Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2.0 PC Staff Report 02.12.2014
Garfield County Planning Commission — Public Hearing Exhibits Roadway Vacation Request County Road 106 and Location and Extent Review Colorado Rocky Mountain School February 12, 2014 (File RVAC-7772 & LAEA-7811) Exhibit # Exhibit Description 1 Proof of Publication 2 Return Receipts from Mailing Notice 3 Photo evidence of Public Notice Postin. 4 Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended 5 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2030 6 Application 7 Staff Report 8 Staff Presentation 9 Referral Comments from the Town of Carbondale 10 Referral Comments from RFTA 11 Referral Comments from Carbondale Fire Protection District 12 Referral Comments from County Road and Bridge 13 Referral Comments from Garfield County Sheriff's Office 14 Referral Comments from County Consulting Engineer 15 Referral Comments from Source Gas 16 Excerpts from Carbondale Comprehensive Pian 17 Excerpt from Carbondale Parks, Recreation and Trails Comprehensive Master Plan 18 Excerpts from the Hwy 133 Access Control Plan 19 Comment Letter from Dale Will 20 Comment Letter from Brad Hendricks 21 Comment Letter from Bill Spence 22 Comment Letter from Patrick and Rae Ann Hunter 23 Comment Letter from Pat Bingham 24 Comment Letter from Sue Edelstein 25 Comment Letter from John Armstrong 26 Comment Letter from John Burg 27 Comment Letter from Sylvia Wendrow 28 Comment Letter from Sheila S. Draper 29 Comment Letter from Teresa Salvadore 30 Referral Comments from Xcel Energy 31 Referral Comments from CDOT 32 Comment Letter from Elizabeth Murphy 33 Comment Letter from Andrew Braudis 34 Comment Letter from Lindsey Utter 35 Email from Dale Will and Attached Rails to Trails Study 36 Comment Letter from Chris Bromley 37 Comment Letter from Nancy Draina Hanrahan 38 CRMS Presentation 39 40 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE INFORMATION 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 315` day of January, 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] ■ Please attach proof of certified, return receipt requested mailed notice. • My application required Published notice. Notice was published on the 30th day of January, 2014. ■ Please attach proof of publication in the Rifle Citizen Telegram. • My application required Posting of Notice. ," `Notice was posted on the 3`d day of February, 2014. Notice was posted so that at least one sign faced each adjacent road right of way generally used by the public (photos attached). 1 testify that the above information is true and accurate. BALCOMB & GREEN, By: Chad J. "Lee Date: ,-///0/ 14/ PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the Colorado Rocky Mountain School Inc. (CRMS) has submitted an Application to the Garfield County Planning Commission for Location and Extent approval for the Vacation of a Portion of County Road 106, in accordance with Section 4-111 of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code. The Application is submitted in conjunction with a request for Vacation of a County Road 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 Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the Location and Extent Application. 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 February 12, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. which will be held in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. 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 6`" 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 N 11°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 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. Ad Name: 9900612A Customer: Balcomb & Green Your account number is: 1001205 PROOF OF PUBLICATION THE RIFLE CITIZEN TELEGRAM STATE OF COLORADO, COUNTY OF GARFIELD 1, Jim Morgan, do solemnly swear that I am General Manager of The Ride 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 a general circulation therein; that said new spaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Garfield for a period of more than f i fty- 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 ofevery number of said weekly newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 1/30/2014 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 1/30/2014 the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this 02/05/2014. ;1.1711 t , • �� 1 Jim Morgan, General Manager Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before mc, a notary public in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado this 02/05/2014. My Commission Expires 11101/2015 Pamela J. Schultz, Notary`f'ublic My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 PUBLIC NOTICE TAKE NOTICE that the Colorado Rocky Mountain School Inc. (CRMS) has submitted an Application 10 the Garfield County Planning Commission for Location and Extent approval for the Vacation oI a Portion o1 County Road 106, in accordance with Section 4-111 of the Garfield County Land Uso and Development Code. The Application is submitted in conjunction with a request for Vacation of a County Road pursuant to Section 4-108 o1 the Gar- field County Land Use and Development Code. The designated representatives are Michael Mc- Coy, President CRMS, Larry Green and Chad Leo, Balcomb & Green PC. L,r gaWaso igtigg; Sea Attached Exhibit A which Includes a description of the County Road 106 Hight of Way requested to be vacated. Practical Qescrjpttgn; That portion of County Road 106 running through the CRMS campus, approxi- mately 1,223 fl. in length and 6011. in width, It is located in the general vicinity of 1493 County Road 106. It extends north Irom County Road 108 to a point of intersection with Dolores Way in the vicini- ty of the Satank neighborhood BeSSOp1!4.0 4Ltieg96SC The proposal is for the va- cation of that portion of County Road 106 that runs Through the CfiMS campus. The right-of-way was closed 10 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 allected by this action aro 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 Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of surrounding property owners. and others affected, in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the Location and Extent Application. The Application may be reviewed at the ollice of the Garfield County Community Development De- partment 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 Febru- ary 12, 2014 at 6:30 p.m. which will be held in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Garfield County Plaza Building 108 8th Street. Glenwood Springs. Colorado. Community Development Department Garfield County EXHIBIT A Legal Description CR 106 CRMS Vacation A portion of Garfield County Road 4106 being a slap 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 61h Principal Meridian, all in Garfield County. Colorado and more particularly described as follows: Said Strip of land being sixty (60) teat in width with Thirty (30) feet lying on each side o1 the following centerline description, the exterior lines 01 said strip are to be shortened or lengthened to form a contin- uous strip exactly sixty (60) fool in width: Beginning at a point on the centerline of said County Road N106 also being a point on the north- erly limit of the County Road 8 108 right -of -way from whence the S1/4 Corner Section 28 bears N06"50'08'E a distance of 1084.18 feet; thence the hollowing three (3) courses along the centerline of said County Road 8106. N24101'11'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 1911'55'17'W a distance of 125.76 feel 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 S1/4 Corner Section 28 bears S48'02'43 -E a distance of 377.76 lent. said strip of land contains 1.89 acres more or less. Published in the Citizen Telegram on January 30. 2014. 19900612] EXHIBIT 1 J.-CNkwJ i EXHIBIT y C" t7:9 CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com. Postage Corutiud Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Foe (Endorsement Required) T. Sal stn or I Cin A L. S rj E Mitchell and Lucille Dyer c/o Perry Coryell 427 Lake Loop Drive Kalispell, MT 59901-8705 Postmark eerie r0 n �. _DOo �• PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse tor Instructions wpm! 9N PE,! IYVE?•Y ❑ Agent D Addresse 'Printed Nome));. 0.. Date of Del vp i Ilt�ss different from item 1? ❑ Yes ielivery address below: .1P -No lall ❑ Express Mall 0 Return Receipt for Merchandis ill 0 C.O.D. livery? (Extra Fee) ❑ Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt U.S. Postal Service,:. ��rs`1IFIED MAIL., RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps comu Postage Certified Foe Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fire Endorsement Required) Tote' Sent 7 Street or PO City. 5 S Gregory A. Forbes 1227 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623-2365 Pdarnark Re -re PS Foran 3800. August 2006 Sec Reverse for Instructions 102595-02-M-15, S1 TION ON DELIVERY fess different ielivery add Yes ❑ No lail 0 Express Mail D Return Receipt for Merchandii til 0 C.O.D. livery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Retum Receipt U.S. Postal Service in CERTIFIED MAIL:,; RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Information visit our website at www.usps.com,. Postage Certified Fee Relum Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) St sf Or CI a Garfield County 108 8th Street, Suite 213 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 ‘7s PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for Instructions - 102595-02•M-15 sEQ'TII?N DN DELIVERY eL /— ❑Agent ❑ Address Pri Name) C. Pate of Der ')2 3r /9 rens different from item 1? 0 Yes lelivery address below: 0 No iii ❑ Express Mail ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandi 1 0 C.O.D. very? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1! U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL.' RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery Information visit our website at wv,^::.L p .comm -• Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) S i_) z Wjt Thrk Moro 1, of -'Y ^)71. lora Andrew S. and Rachel J. Braudis 1244 County Road 106 Sent) Street or PO City. S Carbondale, CO 81623 PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse tor Instructions U.S. Postal Servicer•, CERTIFIED MAILrr, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.comt. Postage Cnrttlted Feo Return Receipt Foe (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Se Si or Clt $ Edward Tiernan 1262 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 Po9trrerk Hero PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse tor instructions 7009 2820 0001 8421 0806 U.S. Postal Service;, CERTIFIED MAIL, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.com.. t. Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Fee endorsement Required) Restricted Dotivery Foe (Endorsement Required) .Pastime* Here Z Amy Butowicz ser 1234 County Road 106 Carbondale, CO 81623 PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for Instruction U.S. Postal Service CERTIFIED MAIL„, RECEIPT (Domestic Mall Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) For delivery information visit our website at v- v.w.uirts,com,. Postage Candied Fee Return Receipt Fae (Endorsement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee (Endorsement Required) Total P, Sent fb Street, A; or PO So City, Slat, Posenafk 8 DO ^• k) 0 Maggie Suetta Cockburn P.O. Box 386 Artesia, NM 88211-0386 PS Form 3800. August 2006 See Reverse for Inslruclron NMKsialr&MDIE PM 2.09 FEB/ 3/2014 a EXHIBIT Planning Commission 2/12/14 Roadway Vacation RVAC-7772 Location and Extent Review LAEA-7811 GH PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS TYPE OF REVIEW: APPLICATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ROW DESCRIPTION: LOCATION: County Road Vacation Request Location and Extent Review for Public Road Vacation Vacation of 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 — DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL 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. 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 Applicant has provided copies of correspondence and minutes from the CRMS request for closure of the roadway in 1979. 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 CRMS Property 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 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 detailed pedestrian and bicycle traffic analysis on use of the existing ROW and includes a conclusion that with the construction of the 2 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 and Location and Extent Review 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. • The Applicant also makes a case for general conformance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 referencing sections on economy, multi -modal transportation, redundancy of the roadway and the Carbondale Comprehensive Plan. II. AUTHORITY — CRITERIA A. 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 and Section 4-111 Location and Extent Review. Pursuant to Section 4-111(A)(2) the requests may be combined and heard concurrently. The Review Criteria are provided below: 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. 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). 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. 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. 3 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. A Planning Commission Resolution formalizing the Commission's action will be prepared. 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 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. C. Decision making authority for the Roadway Vacation is with the Board of County Commissioners. Based on its review the Planning Commission will formalize a recommendation to the Board. The Planning Commission review includes the option for a one time continuation provided the Commission renders its recommendation within 60 calendar days of submission (determination of a complete 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. Applicable excerpts from the Comprehensive Plan Goal, Policies and Objectives are outlined below: 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." 4 • "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 ;:8j huiuh8Ie:it*14 W 'Imi 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. Strategies / 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. s 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 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 Commission's 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 Market Place Trail from Main Street to Highway 133 are relevant to the discussion of alternate trail connections. 6 Dolores Way Trail EXCERPT FROM CARBONDALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN • . ,11!"Afti s 411,1•17,4 \Z64.1 .k `. J? . CR 106 ROW Alternate Trail Alignment (behind Hwy 133 Properties) Y`-‘ . .1 w.rra 9r Pki,,..'1!!tArt.vrod ` a mi e�414 WI Of41_442ptti art. tf: ., - r. •l Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings a—o P. oc;y MuniWWICascara Fukre Ccnntcllcna Q.• Crop/iv ■ a, • IT OamCary Stratta Publ,c Roc oeuon Le•W County Roach) f. • V. STAFF ANALYSIS & REFERRAL COMMMENTS A. The Town of Carbondale has provided extensive referral comments (see attached exhibit). 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. 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 8 maintenance) and provided the vacation request moves forward CRMS will need to bring their south access up to County Standards. 6. CDOT: The referral was also provided to CDOT. While no comments were received, Staff has included excerpts from the Hwy 133 Access Control Plan (see attached exhibit) which contains information relevant to alternate transportation modes, and roadway connectivity. 7. Garfield County Consulting Engineer: Mountain Cross Engineering provided comments noting the need to confirm that additional information on utility locates from Century Link had been obtained and that emergency response addressing issues be addressed. C. Adjacent Property Owner Comments: In response to the required public notice, letters from neighboring property owners and other interested parties have been received by the County. They have all been included as exhibits to the Commission's packet for your review and consideration. D. STAFF COMMENTS — REVIEW CRITERIA: 1. A finding of general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is required for Location and Extent approval, Section 4-111(C). Review of the Town of Carbondale Comprehensive Plan and referral comments is significant based on the County Comprehensive Plan designation of the area as an Urban Growth Area for the Town. The County's Plan makes reference to consistency with the local municipality's plans and policies which emphasize multimodal transportation and connections. 2. 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). 3. Pursuant to Roadway Vacation Review Criteria #2, Section 4-108 (C) the section of roadway proposed for vacation is part of a trail loop that depending on where travel originates provides for connections to certain recreational areas or trails (i.e. Rio Grande Trail via Satank Bridge). Whether alternative access both existing and proposed are adequate is part of the determination of compliance with this criteria. The Applicant's pedestrian and bicycle traffic study was provided to support their request. 4. In regard to Roadway Vacation Review Criteria #3 the Applicant has proposed alternate routes in lieu of the right-of-way proposed for vacation. The County has received input putting forward a number of additional and alternate trail alignments. 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. 9 5. In regard to the additional alternate trails proposals put forth by the Town of Carbondale, questions about construction costs, maintenance, timing, right-of- way and easement dedications remain. The trail alignment on Dolores Way also needs resolution of questions associated with cost of construction, maintenance and timing for implementation to ensure that the alternate route is provided. 6. These key topics and solutions to the Review Criteria may warrant coordination between jurisdictions along with potential financial commitments from affected parties including CRMS. VI. SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS A. Approval of the Location and Extent Review and recommendation for approval of the Roadway Vacation Request would include the following suggested findings: 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 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 and 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 4-111, Location and Extent of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. 6. 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. B. Disapproval of the Location and Extent and Roadway Vacation Request would include the following suggested findings. 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning Commission. 10 2. That the hearing before the Planning Commission 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 and 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. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS OPTION 1: Approval with Conditions This option would involve the Approval of the Location and Extent Request and a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for Conditional Approval of the Roadway Vacation Request. Some of the draft conditions noted below may require additional meetings with affected utilities, the Town of Carbondale and the Applicants to effectively implement the conditions. A Planning Commission motion related this option should include authorization for the Chairman to sign the Planning Commission Resolution. 1. The Planning Commission approval is based upon the representations of the Applicant contained in the application submittals and made during the Planning Commission 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 and future utility providers. The easement documents shall be prepared by the Applicant, reviewed and accepted by each existing utility company and the Town of Carbondale, reviewed and accepted by the County Attorney's Office prior to finalizing the vacation of the right-of-way. The easement shall include the potential for installations by future utility providers and shall be subject to additional utility location surveys including but not limited surveys currently being completed by Century Link. 3. CRMS shall formalize an Agreement with the Town of Carbondale and Garfield County setting forth the terms and agreements associated with additional trail improvements to be constructed along Dolores Way. 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 11 existing trail within the Town limits on Dolores Way. The Agreement shall formalize maintenance responsibilities for the new trail segment. Alternate Option for Inclusion in Condition #3 The Agreement shall also include dedication of 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. 4. The Agreement shall also formalize CRMS's representation regarding campus access by the creation of a new access easement on the original County Road 106 right-of-way which easement and related agreement would set forth terms for allowing pedestrian and bicycle access during normal daylight hours and would set forth CRMS's rights to limit access as necessary to ensure safety of the CRMS campus. 5. 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. 6. 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. OPTION 2: Disapproval Action on the part of the Planning Commission to Disapprove the Location and Extent Request and the Vacation of a County Road request would require a motion of disapproval including reference to the suggestion disapproval findings noted above. Said findings make reference to nonconformance with the review criteria. The action by the Commission would be formalized by preparation of a Planning Commission Resolution and the Commission's motion should include authorization for the Chairman to sign the resolution. OPTION 3: Continuation of the Public Hearing Based on the level of detail and options for consideration provided in the Application submittals and referral comments, a onetime continuation by the Planning Commission is considered a viable option. The continuation would allow more detailed consideration of the several alternate trail options that have been identified. The Commission's continuation would be to the March 12th Planning Commission Meeting and would require a Waiver of Review Timelines from the Applicant and acceptance by the County Attorney's Office. 12 VIEWS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY South Entrance 13 North End of the ROW 14 116 -�'►" `• : i �:= el 11281120H s v' -,.- North End of the ROW 15 Trail Alignment on Dolores Way Existing Trail on Dolores Way 16 -!* 1 tr: I -4: " • CRUS flOUNDARY 14- --_•41-110041* VtA I • i I r 4 " • .114;4 t 4 t...7.‘7 ;• .; • I gtlAt ii? Cr) O N U O (' O � 11-'1 u U 2L-4 .� o � cu a, a) Qa; 4.4 CiLi 46 cu Fi3 t.4!4 c� a� a3 O 'CC O Q tip tip oa);-4 '� •O �'� CU ci; u 0 c( cyl° L- 1_)4 �Ov cz UCI)— V•� ct O� ct 7—t CU 73 cn Fz; 60 0 cn � ›,`A 0 't v 74) El C 0�0 o al o ���bA uoo • u ;_ aC cc5 co 7:1 u — tJD 00.4.. cg tl .n Off• � 00 'co (Saoer MM. 1111, IMO. ell 4.'1 INIINIWIW as u X CU CU CU 0 U 0 ,- (5 4 O N r+ w cJi o� cri0 rzstr) cucucu r—I CU o o,.0`-4 w - 4- aAcu c o o a i O cn u vvu z..,'O 0 vi X 1ziI CU 0 4 cu o (, v aA ,�u • P-1 5occl v. . o•� ° 0 °�•v l .L) �vE 0 11-4 CUVu° v v r O Ct CU CU v Q v o •v 4 c E O •v-.1 c� r-4 '4-1 tit biD • o1-0 v) 4- o O �� O CO TU1 .94 M MEW • rr-•' 0O Tici .R4 u 0 •(;24 -'-' Ct V , • ° CJ1 ':1 IvO , 00 b4 4-0• MCI) v CU EL4 "Li a)•cuO r.•boa) • � su U te,. ca 4-J N v_o ,0 bA 5 ,0 .n' il) O•� O� biD v u O a) •4-6 cuO a, 4-4 CO cu ,4 pct btJ� .4g ° cu O• cn cU -�' O cts 0:4g'' o� w u74,, .4 •a, al -0 ,.c 0 C��so� in Urban Growth Areas Goal, Policies a E o 'v r,vo E>�•?0 X • 7:$ 9 a.) •,--1 U ' .41 •� U v Cf) a 0 ci.) u 7,5, e :u O r x, E O O v p -40f; Chapter 3 Section 1 Urban Growth Areas and Intergovernmental Coordination O .r' O (n • U t o- a)� .�� cn • O u .G ct , m 'RIC OO O O CIC: U of v • v -J co u O a .477'4. cu • -0 u •O 4 t 0 a ao o cu ,z 05 o >¢" 0 a,Y4' a. cin . U Chapter 3 Section 3 Transportation n O 4 bo (C O J .i,cn 0 v v O o.•.z °ct �� o~ 0 3°; v �� CU O > -►� � .4d 0 O i-4 u V > cuC V) �' O cc 8 cu — r tjj E o (cz I -0 CU %.4-4 (n (Ci o ✓ -. VI aJ -� uc O u 0 0 ✓ 0cc et ct eco• O u u� a) 4., r-ca� CU .o f 0 v •-C' a, ca •_ CU Cil v O .4-., .:� v 60 Z E bA co no .b • u '*3F°'., ' (�) ' 0 ., 0 v 64 o <$. $. 4., 1;,..el ,:-4 �O aO s °' �� u �•> GOO Q") g 0 - 12,_,,,=. � � 04 0 O ,n>.2 cn� u� 0 cn �Go If , p.M L,.., CU .1:1 •Z 0 cuw ' CI) -C r- v N aJ aJ hi p -O J (� .2•> t1i J ual• d CO ccf 0 11 (� -C ;� .- C7 3 cn C.7 (( ai 0 0 0 0 Z£ CU O v O D "47,' (A 17)' 171j u 41 O IX •� �• �� c v Ucf (15 u au • 0;�•O u 44 u,v p.G (1-) c•-: E'er.ucu • v . ar.0 cu �cf) 0 • r,uv 0 MI O 4 1.; O w 1Q v CV, t 4tP§. I .4'4eg .5 tit • • N "--+ •CD•-" Q1 f,`"` -4v �E: oO O cu v).-��� ND FA cu u) CU �v.., cz x Acu E—+U'�;� t)4 cu o °� �t'rvc�u H• a4C1) � vCri't, O � � �� c8 p b 0 • ilH cn 0 0 4) 4) O CZ GO p 4) �COCZ ••C cn � 4.) O O . 0 c'J Q � L . JJ 4) U c) � � o; (f)� � � • V.; O G Z'- CL)- 4.) 0 E O EL z, 4)� b0 C .� C O O ,,, C ,v .�, U v ZI rr Ui '� U ,� NO J C -4., 4 r O �', p) -� b0� -� O� *4•.a N r �•• C U 'y ~ O cn "� C pp N . v � � -C rj) U N ',.."_••,. L - DO 4) ;Z 4) - Lr %) .►.... 4) C C b4 o sZ oti, o�� oc„•!•- 0 t--, C PC '� �+ C ', '� .. Z O O c.i� `+per -fl C • �-�� C 0 O U.O.- U U OO V C; f 1 t4.: OCU p Oj,' U `h U'C�C - c) U .::, i i.i • F, "r;'• ,.) c, g .z1 5:, ,:q g o o � o � � p — u • ch ' U �Uv :U�0. 0 b4 „C N o 4 . , c� W cr, ZZ. O 16. t;� •- 4) 4) O z �„ (/)) 4� - +., t" X151 A„U Z P NO • •N N v tit • 0 O 745, v Ct •--v� O cLS~., CD4 -1 E '� • 4J ><-5 v �O 3 � •o Lo O O U N N 4 o 4 U u 0 V V • - cd U o Q, 0 V cd o t 'L3 O � ct U •-o- u V 0,.s4 moocu ccS) 0> 0 ri rz- 0 o o1 4.9`4 PU • ce;•d g 0 c) 0.4 0 cf' G v G 0 7'4 v N E O V 4J ( cG0c 0 ave v (75 -o2 Ivo cl.) 00 4_, © di O u Cu ci) CD O •G v 745' 8 oct$7j �U v N oUcG •a. • • • cjj CU et 0 c LJ Tizs 0 .s -)4 .r+ ' N (I) G, r � Ct CU, 5>,�� cin 5 0� .� r rir CC O O .2 ..., cn +, G O �, a) C PCZ. ° =62 .4 �[• Oar �b �Cr ' 164�u ,d es .fl 0 O ,O CU act twp s. aCt sQu M3 CI) 1.4 RI o4c�oo� .5.5 � ,.0 ,r) O 75„ cu 77-4 > H°'.EH-s,v12 + U cn +, � tx .,.3-4 ) O a CZ7-1 cu 0� (1 rC -!Z2, 0 0 CZ CO U�CI) 0aa ccaor- • C1.�":5Qa 0,b .� .� • .t? a ct UcZ��-� v-,00°O� a0C~ o cc".0 O .� c 7U 7 N 'baa r' 00 C •1 «5- v � '•Z u b!(ms • .e4 e c) u v o �- iS';z1- j al cts • °0two `� .� cu (/'4 bOV� 7.-1 0 CZ CI'S • 4., 4, 3 Alternate Option for Inclusion in Condition #3 Cn v U72) 8 cz O a • rz om «S + N v o • cu O 0M O O">' 'C3 3 ux aN o ^16� >v U a a O .— U c� (1) r G a O HUQ ._ v— vpRO bfJvX b>J 0 bA�� T) ,,OOU 'OHO OU C) aJ • od�- O N Cn 3v U a• �J` v5 • tC3 CU co � b�DQ 6,0 ���� V V V co ZZ!) v P v • O QJ Cu ›, CD ,=,' O 4.4� ch .as U LA v CO -� p�0,4E T,,¢, vo cu u c up v (t O iu ° 0 �o ct — s~ O �• u �U CA 0 0,V 4J U cz sial V u ^� CU N as n N cl Q w ►717-, "!' E <4 2 too UOVm2o TS p 0-4 GJ v u� r •b Ch r80I44 v�0., -oma HQ°; for an Access .16 w 0 0 6 76 o v o cn CZ; 0 () o CA v 41::: `ter 0.4 o 6� a cv 0-4 o ri t 0 'E (') a, w .7 au A • al 4 O 0 i t 0 u 0 U i, OPTION 3: Continuation of the Public v ✓ ✓, 0 0 00 0 s,L) o Ems, 4- as 1. v o • v� O 0 0u o v a 1 w 0 .� a 0 .4:: 6.0 cCi (3) 0c0 (75 (U� 0a) cL $0 o v 8 tics 0 cn CU . .0 TOI 44:1 v a.) o o U a v �, January 31, 2014 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 www.carbonda legov. oig (970) 963-2733 Fax: (970) 963-9140 EXHIBIT 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 concerned 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 altemative 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 Commission, 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. 244 of 288 TOWN OF CARBONDALE 511 COLORADO AVENUE 'CARBONDALE, CO 81623 Board of Trustees Agenda Memorandum Meeting Date: 1-28-14 TITLE: Garfield County Referral re: CRMS application to Vacate County Road 106 SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT: 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 January 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 elev;n (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 or position of the streej 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 concem 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 Satank residents. The 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 the 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. ➢ 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 January 28, 2014 TI' Garfield County Referral - CRMS application to Vacate County Road 106 tiJ i 3 i i 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: 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. CAMS indicates that this is not an attempt to not allow access to campus, but to have more control due to safety concems 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 Jackel mentioned a discussed considered proposal held over a decade ago regarding 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 serve CRMS students and faculty, as well 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. D 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 Comev to recommend acceptance of this CR -106 vacation, along with the acceptance of the new CRMS path 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 Henrv. D Further Discussions: Marty Silverstein wants some assurances that CRMS maintains this new path as a public path to maintain access. ➢ 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 less that 20 to 30 people per day that use this CR -106 easement. D 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 hersetf if something bad were to happen on campus due to allowing public access to the campus resulting in a security breach. D If a new CRMS trail is built located on the eastem 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 Jacket Jay Harrington Town Manager 253 of 288 TOWN OF CARBONDALE �BlroIItte ���� �(, BTJC \Vo It1� 5 .511 Colorado Alum: 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 0 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 RE: Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Vacation of County Road 106 Dear Glenn: EXHIBIT 1 ,t 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 • 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, 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 Cell 1 107 8"` Street GCenwoodSyrings, CO 81601 Phone: 970-945-0453 Fax: 970-945-6430 January 29, 2014 SHERIFF OF GARFIELD COUNTY LOU VLLARJO Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Vacation of County Road 106 through Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRMS) Attention: Glenn Hartmann EXHIBIT /3 io6 County Road 333-. t Rifa, CO 81650 Phone: 97o -665-020o Fax: 97o-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. rely, / 0-1 James . Sears Emergency Operations Sergeant Garfield County Sheriff's Office (------ MOUINTfiI 410 ENGINNEER K‘,...____ _______I Civil and Eiwlronsnenta! 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: Consulting and Dosign 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, Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Chris Hale, PE 826'/2 Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 8160i 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 EXHIBIT 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 Source Gas Field Coordinator Glenwood Springs, CO 970 -928 -0407 -Office 303 -243 -3794 -FAX 1 Multi -Modal Mobility EXHIBIT 1 !b 1. Introduction This section of the plan provides a framework for attaining a continuous, well conrie. ted ;ysiem 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 more 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 even more options to the multi -modal system. . Multi -Modal Mobility Goals and Strategies Throughout Town * 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 multi -modal corridors and priority connections (Figure 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3). 33 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 plan 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. Landscape! Walk . Stip , Parallel Parkin/ Dive Lane 1' Drive Lana / Parallel Parking! Sala Walk' I Figure 3.1a -- Example street design customized for 60ft right of way width 34 Walk rainage Parallel Pkg. f Drive Lane , Drive Lane Diagonal Parking f r Landscas:e Figure 3.1b – Example street design customized for 70ft right of way width Multi -Mobility Goals and Strategies for the Highway 133 Corridor Walk * Indicates a top community priority. Strategies 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 B - Prioritize safe highway crossings to access bus stops. Strategy C - Establish a new multi -modal street connection between 8th Street and Highway 133 north of 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 width can accommodate these facilities and minimize driveway curb cuts across them to limit conflicts. Strategy B - Manage highway access to minimize driveway cuts and 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 function of the highway for automobiles. Strategy A - Improve the safety and functionality of town street intersections with Highway 133. Strategy 8 - Balance safe and convenient automobile access to and from properties along the highway with safe pedestrian and bike mobility. Strategy C - Develop access to bus stops that does not impede the flow of traffic or endanger motorists, cyclists or pedestrians. 35 1 1 1 Industry 1 1 nr Lin: B w - •• in? r RR t a Wirya n ♦ a IT: y. +NW* ATTEuclid! l��W: f .: ureyslono . h �• `r' i*iii rT7tK ad 14 • _•q Figure 3.3 Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings - Priority Multi -Modal Corridors Future Connections Crossings 1.6:2 Town Boundary Streets Public Recreation Land County Roads CAEsoRDdL: 0.0e tft cowrw:wcirmrc rum N Existing Pathways and Sidewalks Pathway Sidewalks Both Sides Sidewalk One Side • Town Boundary -- Streets - Public Recreation Land CountyRoads ;41Z11D.AL: 1 oo�4 K P2J 37 CAABOHDAL Ab 74 Protected Lands and Signficant Private Parcels Town of Carbondale Periphery I. Conservation Easements Significant Parcels Public Lands u 5 6.25 u G 51 MGs CARBORDALM &etirnito COMMICIIICAISIVIC Pour Town Periphery Future Land Use Designations — Phase 1 Potential Annexation: Infill Areas - Phase 2 Potential Annexation: Will Areas Phase 3 Potential Annexation: Conservation Development %/ River Corridor and Floodplain Conservation Areas Priority Agricultural Lands N 75 Small ScaleConservation Design Sbdivision Figure 4.32 - 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 ir, 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 Potentia! Annexation - Infill 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 Level of Difficulty 1) Gateway enhancements. 1) With the exception of CRMS lands, phase 1 area:. 2) Infill and redevelopment. are already mostly developed and ownership is frag- mented, complicating annexation. 3) Sales tax revenues from existing and future retail uses. 2) The Town would need to promote incentives for owners of residential and commercial lots in phase 4) Establish contiguity with larger, intact parcels for 1 areas to petition for annexation: utilities/services, future annexations. better zoning, law enforcement. 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 River 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 Downtown/Old-Town Periphery Future Land Use Plan designation, listed earlier in the future land use plan. • Colorado Rocky Mountain School (CRINIS) 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. CRINIS 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 or on property designated as Infill 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 sewer 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 Level of Difficulty 1) Infill and redevelopment. 2) Establish contiguity with larger, intact parcels for future annexations. 3) Eliminate individual septic disposal systems. 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- des (See Chapter 5 Background Information). 77 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. Trail Connections - Gateway Pk. to Rio Grande Trail Extend CRMS Main Street Trail to Hwy. 133 RVR Parks Improvements: bridges, picnic area, river bank: restoration Renovate outdoor pool 3rd Street Community Partnership Park Gus Darien Riding Arena improvements and expansion Carbondale Nature Park development USES 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- plan 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 - Gus Darien Riding Arena 83 N44 14 • • • • • I ' . t 'l" • k ). le; •• Completed August 2004 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 1/4 mile trail 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 CRAMS 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 Place 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 CIP 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 be 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 Plan August 2004 Page 122 State Hi hway 133 Access Control Plan EXHIBIT 1 1 gi ES.1 Executive Summary SH 133 CARBONDALE RCCESS CONTROL PLAT: Recent growth in Garfield County (County) and specifically in and around the Town of Carbondale (Town) has resulted in an increase in traffic on the State Highway (SN) 133, which passes through the middle of the Town. Looking to the future, traffic volumes in the area are expected to increase by more than 55% in the next 20 years Without changes to the study roadways, the protected increase in traffic volumes will result In increased delay. higher levels of congestion and pollution, an increase in the number of accidents. and consumers choosing to conduct their business in other comniuiiities FI.Irthermore, the ACP was developed in an effort to assist the Town achieve Its goal of providing safe movement for all roadway users, including pedestrian and brcycrists Thus the final recommendations of the ACP do not prohibit the implementation of future non -motorized facilities In 2012, the Town County. and Region 3 of the Colorado Depa.nnmlent of Transportation (CCO T) successfully developed an access control plan (ACP) whicr, will guide the agencies decisions regarding the future access conditions and support the planning objectives of the Town County and CURT The ACP was developed through an extensive collaborative effort between the stakeholders, a significant public outreach effort to ensure all concerns were heard and appropriately addressed. and informational presentations to elected officials The final recommendations of the ACP provide benefit to four primary areas of the transportation system operations. safety multi -modal, and future improvements Some of the riiajol findings and benefits of the ACP include • Implementation of the ACP most likely t0 occur in a phased approach will reduce congestion and delay on the roadway through the addition of additional capacity turn lanes and turn restrictions at appropriate locations. which will extend the life of the existing roadway and delay the reed to expand the roadway width • Changes in access conditions Such as the elimination of an access or restriction on the type of turn movements allowed at a specific location are identified These recon-+mendat,ons will result in a reduction in the number of conflict points (locations where vehicles and/or pedestrians cross paths with each other) which will Improve overall safety for all transportation modes • Intersections that may warrant the need for a traffic signal or conversion to a roundabout In the future are also clearly identified These changes ill traffic coriifol will (educe the severity of accidents provide a safety benefit to pedestriansrbrcyclists. make left -turns or u -luras safer and easier to accomplish, reduce vehicle speeds and reduce the overall width of the roadway (no auxiliary lanes are required at roundabouts) • The recommendations and conclusions contained in the ACP 00 not prohibit future irriprovements to the transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities in and around the Town • The recommendations and conclusions contained Ir, the ACP do not prohibit futule improvements to the roadway system in and around the Town Efforts were made to identify possible tuture connectivity or roads which meet the future planning goals of Inc Town and County Another key part of the ACP is the identification of the implementation process It is important to remember that the ACP Is Intended to represent 8 long range plan for the study roadways Implementation of the full plan can occur as a single project or over the long ter rn In smaller increments as a phased approach Implementation of the full plan at a single tin -le is unlikely to be teasible and would only occur as part of a transportation improvement project that included all of the study roadways The most likely approach will be Implementation of Interim roadway improvements that would delay the need to implement the ultimate recommendations of the ACP Implementing a two -way -left -turn -lane (TWLTL) for portions of the study roadways is one way that the Town could prolong the life of the existing roadway E 1 ATKINS ACCESS CONTROL PLAN State Highway. 133 Access Control Plan COOT, the Town, and the County are cr.nrently pursuing improvements to the SH 133 corridor north of Main Street, including the possible implementation of roundabouts at critical intersections The ability for CDOT, the Town, and the County to fully implement improvements is accounted for in the access control plans final recommendations The next phase of the implementation would be to identify locations where raised medians, traffic signals, roundabouts. or other forms of traffic control are warranted The most common trigger for the phased approach relates to when a property along SH 133 develops, redevelops, or it a driveway experiences a traffic volume increase of 20 percent or more all of which require a new CDDT access permit 1 he final aspect of the implementation 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 access will be penrtitted in the ultimate ACP Access will be provided to the property as shown on the ACP unless it is not feasible to implement at the time of the development Then, an interim access will be permitted. which will change once the ultimate access conditions can be achieved Finally, the process used to develop the ACP was collaborative and thorough. ensuring the many needs of the different stakeholders were considered at each step of the way The proper balance between the different interests resulted in an ACP that was easily adopted by the local elected officials and fully meets CDOT expectations and requirements Implementation of the ACP (full or phased) will • Provide the appropriate level of access to properties adjacent to the study roadways • Provide safer circulation routes for all forms of transportation (vehicular transit, and pedestrian) • Keep circulation routes consistent with the Town's goals for future development • Provide efficient movement of traffic and other modes of transportation within rhe study area • Provide a balance between the investment in alternative transportation modes and Vehicular transportation modes • Provide design flexibility including the ability to rake a phased approach to improvements that will minimize inefficiencies in the construction of overdesrgned roadway widths and lengths • Provide optimal access with the potential ro reduce tare number and severity of accidents involving vehicles andror pedestrians and bicyclists • Reduee the delay experienced by motorists, pedestrians and other alternative modes of transportation • Reduce air pollution created by congested traffic conditions • Reduce the number of consumers conducting business elsewhere ATKINS 4 . i -.:%:.4- SH 133 CARBONDALE ACCESS CONTROL PIAN State Nrahway 133 Access Control Plan Figure 12. Recorurnended access locations (Sheet 2 of 7) Ulimate ACP Recommendations Full Movement (Signal/Roundabout) Full Movement (Not to be signalized) 3/4 movement (no left turn) /\ Right -in, right -out only Right -in only At, Right -out only X Close Access Emergency Access Only Potential Future Roads Existing Pathways Future Pathways H Required Cross Access C.13 Town Limits Parcels Page 2 of 7 (V ATKINS 34 SH 133 CARBONDALE ACCESS CONTROL PIAN State Highway. 1.33 Access Control Plan 7.4. Accident analysis Although future accidents cannot be accurately predicted, the recommendations of rhe ACP will have an Impact on the overall safety of the study roadway by reducing the number of conflict points and providing better traffic control at intersections The ACP will have an impact on safety because the recommendations reduce the number of conflict points along the study roadway A conflict point is the location where the paths of two roadway users (vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists) cross each other The ACP makes recommendations that reduce the number of locations where paths of the different users cross each other The following are examples of i_rmflict point reductions • Conversion of access from full -movement to right -in, right -out • Restriction of access from full -movement to movement • Combining multiple access driveways Into a single shared driveway All of these examples eliminate conflict points along the roadways By reducing the number of possible conflict points along a roadway, fewer accidents are expected to occur resulting in a safer roadway Pedestrians and bicyclists will have fewer intersections 10 cross and locations where they will not have to worry about left -turning vehicles The ACP also identifies several intersections that niay require a change in traffic control such as the Installation of a traffic signal or roundabout in the h.rti.rre The changes in traffic control can have a positive impact on the overall safety of a roadway While traffic signals may result in a higher number of rear end accidents. they also provide an opportunity to reduce the number of left -turning related crashes by providing protection for left -turning movements Traffic signals also provide a safer crossing opportunity for pedestrtansibicyclists as they will he able to cross the roadway with the protection of the signal Roundabouts also provide a much safer intersection experience for vehicle operations as they reduce the seventy of crashes wnute providing a safe location for drivers to make left turns or u -turns to reach their destinations Roundabouts reduce vehicle speeds and reduce the overall width of the roadway (no auxiliary lanes are required) that rhe pedestrianibicyclrsts must cross They also provide some safety benefits for pedestrians and bicyclists as well The recommendations for changes to access along SH 133 should have an overall benefit to the safety of the study roadway In the future Even as traffic volumes contaiue to increase. the reduction in ,L:crifIici points and the introduction, of better traffic control along the study roadway will gave a positive impact On the overall safety for the different modes of transportation 7.5. Alternative transportation modes The recommendations and conclusions contained in the SH 133 ACP do not prohibit future improvements to the transit bicycle and pedestrian facilities in and around the Town Although not specifically addressed in the ACP. Figure 11 through Figure 17 show areas where the Town plans to Improve the pedestrian/bicyclist facilities parallel to and near SH 133 within Town borindanes The ACP does identify areas where new sidewalks/pathways could be added to the system to eliminate gaps and improve overall connectivity for non -motorized travelers In the area where new facilities could be added, It is not necessary that the facilities be constructed directly adjacent to the roadway. but that as development oCcurS the Town should work with the property ov1•ner to ensure that the final design provides for pedestrian facilities to be constructed The facilities may be along the back of the property or through the middle of the property, as long as the gaps are eliminated Improvements to the pedestrian/bicycle path system should be accomplished through the development/redevelopment process and should be a requirement for Inclusion before protects are accepted or notice to occupy is issued The Town. County, and CDOT should work together to make sure that ATKINS 42 State Highway 133 Access Control Plan SH 133 CARBONDALE nccEss CONTROL PLAN roadway improvements within the study area include improvements to existing facilities or addition of new facilities in an effort to • Meet the Town's goals • Complete connectivity in and through the area Encourage alternative modes of transportation • Provide safe and efficient movements of non -motorized movements the area RFTA participated in the project during the early development phase of the project and provided thoughts regarding possible impacts to transit service in the area The following critical comments were provided by RFTA • Better connectivity of pedestrian bicycle facilites to stops • Roadway improvements should not hinder bus operations Although these issues are not specifically addressed to an ACP they are important issues that sriould be planned for as this area continues to grow and develop The recommendations contained in the ACP would not prohibit the improvements that would address RFTA's concerns As previously discussed. improvements to the sldewalksipathways to eliminate gaps and provide better connectivity would riot only improve safety but could promote the use of transit services and help reduce the volume of traffic oil the study roadway Future improvements to the study roadway could be designed to provide bus pull outs. which would improve safety for the buses and the transit riders as they enter and exit the buts Finally, transit vehicles are on schedules and with the introduction of traffic control devices such as traffic signals and/or roundabouts there is rhe potential to introduce decay tor the transit vehicles Proper design of roadway laneage roundabout sizing, and signal timing could he accomplished in a manner io minimize possible delay to transit vehicles and thus not hinder operations or scheduling of services It should be noted the Town wants to maintain a friendly environment for alternative modes of transportation, especially pedestrians and bicyclists The Towr, would also Ike to see the audition of a future Local transit circulator service to the community While the development of an ACP is anticipated to have many benefits for automobile traffic the Town gives equal importance. to the circulation of alternative modes Implementation of the ACP should consider methods such as colored crosswalks safe crossings at signalized intersections separated:orotected areas for crossing over under busy roadways Or waterways signage to encourage roadway sharing, and implementation of bicycle lanes. all have the potential to assist the Town in achieving the goals as set forth in the Town's Comprehensive Plan 7.6. Future roadway connectivity Figure 11 through Figure 17 include opportunities for roadways that would help improve the overall connectivity of the transportation system These new roads were identified based on future developments input from stakeholders. and in an effort to provide drivers with choices on how to get to their final destinations so mar local traffic rnaktng local tops may be able 10 do so without the use of SH 133 This will reduce the traffic volumes an SH 133 and may help extend the life span of the existing system and delay the need to make capacity related improvements to SH 133 The future roadways displayed in the figures are concepts of where more connectivity could occur in the future The exact location and design of these roadways would need to be determined by completion of a more detailed traffic analysis at the time of the improvements 11 should be noted the potential future roadways shown ori the ACP should be included in the ongoing Comprehensive Plan being completed by the Town ATKINS 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 Will 134 Sopris Ave Carbondale Garfield County resident and voter Febuary 4th, 2014 EXHIBIT 20 .Glen Hartman and Planning and Zoning members: I am writing a hurried letter today, February 4`h 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 7 Spence 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: EXHIBIT 21 I 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. 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 qhartmann@,garfield-county.com Re: 106 Road crossing CRMS campus. EXHIBIT 1 22 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(a�sopris.net Glenn Hartmann 1Z3 From: Pat Bingham [pat.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@a,pitkincounty.com> Date: February 4, 2014 at 4:20:42 PM MST To: "ghartmann@garfieldcounty.com" <ghartmann@,garfieldcounty.com> Subject: : CRMS Road Hi Glen, 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. 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 Esuereally@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 4:11 PM To: Glenn Hartmann Subject: Proposal to Vacate CR106 Through CRMS Dear Mr. Hartmann, EXHIBIT iv1 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. 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 EXHI T i To The Garfield County Planning and Zoning Board and the Garfield County Commissioners, I 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. I am a trails ranger by profession. Hands down, the most dangerous and unpleasant trail link 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 fife 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 turn 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. 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, EXHIBIT J24 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 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 60 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: McSchooler, Tillmon B [tillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:57 PM To: • Glenn Hartmann Subject: 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 ortrailer units are allowed on the easement. If you should have any questions about this matter, please don't hesitate to call me. Thank you, Tifton McSchooler Xcel Energy 1 Responsible By Nature Designer -,Engineering 2538 Blichmann Ave. Grand Junction, CO 81505 P: 970.244.2695 0: 970.270.1953 F: 970.244.2661 E: tillmon.mcschooler@xcelenergy.com XCELENERGY.COM Please consider the environment before printing this email. 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 EXHIBIT I 3Z 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 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:andy(@whbconstruction.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.utter@gmail.com] 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 Hi Glenn - EXHIBIT 11 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://www.railstotrails.org/resources/documents/resource docs/Safe%20Communities F Ir.pdf Thanks - Dale Will, Carbondale 1 R*i L-TRAI LS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES THE EXPERIENCE ON 372 TRAILS RAI L-TRAI LS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES The Experience on 372 Trails RAILS 1RII CONSERVANCY 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. © 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 CONTENTS 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 Rail Trails 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 19 FIGURES Figu, c 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. ♦t♦ 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. Rnri TRAH, tarn SAIF COM/NAM-41T 11 1 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 better than they expected and also better than living near unused rail corridors. A recent survey of residents near the Mohawk- Hudson ohawkHudson 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 (12%), 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%, 44%, 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. RAILS -TO -TRAILS CONSERVANCY 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 local patroler 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- cies' 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. RAIZ TRAIL, ANI, SAI1 COMMUNITIES 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.' 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. 4R/111.S-TO TRAILS CONStRVANCY TABLE 1 Comparisons of Incidence Rate of Major Crimes on Rail -trails to U.S. Crime Rates. MAJOR CRIMES ON RAIL -TRAILS URBAN RAI L -TRAILS 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. ✓ The national rate of urban muggings is 335 per 100,000 inhabitants; two urban rail - trails reported muggings (26 incidents) in 1995 and only one trail reported muggings (15 incidents) in 1996. ✓ 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). ✓ 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. ♦ 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. 1995 1995 1995 CRIME Notional' Rail-frails2 National' Rai -Trails' National' Pail -Trois' 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) Forcible 43 0.04 (1995) 29 0.00 (1995) 26 0.01 (1995) Rape 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; FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1945. 2. Note: rates per 100,000 users; RTC survey results. MAJOR CRIMES ON RAIL -TRAILS URBAN RAI L -TRAILS 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. ✓ The national rate of urban muggings is 335 per 100,000 inhabitants; two urban rail - trails reported muggings (26 incidents) in 1995 and only one trail reported muggings (15 incidents) in 1996. ✓ 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). ✓ 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. ♦ 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. 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. ✓ 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 mugging 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 RAIL -TRAILS 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 per 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. • 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. VVV 6 RAILS -TO -TRAILS CONSERVANCY 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 I took part in a community clean-up day.....By the end of the mile and a half, we had found ONE piece of litter almost too small to have noticed. ...once you leave the path and continue where the railway line had been, the trash and graffiti are overwhelming." — 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 Percent of Trails Reporting Major Crimes 1996 10% — 8% — 6% — 4% — 2% — 0% -L I • r—r—� I I Mugging Assault Rape Murder OUrban OSuburban ■Rural minor effect on the trail and usually did not harm 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 has not caused any inconvenience to property owners along the trail. The residents seem to enjoy having the trail near their homes." — 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 follow.? The results are presented in Table 2 and followed by a discussion. Many trails close at dark and patrols help to clear them. (Karen Stewart) RAIL-TBAILS ANI SAF[ CUMMUNITI[s % 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. CRIME 7 National' Rad-Trais2 National' Rall-Trods2 Notional' Rod-Trais2 BURGLARY 1,117 0.00% 820 0.01% 687 0.01% TRESPASSING N/A 5% N/A 3% N/A 4% GRAFFITI N/A 26% N/A 17% N/A 12% UTTERING N/A 24% i N/A 24% N/A 25% SIGN DAMAGE N/A 22% N/A 22% N/A 23% MOTORIZED USE N/A 18% N/A 14% N/A j 23% 1. Note Rates per 100,000 population FBI Uniform Crime Reports tor 1995 tor 1995 for burglary. 2. Note: rates per 100,000 users; RTC survey results for burglary. Results for other crime types reported as percentage of !rods 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; nhabitants; 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. 8 RAII', TO -TRAILS CONSERVANCY 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. ✓ 3% of suburban trails reported trespassing. • 17% of the suburban trails reported graffiti. • 24% of the trails reported littering. ✓ 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. ✓ 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. ♦ 23% of the rural trails reported unauthorized motor use. RECOMMENDATIONS 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 for 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 10 Rnii. to -1 RAM C<'NI .rrvnrr,, 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 Capital 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. RAIL -TRAILS ANI> SAIL COMMUNITIES 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. YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER TRAI L -NORTH PENNSYLVANIA Three local trail councils, headed by the Regional Trail Corporation, coordinate monitoring teams for the 23 -mile 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 Mon/Yough 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 MARYLAN D 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 team, 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. RAIL -TRAITS AND SAri. COMMUNITH•1 i 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 lots, 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 CRIME 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 PARK/FIELD/ PLAYGROUND LOCAUOM (% OF TOTAL) PARKING GARAGE/LOT INSIDE YOUR HOME ON STREET (1988) RAPE (1990) (1991) (1992) 6.6 0.5 1.1 8.5 7.9 3.4 4.2 6.5 25.0 35.0 26.8 16.3 23.3 30.2 10.4 38.3 (1988) 3.0 11.6 14.0 48.3 ROBBERY (1990) (1991) 3.0 3.6 12.7 11.9 9.4 9.5 48.6 51.2 (1992) 6.4 13.6 10.1 20.7 (1988) 3.6 0.3 15.1 30.5 ASSAULT (1990) (1991) 4.0 4.0 7.9 10.7 13.4 10.7 31.9 29.7 (1992) 4.4 7.3 7.3 32.3 Note Percentages do not odd to 100 because not all location categories aro listed. Source Staahcal Abstract of the United stoles, various years 14 r ..• 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. RAII.-TRAIIS AND SAF( COMMUNITII•. 15 APPENDIX A: LETTERS FROM LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES CITY OF NORTH AUGUSTA A q n- ig-i It 440sgV)1 If lb a� 3 !IP-' r" lili s=E S 1$- i 1 m gYAL '112 E °ESkc 5 BF°e 5 I5j 5.11 � F E1 3 Ti 16 Rnrr.s-TO-TPAII CON“ rv,\NcY r1 O 01,O ONO U ry WO .CU OM m 0140. .N. . E m o YOWu ud0 OIX N N 0 .+ L.. 00 m O N.+a X IC. -s Oa Dear Mr. Morris, I came to Louisville in August of 1991 as the Chief of Police At that time, the City was completing plane for the conversio of an old railway line to a walking path. I was concerned fo the safety of citizens due, in part, to the remote area tha was trave.rs.d by thn line. I strongly encouraged the placemen of emergency call boxes along the walkway. The call boxes wer never installed. 141 Nath Main Street • Juneau. WI 53039.1072 • Phone 14141388-3720 • FAX (4141386.3742 RAIZ YRAII; ANI! 5Aff CC)MMUNITIIS 17 OL W C u 0 03 a 4 O 0 6.... .0 32 00• ao ax 0u ooY v? me aft aw 00 m 0 3E 0.. a0 0 V VVV 0 y M V. 0'-1 2 Ma L ]0 0 O .1,61TO a 3 y M .. C 0yEC O] :8 C0>>. 00 ma 0 .. 0 .. M ] 00' VZ 4M 26,C y uL' > E a Y • l .CL >4,0 U w..2!! .. 0 y C pp�1 6 0 Sincerely yours, e NE Poon 14151 927.5150 0 0 MN 0 V0 M N O O 0 0 -C' U N 4M0 0 • 4• 000 £0040 .0.0>O0 .. rnu V.. ]MVI0. C • 100.0.0 E 40..1 1 Re: Railroad Corridors 0j YmYy (.l M 11 01100 O.0 4 M]Yc O' 4 .a ...4 C !2.2c:v 0 u� M 4 . 01Y 0'00 :F80 80 G 0 4 u O y ry U 0 C 4 0 m 4 0 Y O Y C T. ~ V 0 a• O C O O n T yj u • uu q .m uQ 000 3> 3 u m V 00.'.00 4 '• .•00' w3 :9.!.-'6, m M yti 0 " CIM "11'04: 0• 4"0, Oti 0 = C 0 L0'O 02.02 MMCM i C4 • wT.: 00 r.0 g1u3OD ..10.0c� C>•u m0 V 0 0 Y 0 0 3 .y mFuF ] L 0 0 u 0 a 0> U w a 4 0 OY =ITV C 8:71;,140 0 0.0 M O 0 3 uu3z >1.20o ay E 3 O O o E N E 314,!4:1 �� 0 0 M 0 Y m 3 .. >c > as � >C,0 p40 V 0 C y 4 C.O d y Om u 9 Q 0 4 C a UCU�.a'a and • 0'.'0404.0 '":04.;"4> u0 oogmvrnLL M...0 0933 000 0y N ] m 4 m 0] n V V7 Yam' °wo.0c u 3um0O1 W0000 2120"2”22 0 100..4u4 /19118824 O ayp. m O a 0000. 300 m.. 3.'00 V 0 000> YaCCiru S 0 w 0 M3a� ] > 0 ^ T 4 0 ..ypy yt C `7u03 N -. a 7A• "-'20 !:;-41g YEc t1:-goo. C U 0 V G ^ 4 gYwy0 M c m �Y 0 y b 4 W C C V t q▪ °o'mo yg1127.;!:g1127.;!:4 U 00• 0-. ] 0 O O L m o Yzu. 10 t 14 ,s1 J{ a El 18 KR;; • to l l'A'I . OFFICE OF TIIE SHERIFF 2 fJ C B L? :1::. Y t Y PP O ,,,,.....1, V C O LwOwG 1.12raYiPu go GO Y�wC lilt •finY "Vporoo°. 2°u°� g O m E Y 0 .E; u G O T � u w � ;!,8. � 0 ! w C ec .. ✓ a c :1!;11 UY 0 s V w C Fnc�OP!"4' OyVU 0 • 4 6Y G N :!'1-41 q tl O Lii:r. Q u CLE YC 4 q� :.aTyyN Y E w U E[ T V L IA! e L r u O a ii°E wy1 1uYCY uUG 0Sue i 11.I can be urea further assistance. please contact ory °Rice RAII-TRAILS AND SAFE COMMUNITIES 9 wy A Y 04 ! 4 '044 O 0134wC u uu O uq L 004 O•w Lu C A V 4 Y -...:4,!! 300 0 u 4..0,0y0 0 0.) A.444 4 w u q0. C P L0w� u u 1 4 •.. > u A V O •., G G 0 4 0 V 0 0 4.4.::::., .A.Vu V4'AOLw344 N 4u d C 0 ,V ] L u u 0 u 4 u E O. W Y O u 0 V y u 4 U "ail! 0 O.0 U n.c "Ai 4 U C A -2,37,1.4 C u a] u 0 4 0.u•VO04 04.`4440° 040VCNw 41410 A•..•0 4 0. ... 6' 00. 'O. -482 2.033, C0b0 .000 044 0u VO 4 u w w D O r d 4 1 0 O u d Y •u p U.. O.q CO E•w`.. O DC d u0. :580 u A 0 4 w 4 4 0 ow 0 ..v.:,'. b 0 >.L 4 Ow w P u O.0 C d L V w 0 C 4 C L O• C 0 4 0 ,1,0,-“,....,.. C o r W 0 V F V O > L v i G w p C° eA u u NW•yu 4 w" 4. .t 000 04, A 'g"-0 0 41 0 N W C 4 0� 4 .Ai 0�., ]'2;4.00 •V Aqu wp 0 0 MO >1 0."41': E V 0 u. . v ^4 04.'1 'u ] u 4 44 4 u w A >. L 4 ..0 ..-1 -0! p A••.Cb0 O0N 04, u N w U V 4 w 4, ]..3 b 0 0. 4 4" ° E 0 0 0 0.a 4,'O > O O O A 4 44 U d 0 b ENE 0 ''0•200C U 4 41]]4,0 0002 > 'q 00 E•'. u4, 4'0.00"•w 0. 4 Y Ov. V EY u40a wyU PYUO uu•w0.30 Ou P V• -.. U A a V 0 >.. ` 6, b 4 A q° O V 0 V O� A C Pww O 0~w y0 4 00 4,0.00. O 0" 0 0 0 d 0 C u O, 3 0 0 C T > E O C W '00'-' 0 0 -4.0 Y 00 A...0 P 04 V 01: u 0 L O 0 4 U d O b u• Y y w O E O O q....3.0 0.y y V O 4 C E w O w O 4 4 C 0 O 0404 w u q O 4 b H L0 ] 4, 0 , d4 N'••• VOu9Y4 410-+4 d] 00 4 $ iGviF. It ci2esi rIcN, P/? r P 0 Cur 4.44, y 0.0 i4 4 u L u O C Ng W > O V E 4 Co 4 u 0 OV u%s.. oui Ey q' 0 w 41 3 0 w 4 V Ow0ELY 0 u 0• a0, C O E.t30..04.00 0...0 0 E 0 w C 0 4 A 04 1. 0 0 43.1.404 WOO 0040 Oc.a o Ova 004 O w 0w a. 0403 C P4 •442 at w0 u O W C D .. 0 0 M u 44 4 0 4 N q 4 E 0 O 0 0 0 V 0> 6 0 4.41 .w E w q vv 00=0000 w- V 000.WU 00.'004-•. 00-.0.f..2..0000 U ] VPC wb Yib• .0 00 0 . 3.0 40 0. 4'w 0 u u g A 0 b D L 000000 A> 4.4. O r wc 4, LOO 00. P>0d > how ] 0 0 0 . u moo 0 4 CLO O 044=004, AA Yw4w4xu L 4 0 0 4. 0.y ] Li u 0 0 O w 0 0 0 0 40.'... 34=00.0040.0X u T] 40.00a0r E. N Nw.f.-to u 0 C L 0 u O w u u 42 V U] C E 0.. q N WNC,0i. V 0.0 w 4, >. pV 8x3. c \`l 133 F Il� -4 j}s �L .-2 pi July 23, 1991 0 Vo P C 6 0 4 ww .0 C 0 6r V> 4a 440 ' N000 0 w u 0 C V 0 4 4 C O 0 ] o] C 0 n 44 Du044 4 S000bi VT 05452 Dear Hc. Durfee: p .. 81u,71'% uP> D3 O44 O L C A A 0 u w 0,000 ] 00 0 >, 0 C O u u L O Et0O 0 u bO'p 20 02.00 0 wv 0. 0 4 aaa • 1 P • -40004, •0 Ow. twi OW w. A 4 >..•]. . 0 "30.4,02 'Cow, 0 Mw aww 04 L 4CO '4.. 0 0 L 3 Pus00 0 CU0...0 0.0V 3 Y ▪ QK0 0 4 ▪ 0 0 0 40 0.0 A E u 04 a 0w ti4.00 w Y. U O w O w 4 0 44 0 0 40 wU w 0 u O 00003 UO. E ay. Burlington - O P to L Y q L 000000 N C u C C 0Cb3 u u w!to 0,O4 •-•0003 CU VAC COV 4g'00 00 0 'u 0 r O 0.0 0 ] 4 Y 0 0. 04044Eu1 ~P 0300004 ,00c Ow D u0D C... YEC V � 0••.0 OL ] Vnu4 Cat 0,34 C L .+ A L 0 4 0 3 00.0E0 0.00 00 N V N b 4 0 .0 0....00a0.44 O w• ]0Cu .aaw4C 00 00.0 W U3°PEw00a>a w L C c F:-.. P 41a...040 OC 4.40.0 044 000.~•. u] 0 u u O. u .. y'.+L V 0 O u ] 9u> 40.04bt0 4 O 004 v=0 P 443044.40 wy OY 0 .4,,u bny... 4 Y4,> C 0 Ow ON • •. APO. 44.+46. Vw 4 C w w0004.2 0 a> C u A w Mew 4 0 u>40 00 0 0. 0+ 0 4 44 y a c, W r 0- 0.44)000 A > 00.0 5 E U w 0EO] AV•O IbIY4 :0 04 NC 4O w D E 3 O 4 44 U C. . L A 4u u 4 t A 0004 6 yo 0 0,30 • 0 T 0 , .1300 E - W 4 0 44 = _4 Au 00w0 0'41 400 a0w 0 44 4 C 4-44. w V. C 44 a°w 00.414 P 400 .www 5 0 0 40=a u 0 A 4 0. A U ECO 0 0 0 4 • 3 0i 002. a u A w 00 0 0 O 0 0 0 d ti 4 C C =40 -40. 48t.. "C 0,0 0 44 4• 0 ELw 4 P >. 0 O u C C w U 0*- u w00^ ] V w0 03)0 4440 4m.-qi0. 444440. O.rj 0 • 20 RAH '• 10-TRAU¶. CONS(RVANCY Y Y E L U ✓ 0 N Y 0 � C 0 O 0. Y D C W Q d 0 b N C >. ✓ V 0 0 >. Y Oa q ^� Y N Y V 0 • 0.1 .4 Y C .4 V V V. O a0 o N o q O 0 C O V 40 T 0 u OM ✓ v 0 .NC u q V ry um C M M ] O 1.14 00M C min uo> u 9 b N y Y > V C c N 2 c D^ u Y o .4 :7.,4:1 ✓ u q C G C G q .. V O C o T N N) N O E 4. u u' A N V q V U u+ y V O N E 0.0 VW CVO C u coC L C0 ta� 9Lw INC LO x u u U .g,!,..2 0 4 .l q u o 0 0 6 r. V 40020 V im] q q •. C O 0.1.� '•+ u ... O u•T.+ .,52.1.: Px• c o o .VNudCc-.w iCa M.0 000cm ggt .• YOV 0(OY.cL~.6 0QCAO 00 0CV0 N w000u 0008yV 04. > .0 0 VCOL A.0.C VY N CYmN 0.. ]•wyWCOOugy NNVEV NNau 1YC 0w CC 9w.✓ 0.CON.0C0CH 0Vaqw NEO Vuda AV OC0 NON 0y+q VCA 0V0 d>O WjCLCq9 EV 0qCVd>0C V.0 2 0 I.. N N N LT CCVC uC V40 .4. )mxNCC+ )OYV Y40 >LU 0NO u4.]640 ] C09 d C C NLO.0 0 O Ja UDPCa.0VDCNV.q MO 0.00 VO d CV 4.4 CY 0 u.A•. ] .0Lq >•O..0.....q 0 CCu 0.0•am= w64NOYO Ou4 CO 0.C4 00+0424 u Oqw 0 )✓ 0.00 0 J.0OZN CYO V]Yn✓AU CuV 0 n0 Lu• gCJq •40O quYAM UA O. u CF.Y EYCC 9YY'ONA YVqNN.0�..b• YL NCw >.0D yV DYY.. W>.ONw ]AO NN CD .064.0 0P.0ACCNNT V L -UCou 0E CUJ/2.4) +4E0• . V . 0C> y q>.a 40 0EN.A 0. 00 :VE w+q OJ y0 OWN C. C 0D 0V WV0)wVwOu Y ] 04 uDON C] U a A0W WYYd C]0 13,0 au E VYq0N0 VCu 0q00.-4-•+ VO. qqC T m 0Y>.C.NCLVO )•.LNNUIUuu Vu +N ]u...✓A.4 2,0%v,Ou VqV Du 0-4 91u+✓..y A > ..Y 0»NN NVa+T N0 bY O✓9;N ] .> WC 'OCN q.N uCNu. 94 04 T L ..].0V q E duV'4 wU pYYC C LgqA 4201A OO f"9. uq OCu VU O0OW VCOC..0cq+mF.+ (.400 FwMu64l VUW 0.'0. O O .. + 0.000 0 0 0 q 0 Y O • . C 00 U E q] 0 C>dwu.A.ru.A L) 0 n VPVT. VYaV2 El; N 0U CCPY >13 9 YqY+V.D N RA11-7rtAIIs ANP SArr COMMUNII11'. 21 a N d aE o 0 o o 2 C w d mo m C C Ma 3 .0 .0 0OyuU 7.Cma.m a C w 3 Y C•.. 3 a a 4 d e o 4514 4., 01 M C OW 0 0•.C. m.a N 2 .a 3 o w a c OE Ida a a 0 0 d a d C NF w d W 0 C0p GV 0 wO >.9u .F m .H N a C 0 0 0 U 0 u O •wd C .-4 0 0 ✓0 t .a G 0✓. (4 $cm 0O4.I * u d0 C F V C u 0 V w d.2O • O4 ;OACC 00 .0. 02 OauLE O . u 0 0.. 0 0u >, o E 0 0.4 4 L 0. 44 >✓ 0 Y d 40> C0 .9 ZE0404t07.''0 U.0 H U >. W CO 0 40 a w 0 .0 d 45d d E0 0+A7 N 44 E c t a> • > m n wTm d0Wca :..9. co; ;44 0 >w w 330.2 ca 0 m 0 V ✓ J 01 oa Y 0 5.....1 .0 4 14 0 .. d..OoV C C . 4- a >4w m .2 U C. 0 a • a m o E�u~ w0. 0" C • U • '. N >.GY a 0 14 -4 0 4 .i 44 ... y >ooi.. 0C.a�a d U a m I . U C>CU >.o 4 0 0 0 0 L. a 0 0> 0 0a0cd•-. w>,� mu m .. E L a aF4 .0 .8 E', O0W.•C0>ae4 m•C ,4 Oa .� L d 0 aO d a .>0G aoQ 4 O La 3 0 IApI GY00a0 •u 0 ✓ 0.. a .a01.11 0 a.. d r. ad� 34 yWw • ., 0 C5 ad N m ✓ a C mti oa O. a M>•Tad VL GUaGyYu. >. .. ✓ 0 00 .61'Uu 4O [nei 0 d C Cu C E 440.045 coU - >. 3 Y a d 000. -W Cp✓ m m YY ti 0...0 004 0-O u0 0>u tU Cd O . W wCy4w ✓ _ a C WCw a Nd 0 4 d aC 0 >d aN a C>dt VY✓✓' USYO✓ NOaY ✓4 Cw0 a/ d W 4 C O A w 0 wdd O�1.0"G .0 0Vd'" W U q u ✓ t m Emu U d _ .. 0. ✓ C C d W O _- u Oc Y 00 EM 0m 45m m0 Ia U d d Oa .2jO p C 0 4 y Uw d C 0 13 V m w Y0U N w.4 04 ✓ .00 C0 wG M 00-a U 3ad0W " c'200 '00 C V 0 4 ✓ G00 i 71 Ell V o d P. W d a N 3 0 d o - a E Y 01.4 m 1.I Y7. UO au C 1 U ..43ML el tiO m 4 ✓ m m dYOaO . C C w V C V -.CC 4aC a O A0 H.. Z..1.4' . Nda 0 .ow C m ✓e d. 1.y 4 d U =d-044 1. 3 ..47UNAm 1YCyW 431 Ep.-. .. '4 >.A�wa. Lp, 450'9uE31.NC 4 50V 40 Oa +m3a qm> 04 .0F.0a O 44adM0 0 3 CO. 3400w.i Ty' 4 .0aO 1 � c 1 U 8 LL' � SI� 104!tthE `qh 5 P. 8 Pi grit 0: /PIP 11§01 11_ '121 A 0 1 11 Pglu 4 gilt' .1' Ali RAH l ; • 23 OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF If you need anything, Please feel free to contact mc. a 1 \lonrue.%WI ',SW. 282- 6th Stn.•. 24 RAH b -To -TRAIL CON/Sr RVAN G APPENDIX B: A LOOK AT EVERYDAY RISKS BY THE 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 trick: 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, 1995). 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 orkrelated 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.) RAIZ-TrArIS AND SAFI COMMUNITIIS We send our sons and daughters to college for higher education. Yet colleges are awash in criminal behavior. About 2,400 U.S. 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. (I know I feel better with that qualification.) (From 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 nonmotorized 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; dose 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. RAILS -TO -TRAIT S CONS( RVANt. i 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 Department and Office for Planning. Evaluation of the Burke -Gilman Trail's Effects on Property Values and Crime. Seattle, WA: Seattle. Engineering Department, May, 1987. Schenectady County Department of Planning. The Mohawk -Hudson Bike -Hike Trail: Its Impact on Adjouining Residential Properties. Schenectady, New York, 1997. 2These 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. 3 All law enforcement agencies for which contact information was provided in primary survey were contacted. 4 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. 6 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. RAII- 1 RAMC AND SAff COMMUNITIfi NOTES: 28 'RAILS-TO-TRA11 5 CONcf RVAN(Y ^^''''��''����_'� tAAAo TT- CC11 �W 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 J NATIONAL PARK SEVICE Department of the Interior ft 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 MHUGH6BROMLY ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC EXHIBIT cbromley@mchughbromley.com 380 S. 4th St., Ste. 103 208-287-0991 Boise, ID 83702 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 Mountain 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 25 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 term 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 Satank neighborhood and connect to the existing path near Carbondale Community School which will then Zink 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 me. Very Truly Yours, 7 Chris Bromley Colorado Rocky Mountain School February 7, 2014 Board of County Commissioners c/o Glenn Hartmann, Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Commissioners of Garfield County, EXHIBIT 1 37 I 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 no 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 or. 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. Resfecdfuliy, , 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 1 Carbondale. CO 81623 1 970-963-2562 tel 1 970-963-9865 fax 1 ww\\.crrns.ore M L EXHIBIT I3t O N Nrs ct w O a0 "El E K P L -w TD S'- O }' F, / 1 T Vo U � ca 13 CO • -w 0 0) . T. f ,_ a) o '6. „, as -i--+ _c w o_7, Z o �cO� 10 U D N L>+ E w as 46 W L L_ W 1— C a. (a 'L 4,1 CarbondalklWaill Community • !School • •••• 4‘1 ‘C‘.0 AMP41116,- • New L r ••••••• • Crill OFT • ..... .% N \ N / -,-- N N 'VI' . efot ' i4.• • • a . • , I • t sl. i , •e°6- 1 ........, 4 • i ....t • I :. 4 `4° •'‘ i„t'ill, •‹) VelociRFTA 1 1,4 to • •0 Park & Ride 1 •S ‘.... t ‘04, A N.% • Existing `vk .... • .., . vi' -'14 ,..,_........... • ' -7.11404, --- • ' - - t v N,':''''• .' LEGEND Existing Bike Path Pending Bike Path 111111 Proposed CRMS Bike Path 1k11 -13T Carbonda1 lek , Community • 'illva-v-U School • it• _ 1. : sallmillatli. 1, N% ok"\ sk • • Road gi411,1714, I • •44 1 f4"41104. 7 I I — • VelociRFTA 1 1 4, Park & Ride 1 wr,' A: 'to' ., . 111111,4.4 ?- 4• ,+• • Streets/ Driveways LEGEND ••• ••• Existing - Penclin Prop Bi Pat ike P. th ed GPM Bi Path • 44 ,•11/Wil 4,. —• ,,i• • ' - gait , \ ,.. lii T it. VI.;.64! . 11 -. 0 — -.• —Mail; Street -- 1.-I• • I . I- . : '. , •. ' •Atttl'.11. et, !t. 00:01.0 rONOS ve)uncvi kixN ope,ctoo HIVd 3N19 SIAle10 011 S3S1114131P/3 A1V0 11.1 if ; a 60 _1 '1 ' I • Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030 Adopted: November 10, 2010 Last Amended: October 9, 2013 Priority Multimodal Corridors, Future Connections and Highway Crossings Priority Multi -Modal Corridors 71777 Future Connections s; Crossings gsr Town Boundary Streets IIIII Public Recreation Land - - County Roads N CAIIIIONDALZ Carbondalk11417011 Community • ,School • ♦I•; • ,; 1 `°% •••• co. vat, .. 4 4 "WO 1 �. o VelociRFTA 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 Streets/ Driveways 4MI MEI-- Existing Bi Pat i Pendin ; ike P.,th Prop ed CR ' Bi ' Path 1 1444 • —Maim Street-- l r a NN 0.0 SIAOE STOP II POTATO CELLAR pRir.T. HEADMASTER RESIDENCE 'MON CANNL CRYSTAL ROARING FORK '\ DORM HARE DOvet, TNOMPSON CREEK ROAD - • TICK 5 5GE WEST HOUSE PA5T DY' SE NORM 1 ) 1 DORM ~� • ORIMCE N STU0ET0 PARKING ATHLETIC 01E50 FACULTY •., RES`VENCE PARKING PARSE DELVE TENNIS 004115 HOLDEN 00051 iOl0 5011 D05M \EKK 550.E EAST HOIRE _ rLOOfr„ Sows DORM\ 1• NP, SOLAR ARRAY • ••46 i A5 R • L fr l ) • CHAALOIR 10SSMAN` A i a ACAMMICyuIIDING v r� • CR/AS PROPEIRTY IN41", Colorado Rocky Mountain School SC ALF. r 100' l 5012 LOST i0 100' CENTRAL CAMPUS NEW SOYSI DORM i(# 0 GARDENS NEW DORM AS N HEAL, t VCf GRFENNO4SES , STRAW CAU I '+viii GARDEN CENIER� ' � 1. a WNIIA1ER THE LOC AVENUE t _ HOUSE ACADEMIC OUAD CRYSTAL 55VER COUNTY ROA0106 W5LSY OGAN R S CERAMICS KJ 0 TARRING.I �.r L WMIEAAER HOU!! GEORGE WEBER -F MUSIC SUILOING wf ADORE 151 10150+040 HEAD Rf KAYAK BUILDING0 \min r ATM :STK /Klo CRMS Campus 2005 SOLAR DORM /I 4. • • • • '14RDENSANOGREENHOUSE 0 EJV. \ 9 � l -V- *WA.= - ..g71•6 WLrAA Imo' owl howl n_ 0 NOUN( 1 � � A AMIE Qr:ARTg OLD STAGE SLOP,, POTATO CfIIAR``� T_ HEADMASTER RESIDENCE "\\ l WILSON CARPI KAYAK RUIIDINGO ' ` KAYAK Y' 00110 x \�j•'� OGO MOUSED \ ! C --1.5 'C 61! YURTO cITSIAL_ NOM CRYSTAL ROARING FORK \ \ DORM 140011 DORM THOMPSON CREEK ROAD - TICK DOGE WEST NOUSE" < r PA 0 X010014 HOUSE I OLD EOYS 00ug ATHLETIC FIELD TENMS STUDENT COUl7S_ EARRING r '- - • \CENTER tactic, RESIDENCE DEIO1ES WAY 4\ j IICR RIDG! .� EASTNOUIE CAMS PAOPETRIY 'Oka., NIIIk Colorado Rocky Mountain School SCALE I-- '00 — — 201E 100 W U IRO CENTRAL CAMPUS HEWI0YS! DORM • 001 NOR CC\RYSTAIRIVER \\ .S GARDENS iDLA— R O "Ti Aml ACADEMIC OUAD SOLAR ARRAY A' • R•• •L. •A p • i +Y 67 • CNARLOTIZSOSM A. • " • ACA0100 461DING • r NEW DORM ` NEW DORMfl t� OARDEN CENIRq_E' rintim a, WHITAKER -'3 • - AVENUE %� 100ViA FORMA- / M MHG: 1 ry • COUNTY ROAD 106 AN 03 WMRAKER 111 HOUSE GEORGE WREN • 4 Ste' MUSIC 101001X0 AD01! ARE 10110010 • Wyss `�•.bq s �- r` 4%4; inity Map 106 Road Vaeat•..>,'• at Colorado Rocky Mqua Carbondalei is �► i,_ �;� OPEN SP4CE ANDI AGRICUI1TURE t BUFFER • H •'1.. 711. 7v r .•.,��• Y -.ti A. x 171IsIPi. ; `°4 _��� _}• • 1pir ry'J • OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURE, BUFFER �Ri�.��i•f<F; V C R 4 MAIN STREET •+WSTRw. PLAZA r. i i ti -Jrl.oO1. D..• p Ike O1/08/10 M County Road 106 Vacation at CRMS Carbondale, CO ADM, GTY YARKE' Imo: Exhibit Map t' . -4g , ! I lirr a 0 6 . . -... '''.., V - I ....0-1,--*--..:_ - ..._ , . 1-.1.0.— z.r.gir,,::--- i MOO 1 T., 1 - 19 le -t *e.'. Y H!GHla;Av •. 3 - A 5 \ / wow awl 7 Y U gu a) o E S cc o oW Y ♦• dr T4' 4_ 40 ICE t:4 `; "te 7 • , f° 4 col Carbondale` ~tr . Community • 'School % A1C" tom `i' 1�� t ,")'/ s .`• yC r` . �` . . . . EEL IeMg6!H `tr tee • VelociRFTA #3 I 0 Park & Ride e .`oma � ■ �� 1• • • • 1 `' , • 1 1 • 1 • 1 1 •• 1 • • 1 1 1 •0 i • ■ ■ • ■ tttt LZ L!1 LEGEND !� — Existing Bike Path 112 —444-- Pending Bike Path■ 11111 !' cOposed CRMS Biter: Path kokoolup 7-401 ■ ■ 1 1 D �,. 1 k tl 1 1 ' ! � a 1rt t` _ • •% 1 1 .4, Main St eet-- 1 Carbondalk ' Community 4.11ri-114; ;School NI; ,444. , •••• --Nv* • • 4 . t,7 • • o EEL ,Ceivt116!H \ /\4 ‘b•Ve .0 It • 4*. " t • • • , • • VelociRFTA •0 vo, Park & Ride •0 •04, .0 •• , .,-,...,\•, • A ). . • -7- -.K......4 • • -,-t• . -- N :-.;.•;• v. ' g rUP" 'frc • 11. 4114. • ,) • 8. • , •%,',,, ‘ , • 311 • •• A •.7 141; • R LEGEND ---- Existing Bike Path .1! 1,"9.14."!—• Pending Bike Path NI 1 Proposed CRMS BRIM Path, • 4 1 - „IN .41, ,, , rr-- *TO t • 4 - - • ir i Main Street-- • 4411 'n SOPRI P CRNot wif BOUNDARY • ££t AVMH9IH Section 28 Section 33 Found Aluminum -Cop S7/4 Section 28 Delales Noy 60• Right -of -40y —Book 345, Poge 962 Book 681, Poge 692 F 1 t6A 7 I 's ift 4 `r. Vr ,, • Ili t.. '. tf iY Translator 1c Station A t 4 '+,a • �. �• 4 I ..r ♦ • _ .� ' c; ' 4,, ..7.• efir•it Town Sewer res Mbit is provided os o visual referent t to p•ct • joining Parcels along Delores 'Noy in addition the 0..roximote historic rood corridor of ,panty ▪ oo 106 .s it crosses the fonds of the Col<rodo city Mou oin School for the purpose of vo:otion Of i0 corrioo by the Garfield County Commiss cners. The 0(18610 •cn shown hereon is o best fit based n romoining f: ce lines, utility improvements and urrent existing ondltions. The locations of these improvements do ot reflect o field survey - All references to wnerlhip reflected On ih 5 Exhibit hove been de 'ved from the records 0 the Garfield County Asses rs Office. Bike Path • .. 4 j 47•V,: !. 41. A:. retl{`f _t CRNS BOUNDARY \ qtr .. 1. .1 1. `•• E• 4 V-4 Ai• I► '.C:' .. V ti al I MAIN STREET 4[ # ., Carbondale% '`g.k l ;t' Community ♦ 111-1.44 'School ♦ 14‘1117441, �4 ♦� t. • ► fi „tom. 1 Road • Crossing •LEGEND •i • ••• ♦ ♦ • IQ 0 • VelociRFTA 0, Park & Ride • 4 . Streets/ Driveways— 1 1 1 ,1. l .0,+._•7,..r_ s 4r 1 is _., K - l 4: [ AI.1, 4 t "t' 0;4 �f 4r 4 c4 * i 60 I A I sti 70 Ilveri MTJd tt 4.-' • ' ,,• ---Main Strr et-- s A i. - Carbondale♦ - „ i, . ... t E,\ + Community ♦ 4 VI -114u r-1 !School ♦ * t, �• ' -N. x I ...„.................„,,, iko_ _iiiolitt co .,Mlle.,.r . ♦!, w \‘ d. W - --�% ..tip` • • t. .` \...‘..;1 .•g,iv VelociRFTA 1 1 ` 4a0;4I, 0»'• OS Park & Ride 1 .1x:1..1"4 ' s `tl CRMS \•* ♦' campus `0 1• •• ♦ t •s a — • 1 Ly — 1 . • it 1 a rwul ♦ - ♦ i 1, no in 1i 1 ' L 1 "*. ar 1 — no 1 1 t l LEGEND r - -- Existing Bike Path --Pending Bike Path `III 11111 1 Proposed CRMS Bie Path t l r "', t� t 1 t % l ! ! :2's., l l ` 0 l 1 l 1 i , % t Main St eet-- t