercial properties. The only way I would support a vacation of CR 106 is if CRMS promised not to sell or develop the 6 acre parcel for commercial use in writing in a legal and binding document, and they guaranteed in a legal document that CR 106 be open to bicycle, foot, and wheelchair traffic which can connect to Rio Grande Trail along CR 108. 1 have heard talk that it is a student safety issue. First I believe there have been no safety issues involving CRMS students or faculty clashing with bicycles or pedestrians. The biggest safety issue that 1 believe needs urgent attention is the extension of the Rio Grande Trail along CR 108 to CRMS with a road barrier. As it stands now there is a 50 to 75 yard section where the Rio Grand trail ends to where CRMS property begins that is very exposed to an inevitable pedestrian versus automobile accident. This section of road is heavily used by bicycles, pedestrian, baby strollers, and wheelchairs. I hope that Garfield County and CRMS address this problem immediately. We shouldn't have to wait for a tragic fatality to occur before we fix this dangerous section of road/bike path. One more safety issue that 1 would like to see addressed for CR 106 pedestrian path is better wheelchair access. Right now there is only a narrow rudimentary bridge that crosses over an irrigation ditch to access CR 106. It is absolutely not handicapped accessible. The only way a wheelchair is able to navigate access to CR 106 is a very narrow hilly path between a gate and a barbed wire fence. My dad has flipped his power wheelchair several times and thankfully rescued by CRMS students, faculty, or ground crew. I think this section could be easily and affordably be addressed to improve access for the handicapped. I think the community of Satank and CRMS have had a wonderful bond over several decades and believe the school enriches the surrounding community. The students, faculty, and administration have always been an important part of Satank, Carbondale, and Garfield County. I would love to see this strong bond remain for several decades to come. 1 Unfortunately 1 will not be able to attend the meeting on May 5th. Feel free to forward this email to the Board of County Commissioners and the administration of CRMS. thank you for your time and concerns, Jake and Pat Menke 68 S. Cedar St. Carbondale, Co 81623 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Fred Jarman Sent: Thursday, Aprif 10, 2014 4:33 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC Original Message From: Mike Samson Sent: Monday, April 07, 2014 12:54 PM To: Fred Jarman; Frank Hutfless Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC -----Original Message From: Julie Albrecht [mailto:1ialbrecht(sooris.net] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2014 4:42 PM To: Mike Samson Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC EXHIBIT G Julie Albrecht has sent you a message: CR 106 970-510-7004 Dear Mike, while I sympathize with Colorado Rocky Mountain School on its desire to have county taxpayers give up their right of way through the school property, I would prefer the county maintain its rights to the strip of land. As a bicycle commuter, I feel much safer biking on the path along the existing 106 and thru the school grounds, than I do pedaling on Highway 133 or on the Crystal. Valley Bike Path as it parallels 133, crossing many intersections, through Carbondale. Thank you. Julie Albrecht 1 Board of County Commission c/o Glenn Hartman, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 April 2, 2014 Dear Mr. Hartman, EiCJ11B[I° 5‘ 1 am writing this letter in support of the Colorado Rocky Mountain School's application to vacate a short section of Garfield County Road 106 which bisects the school campus. 1 have a long affiliation with the school going back to 1975 when I graduated from there. I then worked as the ranch manager for the school from 1979 to 1986. 1 have also sent one daughter to the school and she graduated from CRMS in 1996. I was involved in the process of closing the segment of the county road to vehicular traffic in 1979 and 1980.1 have always been a supporter of CRMS and have pushed for the school to integrate itself with the Carbondale community at large. One of the big differences between now and 1979 is that the school is very much a part of the Carbondale and Garfield County community. CRMS has become a vital and intrinsic member of this community by contributing to its economy, maintaining open space, making itself available to the community, educating its young people, donation of a conservation easement and other aspects to numerous to mention. As I recall in 1980 the BOCC did not completely abandon that portion of the road because of emergency access to Satanic and cattle access to the Crystal River Ranch. It seems to me that both those reasons for keeping the access are no longer valid. In today's society it is, in my opinion, which is very much shaped by my profession as a peace officer, imperative for the teachers, administrators and maintenance personnel at CRMS to more easily be able to monitor who is on their property and why, in order to help maintain the safety and security of their charges. Vacating this old access would give them another tool to maintain their vigilance. It is for these reasons that I urge the Garfield County Commissioners to approve this application by CRMS. Respectfully, ess Steindler Patrol Director Jesse Steindler Pitkin County Sheriff's Office 506 East Main Street, Suite 204 Aspen, Colorado, 81611 EXHIBIT 54, CRMS is asking the County to close the portion of 106 Rd through the campus presently being used by the public for pedestrian and bicycle activity. They are proposing that "others" will build and maintain an alternate route going from the west end of Dolores Way (where Dolores Way turns north onto 106 Rd heading in and out of Satank) to the intersection of Hwy 133 and Main St in Carbondale. The only existing portion of this route is a sidewalk going from Hwy 133 to the Community School entrance on the westerly side of Dolores Way. Carbondale is planning the 133 portion with CDOT. There is no provision for the portion from the Community School entrance west to 106 Rd. CRMS is ignoring that a major use of this 106 pathway is for the public to travel to and from 106 Rd in Satank to the intersection of 108 and 109 Rds west of their campus. The proposed "alternate" would be very inconvenient to those users. A reason CRMS gives for the elimination of this popular trail, which also connects to the trail coming from Main St to their campus, is to increase their ability to market the perception of a secure campus to the parents of prospective students even though they do not cite specific problem incidents. They also believe this closure will give them better ability to keep undesirables off their campus although again they do not cite specific problem incidents. They make no mention of the probably larger issue of securing the perimeter of the campus which is several milesinlength. A different possible incentive for the closure is the large amount of land which would revert to the School's control. It would be not only the 60' width of the ROW, but also the 25' setback on either side making 110' in all. This is quite a large parcel of land for which the County would apparently be receiving less than nothing in return. Aside from the inconvenience to the general public, there is an issue of emergency exit from Satank. Should Dolores Way become temporarily closed, CRMS is offering the zig-zag route of their gated service road as an alternative to the perfectly straight route of 106 Rd which still exists as an internal campus street although it is now blocked at the Dolores Way end by a berm they have built. I urge that this Historic ROW be maintained for public use, and that County cooperate with CRMS to help keep the campus safe. One suggestion I would make is that CRMS delineate the pathway and sign it "Public Route Through Private Property, Stay On Pathway". Sincerely, Thane Lincicome 98 Glenwood Ave, Carbondale,C0 Glenn Hartmann From: Dru Handy [handy@sopris. nett Sent: Friday, March 28. 2014 7.15 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: CRMS access Glen, greetings to you and the family, hope all is well. I own my shop over on Dolores Way and often bike to work sometimes using the CRMS access. We also will catch a soccer garne or two in the summer riding our bikes. My main question is this: Why? Why would CRMS, who is usually such a great neighbor, want to not allow (the very few) people to meander through on occasion? This question raises my concern. Is this some possibly slight detail that might change the course for the many? Will this issue solve itself in the next few years, or with a change of students at CRMS? New administration? I am against making a legal decision over what seems to be a small issue affecting our community. Thanks for your time, Dru Handy 1 Amy M. Butowicz 1234 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 970-309-0300 March 19, 2014 Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, 4th Floor, Suite 401 Garfield County Plaza Building Glenwood Springs, CO RE: Vacation of County Road 106 Dear Community Development Department, MOM 5q 1 will be out of town on April the 7th and not able to attend the meeting/hearing regarding CRMS and their desire to close the portion of County Road 106 that runs through their campus. As a homeowner on County Road 100,1 completely object to closing that portion of CR 106 to bike and pedestrian traffic. Passing through the CRMS campus is the safest and most enjoyable way for bicycle or foot traffic to leave the neighborhood of Satank. When entering or exiting Satank, on bike or on foot, through the intersection of Dolores (CR 106) and HWY 133 or through the new RAFTA Park and Ride, there are many issues with safety and pedestrian/bike visibility. CRMS built their dormitory and other campus buildings in front of a county road: Although this road has been closed to vehicle traffic, if they were concerned about foot and bicycle traffic running directly in front of the dormitories, perhaps they should have built else ware on the campus. 1 do not feel the residents of Satank should be penalized for the campus layout. Sincerely, Amy M. Butowicz March 14, 2014 Board of County Commission Clo Glenn Hartman, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: CRMS application to vacate County Road 106 Dear Commissioner, 1 fully support CMRS application to vacate County Road 106 through the middle ofCRMS property. Having a public right away that CRMS cannot control through the middle of the school's campus and dormitory area is not safe and makes no sense. A school campus should be a safe place for students and facility, free from worries and distraction as to whom or what maybe nearby. Not being able to control the property that they use is not an acceptable situation for a school or any similar organization or business. CRMS is proposing a viable alternate for pedestrians and bicycles that provides a better connection to the existing pedestrian and bicycle trails system and is also a shorter route from the area north of the CRMS campus to retail areas south of the campus. The proposed alternate will be much safer than the current route using West Main Street, a route 1 have ridden on my bicycle. As an architect 1 know there is more to designing a safe environment than providing barriers and adequate lighting. There needs to be the knowledge that the immediate space around you is safe and not occupied by persons or items unknown to you. Having firsthand experience with a student who was attacked near a school campus in this valley 1 can tell you it is a life altering experience and changes the person. Changes that are evident even later in life. It is an experience that should not happen to anyone and 1 encourage you to fully vacate County road 106 where it passes through the CRMS campus and dorm area to make it a safer place for all. Having a safe environment in which to learn and live is critical to the success of our future generation and CRMS. Thank,you, Doug Grayfoc PRINTED ON RECYCYLED PAPER 0188 Sunset Lane Carbondale Co 8 1 62 3 970 704 1 188 970 704 0187 doug@graybealarchitects.com www.graybealarchitects.corn Glenn Hartmann From: Andrea Marsh jsouisistadrea©a hotmailcoml Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 3:10 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: CRMS request to vacate County Road 106 To The Garfield County Commissioners, I am a former preschool teacher and a current Nanny that lives in Satank 1161 County Rd. 106. I am an alum of CRMS class of 1989 and grew up in Carbondale. I oppose any decision to vacate County rd 106. I want to address the root concern of safety that has influenced CRMS to apply to vacate County Rd.106 through campus. I understand the concern as I am an advocate for the safety of all children in my care and on the campuses of all schools. Prevention of disaster is key but resolution should be made, one that benefits both communities and not bum the bridge between the two. It may carry some weight to be able to tell an unwanted outsider to leave the whole of campus versus just part of campus but if the outsider refuses there is the call for outside support that must be made. Closing the road does not prevent an unwanted outsider from entering campus using various wide open entrances. There have been encounters with outsiders late night that have spooked faculty to the point of calling urgency to safety matters of campus. The decision to apply to vacate the County Road is made from a place of fear. I understand the strong desire on behalf of CRMS to secure the campus in order to provide a home away from home to boarding students and faculty that live on campus. I strongly suggest. CRMS find ways to secure the campus from within and build relations with the Town of Carbondale Cops and the Garfield County Sheriff offices in order to be prepared for any future late night disturbances. The current solution that CRMS has given in exchange of closure of County Rd 106, is to finish the bike path along Delores Way which is not the safest solution as it will only contribute to the potential fatal accident at the intersection of Cty Rd 106 and Delores Way. The unfriendly No Trespassing signs at the boat put in under the bridge on the Crystal River puts out an unfriendly vibe and dampers the deep affection that I had for my high school. I can only imagine the future No Trespassing signs that will appear if you as Comissioners grant CRMS their request. The Town Of Carbondale board of trustees and the Garfield County Planning and Zoning board members have both denied CRMS's application. If you choose to allow CRMS to vacate County Rd 106, I would consider that a fishy decision that will affect the safety of all humans traveling on Delores way, whether on the bike path or not. with great concern for the safety of all communities involved, Andrea Marsh Glenn Hartmann From: John Armstrong [john.armstrong@pitkincounty.comJ Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 5:02 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: to the Garfield County Commissioners Greetings County Commissioners, I am asking you to deny the request to vacate Garfield County Road 106 through the Colorado Rocky Mountain School Campus. I believe vacation of the road would shortchange not only the citizens of Garfield County but also the future commissioners of Garfield County who will need all the latitude and resources in decision making for the future of our County. I live in a house built in 1883, whose residents and neighbors have used the 106 Road to access Carbondale for 130 years. The 1979 closure of motorized traffic on 106 Road was done through the goodwill and concessions of the residents and commissioners of Garfield County.The road has been a safe and direct route to all the amenities and neccessities of the community and is used constantly by my family, neighbors and Garfield County residents. The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was well attended, approximately 50% of the attendees were pro and con. Having attended most of the public meetings regarding this proposal, I found the meeting with the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission to be the most educational. SECURITY OF THE CAMPUS: • The misconception of local continuous public use was clarified by the three men representing the School at this meeting. Chief Financial Officer Joe White stated that there would be a gate and a fence and the public would be excluded from the 106 Road ROW. Meanwhile, the school boundaries remain porous, at best. • Campus security is the CRMS driver for the vacation proposal as stated by the School CFO.The recruiting officer for the school stated that it was the "perception" of security by prospective student parents that is the issue. • "Marketing" was the reason Joe White gave for striving for vacation. When asked by one of the P and Z commissioners if there had ever been any security problems on the campus, White stuttered repeatedly and said "nothing major". There have been no issues. • The security system for the School for the past decades has been to require faculty to get out and patrol the campus at 10:30 at night. This program is called "The Roamers". For a $4 million business, never mind the responsibility of monitoring adolescents, to have no security guard or system is questionable. The School just recently has hired a night person. • The pathway proposed along Delores Way is the trade offered for vacating the 106 Road. This route is ostensibly a student route to town. This unpaved, dirt, roadside route is seldom used by residents but puts students at great risk, especially in the dark. • CRMS Board Trustee Louras told the commission that the School has never been in better financial shape. The School has just completed a $10 million fund raiser. Security is not the issue. Improving the CRMS portfolio is the goal of the proposed vacation and this should not be done at the citizen's expense ! 1 CURRENT ROAD USE: • Commuting to town, to the industrial center, to the community school by neighbors and residents. • Recreational use by locals, valley residents and tourists provides links and access from the Rio Grande Trail, the Crystal Trail, the Satank Bridge (an historical gem which is a significant County investment), the West Main Street Trail which the Town of Carbondale invested in recently and access to Thompson Creek, Dry Park and the very popular Hardwick Bridge Road bicycle route. The ROW is used by walkers, cyclists, joggers and dog walkers extensively • The School conducted a one day user count in September of last year to support their proposal. • The School has never designated the route through the campus with any signage, property signs, educational signs or trail markers to assure people stay on route. • The School has constructed an illegal berm in the ROW last summer and has planted trees in the ROW. • The School's gravel road to it's electronic gate on Delores Way is immaculated graded, graveled and maintained. The ROW through the School is full of pot holes, is poorly graveled and muddy. • The School constructed 3 new dormitories along the ROW that they maintain is a security risk. The School had a second pod of dormitories distant from the ROW they could have built on instead. • Very sadly, the School chose not to engage any of their neighbors in this process rather they were covert in their process. The only noticing was done to the minimum requirement of the County. To my knowledge, no noticing of the Carbondale meetings was done. FUTURE USE: • The future development of the Satank area remains conjecture. The School has a lot of acreage that could be developed. Any future development could make the ROW even a more important County asset. • Growth in Carbondale and the Roaring Fork Valley is burgeoning and with it are demands for more trails, access and recreational amenties beyond just maintaining and improving safe routes to schools and shopping, post office, etc.The proposed price tag for the Red Hill Trails Improvement is $5,2 million. The CR 106 ROW is almost an improved trail link already between two existing trails. • The ROW is in line with the vision stated in the Garfield and Carbondale Community Comprehensive Plans. It is a route along a river corridor and it is identified as a trail link. It is already being well used and is an important and historical route of the people. • The only certainty for the future is that the CR 106 ROW will be an increasingly more valuable County Asset. QUID PRO QUO: • The route along Route 133 referred to by the School is not CRMS property and a trail is already planned by CDOT. • To re-route the public on Delores Way to Route 133 cannot be regarded as a viable trade. Route 133 is loud, dirty and dangerous. Heavy truck traffic, congestion, dust and fume pollution and a grave lack of trail/highway separation make this a very unsafe proposal. The east side of Rt 133 trail has 12 driveway/street crossings in just over 1/4 mile. The west side of the highway will not be much better after build -out. The safety of Garfield County residents and children is no less important than that of the students of CRMS. • The Delores Way trail currently has 28" of trail/roadway separation. The School stated at the P and Z meeting that they might consider giving 6-8 " to the trail. * The proposed "route to town" by the School is said to be only a short distance longer. This is not true, the route is not safe or pleasant and there is no fair exchange in the proposal for the vacation of the ROW, 2 Please do not allow the vacation of County Road 106. It will short-change the citizens of Garfield County in value lost, safety compromised and quality of life reduced. Respectfully, John B. Armstrong 1122 County Road 106 Carbondale, Co 81623 phone - 970-618-9825 fax - 970-920-5374 "Respect your fellow human beings, treat them fairly, disagree with them honestly, explore your thoughts about one another candidly, work together for a common goal and help one another acheive it.' 3 Glenn Hartmann From: Sent: To: Subject: Sue Edelstein fsuereaily@grnail.comj Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:18 PM Glenn Hartmann For the BOCC Packet for May 5 Regarding the Proposal to Vacate CR106 Through CRMS Dear Mr. Hartmann: Please forward this note for the Commissioners to review. Dear BOCC: I am very concerned about the CRMS request for the county vacate 106 road through its campus. I do not think it is in the best interest of our citizens or of County government. Following are my primary reasons why: • RES]PONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY ASSETS. It is a fact that giving away government land — and this is a fair amount of land when one takes into account the length and the width of the road including rights-of-way -- is generally a bad practice and not fair to taxpayers. Any action with disposal of public land should be in the PUBLIC interest, for the good of the greatest number, not the interest of a private organization. And if vacation is ever made, there should be significant compensation to the county. • RECREATIONAL/ COMMUTING CONCERNS. That section of 106 is the only direct, low - traffic, and low development access from the 108 bridge and from the path along west Main that leads through to Dolores Way . Many runners, walkers, and bikers use that route for commuting and recreation. There is no good access to the developments along 108 and all through Carbondale west of 133 to reach either the RFTA park and ride or from the newly - reconstructed Satank Bridge (and the Rio Grande Trail), to which the county contributed a great deal of money. This is how most of the many, many County and Carbondale residents who live west of 133 or off 108 Road access those points. Conversely, this is (and will remain) the only pleasant and safe route for Satank citizens to access the grocery and hardware stores and the neighborhood to the south. • SAFE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS, That section of 106 provides safe access to the Community School for youngsters from all the neighborhoods to the west of 133 and south of Main Street. • QUALITY OF LIFE. The Toss of this trail would detrimentally affect the quality of life in our community, where we consider the town and the school as partners in each other's well being. • PROPOSED ALTERNATE ROUTE IS NOT EQUIVALENT. The Town of Carbondale's proposed path along 133, along with CRMS' small donation along Delores Way, would provide access to future commercial, albeit access with road crossings that will need extra attention. However, it does not replace the mellow 106 corridor, in that it will be commercial, not recreational. We work to make our recreational trails run off-road or on low -traffic roads, to be away from fumes and pollution, to be safe, to be in a nice aesthetic environment, and to connect to other parts of our network of recreational trails. It really will not be part of that network. 1 • CRMS HAS CREATED THIS PROBLEM AND PRESENTS YOU SKEWED STATISTICS. CRMS has Tong known that the road is public, yet still they chose to build dorms close to it. Now they say the dorms are too close to the road. Now, whose fault is that? They are playing a game of chicken! Also, CREMS presents "statistics" that the right-of-way is little used. First, their "statistics" consist of a very limited sample. Second, they have "hidden" the road from the public for years. There is no marking indicating that it is a country road or public access at either end. It is kept in very poor condition. Those who use it are often given unwelcoming stares and are made to feel as if they are trespassing, when in fact they are not. For those of us from RVR and Crystal Village and other west -of -133 subdivisions, it is a great pleasure to use this public road access to get to the Satank Bridge, the Rio Grande Trail, and the Park -and -Ride, or to make a loop to downtown Carbondale or Iron Bridge. I think this vacation would serve the interests of CRMS but not of the public. POSSIBLE ACTIONS: Please turn down this request or require CRMS to offer a substitution of the same low -traffic and pleasant nature. Also, no matter what, public access (including vehicular) must be available on the current alignment for Satank citizens when there is an emergency or Dolores Way is blocked. Three possible solutions could be: 1) For CRMS to donate an easement to the county and for CRMS to build and maintain an alternative trail that ion its land on the east and south edges of the campus buildings that connects Dolores way to 106/108 road. 2) Have CRMS donate a trail easement to the county, and for the school to build and maintain a crusher -fine trail from 106/108 Road to the confluence of the Roaring Fork and the Crystal, and then continuing to Satank Bridge. 3) Deny the request, delineate the trail's current trajectory, and sign it dearly at each end as public access through public land, at the same time asking people to stay on the trail as it passes through private land. A sundown -to -sunrise closure would be acceptable. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Sue Edelstein ghartmann@garfiield-county.com 678 North Bridge Drive. Carbondale 970-96;3-2163 2 Siff - 678 North Bridge Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.963.2163 Phone; 909448.8464 Fax hills> encek aiLcom April 27, 2014 The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Proposed abandonment of CR 106 to CRMS Dear Commissioner: ExHIB T c3 I am writing this letter as a private citizen, having retired this January from over nine years as a member of Carbondale's Planning and Zoning Commission. I appreciate the long-standing support from the County towards the towns within the County and towards Carbondale in particular. The historic CR 106 is used frequently by bicyclists and pedestrians. Much of this use is by citizens of Satank, the Kay PUD, and by Carbondale citizens living on the entire west side of CO 133. The 'atter group, by using CR 106, achieves increased safety by avoiding a double crossing of CO 133 when riding on the segment of the Rio Grande Trail towards Glenwood Springs. CR 106 has provided public access for over one hundred years. Recently, Garfield County did a major restoration of the historic Satank Bridge, which is part of CR 106. To now abandon the main part of CR 106 through the CRMS campus would significantly diminish the fine investment made by Garfield County on the Satank Bridge. CRMS's petition to have CR 106 abandoned reminds me of the original proposal for RVR, which was for the latter to be a gated community. In that case the proponent made concessions to the Town which ended up strengthening the Town and also leading to a very successful development. The proposal by CRMS is to mostly substitute the loss of passage along CR 106 by a paved bikelped path along Dolores Way (in Town of Carbondale right of way) and having this path connect to a new bikelped path along CO 133 (in the CDOT right-of- way and funded by CDOT). In neither case has the CRMS proposed giving land in exchange for their gain. The proposed routes, although necessary for safety and access, are much more inconvenient and less desirable to many users than the traditional use of CR 106. CRMS's proposed route is not close to giving something of equivalent value to the roadway they propose to abandon for their use. For the record, CR 106 is 60 feet wide, about 1,200 feet long, and has an area of about 1.89 acres. We all recognize that CRMS is an important and valued piece of the fabric that makes Carbondale and our County so special. To greatly diminish use of CR 106 by the general public because CRMS is a fine institution would not be based on an argument for the greater good but rather would be an endorsement of a special interest. Most significant educational institutions have public access, often of roadways, and it is generally agreed that such access actually makes for safer campuses. It is my opinion that Garfield County should not vacate CR 106 to CRMS. However, if your Commission decides for such a vacation, then I suggest that compensation be made by the guarantee that the following two elements be put into place in a timely way: (1.) Provide more direct and improved access for west side users by CRMS granting an easement of at least 20' wide, along the back side of the 25 acre parcel at the intersection of CQ 133 and West Main Street, connecting West Main to Dolores Way. This route also would lie in a small section of CRMS property near Dolores Way. This option would have the additional benefit of not being associated with the ever increasing traffic along CO 133. (2.) Redirect the angled east end of Dolores Way to behind Ajax Bike & Sports, over present CRMS land, to meet CO 133 directly across from the street that feeds La Fontana Plaza/Carbondale Public Works/Grand Junction Pipe & Supply. Presently, making left turns onto CO 133 from the junctions of Dolores Way and of La Fontana are often exceedingly difficult, even dangerous. This situation will only become more difficult and dangerous as traffic increases. It is my understanding that, under the upcoming improvements to CO 133, neither of these junctions will have traffic signals to make left turns easier. Ultimately, a future signalized intersection or round- about at the new meeting of Dolores Way and La Fontana could solve the problems at both of these junctions with CO 133. These options together comprise far less area than the 1.89 acres of CR 106 that CRMS wishes to have vacated. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Bill FFrorn° T lutecure t@I msn.cor] Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 4:53 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Vacating county rd 106 To the Garfield County Commissioners: 1 am writing to request that County Rd.106 remains open for public access as a county road. This access is a valuable asset for citizens west of highway 133 in Carbondale, Aspen Glen and Satank. It is a straight shot connector to the already existing bike path on West Main St. to the newly renovated Satank bridge and popular rio grande trail. Many bikers use this access for the popular iron bridge loop or to ride to Glenwood. As recreation becomes more important to the citizens and economic vitality of Garfield County, so will the existence of interconnected,aesthetically desirable paths take on greater importance. As a frequent user of County Rd. 106, 1 believe that the proposed alternatives given by CRMS are unsafe and undesirable. A path already exists on the east side of 133 and does not serve citizens on the west side as well as County Rd, 106. The traffic,exhaust fumes, and general litter of a highway make riding along a highway undesirable. An acceptable solution may be to request a bike path along the west side of the crystal river with a bridge to the Rio Grande trail in exchange for the county road. This would put pedestrians and bikers away from campus buildings and ensure the seclusion of the campus that the school desires. It also is in line with county goals of creating bike paths along waterways. In general it is not a good idea to vacate this road due to its existing use as a public right of way and for unforeseen uses in the future. Teresa Salvadore. 1122 County Rd.106. Carbondale Co. Sent from my iPhone ba ria ra D 5 2646 Dolores Way, Carbondale, CO 81623 970.963.5782 (h) . 503.709.1534 (c) 1 Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: CRMS Request to Vacate CR 106 Dear Commissioners: I am writing to ask you to deny the current request from Colorado Rocky Mountain School for vacation of the CR 106 right-of-way through the school's campus. I do not make this request lightly. My son attended CRMS for three years in the 1990s as a boarding student, graduating in 1997. His experiences there put him on a path that has led to success in academics, bike racing, and, most recently, a lucrative professional career in advertising. None of this would have been possible without the scholarship support we received from the school that enabled him to attend and prosper. In part to express my thanks, I have donated well over 50 hours of volunteer time to the garden program since moving to Carbondale two years ago. This is all by way of saying, I love the school and have deep gratitude for its role in my son's and our family's life. I hope to have a positive relationship with the school for years to come. However, I think this application by the school is misguided. I have attended many of the meetings over the past year focused on this vacation request and have offered public comment at several. Here are the key reasons I believe this request should be denied: 1) The student safety issue. The school contends that the current right-of-way through campus jeopardizes student safety, yet school officials have offered the public no specific evidence of past incidents to support this claim. And, if safety is a serious enough concern to warrant this request on their part, why are they focusing on the right-of-way while doing nothing to secure the rest of the perimeter of the campus? The campus boundaries are porous, to say the least. I live on Dolores Way, directly behind CRMS to the north of the pasture, and I watch people— mostly students—hop the pasture fence nearly every day and walk onto campus from the east. I frequently use the CR 106 right-of-way to walk or bike to City Market or to visit friends, and have had occasion many times to be returning after dark, at times utilizing other, more direct paths through campus. In dozens of such trips, I have never encountered an adult performing any sort of security function on campus. Such security patrols are the norm at both rural and urban colleges and other private schools. Again, if safety is such a concern, why is the school not investing in addressing that concern more vigorously itself? My second challenge to the suggested safety threat this right-of-way proposes is this: CRMS offers a rigorous academic and active curriculum. The active curriculum includes all sorts of activities that put students at some sort of risk. These include skiing, including in the back country, and snowboarding, both often at the extreme level. Also solo overnights in the wilderness (a required experience for every incoming student), river sports (rafting and kayaking), rock climbing, mountain biking, international travel, and so on. Those are all endeavors that incorporate or involve risks far greater than the risks posed by this right-of- way. The school also allows its students a great deal of independence. They are free to travel throughout the valley in their spare time, and very often they do so unchaperoned. I frequently see students walking alone or in groups past my home on their way to town or to the RFTA bus stop nearby. Aren't they just as vulnerable—or more so—out and about in the world, on their own, as they are on a campus that has a few strangers (many of them neighbors) passing through now and again? My point is this: parents don't choose CRMS for their sons and daughters because it is the safest place they can possibly go to school. Parents choose CRMS it for its philosophy and outstanding program, which includes giving young adults the chance to learn in an open, physically challenging, and frequently risky, environment. Boarding student parents—and I was one, as we lived in Oregon at the time—take an even greater risk than local parents in letting their high school aged children go at a young age, to live away from home. Might our children encounter something that frightens or threatens them? Sure. And the same could happen to them on the street in any town or city in the world, including their hometowns. Lastly, as many have pointed out, CRMS chose to build its new dormitories immediately adjacent to a known public right-of-way. County taxpayers should not be shortchanged because of what may have turned out to be poor planning on the school's part. The school should hire security personnel as needed instead. The so-called "safety" concern simply doesn't hold up as a reason to vacate a longstanding public right-of-way enjoyed and utilized by county residents, 2) CRMS' contributions to the local economy. The school has mentioned this as a reason the County should grant this vacation. No doubt, CRMS provides gainful employment, attracts new residents, and is a vital contributor to the local economy. On the flip side, its neighbors—many of whom have spoken up for a long time against this vacation request—pay property taxes to the county, which the school does not. Also, the Carbondale of today is a vibrant community offering many amenities and cultural activities that help CRMS attract and retain talented, young faculty and staff. Back in the 1990s, there was more turnover than the school seems to be experiencing today; I can name several employees who left after just a year or two because of the school's remote location and lack of access to the sorts of cultural offerings and activities that are common here now. So, inasmuch as CRMS benefits the community in measurable and immeasurable ways, it receives like benefits in return. Its contributions do not justify relinquishment of an important public asset. 3) What CRMS is offering in return. The County Planning and Zoning Commission did a good job of underscoring the limits of what CRMS is offering in exchange for this right-of-way, and that issue prompted several commission members to vote "no." The school is proposing a sidewalk/trail extension on the north edge of CRMS property, which would connect to the proposed paved trail on the west side of Hwy 133, but is expecting taxpayers to pay for its implementation and maintenance. If CRMS is not going to maintain that trail, who will? Furthermore, no constituents (other than school employees, board members and former parents) have come forward that I know of to say that such a trail would improve access for them. Rather, residents of Satanic, Dolores Way, and West Carbondale have ail testified, and in significant numbers, opposing the school's request because it will impede rather than improve our access to town and other destinations and walking and biking routes. The school has not offered a reasonable exchange for the public right-of-way. 4] Emergency access for its neighbors. CRMS has suggested that the school is providing alternate routes through the campus for emergency vehicles and will continue to do so if this right-of-way (which, in a pinch, could still be opened up to vehicular traffic if needed) is permanently vacated. In my experience walking the right-of-way, the emergency route the school provides is frequently impeded with parked vehicles, snowbanks, and etc. It also involves several ninety -degree turns and depends on having the necessary codes to raise the access gate onto Dolores Way. These codes have been provided to emergency agencies, but that is no guarantee. Given my comments that follow regarding CRMS' neighborliness (or lack of it) around the CR 106 issue, I think it would be imprudent of the Town of Carbondale and Garfield County to rely on this route in perpetuity for alternate access to the Satank and Dolores Way neighborhoods. You need to consider this issue both as these areas exist today and as they could develop in the future, particularly if CRMS decides to sell its undeveloped property to the northwest of campus. Once the right-of-way is vacated, there will be no alternative or recourse if CRMS fails to hold up its promises regarding emergency access. 5) Neighbor relations, in my limited two-year exposure to the issue at hand, I have been extremely disappointed by the school's lack of outreach to and meaningful communication with its immediate neighbors. Posting signs, building berms, making misleading statements, and failing to return phone calls are not the best ways to establish and nurture trust and open dialog. I believe an equitable solution to the right-of-way issue could have been found by bringing school representatives and neighbors together long before a formal request was made to the County. Instead, the school has chosen to isolate itself, turning to lawyers to help it flex its muscles rather than to the community that surrounds it to seek solutions together. This seems very disconnected from the values the school purports to instill in its students. In many ways, it seems like the school may have forgotten the values on which it was founded, Furthermore, I find it ironic that the school is so insensitive to its neighbors, while its neighbors demonstrate tolerance to trespassing and other infractions that occur at the hands of its students. On multiple occasions, I have picked up cigarette butts and empty liquor bottles left on our property by CRMS students (so identified by the student IDs they mistakenly left behind in several instances, as well as by direct observation). Rather than report these trespasses to the police, I worked with the school to come up with a constructive plan to deter these behaviors. I also understand that several CRMS students were caught smoking marijuana near the town's water treatment plant a few years ago. Again, tolerance was shown and no big public fuss was made. This is how neighbors treat neighbors in a neighborly way. Regrettably, the school has not demonstrated this sort of attitude or approach with regard to the CR 106 issue. Those are my top five reasons for asking you to deny this request. Thank you for your service, and for your careful attention to comments from those of us who will be most affected if the CR 106 right-of-way is vacated. Sincerely, Barbara Dills 2646 Dolores Way Carbondale, CO 81623 Board of County Commissioners 5/5/14 Location and Extent Review LAEA-7811 G Ff PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ROW DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: Appeal of a Denial of a Location and Extent Review (associated with a Public Road Vacation) Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) Lawrence R. Green & Chad Lee, Balcomb & Green PC Michael McCoy, President CRMS That portion of County Road 106 running through the CRMS Campus, approximately 1,223 ft. in length and 60 ft. in width. A legal description of the right-of-way (ROW) is included in the Application submittals. The ROW is located in the general vicinity of 1493 County Road 106 and extends north from County Road 108 to a point of intersection with Dolores Way in the vicinity of the Satank neighborhood. It runs through the CRMS property known by Assessor's Parcel No. 2393-331-00-012. ZONING: Zoning adjacent to the ROW is Rural (R) I. BACKGROUND — PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Applicant's proposal is for the vacation of that portion of County Road 106 that runs through the CRMS campus, approximately 1,223 ft. in length and 60 ft. in width. The right-of-way was closed to public vehicular use in 1979. It is currently used for vehicular access to the CRMS Campus and educational facilities, along with pedestrian and bicycle purposes. Alternative vehicular access and pedestrian access is proposed along Dolores Way, a portion of which is located in unincorporated Garfield County and a portion of which is located within the Town of Carbondale. The first step in the roadway vacation process is a Location and Extent review. The County Land Use and Development Code allows for concurrent review of a Location and Extent Application and a Roadway Vacation request and two separate public hearings have been scheduled for the Board's agenda based on the different approval criteria for each review. Review of a Roadway Vacation request as a Location and Extent is required pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (§30-28-110). The Planning Commission considered this request at a public hearing held on February 12th. After hearing staff presentations, applicant presentations, and extensive public comments they approved by a 6 — 2 vote a motion to deny the Location and Extent request. Their motion was formalized as Planning Commission Resolution No. PC - 2014 -01 attached to this report as an exhibit. The Commission's action included a determination that the request was not in general conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan, which is the single approval criteria for a Location and Extent Review from Section 4-111(C) of the Land Use and Development Code. Their findings included reference to the County Comprehensive Plan 2030, excerpts from the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan, various referral comments including those from the Town of Carbondale, and sections III and IV of the Staff Report dated 2/12/14 addressing comprehensive plan topics. Pursuant to State Statutes and the County Land Use and Development Code, the Planning Commission is charged with making decisions on Location and Extent Reviews. Subsequent to the Commission's denial, the Applicant has filed an appeal of their decision to the Board of County Commissioners consistent with Colorado Revised Statutes (§30-28-110). As part of the appeal process the Applicant has provided supplemental information found under Tab A in the Application submittal. The original submittal is also found under Tab 18. II. AUTHORITY CRITERIA A. The appeal request is being considered in accordance with Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, Section 4-111 Location and Extent Review. The Review Criteria (excerpt from the Land Use and Development Code) is provided below: Location and Extent Review Criteria Section 4-111 (C) The Planning Commission shall determine whether the project is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Decision making authority for Location and Extent Review is with the Planning Commission. Based on their review they may approve or disapprove of the application based on general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. A finding of disapproval may be appealed in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes. C. The basis for the Location and Extent Review is found in the Colorado Revised Statutes (§30-28-110(1)(a)) that requires ... Whenever any county planning commission...has adopted a master plan of the county...no road, park, or other public way, ground, or space, no public building or structure, or no public utility, whether publicly or privately owned, shall be constructed or authorized in the unincorporated territory of the county until and unless the proposed location and extent thereof has been submitted to and approved by such county planning commission. More specifically, CRS §30-28-110(1)(d) requires that the acceptance, widening, removal, extension, relocation, narrowing, vacation, abandonment, change of use, or sale or 2 lease of or acquisition of land for any road, park, or other public way, ground, place, property, or structure shall be subject to similar submission and approval, and the failure to approve may be similarly overruled. VICINITY MAP County Road 106 ROW through CRMS Property ill. GARFIELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Excerpt from the Planning Commission 2112114 Staff Report as referenced in the motion for denial) The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Designates the CRMS property surrounding the County Road 106 ROW as Urban Growth Area for the Town of Carbondale. That portion of the property adjacent to the Crystal River also has a Flood Plain and Greenway Trail Designation. Applicable excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Goal, Policies and Objectives are outlined below: 3 Chapter 2 Future Land Use — Growth in Urban Growth Areas (Excerpts) • "The Plan recognizes existing municipal plans and strongly supports and encourages infill and redevelopment of existing communities. • "Each municipalities plan for its UGA is incorporated into the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan." • "A procedure for municipal/county review and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners will be developed in an IGA with each community." • Urban Growth Area is defined as "Area designated by adjacent community for eventual expansion of services and annexation" FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXCERPT FROM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Proposed ROW Vacation Set. Carbondale Area Platin Chapter 3 Section 1 Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination Policy #1: Within defined UGAs, the County Comprehensive Plan, land use code revisions, and individual projects, will be consistent with local municipal land use plans and policies. 4 Strategies 1 Actions #2: Review the procedure for efficient, coordinated, local municipal input into Planning Commission decisions prior to making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Chapter 3 Section 3 Transportation Goal #2: Support public transit services as well as alternative modes of transportation, when and where feasible, Strategies and Actions #1: Assure the interconnectivity of the county roadway system, to provide multiple routes to reduce congestion and provide for emergency access. Chapter 3 Section 5 Recreation, Open Space and Trails Goals #4: Support the development of a continuous trail system within Garfield Count and along both major river corridors. Policy #2: Any actions regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land owners in the county and must be based on the concepts of just compensations or mutual benefit for landowners, resident and visitors. IV. TOWN OF CARBONDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Excerpt from the Planning Commission 2112114 Staff Report as referenced in the motion for denial) Because Chapter 3, Section lof the Garfield County Comperhensive Plan indicates that projects within the Urban Growth Area will be consistent with local municipal plans and policies, the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan is considered for further guidance. Excerpts from the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan have also been included in the Commissioners packet with a focus on Chapter 3 Multi -Modal Mobility (see attached Exhibit). Figure 3.3 from this Chapter is shown below and includes the location of the County Road 106 ROW proposed for vacation in relation to other trails and multi -modal corridors. The plan identifies critical issues and notes "Another challenge is creating connections with the existing trail and pathway network between critical destinations such as schools, downtown, and the Third Street Center''. The CRMS property is also shown in the Comprehensive Plan as a Significant Parcel in Figure 4.33 and in the Phase 1, Potential Annexation Infill Area on Figure 4.34. Referral comments from various Town Boards and Commissions have been submitted and are addressed in the Referral Comments section of the Staff Report. Excerpts from the Carbondale Parks, Recreation, and Trails Comprehensive Plan are also included in the Commission's Packet (see attached Exhibit). Highlights were added by the Town representatives indicating key trail connections in the area of the 5 CRMS campus. Both the County Road 106/Main Street Trail and the Crystal River Market Place Trail from Main Street to Highway 133 are relevant to the discussion of alternate trail connections. Dolores Way Trail EXCERPT FROM CARBONDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CR 106 ROW Alternate Trail Alignment (behind Hwy 133 Properties) r�,,yyyy���� N Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings F r]I M`1d-Mora; CO ora Mai Fula* CarvrpbrK i Camino ! r• Tinm Boundary^^ SWAMI s. Pucrc Rrcruuon Larid -- County Rave V. STAFF ANALYSIS & REFERRAL COMMMENTS AND PUBLIC COMMENTS The following referral comments were received as part of the concurrent review of the Location and Extent Request and the Roadway Vacation Request. 6 A. The Town of Carbondale has provided extensive referral comments (see attached exhibits). Comments are summarized as follows:: • Town Board of Trustees: The Town requested that the BOCC exercise its discretion to deny the request and preserve the present county right-of-way unless certain items were addressed. Considerations they requested to be addressed include: a) provision of utility easements on the original ROW; b) pedestrian/bicycle access on the old ROW with night-time restrictions or in a to be determined alternate alignment (east side of the CRMS campus behind the commercial properties on Hwy 133); c) improving the alternate route with a paved bike path; and d) maintaining emergency vehicle access along or near the original ROW. In addition the Town noted the request for CRMS to consider additional right-of-way dedications to facilitate potential future relocation of the Dolores Way/Hwy 133 intersection further south. • The Town also provided comments and input from their Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Bicycle, Pedestrian and Trails Commission which are attached to the Town's referral letter. B. Other Referral Comments: Comments from other entities are included as exhibits and summarized below. 1. Utilities: The Application submittal contained referral comments from all affected utility providers. Additional referrals were provided to the utilities as part of the County's Review process. In general utility providers requested preservation of the utility corridor including creation of appropriate easements. One utility provider was still in the process of confirming locations of their installations. Utilities providing input and maintaining facilities in the existing County Road ROW include: • Century Link • Source Gas • Town of Carbondale (water and sewer) • Xcel Energy 2. RFTA: The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) commented on the need for bike and pedestrian connections and supported the Town of Carbondale requests for alternate routes and potentials additional ROW Dedications. 3. Carbondale Fire Protection District: Comments from the District were included in the Application Submittal with supplemental referral comments also provided. The District has requested clarification/correction to a number of addressing issues and described the emergency access route through the CRMS Campus. Gated access ways provide for Fire District access through Knox Box Padlocks or a coded electronic gate. 7 4. Garfield County Sheriff: The Sheriffs Department supported the vacation request noting improvements to the emergency response to the school and surrounding areas. 5. Garfield County Road and Bridge: Provided comments noting the need to establish responsibility for maintenance of the proposed Dolores Way Trail Extension (County Road and Bridge is not currently equipped for trail maintenance) and provided the vacation request moves forward CRMS will need to bring their south access up to County Standards. 6. CDOT: Comments received from CDOT did not support the vacation request. CDOT indicated that Dolores Way inadequately provides connectivity in the future. Acquisition of other right of way was recommended to ensure good public connectivity for the future. Also included as an exhibit are excerpts from the Hwy 133 Access Control Plan which contains information relevant to alternate transportation modes, and roadway connectivity. 7. Garfield County Consulting Engineer: Mountain Cross Engineering commented on the need to confirm that additional utility locates from Century Link had been obtained and whether addressing issues have been resolved. 8. RE -1 School District: Comments from the school district supported the Applicant's request noting school safety concerns. C. Adjacent Property Owner & Public Comments: Letters from neighboring property owners and other interested parties have been received by the County and included as exhibits for your review and consideration. Extensive public comments were received as part of the Planning Commission's public hearing with general themes summarized below. An audio transcript can also be reviewed at the County's Web Site under Planning Commission's past meetings, February 12, 2014. • General Safety Concerns-- changing environment and trends in school safety. • Extensive usage of the current alignment by diverse population and citizenry. • Proximity of the right-of-way to facilities including dorms, classrooms, dining and student activity across the right-of-way. • Other options for the school to improve safety should be considered and address how open the campus is in terms of overall safety and other points of access. • The school as a valuable part of the community, desirable programs and outreach. • Alternate route adds distance to some trips, isn't convenient for certain connections such as County Road 108/109 to the Rio Grande Trail and Roaring Fork River. • Concerns regarding strangers on campus during nighttime hours and the need to control access to campus at night. • Character of the alternate route is perceived as not as safe or as pleasant with more traffic and the potential for future driveway crossings along Hwy 133. • Safety for students and families is important for student recruitment and success. • Work on a better plan with community, create another safe option. 8 D. STAFF COMMENTS — REVIEW CRITERIA 1. The County's Comprehensive Plan by definition is a broad document addressing a range of topics. Excerpts from the Preface to the Plan include the following_ description and clarification of purpose. The Garfield County Comprehensive Pian (the "Plan") has been developed to provide a general statement of direction for land use planning in unincorporated Garfield County. The Plan provides a foundation for decisions and policies that guide and direct the physical. social. and economic development for the unincorporated portions of the county. It is designed to serve as a tool for citizens. county staff and elected officials, and focuses on responding to both the immediate and anticipated long-term needs of the county. 2. Review of the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive Plan and referral comments is significant based on the County Comprehensive Plan designation of the CRMS property and related section of County Road 106 right-of-way as within the Urban Growth Area for the Town. The County's Plan makes reference in a number of policies and goals to maintaining consistency with the local municipality's plans and policies within an Urban Growth Area, The Carbondale plans emphasize multimodal transportation and pedestrian/trail connections as further reflected in their referral comments. 3. Transportation related issues including access concerns noted in a variety of referral comments including CDOT, RFTA, and the Town of Carbondale are relevant to a number of Comprehensive Plan provisions. Vacation of the County Road 106 right-of-way is seen as eliminating some of the future potential for interconnectivity that is referenced in both the County and Town Plans. Alternatives proposed by the Applicant need to be considered in the appropriate Comprehensive Plan context including the long-term needs of the County's residents. 4. In regard to the alternate trail proposals put forth by the Applicant and the referral comments from the Town of Carbondale including potential for additional right-of- way dedications these topics all have relevance to the issue of Comprehensive Plan conformance. However, details on implementation are appropriate for consideration as part of the public hearing on the Roadway Vacation request. 9 VI. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION OPTION 1: Uphold the Planning Commission Denial The Board may choose, by motion to uphold the Planning Commission denial including reference to the following suggested findings and a determination that the request is not in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. Should the Board choose this option and deny the Location and Extent request, no further consideration of the Roadway Vacation Request is appropriate. The scheduled public hearing on the Roadway Vacation would not be conducted. Further details on this determination are found in a separate memorandum from the County Attorney's Office and included as an Exhibit with the Board's packet. Suggested Findings for Denial 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Location & Extent request for a portion of County Road 106 has been determined to not be in general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended and not in conformance with the Review Criteria contained in Section 4-111, Location and Extent of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. OPTION 2: Approve the CRMS Appeal and Approve the Location and Extent Based on the evidence provided the Board may choose to approve the CRMS appeal and overturn the Planning Commission Denial. This motion should include reference to the suggested findings for approval noted below and a determination that the request is in general conformance with the County Comprehensive Plan which is the only required review criteria. This Option would be followed by consideration of the Roadway Vacation request at its scheduled public hearing based on the Roadway Vacation Approval Criteria. Suggested Findings for Approval 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 10 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that hearing. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, approval of the Location & Extent request for a portion of County Road 106 is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 4. That the Location and Extent request has been determined to be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. 5. That the Location and Extent request is in conformance with the Review Criteria contained in Section 4-111, Location and Extent of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. 6. The determination of General Conformance is based on the Applicant's representations in their Application submittal and at the public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 11 VIEWS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY South Entrance 12 North End of the ROW 13 North End of the ROW 14 { Trail Alignment on Dolores Way Existing Trail on Dolores Way 15 April 25, 2014 Board of County Commission c/o Glenn Hartman, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners, Thank you for your time in reviewing the Colorado Rocky Mountain School's request to vacate the portion of County Road 106 that posses through the school's property. I support CRMS's request and feel that this could have occurred many years ago if one would have been able to see into the future. At the time when Delores Way was being proposed, there may have been a question about whether r`R!,,A, rerncin ':rO arbon aEe. If Chet been the ca^�a keeping an open ROW on the north -south access between Satank and the road leading to Carbondale and Thompson Creek would have been good planning. But luckily for Carbondale, instead of waning, the school has strengthened its presence in our area and is recognized nationally for the unique blend of education that occurs at the school. And on these new terms, it makes sense to think about what it takes to help ensure the success of this school. I particularly support the vacating of the road since it will not change the current use which allows pedestrians and bicyclists to cross through CRMS. The original benefit of the construction of the Delores Way to both Satank, the Carbondale Community School and the mixed-use commercial areas will be expanded to include the addition of the bike path along Cowen Drive. I also think that residents of Satank can understand the importance of this request. When 1 was growing up, the Pink Bridge was one of the ways that one entered into Carbondale and that access was closed at the request of the residents of Satank. I think that made them feel as if they had more control over their neighborhood. This sentiment is no different than what CRMS feels. I hope you too view this in a favorable light. Sincerely, A ulia Marshall Parent of a CRMS alumni Landscape Architect, Mt. Daly Enterprises, LLC EXHIBIT April 30, 2014 Board of County Commissioners C/o Glenn Hartmann, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: CRMS Dear County Commissioners, I am writing to ask for your support to approve the CRMS application to vacate a portion of County Road 106. CRMS views the ability to control the traffic through its campus as critical to long- term success, safety, and sustainability. CRMS has also submitted a proposal to create a safer, more efficient bike/pedestrian path to Main Street. The path will begin at the edge of the Satank neighborhood and connect to the existing path near Carbondale Community School which will then link with a new path on the west side of Highway 133. CRMS will also invest in landscaping improvements to CRMS property along Delores Way that will create an inviting alternate route to Town and businesses along SH133. Respectfully, Kent Wilson 1065 Park West Dr. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601. „E9E. c. tsra::afAi i,p_srdc, Sunday, April 27, 2014 —77 & DAILY OPINII EXI-Vg Vacating CR106 would affect safety of travelers (This letter' was originally addressed to the Garfield County commissioners) Editor: I am a former preschool teacher and a current Nanny that lives in Satank 1161 County Road 106. I am an alum of Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) class of 1989 and grew up in Carbondale. I op any decision to vacate CRI 06.. I want to address the root concern of safety that has influenced CRMS to apply to vacate CR106 through carpus. I understand the concern as I am an advocate for the safety of all children is my care and on the campuses of all schools. Prevention of disaster is key but resolution should be made, one that benefits both communities and not bum the bridge between the two, It may carry some weight m be able to tell an unwanted outsider to leave the whole of campus versus Just part of campus but i f the outsider refuses there is the call for outside support that must be made, Closing the road does not prevent an unwanted outsider from entering campus using various wide open entrances. There have been encounters with outsiders late night that have spooked faculty to the point of calling urgency to safety matters of campus. The decision to apply to vacate the county road is made from a place of fear. I understand the- strong desire on behalf of CRMS to secure the campus in order to provide a home away from home to boarding students and faculty that live on campus. I strong- ly suggest CRMS find ways to secure the campus from within and build relations with the town of Carbondale police and.the Garfield County sheriff offices in order to be prepared for any future late night disturbances. The current solution that CRMS has given in exchange of clo- sure of CR106, is to finish the bike path along Delores Way which is not the safest solution as it will only contribute to the potential fatal accident at the intersection of CR106 and Delores Way. The unfriendly No Trespassing signs at the boat put in under the bridge on the Crystal River puts out an =friendly vibe and dampers the deep affection that I had for my high schooL I can only imagine the future No Trespassing signs that will appear if you as comissioners grant CRMS their request The town Of Carbondale board ofnvstens and the Garfield Coun- ty planning and zoning board members have both denied CRMS's application. If you choose to allow CRMS to vacate CR106, I would consider that a fishy decision that will affcrt the safrty of seiI human, traveling on Delores Way, whether on the ]suite path or not. With great concern for the safety of all communities involved, Andrea Marsh Carbondale i @ 7x eakr fir n uttey reser tr usow letat isms ae ecxwfepao. tares mist wept nose that as 4h9cn nr ure yyS,t €leteE nx Pe is giweT to a-n+aled'at e& l to letters4dVenea,newa.camr. delvsred le via office or land to 920.'2118. :cm and tvaAaspendsayWors.lx)fi. Lal[Sre a I guest opinions iia subtec't sufi$reg Tenn Hartmann From: Joe White [jwhite©crms.org] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:03 PM To: Glenn Hartmann; Chad Lee Subject: Fwd: Vacation of a portion of C.R. 106 Attachments: Scan0009.pdf Glenn/Chad, This just in from CenturyLink. Thanks, Joe Forwarded message From: Mansell, Markel<Murkel.Mansell@centurylink.com> Date: Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:05 PM Subject: Vacation of portion of C.R. 106 To: Joe White <jwhite@crrns.org> Cc: "Sharpe, Jason" <Jason.Sharpe cr,centurylink.com> Mr. White, EXHIBIT �v Please be advised that Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink QC does not object to the vacation of a portion of C.R. 106 as shown on attached Exhibit "A". Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Inc. has agreed to grant a non-exclusive easement to Qwwest. Corporation for the maintenance and addition of facilities in the area displayed on Exhibit "A", in the vacated portion of C.R. 106.. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Murk Mansell Right of Way Manager 719-584-6484 Joe White Director of Finance Colorado Rocky Mountain School (970) 963-2562 www.crms.org t Garfield County MEMORANDUM Community Development 108 8th Street, Shite 401. Glenwood Springs. CO 81601 Office: 970-945-8212 Fax: 970-384.3470 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner DATE: June 16, 2014 EXHIBIT 171- SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Update Colorado Rocky Mountain School Roadway Vacation Request for a Portion of County Road 106 (RVAC-7772) BACKGROUND The public hearing on this request was opened on May 5;h and continued by the Board of County Commissioners to June 16th. All required public notice for the hearing was presented prior to the opening of the public hearing. At the May 5th meeting the Board approved the Location and Extent Review associated with the request. The Roadway Vacation Application submittal was included with the Board's Packet for the May 5t`' agenda. Please reference that packet for the Application materials. If you need additional copies please contact the Community Development Staff. To assist in your review we have included a complete packet for this hearing including all previous exhibits, staff reports, referral comments, and public comments. New public comment letters have been received and are included in the exhibit list. STAFF PRESENTATION The Staff presentation is anticipated to follow the basic format of the Staff Report contained in the Board's Packet. The Staff presentation will focus on the roadway vacation criteria contained in Section 4-108(C) as reflected in the Staff Report. As noted in Section 4-108(C) "A petition or request to vacate a County road or public right-of-way may be approved so long as it meets the following criteria. However, meeting these criteria does not preclude the BOCC's denial of a petition or application for any other reason." RIGHT OF WAY RESEARCH The Application Submittals have previously documented County Road 106 through 1910 County Road Mapping and related research. Additional research by the Applicant is documented in a Chain of Title Opinion letter from Commonwealth Title (see attached) describing their research and the fact that they did not find any right—of-way conveyances associated with the CRMS property. A roadway petition document consistent with previous research by the Applicant's Attorneys is also attached. Research of the County Road and Bridge Department files has identified some additional documentation that appears to include roadway dedication deeds for Dolores Way and a small right-of-way acquisition south of the CRMS campus. Neither deed has relevance to the section of right-of-way being requested for vacation. PAST APPROVALS Additional research by the Applicant and Staff has noted past approvals for CRMS including an original Conditional Use Permit, a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for additional buildings, and a Special Use Permit for a solar installation. The original Conditional Use Permit contains a condition related to a bike and pedestrian path (see attached resolution and minutes) which appears to be the location of the existing bike and pedestrian path south of the CRMS Campus which was constructed by the Town of Carbondale around the year 2000. ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION The Applicant has provided copies of additional documents on the Hwy. 133 improvements that are currently under construction. These improvements include the trail section along Hwy, 133 that is part of the Applicant's alternate trail alignment. Illustrations and plans for the trail are attached. Staff also conducted an additional site visit and attached are photographs of the County Road 106 right of way showing its current condition and CRMS activities along the right- of-way. CR 106 Right —of -Way Moving North Through the CRMS Campus elsbui I; 4^1 I.LoLky Jtuuntan •I CR 106 Right of Way Looking South Toward CRMS Campus Dolores Way Location of Alternate Trail Commonwealthlltle Company of Garfield County, Inc 127 Fast Serest coix.aa MSG xckphnnc: [470) 415431/9 Isc.ir ilc (970) 629.3393 April 28, 2014 Chad J. Lee, Esq. Balcomb & Green, RC. P.O. Box Drawer 790 818 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Re: Cham of rifle Research; Colorado Rarity Mountain School Parcel Dear Chad: This office examined the complete chain of title from patent to present to the parcel of land Identified in Deed recorded in Book 288 at Page 561 and Book 294 at Page 559 and Book 281 at Page 56 as reflected in recorded documents In the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office and described as follows: See attached exhibit The purpose of the examination was to determine whether any recorded document(s) exist(s) conveying a right of way, easement or record interest to the County In County Road 106 which bisects the above described parcel. As appears from the recorded document in the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder's Office we examined for the above described interest, and subject to reservations, exceptions and conditions contained In the United States Patent, easements, rights of way, deeds of trust and mortgages or any encumbrances, rights of parties in possession, liens, if any, of mechanics and materialrnen, zoning and subdivision regulations, and any state of facts which an accurate survey would disclose, title to the above identified interest is vested in Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Inc. No conveyances of a right of way, easement or record interest in and to the County were found. We also reviewed the Road Viewers' Reports but were unable to determine from them the location of the road or roads. This conclusion does not take into consideration any prescriptive rights the County or the public may have in County Road 106 as it bisects the above described parcel. If you have any questions regarding this analysis, please contact me. Sincerely, Sharon 5. Archuleta Gienwoud Springs Branch 1322 Colorado Avenue Glenwood Springs. Colorado 51.601 Telephone [970)945.4444 Facsimile: (970) 945-4.449 Exhibit B coLQ___1.22ge,;—,441. &or. Ceowmp. Ano,rar oxi Okays. ROAD PETITION. To the Honorable Board of County Commissioners of_ County, Colorado: Gal2ZTLIDEBN— NW's, the iire4orsignet4 °Weems of your Corsa y, r. represent that the necessirties of the public mquira ormaiv wagon road to be laid out ant follows, to lint: Comaterwini at L.14., - • 47.-ar-,0 -77LI -geC • j&s,c,r--e. la..a01°Q. P4i9Z td7:6076-4( 704.2.< • &)filertif kt9 c„. • ika.-2;e. .4_,L Z 44 1/49e -c-06 -aet-,LP61 6c ' _ 6S6-' (9:60-77ez5 .,7 pz (.74. ac,„‘ z ze Sair2 road to be not Lees than sixty (50) feet in width. Fre therefore petition your honorable body to cause to be Lad out and opened a County road its aboue described, and we, the owners of the land through which said roast is sought to be d ot,i,j, in 0 .0 . titian tif the sant of one dorkr to us each and severcsay in hand paid by the said County of ......... _ ... . . ..... .......... _the receipt of whisA is hereby ae,knowledffed, and of the layine out a', d opening' of said rood, hereby agree t give the riyht of way throuilt our Larid4 as shown by the act aeownpanytiti this In*Lion, relinquish all claims for dotage by reason therreol. Exhibit A The sail proposed ;Me of road is more fwlly shown by She following rn aP or pkat to avhilsh reference is herein -mode, the. wane& laein iax• TOWNSHIP .. ___w '� RANGE____ 36 31 32 88 34 86 - 36 31 1 $ 5 4 2 1 6 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 24 19 20 21 22 28 24 19 26 30 28 - 27 26 25 80 86 31 82 83 34 86 88 31 1 8 6 3 2 - 1 8 oC. ds Wires our esllatwres hereunto annexed,and foUUowsd by a dasor€ptiom of our lasad .... day of._e -.a.c t..se' ___...28 8 BIONATURB8. PROPERTY OW 6tmornexaas. Seo. T. Roux. li Wazz4 Jf d441'id////`/ ( .� Exhibit A L® C`a.4.(7/(x.e_e_Az4 G 4/":c‘-',:.)) ///, 06:1 eg (74e-fa_tAw eLfizo, or (27 2 d a A L///' 77(-i0\ e 9 toe pe/6 ze ///7 7c , 7 rr H 6 •x FF 7 Exhibit A • 1 0 Exhibit A 111111111111111111111110111111111111111111111111111111 539749 02/02/1999 02:34P B1112 P739 M ALSDORF 1 of 9 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Courthouse, in Glenwood Springs on Monday the 1st of February A_D, 19 99 , there were present: John Martin , Commissioner Chairman Ley McCown , Commissioner Walt. Stowe , Commissioner Don Dvford , County Attorney Mildred 6Isdorf , Clerk of the Board Ldward Green , County Administrator when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to -wit: RESOLUTION NO. 016 A RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR COLORADO ROCKY MOUNTAIN SCHOOL WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, has received application from Colorado Rocky Mountain School for a Conditional Use permit for a school in the Agricultural/Residential/Rural Density Zone District on the following described tract of land: See Attached (in the State of Colorado and the County of Garfield); and WHEREAS, the Board held a public meeting on the 18th day of January, 1999, upon the question of whether the above-described Conditional Use Permit should be granted or denied, at which meeting the public and interested persons were given the opportunity to express their opinions regarding the issuance of said Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, the Board on the basis of substantial competent evidence produced at the aforementioned meeting, has made the following determination of fact: 1111 IIIII 11111111111111 IIIII 011111 11111 1111111 539749 02/02/1999 02 34P B1112 P740 M ALSDORF 2 of 9 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO That the meeting before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. that the application is in compliance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. For the above stated and other reasons, the proposed use is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the Conditional Use Permit be and hereby is authorized permitting the use of the above described tract of land for a School upon the following specific conditions: I . That all proposals of the applicant made in the application and at the public hearing with the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Commission. 2. If facilities of the school ever substantially changes from what has been proposed, then this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to further review and subject to modification. No new open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the property. One (l) new solid -fuel burning stove as defied by C.R.S. 25-7-441, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. 4. All outdoor lighting will be directed inward and downward on the site, such that there will be no lighting directed to adjoining properties. 5. Ail new construction will be subject to the issuance of the appropriate building permits. 6. That the applicant will work with the Town of Carbondale to ensure that there is adequate right-of-way for a bike/pedestrian path along CR 106. 1111111111.111111.11.1111111-11111. II11111111-11111-1111 539749 02/02/1999 02:34P B1112 P741 11 ALSDORF 3 of 9 R 0.00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO Dated this 2nd day of February Al I EST: , A.D. E9 99 GARFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO IP , -ammigrat„ Clerl(of the Board Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolos was a+op e+ by the following vote: Chainn COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN JOHN F. MARTIN COMMISSIONER LARRY L. MCCOWN COMMISSIONER WALTER A. STOWE Aye , Aye , Aye STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) I, , County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners-in.and-fur the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing Resolution is truly copied from the Records of the Proceeding of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County. at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.U. 19 County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners 1 111111111111N 11111 1111 Mt 11111 1111101 ON 539749 02/02/1999 02:34P B1112 P742 M ALSOORF 4 of 9 R 0.00 D 0.00 GRRFIELD COUNTY CO PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF LOT 15, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, LYING EASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 106. TOGETHER WITH; ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE TOWNSITE OF COOPERTON, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED MAP THEREOF RECORDED AS DOCUMENT NO. 280258, AND WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16, BLOCK 11, TOWNSITE OF COOPERTON, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED PLAT; THENCE S_ 00 DEGREES 25' 59" E. TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 20, SECTION 28. ALSO TOGETHER WITH: PAGE 1 1 11111111111 111111 11111 1111 111111111111 111 11111 1111 1111 539749 02/02/1999 02:34P B1112 P743 M ALSDDRF ! of 9 R 0.00 D 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CD ALL THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY ONE THOUSAND (1000) FEET OF THE NW1/4NE1/4, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD 106 AND WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 16, BLOCK 11, TOWNSITE OF COOPERTON, ACCORDING TO THE AMENDED PLAT; THENCE S. 00 DEGREES 25' 59" E. 412.75 FEET; THENCE N. 89 DEGREES 34' 00" E. 284.61 FEET; ALSO TOGETHER WITH: ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 3, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, LYING EASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD 106. ALSO TOGETHER WITH: ALL THAT PORTION OF THE WESTERLY ONE THOUSAND (1000) FEET OF THE NORTHERLY FOUR HUNDRED (400) FEET OF THE SW1/4NE1/4, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST, LYING NORTHEASTERLY OF COUNTY ROAD 106. EXCEPTING THEREFROM.: THAT CERTAIN TRACT CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF GARFIELD COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 15, 1984 IN BOOK 645 AT PAGE 962 AS DOCUMENT NO. 350509 AND CORRECTED BY DEED RECORDED JANUARY 6, 1986 IN BOOK 681 AT PAGE 692 AS RECEPTION NO. 367920. PARCEL B; ALL THAT PART OF LOTS 3 AND 4, SECTION 33, AND LOTS 14 AND 15, SECTION 28, ALL IN TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, LYING EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER, WEST OF THE COUNTY ROAD (AS NOW CONSTRUCTED AND IN USE) THROUGH SAID LOT 3, SECTION 33 AND SAID LOT 15, SECTION 28 AND NORTH OF TIE ROAD (AS NOW CONSTRUCTED ANIS IN USE) CROSSING THE CRYSTAL RIVER IN SAID LOT 3, SECTION 33 AND THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND IN LOT 11, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TO -WIT: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11, 146 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 11; THENCE N. 11 DEGREES 55' W. 217.7 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11 TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH: PAGE 2 L13191j9V21,13M911121,1!1111111f11121113171)1141111101,1 111111IIID Illi1111 P744 N i1L5D0RF 6 of 9 R 0.00 D 0.08 GARFIELD COUNTY Co LOTS 5 AND 11, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THAT PORTION NORTH OF THE CENTER OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER, ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THAT PART OF LOT 11, SECTION 28, LYING SOUTH OF THE ROARING FORK RIVER AND EASTERLY OF THE COUNTY ROAD AS CONVEYED OUT BY DOCUMENT NO. 176083 IN BOOK 258 AT PAGE 380. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: A PARCEL OF LAND IN LOT 11, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, TO -WIT; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11, 146 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 11; THENCE N. 11 DEGREES 55' W. 217.7 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY ON A LINE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11 TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING_ ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THAT PORTION OF LOT 11, LYING SOUTHWEST OF THE CENTER OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER. ALSO TOGETHER WITH: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOTS 12 AND 13, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 12; THENCE W. 388.58 FEET TO CENTER OF CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE S. 10 DEGREES 05' E. 224.6 FEET ALONG CENTER OF CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE S. 4 DEGREES 18' E. 594.5 FEET ALONG CENTER OF CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE S. 13 DEGREES 56' E. 240.0 FEET ALONG CENTER OF CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE S. 24 DEGREES 38' E. 222.9 FEET ALONG CENTER OF CRYSTAL RIVER; THENCE S. 36 DEGREES 00' E. 233.9 FEET ALONG CENTER OF CRYSTAL RIVER TO EAST LINE SAID LOT 13; THENCE N. 1442.1.7 FEET ALONG EAST LINES OF SAID LOTS 12 AND 13, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PAGE 3 1 llllll VIII 111111 VIII IIII VIII 1111111111 VIII 1111 IIII 039149 02/02/1999 02:34P 81112 P745 M! RL5©ORF 7 of 9 R 0.00 O 0. ORRFIELO COUNfl CO PARCEL C: THAT PART OF LOT 3, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE COUNTY ROAD ACROSS THE CRYSTAL RIVER (#108) AND WESTERLY OP THE COUNTY ROAD TO THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE (#106). EXCEPTING THEREFROM; THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1962 IN BOOK 344 AT PAGE 436 AS DOCUMENT NO. 218991 AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOT 3, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE PRESENT COUNTY ROAD WHENCE THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, BEARS S. 54 DEGREES 32' E. 7629.75 FEET; ALSO THE MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION. OF MAIN STREET AND 4TH STREET BEARS S. 64 DEGREES 46' E. 6310.07 FEET; THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 24' E. 129.10 FEET ALONG SOUTHERLY LINE OF ROAD; THENCE N. 77 DEGREES 34' E. 219.40 FEET ALONG SOUTHERLY LINE OF ROAD; THENCE N. 78 DEGREES 30' E. 412.19 FEET ALONG SOUTHERLY LINE OF ROAD THENCE S. 53 DEGREES 00' E. 115.63 FEET ALONG SOUTHERLY LINE OF ROAD; THENCE S. 26 DEGREES 27' E. 106.50 FEET ALONG WESTERLY LINE OF ROAD; THENCE N. SO DEGREES 40' W. 160.06 FEET; THENCE S. 82 DEGREES 33' W. 637.84 FEET; THENCE S. 85 DEGREES 54' W. 128.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH: LOTS 6 AND 12, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP ALSO TOGETHER WITH: 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST. A TRACT OF LAND SITUAI'EI IN LOT 4, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4 BEARS S. 1168.33 FEET; THENCE S. 76 DEGREES 56' W. 225.61 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; PAGE 4 11111111111111111111111111111111110111111111111111 1111 339749 02/02/1999 0234P 41112 P746 Fk ALSOORF 8 of 9 R 0.00 6 0.00 GARFIELD COUNTY CO THENCE S. 27 DEGREES 49' E. 470.95 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE N. 467.54 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO TOGETHER WITH: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOT 4, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE WEST 300.00 FEET; THENCE N. 36 DEGREES 43' W. 280.40 FEET; THENCE N. 60 DEGREES 54' E. 535.20 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE S. 485.06 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO TETE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALSO TOGETHER WITH: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW1/4 OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT WHENCE THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 28, SAID TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST BEARS N. 24 DEGREES 32' 51" W. 4576.10 FEET; THENCE 5. 25 DEGREES 58' 58" E. 308.47 FEET; THENCE S. 60 DEGREES 04' 37" W. 846.29 FEET; THENCE N. 08 DEGREES 29' 04" E. 155.68 FEET; THENCE N. 66 DEGREES 56' 15" W. 191.28 FEET; THENCE N. 38 DEGREES 05' 00" W. 123.84 FEET; THENCE N. 37 DEGREES 07' 40" E. 323.50 FEET; THENCE N. 79 DEGREES 41' 00" E. 642.87 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED MARCH 8, 1988 IN BOOK 729 AT PAGE 997. PARCEL D: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 2, LOT 7, LOT 10, LOT 11, SW1/4NE1/4 AND THE NW1/4NE1/4 OP SAID SECTION 33 LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE WESTERN RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY, AND WESTERLY OF STATE HIGHWAY NO. 133. PAGE 5 11111111111111111111111 IIII ilIIl 1111111 III 11111 IIII IIII 539748 02/02/11998 02 34P B1112 P741 R ALSDORF 9 of 9 R 0.00 D 0.00 GRRFIEI.D COUNTY Cfi EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED OCTOBER 24, 1985 IN BOOK 677 AT PAGE 717, THE PROPER'T'Y DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED APRIL 17, 1990 IN BOOK 776 AT PAGE 973 AND AT PAGE 978, AND THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED NOVEMBER 26, 1958 IN BOOK 294 AT PAGE 559. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: ANY PORTION OF PARCEL A, PARCEL B, PARCEL C OR PARCEL E DESCRIBED HEREIN AND ANY PORTION LYING WITHIN A COUNTY ROAD RIGHT OF WAY. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM: THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT RECORDED AUGUST 31, 1994 IN BOOK 914 AT PAGE 566. PARCEL E: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN LOT 10, SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 88 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF COUNTY ROAD AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10 WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10 BEARS EAST 249.7 FEET THENCE WEST 81.93 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 10 AND THE NORTH LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD; THENCE N. 29 DEGREES 21' W. 238.90 FEET; THENCE N. 1 DEGREES 23' E. 150.35 FEET; THENCE S. 64 DEGREES 56' E. 59.71 FEET; THENCE S. 13 DEGREES 15' E. 96.39 FRET; THENCE S. 62 DEGREES 03' E. 132.02 FEET; THENCE 5. 0 DEGREES 56' E. 177.50 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO PAGE 6 Mark asked the pleasure of the Board and handed out packets of information. Commissioner Stowe was not present and the Board decided to postpone this until a later date. Mike Mello had sent a letter and it was noted for the record. March 1 at 4:00 P.M. was set. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF THE TOWN OF CARBONDALE APPLICANT: CRMS Mark Bean, Don DeFord and Attorney Larry Green were present. Don determined that adequate and timely notice was in order and advised the Commissioners they were entitled to proceed. Chairman Martin swore in the speakers. Mark Bean presented the following Exhibits for the record: Exhibit A - Proof of Publication; Exhibit B - Returned Receipts; Exhibit C - Application and Staff Packet: Exhibit D - Project Information and Staff Report; and Exhibit E - A letter from Town of Carbondale stating they "can and will serve the property with water and sewer." Commissioner Martin entered A E into the record. Mark presented that this was a Conditional Use Permit to allow the siting and operation of a school on a 342 acre tract of land located adjacent to the north side of Carbondale, off of CR 106 and Delores Way. The applicant proposes to expand and operate a private college -preparatory co-ed boarding school on the property. The school had 167 students in the springs of 1997 with 107 of them boarding on the school campus. The application would allow the school to expand to handle a maximum of 250 students with 150 boarding students and 100 day students. Larry Green explained the layout of the Colorado Rocky Mountain School as well as the proposed buildings. He noted there was one error in the staff report. The current buildings are currently in the Town of Carbondale's water system and all future buildings will be as well. He explained where there was one area on well and sewer. The whole purpose for this was back in the summer of 1988, this school submitted a request and it was agreed that the school was not in compliance in one area. This present proposal does include the expansion projected. Larry stated on Recommendation No. 3 - "open Hearth" - there would he no new residential open hearth fireplaces. The school has blacksmithing shops and it is also used as a training facility. Condition No. 4 - said the school does not want to have lighting that is obnoxious lighting but there is a need for safety lighting and this needs to be clarified. Condition No. 7 - there is a lot of pedestrian traffic and in order to address it, Carbondale has a line item for the construction of West Main to CR 106 in the year 2000 in the County's right-of-way. Commissioner Martin suggested the school buy -in on the design and construction of the bike path. Jim Lafrombise was present. Commissioner McCown clarified the safety lighting and the type suggested by Larry Green would not be a problem. Larry Green mentioned that the School would like the Board to vacate the old easement. Recommendation: The Planning Commission recommended APPROVAL of the application, pursuant to the following conditions: That all proposals of the applicant made in the application and at the public hearing with the Planning Commission shall be considered conditions of approval, unless specified otherwise by the Commission. If facilities of the school ever substantially changes from what has been proposed, then this Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to further review and subject to modification. No new open hearth solid -fuel fireplaces will be allowed anywhere within the property. One (1) new solid -fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances. All outdoor lighting will be directed inward and downward on the site, such that there will be no lighting directed to adjoining properties. All new construction will be subject to the issuance of the appropriate building permits. Prior to the Board of County Commissioners approving the Conditional Use permit, the applicants will submit a written statement from the Town of Carbondale, stating that water and sewer service can be provided for the proposed school expansions. That the applicant address the need for a bike/pedestrian path along CR 106, prior to the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. A motion was made by Commissioner Stowe and seconded by Commissioner McCown to close the Public Hearing; carried. Commissioner McCown made a motion and Commissioner Stowe seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the siting and operation of a school namely Colorado Rocky Mountain School with the recommendations of the Planning Commission striking Item 6 since that has clearly been done and in Recommendation No. 7 include that said school will work with the Town on ensuring adequate right-of- way for their bike path and trail at the time ifs on the Town of Carbondale's budget; carried. Jail Issue - Direction to Administrator Commissioner McCown mentioned the direction to Ed would be to fulfill the position of chief negotiator of items discussed and whatever negotiations take place that he bring back to the Commissioners for approval or whatever by February 8th meeting. Ed said he envisioned having a meeting every week to communicate on these issues. Recess AIRPORT ISSUES Ed Green, Don DeFord, Carolyn Dalghren, Allen Sartin, Mark Bean, Barry Hamilton, Paul Hoffman and Attorney for the Airport Authority Melody Massey from Russell George's office were present. Carolyn Dalghren gave the background and evaluation. She said the Board Members of the Airport Authority were appointed by a Resolution that was adopted by this body in October of 1967. Copies were distributed. That Resolution was appropriately filed with the Secretary of State as was required by the 1965 Public Airport Authority Law, At some point in the Fall of 1972, the Airport Authority made what was called a "not-for-profit" election and then called itself and was indeed a Colorado Not For Profit Corporation as a private entity. Some statutory changes were made in 1976 which changed the filing of record for such authorities from the Secretary of State to the Division of Local Government - Department of Local Affairs. This happened in 1978. Part of the reason for that change and where these entities would file their papers and be given birth certificates by the State, if you will, was due to the fact that the Airport Authority was by statute a separate political entity -- a separate political subdivision of the State of Colorado and it made no sense for a subdivision of the State of Colorado to be overseen by the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State could dissolve such an entity just on the basis of it not filing it's proper reports each year or doing other forbidden acts of private corporations. The Secretary of State actually sought the change in the State Law in order to make sure that the Airport Authorities which were public entities could not be dissolved by the Secretary of State but could rather only be dissolved by the entities that created the Authority and in our case -- this Board of County Commissioners. Our Airport Authority properly made it's filing with the Division of Local Government, Department of Local Affairs and today exists as a separately constituted and properly authorized Airport Authority with the State. The problem is that we have maintained an ambiguous situation with our Airport Authority. We have a separate governmental entity which is given full statutory authority by a Resolution of this Board, however the Board of County Commissioners control the underlying fee interest of the property. We never gave the property that the Airport exists on to the Airport Authority. So we have an Airport Authority which is statutorily empowered to manage and operate that Authority but it doesn't own the property. Furthermore the Board of County Commissioners retain by statute some other regulation by way of purse strings over the Airport and over the Airport Authority. full but BOCC control fee interest to property. Airport Authority to manage and operate but does not own the property. So as of today, we still have this ambiguous situation. Today we have some pieces of paper which have given people rights to operate and leasehold interests in the land that have been signed by both the Airport Authority and this Board of County Commissioners. We have at least one lease out there which is not signed by this Board of County Commissioners and there is arguably a lease which is an inappropriate lease because the leasehold interest has been granted by an entity that doesn't own the land fee. That's just one example of that ambiguity and the relationship that runs through the paperwork. This is something the Board needs to deal with and needs m#@0(1m, gtHS SIuaw A d wI Op@Jo3 EEI ee«g$ H Si! 133 - CARBONDALE, COLORADO LANDSCAPE BID PLANS VICINITY MAP INDEX OF SHEETS § - !2 8=]gSSSS- 1 0D "alepuogma at HS sTuawanOJdw1 JopiJa03 CET hm112!H Mai o S 0 co " - fig' J T expa. 0. 2 Z1131111 1•— ia.t r r. r .S — Y 04) G Fg V:6; g-o orK ff arrow 3IYFFIM1 as t 4D x o ii 10 li PLANTING PLAN C. y 40 dB jP IciG 4 1 oti, GO AI 4d 1 44 N F W V iZ ImYI U' z CD 07. alETLtoq,gD EEI HS sluawaAwdwi JoppAo3 nny i H OD 'aEepu0gJ23 EE1 HS sTuawanoadwq JOP Wa3 E'ci ) ML !H 63 z 0 a z Oa'aI piogaea CC I HS s4uawanaadW Japiaa03 CET AeMq IH 8 z zar 'alePurxreD CEI HS STUOLUaAWCIWI ioppJoo Aehig2il-i LC cp z 0. 0 0 w BENCH I: PLANTING ENLARGEMENT BENCH 2- PLANTING ENLARGEMENT BENCH 3' PLANTING ENLARGEMENT w 03'0IPPuWan. r3 EEI HS s}uawanoidw I JOp!JJ0O hnnt{3i}{ 90 w i w PLANTING EN PLANTING ENLARGEMENT "s 00 'agePuaq+ag €£I HS s4uawanoxdwi Joppio3 £Et Sem ±H s a iiIin C_a 11111 111011 in9 Ili l U f a 5:43 omr oam ��6�665 w 0 2 N 2a ''.:11. .',.',.: .:_._.:::.2tinli.. 4! ';,,,,, ll l I1II t1:1 tf�' inti i r PLANT SCt1EUDLE - DRAFT (TO BE REFINED FOR FINAL SUBMITTAL1 ' _n SET HS quawan adw|JOgwog [2I22H a. w §% X58 ( 2 2 a. LU Lu 2 §' 44 VAAv , kit\ Vb. § (| o : 6 6 666 k§4 Glenn Hartmann Front: Robert Corney [gymnorhinus c@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:16 AM To: Glenn Hartmann Cc: Darryl Fuller Subject: CRMS appeal to county road 106 vacation BOCC decision Dear Glenn - EXHIBIT 73 I wish to offer conditional support for the request by Colorado Rocky Mountain School to have the county vacate the CR106 ROW through their property near Carbondale. I suggest that the the county Planning Department engage the applicant in developing a new route for a shared use path across CRMS property which will provide a route for non motorized users to link CR109 and Dolores Way in exchange for enhancing the campus security concerns of CRMS. This route could provide Crystal River access/frontage for trail users and could be fenced/signed to limit uninvited guests from accessing the campus. I am presently a member of the Carbondale Parks and Recreation Commission and the Carbondale Bike, Pedestrian and Trails Commission. While my sentiments are strictly my own and do not represent those of either commission or the Carbondale Trustees per se, this approach to framing a solution is consistent with the Community Master Plan and stated goals of integrating connectivity within the Town and between the Town and Garfield County and Federal Lands. Willing private landowners are key to realizing this goal. A negotiated solution provides a public benefit and face saving modus operandi to this polarized issue. Best Practices for school campus security guide the applicant's request for county road vacation. The opposition from some neighbors and community members to the proposal comes from an understandable reluctance to fix what, in their perspective, isn't broken. I suggest that the county facilitate a process that forges a civil solution rather then leaving this to a one sided vote that inherently serves to cultivate remorse on the losing side and distrust all around. Sincerely yours, Robert Corney Carbondale, CO 1 am' .gpenee 678 North Bridge Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 970.963.2163 Phone; 909.548.8464 Fax bilspence(u;,„ rnail.com April 27, 2014 The Garfield County Board of County Commissioners 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Proposed abandonment of CR 106 to CRMS Dear Commissioner: This, my second letter to you on this subject, is inspired by the Commissioners' meeting of Monday May 5. As mentioned at the meeting, I have recently retired from a 9+ stint on Carbondale's Planning and Zoning Commission and served also for many years on an ad hoc trails committee for Carbondale. I was very involved in the development of Carbondale's 2013 Comprehensive Plan, which deals greatly with connectivity within town limits. Over the years, li have seen several requests from CRMS to not include CR 106 on trail maps. This always seemed a bit strange, as CR 106 was clearly a county road and an integral part of trail connectivity. But we honored their requests, even though we recognized the high connectivity value of CR 106 in Carbondale's trail network. Although not in our best interests, we acted in good faith with CRMS. In retrospect, this was naive of us, given their current request to abandon CR 106. These former requests from CRMS can be verified by John Hoffmann, presently a Carbondale Trustee, and by Charlie Kees, presently Chair of Carbondale's Planning and Zoning Commission. I urge you to concur with the recommendations to deny this request from the Town of Carbondale and Garfield County's Planning and Zoning Commission. Your support of these recommendations will be for the greater public good and avoid the appearance of supporting a narrow, special interest. The location of CR 106, near the confluence of the Crystal River with the Roaring Fork River, is of historic importance and naturally is part of a long term byway network in Garfield County. To lose this road in the County's road inventory could jeopardize the County's development flexibility in some future time. Please vote to deny CRMS's petition to abandon CR 106. Sincerely yours, Bill Glenn Hartmann From: Sue Edelstein [suereally@gmail_com] Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2014 6:47 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: For the BOCC Packet Regarding the Proposal to Vacate CR106 Through CRMS EXHIBIT � 7‘ To our GarCo Commissioners: I think this vacation would serve the interests of CRMS much more than those of the public. Please deny this and preserve public land and public access, and do not set a precedent that you will regret. I am very concerned about the CRMS request for the county vacate 106 road through its campus, and attended your meeting on May 15. Since the decision meeting is approaching, I must reiterate that I do not think it is in the best interest of our citizens or of County government. Testimony on the 15th by the applicant did not change my mind. At the meeting, CRMS misquoted several items or committed sins of omission. For example, they showed a graphic from the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan that did not show CR 106 through the CRMS campus, but other illustrations in the CCP do show it. Their traffic study is done over a very short time and in a situation where they have obscured that the road is public and few people know about it. The proposed alternate bike path by Carbondale is not the vertical line they show, through their hayfield, but skirts the buildings on the east and south and hooks up with the path leading from the town to the entrance to CRMS. a) RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY ASSETS. It is a fact that giving away government land -- and this is a fair amount of land when one takes into account the length and the width of the road including rights-of-way — is generally a bad practice and not fair to taxpayers. Any action with disposal of public land should be in the PUBLIC interest, for the good of the greatest number, not the interest of a private organization. And if vacation is ever made, there should be significant compensation to the county. b) RECREATIONAL/ COMMUTING CONCERNS. That section of 106 is the only direct, low - traffic, and low development access from the 108 bridge and from the path along west Main that leads through to Dolores Way . Many runners, walkers, and bikers use that route for commuting and recreation. There is no good access to the developments along 108 and all through Carbondale west of 133 to reach either the RFTA park and ride or from the newly -reconstructed Satank Bridge (and the Rio Grande Trail), to which the county contributed a great deal of money. This is how most of the many, many County and Carbondale residents who live west of 133 or off 108 Road access those points. Conversely, this is (and will remain) the only pleasant and safe route for Satank citizens to access the grocery and hardware stores and the neighborhood to the south. c) SAFE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ACCESS. That section of 106 provides safe access to the Community School for youngsters from all the neighborhoods to the west of 133 and south of Main Street. d) QUALITY OF LIFE. The Toss of this trail would detrimentally affect the quality of life in our community, where we consider the town and the school as partners in each other's well being. 1 e) PROPOSED ALTERNATE ROUTE IS NOT EQUIVALENT. The Town of Carbondale's proposed path along 133, along with CRMS' small donation along Delores Way, would provide access to future commercial, albeit less safe access for cyclists and community school youngsters due to road crossings that will need extra attention. It will not be pleasant, sandwiched between the highway and the inevitable commercial development at the so-called "Marketplace" location. It simply does not replace the safe, pleasant, and mellow 106 corridor. We work to make our school access and recreational trails run off-road or on low -traffic roads, to be away from fumes and pollution, to be safe, to be in a nice aesthetic environment, and to connect to other parts of our network of recreational trails. It really will not be part of that network. Also, for the many residents who live west of 133, even if we approached up Hendricks, the eastbound link past the hardware store to 133 is treacherous. We all turn LEFT toward the bike path. If vacation is denied, I would request the county to sign the public access at either end, both to show it is public and to ask the public to respect private property. I would also not object to closure from sunset to sunrise. I have also heard that some of Mr. Jancovsky's children attended the school or were on its athletic teams. If that is the case, I would hope Mr. Jancovsky would choose to recuse himself. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Sue Edelstein 678 North Bridge Drive. Carbondale 970-96;3-2163 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.corn Version: 2014.0.45701 Virus Database: 3920/7400 - Release Date: 04/26/14 2 Glenn Hartmann From: Tamra Allen Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:53 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC For the upcoming hearing. Thunk you, Tamra Alden, Planning Manager Garfield County Community Development Department talien@dartield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:05 PM To: Tamra Allen Subject: Fwd: Website inquiry -BOCC Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Stacey Simon <simon81623(agmail.com> Date: May 20, 2014, 11:05:04 AM GMT -06:00 To: <tankovsky@garfield-countv.com> Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC Stacey Simon has sent you a message: CRMS road EXHIBIT 1 7,6 Hello Mr. Jankovsky. I am writing in support of keeping the road through CRMS open to the public. As a resident of Crystal Village and mother to 2 daughters that attend Carbondale Community School, we use the road often to ride bikes to/from school. It is a safe route for them to take from our home and we have never had any problems with it interfering with student life there. I know of many other families in our neighborhood that use it as well. As far as security concerns, that whole campus would have to securely fenced off, like a prison, to keep someone from getting on to the campus with its many access points. Please consider leaving it as is for our small community. Thank you - Stacey Simon, Carbondale, CO i June 6, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County, State of Colorado clo Glenn Hartmann, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners; EXHIBIT 77 Please allow me to share some comments based on the May 5, 2014 Garfield County Commissioner meeting concerning CR 106. Recently I spent a few hours at the Garfield County Courthouse reading many pages of the County Commissioner meeting minutes from 1978-1983.1 found discussion about CR 106 in 1979 on November 19th and December 3rd. Garfield County Attorney, Arthur Abplanalp said at both of these meetings there was "no conditional vacation and that f the school relocated someday the road could be re -opened' 1 did not find anywhere that CR 106 was legally amended or vacated. As a College Counselor for Colorado Mountain College for over 28 years 1 have some understanding of school violence issues. Current statistics (found online at https:l/pub[ieieiteIiigence.net/ma-school-hoptings/) show 80% of attacks at schools are caused by students or former students and 8% by employees or family relations. 1 would suggest CRMS have full background checks on each of their students, a mental health counselor available and security in place at all times. There are many intervention strategies that CRMS should be actively doing such as observations of social media sights (Facebook, You Tube, internet posts), create student -peer counseling groups (keep tabs on school climate), and an "early alert system" where students, parents and staff can anonymously report threats. The CRMS Board of Trustees, Administration, Faculty, and students will continue to come and go and with that comes changes in the schools vision and finances. In the last 25 years, I have seen the school "change direction" in their master plan for building locations, with buying and selling their land, and recently they changed their position with the CDOT plan for Delores Way and the Hwy 133 intersection. Another example was in 2010 when they last requested this same road vacation (see attached). CRMS states "it is likely that CRMS will not construct the new dormitories if there is a possibility the road might be reopened." Not only did they decide to build the dorms right on CR 106 but they now have future plans for a "Welcome Center" also along the road. 1 question then how Joe White from CRMS can refer the school as being "pro -active" when they have taken no heed to past commissioners advise? At the 2010 BOCC meeting over the same issue, Commissioner Tresi Houpt, after stating she was not in favor of vacating the road, told the school representatives, 'When you have a right of way in place, you should plan for that as you develop the campus" Glenwood Post Indep. 4/8/2010. Private property and trail signage was also suggested by Commissioner John Martin (as you might remember) Glenwood Post lndep. 5/20/10. Again the school did not listen and has made poor choices. Should we reward theta by giving them public land? Should we risk vacating a road with possible changes in the future that we may need to reopen it? Once its gone its gone. This issue was discussed in three lengthy meetings with Town of Carbondale P& Z, Town of Carbondale, and Garfield County P & Z . Please respect their recommendations to deny this vacation and preserve this right of way. Respec Debra 65 S. Pine Street Carbondale, Colo 81623 REQUEST TO VACATE A PORTIO OF COUNTY ROAD 106 Historically, GarfieldCounty Road 106 provided access from Main Street in Carbondale to Satank. The portion of Road 106 immediately south of Satank went directly through the middle of the CRMS campus and then continued to the south where it connected to Carbondale's Main Street. We have been unable to locate any document that establishes the County's interest in this portion of Road 106, so we presume that Road 106 was established as a County Road through prescription. The Road does appear on the 1910 Glenwood Springs to Carbondale Road Map on record with the County's GiS Department and we have attached copies of that neap showing Road 106 to this Statement. Commencing in 1977, CRMS proposed to Garfield County that the School would convey to the County a strip of land to create an alternative road to provide access to Satank. In exchange, the County would abandon that portion of Road 106 passing through the heart of the CRMS campus. The attached letters from CRMS to Garfield County officials dated April 12, 1978, October 18, 1979, and October 23, 1979 set out the general terms of that proposal. On December 3, 1979 the Board of County Commissioners formally considered the proposal made by CRMS and agreed to restrict the portion of Road 106 through the CRMS campus to non -motorized traffic and to participate with CRMS in the construction of a new, asfternative road. See, Minutes of the Board of County Commissioners' meeting held December 3, 1979 and letter from the County Commissioners to CRMS dated April 10, 1980 attached hereto. In 1981, CRMS deeded to Garfield County the right-of-way for the alternative Satank access road, the road that is now known as Delores Way. See Deed, attached. Pursuant to the aforesaid understanding between CRMS and the County, sometime in 19g0 Delores Way was constructed and the new Delores Way right-of-way was fenced, and the portion of Road 106 that passed through the CRMS campus was closed to vehicular traffic and the pavement tom up. Since that time the southerly portion of the closed road serves as the main entryway into CRMS. The northerly portion of the closed road, or areas nearby the old roadway, are sometimes used by CRMS personnel for parking or to access buildings on the north portion of the campus. The northerly terminus of the road proposed for vacation is now and has been blocked by the Delores Way right-of-way fence since approximately 1980. There is, however, a gated entryway into the CRMS campus north of the road to be vacated that provides emergency vehicular access into the CRMS campus from the north. All of then: features may be discerned on the Full Size Exhibit Map. Since the closure of the road through campus, members of the public have from time to time cut across CRMS property generally along the alignment of the old road on foot or on bicycle. At this time CRMS is involved in planning for future development of its campus. One or more new dormitories for boarding students are proposed to be constructed in close proximity to the old Road 106 corridor. Prior to making any commitment to construct a new dormitory. - 11 \1 1�^t]tllc� :tti -to r�'i ;l "7C.t} �vt,:?l s nolo been x 1 .n '.x ,i �..��Lwli1 1.1,. i'�i`.t;' .1 :mC f i`]:E .t.e .. _ : Redid 5! /LI 1 flc'Ilft' a Purtioif +if Camay Road 106 ivith',urr: C"rilrrrafir: r mAy -1f nenteiilf .Si'IMi'ii. Iile'- i'rri ,' 1 rig 2 closed for almost thirty years. if there is a possibility that the Road might be reopened it is likely that CRMS will not construct the new dormitories in their presently planned locations due to safety and security concerns. Therefore, in order to obtain the desired certainty, CRMS is requesting that the County vacate the subject portion of Road 106. 1f the request to vacate the subject portion of Road 106 is granted, CRMS has noresent intention of.s1.2§lagAlic route to public, pedestrian use. However, CRMS would reserve the ri it to close its cam us to the ublic if The event that public access ever presents a security threat to the CRMS community. The portion of Road 106 proposed for vacation does not provide any access to public lands. lii'�lf7i �r rr, iii aia' r! Pui n u (Al (ir[lnll1" With, 1666 . Ileplir,111/. C i,lesnitifs Rock) AIurnNui+r .Sc-lwol. My. Glenn Hartmann From: Tamra Allen Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 4:46 PM To: Genn Hartmann Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC FYI. EXHIBIT 1 7g Tamra Allen, Planning Manager Garfield County Community Development Department tallen(Q}garfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) Original Message From: Tom Jankovsky Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 3:50 PM To: Tamra Allen Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC Original Message From: Michael Gorman [mailto:gormancolo(nisn.com] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 1:31 PM To: Tom Jankovsky Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC Michael Gorman has sent you a message: County Road 106 9702744719 I want to express my concern over CRMS's proposal for the County to vacate CR 106. As someone who does not own a car, this move would affect connectivity for myself and other trail users accessing the Rio Grande Trail via the Satank bridge and the heavily used bike path from CRMS to Crystal Village. I use this trail often, as a, way to get to the grocery store by bike or by foot. This saves me time and money, and is a safer way to access that part of town from where I live in Satank. The road also serves as emergency access. After spending so much money on restoring the old Satank bridge, it would be a shame to make it harder for pedestrians to access it. It is not in the County's best interest to hand over public property to private ownership. This access corridor benefits the greater community; please do not give up this public road for the benefit of one private interest. Perhaps a fair compromise would be if the road is to be vacated; public access should be maintained at some point through the campus, connecting the paved bike path along CR106 to Dolores way. This could even be in a spot that doesn't impact the heart of campus as much as the current road. Bikability and connectivity are important to our community and we take pride in that. We should work to protect these values. 1 Glenn Hartmann From: Tamra Allen Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 4:44 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC FYI. EXHIBIT 1 79 Tamra Allen, Planning Manager Garfield County Community Development Department tallenkarfield-county.com 970-945-8212 (office) 970-945-1377 x1630 (direct) Original Message From: Tom ]ankovsky Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 4:00 PM To: Tamra Allen Subject: FW: Website inquiry -BOCC -----Original Message ----- From: ]ake Menke [mailto:jmenke[salud.unm.edu] Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 10:41 PM To: Tom ]ankovsky Subject: Website inquiry -BOCC ]ake Menke has sent you a message: County Road 106 Closure through CRMS 970-963-3813 Dear Mr. ]ankovsky, I was just writing to let you know that it may be a reasonable decision to close CR 106 through CRMS. I had written a letter to the editor fairly recently to The Post Independent and The Aspen Times opposing the closure of the right of way. My reason for opposing the closure was that I felt that it was the only leverage that Sutank residents had to prevent CRMS from selling the land just South of our property that is currently zoned residential(at least it was thanks to the hard work of my father and many long time Sutank residents). The reality is that if this land is sold many years from now that it would be up to the good judgement of Garfield County to make sure that it wasn't rezoned as commercial real estate and turned into some disaster for Sutank residents which they would fight until the bitter end. A couple of weeks ago my father accidentally ran his motorized wheelchair into an irrigation ditch on CRMS property and the frigid water was flowing up to his chin. Do to fortuitous timing and some very brave and heroic CRMS students he avoided drowning and perishing to severe hypothermia. These are the kind of neighbors we want and trust. We have lived in Sutank since 1977 and CRMS has always been a positive influence on the neighborhood and community. I learned to roll a kayak in the CRMS pond and played in the irrigation ditches. My disabled father has been cruising through CRMS in his wheelchair for 30 years and is an honorary alumni. The students, faculty, and administration have had amazing and instrumental influence on his life. 1 I recently met with some CRMS faculty and administration to discuss the reasons behind the road closure and this has persuaded me to keep an open mind. I now have a better understanding of their vision for the school, and 1 believe and trust that their reasoning is sincere. They want to ensure the safety and well being of their students. I hope one day that my daughter has the opportunity to attend CRMS. And if that is what she chooses twelve years from now, then I would want her in an environment and surrounded by people that have her best interest and well being in mind. And so my family gives our blessing, not hastily or without rational contemplation, to proceed with the closing of CR 106 right of way. I certainly trust the current administration and faculty and believe they are doing what they is appropriate for their students. I also believe that CRMS will continue to be a great neighbor and will use good judgment with the residents of Sutank. Sincerely, Jake Menke 2 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Nancy V.A. Smith, 27 Mesa Avenue, Satank Re: County Road 106 vacation request Date: June 9, 2014 In January of this year, Commissioner Jankovsky was quoted in the Post Independent as saying, "I'm a little bit flabbergasted by the request. Just because a road goes across someone's private property doesn't mean it's not a county road." Although that comment was in response to a somewhat different request, it would seem to apply to CRMS in this case. Their 2010 application stated "Members of the public have from time to time cut across CRMS property generally along the alignment of the old road on foot or on bicycle," when in fact those members of the public were using the trail which is totally within the County right of way. CRMS has come to view this public road as their private property, which is why they think it should be such a simple decision for you to make that official. But your decision is not a simple one for all the reasons we have laid out in months of public meetings. I'd like to discuss just one of those reasons. if the ROW is vacated, the County loses forever the possibility of using the existing road for through traffic. We all wish that this would never be necessary, but given the increase in accidents at the intersection of Dolores and 133, it would be totally irresponsible to give away the only option we have to alleviate this safety hazard. On July 8, 2013, CDOT representative Dan Roussin refused to consider your request to consider placing a traffic light or a roundabout at this dangerous intersection, despite the fact that it serves as the only access to a public school. Mr. Roussin also informed you that CDOT will allow a roundabout, but not a traffic light, at the entrance to La Fontana, meaning that a solution for the intersection must wait many years until a roundabout is built. When construction began on Highway 133 improvements last month, the situation at the intersection became even worse. For the next few months, there will be no acceleration lane to facilitate right hand turns onto the highway from Dolores Way, and visibility necessary to safely make a left hand turn is currently obstructed by the orange barrels and the Jersey barriers. Visibility from a big CDOT truck may be fine, but from an ordinary passenger car, the driver can't see other passenger cars approaching from the south. A temporary detour through CRMS during the summer months when students are not on campus seems like it may become necessary, but if the road is vacated, that option is gone. The last nail in the coffin for those of us who rely on Dolores Way as our only connection to the outside world came on June 3, when RFTA released its proposal for the expansion of its Highway 133 park and ride lot. This new lot will be between the existing lot and ANB Bank, and will be connected to both Dolores Way and the existing lot, and its exit at the Village Road traffic light. This could have offered a safety valve for the Dolores Way intersection, but instead, RFTA insists that it be one-way exit only onto Dolores Way. This will only make matters worse, as RFTA will encourage "kiss & rides" (those dropping off and picking up bus riders) during morning and evening rush hours to exit the lot at Dolores Way, rather than interfering with bus traffic at the traffic light. This will add even more traffic to the intersection at the times of day when it is already at its most dangerous. CDOT, the Town of Carbondale and RFTA are doing their best to create a perfect storm which will get someone killed at the intersection. Commissioner Jankovsky also said in January, "It has been the position of this board to keep roads open in western Garfield County." Why should your policy be any different for eastern Garfield County? Thank you. Edward M. "Ted" Tiernan 1262 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 Garfield County Commissioners June 11, 2014 Regarding: CRMS proposal to vacate County Road 106 Dear Members of the Garfield County Commission, EXHIBIT My name is Edward Tiernan and along with my wife, Christine Worth, live and own property at 1262 County Road 106 in unincorporated Garfield County commonly referred to as "Satank.". Our house is the very first house next to CRMS's property and the proposed vacation on County 106. I would like to see the commissioners vote to NOT vacate our rights to use County Road 106 as it passes through CRMS. Here are my reasons: 1.) It is currently used by my wife and I and many other citizens to get to downtown Carbondale and to City Market for shopping and for the citizens of the Town of Carbondale to access the "Satank Bridge" and Rio Grande pedestrian and bike trail. 2.) It is currently extremely difficulty to exit from our neighborhood on to Highway 133. Future development by CRMS and other commercial properties along Dolores Way will only make this access more of a problem. 3.) CRMS has a history of selling their property to finance school development projects. The "Kay Subdivision Property" ( where ANB Bank, Napa, Wagner Equipment and many more commercial businesses are located) and the proposed "Marketplace Development" are located are examples. We are very concerned with future development of properties along Dolores Way and County Road 106 that are currently owned by CRMS and access through CRMS may be required to alleviate traffic. CRMS owns properties that maybe developed in the future. There are two parcels which concern my wife and 1. The first is the 6 plus acre parcel right next to our property and across from their soccer field on Dolores Way and the other parcel is the very large acreage parcel which 1 believe to be approximately 130 acres (currently used as a cow pasture and open space but not official open space ) that is directly across from our property and on the west or north/west side and in back of the residences as you drive along County Road 106 going all the way to the Roaring Fork river. Either of these properties could be sold and possibly developed in the future. The 6 acre parcel was under contract for development just a few short years back. As 1 understand it due to a lack of funding the proposed non-profit buyers eventually remodeled the old elementary school in downtown Carbondale. If CRMS decides to develop or sell either of these properties access through the carnpus to County Road 108 may be necessary. Thank you for listening to our concerns and for your service to the citizens of Garfield County. Sincerely yours, Y Edward M. Tiernan and Christine A. Worth Phone (970) 274-0358 and (970) 987-9722 Colorado Protective Services 175 Oak Run Carbondale, Co 81623 clisas1»1 f1 :1irn.ef11f1 970-379-4201 970-963-1065 EXHIBIT June 15, 2014 Joe White Colorado Rocky Mountain School Dear Joe, Thank you for speaking with me regarding Garfield County's intentions to provide continued public access through the CRMS campus, as a public way. As you know my experience in law enforcement and public safety spans more than 30 years in two states. In that time I have had the misfortune of witnessing many acts of violence against innocent human beings including children. Additionally, in that time I have had the opportunity to debate and discuss issues of public safety with members of the community and public officials who ultimately have put the best interest of their fellow man and in particular children ahead of the special interests of a few. Such is the case in regards to the notion of allowing public•access directly through the campus of CRMS. Since Columbine and the numerous acts of violence that have followed, we have learned the importance above all else, in taking the necessary steps to protect our children especially in their academic setting. As such schools through out Colorado and the nation have stepped up security measures which have included limiting access to school grounds, controlled access through doors, cameras and sign in requirements for guests and parents. While this has been an inconvenience of sorts, most concerned members of communities have both understood and accepted the importance of child safety and in providing a sense of safety that every child is entitled to feel and experience regarding their personal welfare while away from home. With this in mind. I find it conflicting at best. to understand why Garfield County Commissioners and some tnembers of the community would choose allowing uncontrolled access through a school campus where children are not only educated but housed on a 24hr basis. rather than accept the minimal inconvenience associated with restricting access through the campus. The notion that providing a public way, that could be regulated by signs and access limitations in theory may sound like a reasonable solution. But those of us in the public safety sector can assure you that signs do little or nothing to restrict those with sinister intentions. Rather, a public way would give anyone with ill intentions the relative freedom to walk through the CRMS campus unabated. I understand the Commissioners may have suggested that CRMS would merely need to call the Sheriff if someone violated the restriction imposed to access. The reality however, is that the Sheriff would have minimal capability to respond promptly and/or repeatedly to calls ofa mere violation of limited access based upon the size of the county and staffing capability. This being the fact, the possibility that an individual or individuals could commit a heinous crime against a student or students leaves no doubt that their close proximity to classrooms and dorms could render students vulnerable. 1 would strongly urge CRMS to continue this fight for the welfare and safety of CRMS students and I strongly urge the Board of County Commissioners to look past the political pressures ofa few self serving individuals and consider the overall welfare of all concerned. If you would like further input or testimony as an expert in this arena I would be more than happy to participate. Sincerely, Thomas P Dalessandri Colorado Protective Services Garfield County Sheriff, (ret)