The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.086.1986 � ;,_�.,��;�- , - SYk�:/•. �aA'r�' . , . ' °¢-y�'`'i� , , . . " � A �.�,�YY, � Y�,r'��^�*Sf :r Ly+ � ,..��^ � ., � t .� �.E sy �4 �� a �{ c'�,p(,,,*fF -�i"tX .�. -! .��r�i,4�fd re'��t� S^f { .. i y '� 3 � !�•f � '•�. �"� .... .� . . �..r �� '�.... . . . . .. .. . . �_,._. . . .,�=if� . - eooK 51_8 �acE�97 �, � _ � xr N _.o m z�' pp � ! A RESOLUTION OF THE o'_'; (;...,. . $OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS N K a �- �'�,`. OF PITKIN COUNTY, COIARADO, � �ac� (pF � " APPROVING AND GRANTING THE VACATION° o i OF THE EAST SOPRIS CREEK "ROAD" � °�m ' v� Q � " ao rn ''� Resolution No. 1986 - 86 � � i �;. _ i ,-�., `�� WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin < � ��= County, Colorado, ("County") has considered a Petition to Vacate :;'.�*- - � � Roadway ("Petition") filed by John McBride and Leo Ray Light on - `'� or about October 21, 1985, requesting the vacation of the East •• ' ;Yi� Sopris Creek "Road;" and � 's�8 1 WHEREAS, the County has considered the Petition pursuant �� to 1973 C.R.S. 30-35-201(13), Section 4-4 of the Pitkin County _� Land Use Code (Title II, Pitkin County Code), Section 1.05.04 of '•``ry the Pitkin County Road Standards and Specifications (1985 edition) � ' r �'' and the methods and procedures set out in 1973 C.R.S. Section 43- ;:',�� 2-301 et se �_, as amended, all to the extent deemed applicable to 1`�..• the vacation by a home-rule county of a primitive non-platted t.:: , �� road in an unincorporated portion of the County; and WHEREAS, the County has considered Resolution No. P & Z ?,�� 86-1 of the Pitkin County Planning ahd 2oning Commission recom- !� � � mending the requested vacation; has considered memoranda of the ;'`.� Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office recommendinq the requested . r5 , � vacation; has heard testimony of the County Engineer supporting � the requested vacation; has sponsored and conducted a site inspec- ',a 1 �..::::.. V� �.. ._,.. ,� z F J. ��t::r: . . . t � � ,F,�,.� , . .. . . . ... . � .. ' � . - .. . � . . .- �.. .. . .. .�: ..:.' ' . .... '.' ... . ,*�;�� _p- � ,;`y- . � , ;'�w`��'?,�- - . . .- nf, • � � � � ��Y, 7 M � �::.r-,� � . `I J �. ,.�' ' .� ��"`�i� � . r p: .a,�#t'k r 7 n xt1�al i �'.;�'i.i�'��Zxe'� �s -.F�-.� .: y�,-"�F'� ..�' �.�� s � i ts�.�a1 f t� �. a i'n tN:,:�, � s v .'� S �' �,.. ,,�.� Y . . . 5,. �'_ �X� . �` eonu �� ,r��i' tion of the "Road" and the alternate Maurin access; has examined ; referral comments from variaus affected governmental and utility : agencies; has conducted a public hearing (on March 10, 1986) at �ii;•. �r which the statements of the Petitioners, a qroup of opponents t (Adelson/Hull/JOhnson) and members of the public were heard; has �� heard the arguments of counsel representing Petitioners and the � lt � � ' ,,f Adelson/Hull/Johnson group; has reviewed writings, documents and �' ;', � - the testimony of witnesses submitted to the record by Petitioners �`�,y�' �� and the Adelson/Hull/Johnson group; has considered all of the �;: �'_, : =� �� information, including all of the foregoing, which the County i� deems pertinent to the merits of the Petition; and has considered , - � the entire record in light of its constitutional, statutory and � �� _ r. ' "� political duties as a legislative body. '�'. C' �, ; NOW, THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the County makes � its findings and conclusions as follows: � a1. The Petition to Vacate RoadWay is in adequate form i �' and complies with the applicable requiremen�s of Sectian 4-4 of • � = ^;1 the Land Use Code, Section 1.05.04 of the Road Standards and .,`.� 3 \� Specifications and 1973 C.R.S. 43-2-301 et se ., as amended. The •�%�-� � � notices and referrals required in Sections 4-4.1 and 4-4.2 of the # Land Use Code have been given and made and are adequate. The public hearing required in Sections 4-4.2(f) and (g) was properly ` ' � noticed, held and conducted. �-'. �; .. 2. The East Sopris Creek Road was originally surveyed R ;; S. z. in 1920 under the authority and direction of the Soard of County �:� Commissioners of Pitkin County. The road was about six miles �" f . 2 f=c k" . �4: . • ,� � . . � � r � r . , �„�„ i r r,,.� � r+� --' . ' . s '�':1i . . . . - " � :'t.: p.F�1+::�� . ' . `le., _ , ` � ?.x �'� ' . . ..... ... - i'�-� ' �� -.-�.. . . � . '1�' ♦ ii ��:�,�..;:.;.,.;':':: .��w' • � ;�� . � . ��,:r.: . , t �',�` ! r ;;�,w�.< r g�.�s �.yo-. x��1' I `' �'° r�,?v�r ��/ �-`�i+`S/!t�� ,�ye L,'y��yYy��4t�; JY.F at_'y` s'C�1)t y'�t'�jp� t „Yr yi+ 4M (�{ � "YV� ' Vu�� i< �.d '��'�!�� {�' �'�. 1�k ...'4'^ Y.� ��.�� 7 ��`,'' �._� r 'C.-(l .. , , Y;��'t. . j.:�... . .. . �- '� ) a� . . . .. _. ... . t ROOH )�i.� ?�GEJ.7��i long and ran from its junction with the Emma-East Sopris Road southwesterly up East Sopris Creek to a deadend at the National �: �. .:i.• Forest houndary in the upper reaches of the East Sopris Creek � �� valley. It was originally established at the request of settlers �� and ranchers in the upper valley. . � 3. There is some question as to whether all of the ' . . � s� procedural steps required for formal dedication and acceptance as �.�,.:::. ':'��' � . ' a county road were accomplished. There is evidence that the road - ,; was shown from time to time as a county road on the official map ;� _ '� of the county road system. In this proceeding, the County is not ' _ required to and, therefore, does not find or declare that the ' ;?s-. .. East Sopris Creek Road is a public road or an official oounty { road. C.R.S. Section 43-2-303(1) (b); Williams v. Town of Estes Park, 608 P.2d 810 (Colo.App. 1979) . � � 4. Over the years since it was first established, the : i road has fallen into disuse and disrepair. The homesteads and � , ,.'. ; r small ranches which it originally served have disappeared. Maintenance by the County ceased many years ago. For most of its , ^ ..�;.; length, the road now lies wholly within the two ranches separately ' ,� owned by the petitioners, John McBride and Ray Light. Near its upper end, the road crosses a corner of National Forest land. - Approximately the last three-fourths of a mile of the old road �� `; [:r�.. goes into and across three tracts of land owned by Ed Adelson, ° Ivan Hull and Johna Johnson. �;1 � 5. The Adelson/Hull/Johnson tracts, which aggregate ��. , 400 acres, were carved out of a larger tract owned by the Estate [t i.;: . g k=' !x ��r. � _ ' . - �� ;� r; 3 r ' . S � , � � .. ;;.;,,.::,.. , � � ';. °� �,�..,,,.,;...;, ;:.:..:: �,.�� • �.`h4�v ; v i�� . � .- ' , � 1 , h; . .- �.. .-.,';"y.^ �,;r't':.t q .,.�,��* +�� y,'� .,' �a ,�.. . . .;.5 . , yy�%f��+�.�� i��'W.LFR.�u . � .�di'� . _. � 6dJ��:'S. � . ��''IS� . ...`. � eoax �'�.� �ac� {)"� ; : of George A. Maurin, Deceased. The subdivision exemption of the Maurin Estate land occurred in 1980. It was initially opposed by � i +i Pitkin County but was eventually approved subject to certain �;;• � aonditions. One of the conditions in the September, 1980 Stipula- � tion between trie County and �he Maurin Estate required the estate { _ � 'w to provide "permanant access" (Stipulation, 8(d) p.2, Case No. ? � : w P-1201) to the Adelson/Hull/Johnson parcels by means of a 40- : �� foot access easement along an existing road through the property `, '-� of the surviving spouse, Marie Maurin. The Maurin access ease- ment, which is about 2 miles long, connects the Adelson/Hu11/John- -x , . son parcels to the Capitol Creek Road, an established County ''°� primary road. ,. ' 6. Sometime after acquiring their land from the Maurin ? � Estate, Adelson, Aull and Johnson asserted that they had the � � . . � right to access their properties by crossing the I,ight and MaBride !� ranches via the old East Sopris Creek Road. Light and McBrsde i ,� resisted this intrusion on the grounds that the East Sopris Creek _�l ,. .,,:+� Road was not a public road, had never heen a public road or had ,�` i � lonq sinae been abandoned as a means of public access. t �.,,; ! ;si ,. �:� 7. On August 30, 1985, Adelson, Hull and Johnson sued t,' ;: �"� McBride, Light and the Board of County Commissioners seeking a � • � declaration that the road is a public road which they are entitled � �. ;� to use as access to their property. Pitkin County District Court �-.'� � Case No. 85CV283. They also asked the Court to determine the ± present location and legal description of the road; to declare �' i �. . that the County has no authority to vacate the road; and to .� r: . € { 4 ; _ � � . ' � �'.`. .�. . - -x „ ' ;��..� ?• �. r - � . . �,:.;r .- :�r `,.` ' ., . ,Y�;:.. `�= � ' ?At 4-t';? ;J' . - .. - . .. ... - . ;-y r" ' � 1 .�i� i.:., ; : ,, ,;.�� . =��r' ;',. . �� ':' '��`c ' � �. ..�4,i� . � �r � �*,��i4'; ��^,'x }k. t�lrr��4? ti t � t�� . �i�t 7s'i'�� • �� . �ty��t�Y i,-y}:..' ��,.t�,{ . ��,��.c.h,��J A¢.,% *�'�'..j�a �-°�F� � :_ � 4 �"a3'r r ��° � a�M.��. . . . . ��7��y.� . xi'.�� .:� . . �.._ . .. . .w � "' . -. ..� ., y t-''. �� }, ,ry y, +t'` ,ee, .�i�'S � ' :ir�:e� �.�.4^:kt eonK ��_9 ;,?�� 7 � - enjoin McBride and Light from interfering with plaintiffs' use of the road. j t 8. On October 21, 1985, McSride and Light submitted y. their Petition To Vacate Roadway to the Pitkin County Planning � Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Efforts to .µti i " � enjoin the Planning Comm3ssion and the Board from proceeding to ``� e:` • �" hear and act upon the petition to vacate were unsuccessful. See • ;� .`'.. Court Orders of January 15, 1986 in Case No. 85CV367 and March �"'� :� 17, 1986 in Case No. S5CV283. Proceedings in the Court have been � l! �� stayed pending final action by the County on this Petition To � ''s� Vacate Roadway. The County finds that it has plenary jurisdiction ' . ';r,.,�'`u, .i. • � � y� to hear and act upon said petition. C.R.S. Section 30-35-201(13) ; �; � ;� Pitkin County Home Rule Charter, Section 1-4.1. 4 ' :� � 9. Although the Petition is to vacate the roadway, the `;.H ;,� logical implication of a decision by the County not to vacate is <� a "re-opening" of the "road" in light of the stated intentions of � ' '�>:� the Adelson/Aull/JOhnson group to assert the right to use the ;• ",� f `.};,� �'road" and to improve and repair the road or seek its improvement ! �• V:� - �.i:.; and repair by the County. Consequently, the vacation petition t,. ;;� also has been analyzed in light of the impacts arising from re- 1 ; ' 31 opening and use of the "road." ; � -�' l0. The vacation complies with the requirements of 1973 '?:� � C.R.S. 43-2-303(2), which provides as follows: •. � �'(2) No roadway or part thereof shall be �' vacated so as to leave any land adjoining � - S said roadway without an established public " road connectina said land with another �'. ' . '.� established public road." (Emphasis added). _� .:,. 5 "�:-: � i. �: .__. - � �..� s� ,r; i `��r�^ � ]Y�y,y,c+S�, � . _. . . �� . , � . . .. . . . . . r� . . x.::�., _ t . _ � , ' �:�, a� - ��-,: - ��•i ..j-,.�.� ' � . .. . .. �' � - � ... _ . ..5 / i �;":7 �-i"' � :..�,r:�- . � , ,,� , `_�: . ' Ij...�s.4'>- ,'x•:r _.,<c..,.�.^ti�,.�.�Yw . .sL:�_ �_ �c, -w�u�' _ 1}v ;7r4 ��'�:;. Y � eaoH 5�.9 Pac� �l•`_3 t � This statute prohibits vacating a roadway when to do so i would �'landlock" the adjoining land and isolate it from the y i � established public road system. The County finds that ��connect- �;. � ing" means and requires that any land adjoining a roadway to be vacated must continue to have legal access to the established � ------- � '¢ public road system. � The County interprets "land" to mean a separately owned � � parcel of land, together with any and all interests itt land which ;ti -T are appurtenant to that parcel, including easements which give ='� the owner access to an established public road or roads. 4-�� .� The County finds that the Adelson/FTull/Johnson group, . ,, and each of them, owns a 4o-foot-wide permanent access easement ;�,� which easement (1) is appurtenant to each of their respective _ ?� ,�� . ;�_� parcels, (2) is sufficient for each of them to gain access to � ';�.� their respective pazcels by the same means which would be avail- `:� able on a re-opened public East Sopris Creek Road and (3) joins !� i � ,,� each of their respective parcels to the Capitol Creek Road, an . , - ^"_� established public road. `: �;:,�p Therefore, the County finds that the Adelson/Hull/John- � ..i.: � son parcels, and each of them, adjoin both the East Sopris Creek �`;� �.�� "Road" and the Capitol Creek Road and that vacation of the East � Sopris Creek "Road" will not leave the Adelson/Hull/Johnson � � `;;� parcels, or any of them, withaut an established public road �. . . connectina said land with another established public road. i � `� Since the proposed vacation complies with Section 43-2- - 303(2), C.R.S., the County does not reach the question whether �� t E '1 6 E. 3 =,,. �i :a , '' ----.... � . .�. c,. . . A" -l ....- y�,,, :: , r ... .. - � _ �_ �- � . . a�4,7�'.�*✓ . F -. � _.. _ _ . �> ..�.� .. , s_. ,�q • . ' _ ' 5r t t . .. . � - .. t _ ' s�'��t �.: _ . � ' .. � - . � � � o� .�-i: - - . � . . �r " , - � . �4 �.;. :...:. . . . . . 4� ,; . .' ...�� ,. . � � ' _ .. _.., , �:•,.'.:.�,'�� . . :, ,r�, . � ��,r�= ��. . �. "`� :��, , Y - .�pt L�. � � , �.3��. i�:"vir� ' �.7��-I.�.?a .`y;;,y ''�x rr �l��`� u r�;�� ..A�. 'JJ 0 � '.`"��t .. . . n. ` .3. . . .. ��5�' .. . . ... . . . ..t�w -- a°�.s J:;L . ,; eook `1�.9 PACE f)?� t that section applies to Pitkin County whose power to vacate arises from Section 30-35-201(13) of the Colorado County Home : Rule Powers Act. The County simply notes that it has implemented ?;:�` �+ its power to vacate roadways, in part, by adopting the °methods �� 1; �;� and procedures," but not necessarily the substantive standards, '� of Section 43-2-301, C.R.S., et sea• Pitkin County Code, Section � �'; 4-4.1(a) . �; `� The County further finds that (1) the Adelson/Hull/John- t,, � r�. � son group had notice of the conditions of the 40-foot permanent � access and the circumstances surroundin it !:�,:, . g prior to the subdivi- sion exemption represented by the Stipulation in Pitkin County � , f, . , � Civil Action No. P-1201 and their purchase of their property and � " � 2 the acce ted the 40-foot � � ) Y p "permanent access" as legal access �. � to their property for subdivision exemption and development �' 1� s.;� �� purposes. i� � 11. With respect to the land-use implications of the r r�� vacation, the County finds as follows: � •� � '..,.a:ti•... �y+a a. Re-opening of the road to public travel would ;-` `� not comply with the policy expressed in Section 2-3 of the Land � . { ; r, .� Use Code, "Natural and Man-Made Hazard and Resource Areas," and � 't T would: subject users of the road to natural or man-made hazards; ( � `� create and increase the danger oP natural or man-made hazards �', � . �� which will affect other improvements, activities and lands; `�� subject other persons or the County to dangers or expenses re- ' � � � quired to mitigate such hazardous conditions, to respond to emer- 4 i gencies created by such conditions, or to rehabilitate the im- � 2 i ) • '] 'e. r . '.� `K iy 3ta"�-e� :.d ' � ' - � � �x��``�'a� . . . . . � � ' _ �� .. +.r .�+ �` . '� . .. . � � - ' . � . .1, e Fu� r.:�K...+ � . . . �$±;r � _ � ' � �:'_'1�..:.' � � . x Yi i ,'. y`� .....'. _ ,. _. .. ...._ Vr .`S i _ � 1t 'i 1 ;_:_..,�..�.'.�.��.-,. . . ....r��_ ' - . . ��`"�' � n F x . , , q.�� . �.� ,,,,� r' x� �`'� v�� . - . ly'.j Y�, � J r '�� r' ..�s�'� `r��3 �j.,� ' �Y.��' i� � �.�` �?v,� ..L�r'. �� .� Lf' +i'�kF v+. .,4 y��' S YE. ��y . . . �-.. ��r . , .�.�x .,�. . . :� . . n _.,:tu:,_. r�!.� � eoo►t �1.9 PacF �i5 provements, activities and lands; be unduly destructive to iden- tified natural resources of the county and cause immediate or i j.:. foreseeable material danger to significant wildlife habitat. � Specifically, reopening of the road to public travel � � �: would expose the public to H.B. 1041 hazards including wildlife �.- -r (elk calving and migration and deer migration), avalanche, steep `� slopes, wildfire, visual impact, geologic, vegetation (especially . ;� • �:� riparian vegetation), floodplain and land suitability. ;,� Although the alternate Maurin access also is subject to . j� H.B. 1041 hazards (including wildlife (elk calving and migration), �� avalanche, landslide and steep slopes), the County concludes the . 1041 impacts of the alternate access would be less than those of ;-''�'.y a public East Sopris Creek "Road" because of the shorter length 4 � ;�� of the alternate access as compared to the East Sopris Creek •..f '.::� "Road," the private nature of the access as compared to a re- ' i opening of the "ROad" to the public and the mitigation available ' � � ��. ; .-_;� along the alternate access. ; :.`� b. Re-opening of the road for public travel would f . �.�� not comply with the policy expressed in Section 2-4 of the Land � '•'-"' IIse Code, "Soil, Surfical Geologic Characteristics and Radiation," � ":;y and would undu2y burden the public with the costs of re-opening " ,� �:� and maintaining a road subject to flooding, avalanche, landslides ,. ,.� �. � and rockfall hazards. Although the alternate Maurin access also i� would have cost impacts, the impacts would not be borne by the � y public but borne by the private parties gaining benefit from the � : � private access. � � g � ,« .. , { f� �4rn''��-�-S��y , � . ; ,•. :, '��. . _ • . ,+ �:� � , - � . �- � - ;.,.:.- .. i i= _ =.Vrb�a"�+' - "S� . �� .g;ti r: �.. r ,K,W.s...� . . . �:.Y y ,vG.w '( F'f i S ZN:,. . . >+' .�:f'r`}� ' �r�v' g�� -d ti.:��t . _ . . ,:F , .. .�` '.�. c .,. _ �!y3�;�h .. � :� eooK 5�.9 �ac� �6 ; r c. Re-opening of the road for public travel would not comply with the policy expressed in Section 2-9 of the Land °�i Use Code, "Road Design and Construction," and would not minimize �:::• . � future maintenance costs. To the contrary, a road in this loca- �7 _ .- tion will have excessive design, engineering, construction and p ;r:� � maintenance costs. The County Engineer has estimated that im- -� ?� provement of the road to County standards would cost approximately a��. • '�y $330,000, excluding bridge reconstruction and culvert installa- -'� -� tion. A professional engineer employed by Adelson/Hull/Johnson agreed with that figure at the public hearing. Even this figure . assumes an established public right to a particular roadbed , :, location. Although portions of the road may have been established " .; i by statutory procedure (circa 1920), deed or prescription, the � t� exact lacation and sta�us of the road by these various methods is i - ;� in dispute and subject to conflicting testimony. The Petitioners � '�� have indicated that they would strenuously object to public use � r -� of the road based on the record of procedure, deed or prescrip- �.1 �.� � �'G r:. � tion. The County Engineer has also estimated the cost of snow �; i`� removal alone will be $6,000.00 per year. ��_ � �•'r:�� :s y� d. Re-opening the road for public travel would not � L� � comply with the policy expressed in Section 2-13 of the Land Use � Code, �'Compatibility with Agricultural Lands and Operations," and i : g � � will not act to preserve the economic viability of ongoing agri- �- � � cultural lands and operations or ensure the preservation of large � �, � tracts of land now committed to agriculture. ,,` j ��. . f 9 � � �: ,�, ':� .,� ., - _ _ a . .. . - � ,� ,,, , ,.:,, - ` _ � ,, . - . ' , _ ..o _ . �r�� : ,�. .LT , . . . _ . � • a . X�'�' � . � � � . ��;;�� ' . . # ' � � 1 "��'�'�' � . �,i? -�' .,'� . " _ - .... � '.:. _ � ... . ... ,: �;i I �.. , ,.3•"('? ' ' . ,.;��` . .�:��'��c,�' � � ' . -.��_':. . � � a.y-.yai, v ;�..- ' ( . �,_ :��` _ .� '�,�.a,... � . �, . �rt � F eook 5'�9 �,ace (�7 To the contrary, vacation of the road, which bisects two active cattle ranching operations, will: ensure that develop- i .; ment surrounding agricultural lands or near such lands shall not j �, �� make continued aqricultural operations impractiaal or economically • infeasible by reasons of divisions of agricultural land into �``� ...Y. - �.: ` parcels oP unworkable sizes, shapes, or composition; encourage � the preservation of agricultural lands and uses within the unde- `� veloped portions of proposed or approved development wherever � i-� possible; and protect agricultural operations from disruptions associated with neighboring non-agricultural development, includ- _\� . ing depredation by domestxc pets, and conflicts with public ' vehicular travel and the public (especially hunters). � , ,;,� e. Re-opening of the road to public travel would � not comply with the policy expressed in Section 2-14 of the Land � Use Code, "Impacts on Taxes and Management of Necessary Services `.';� and Facilities,�' and the consequential impact on the County � =a budget for tha design, engineering, construction and maintenance ••�1� = r;•.�g of the road and potential liability exposure therefrom will: make ,,.`� ' it likely that future development will result in any reduction in ..�;.. the quality of services or public facilities or programs provided � � .. � to the general community ox portions thereof; or make it likely •, ; that the financial integrity of existing County programs is ! ;� .;:� jeopardized by over-extension, inadequately or poorly phased use � j: t � levels, or lack of revenue base. ; � i � Specifically, the County finds that development and ,,� maintenance Costs for constructinq a road in this location, ;�. ., ;a 10 ; , � , ',' `5 `-•[� ;� :7 ._., . � .. .r .. . � . �� \ J . . , � ' y}.. . ,, � .. k � .. '. . . .... ' � .M� .:.- _. , ..... �+. :. -..._ -... ti��i4' _., � ,.r-�... .' .�:� , ., . .. _ . , ' ' . ...... . ' } . . . .. . . . .. . - - - � ..., - .. ..,... :.�.' . . . . . a ' . ':y,:.. ,'7>�i%�"� - ' ' . . �:!' • �a � � �::�+"�� . .. �F -�_`*,��, � ' . . , (1 {.iC_.f._::. . �� _ r . ,..; �g; ' . � . ,•(��,�� . ,,�, /:U 4��.., . , ' ' . . ,. ..,,�. , .. ' -,' 1 A. u„'S W. :D' S .{„vyl. �l.� � :�• j,'^`�3eu� �� 37` ) s i x F fv.r i !�E� �..- .t�'�,,?�..�y.aek�V' �+ `.. f _�n��Y�:s. S p�s .c 1 4 ;tw�'� J'AN�. �,y.� {'F '"7 +L }�',�Y� �':S�.+t '�3 ' . '((�'�} . �4iYcQ�" . ( (; . t } � .!.. . S •''"7�' '. . . .. . ...'�; '�''s�w+..M�:.. �J..�°1-Y7�' ` . 4..:, ,�h �.i o ..Y. .. � q - eooH 51:9 P��E �8 including the installation of culverts and/or the construction of bridges, would be extremely high. A road in this location would � serve only three (3) single-family homesites (specially restricted �j by the facts surrounding the lawsuit settlement by which the _ E . �� . :i� sites were created) and would not serve any parcel that does not �', _::,;; have other access to a dedicated County road; hence the recon- "�� struction of this road would be an unnecessary duplication of , . `''�x'� available acCess. �� f. Re-opening the road to public travel would not =i.; �^'� comply with the policy expressed in Section 2-21 of the Land iTse . `��. �,�,,. ;:.�;�. Code, "Compatibility with Existing Adjacent Neighborhoods," and • i� would not be compatible with the intent of the RS-30 PUD zone � 1. district. Iv� Specifically, development of this road would affect and ;:� be affected by wildlife areas, hazard areas, ranching operations � and future land development. Vacatian of the road will help to r � maintain the RS-30 PUD zone district within the published intent , y`''>.� for that zone district by avoiding 1041 hazard areas, and enabling �. .� the current ranching operations to continue unimpeded by a devel- �"'� t,•_�:• oped public road, while permitting moderate residential develop- r.,_,� '� ment in a predominately rural area with extensive natural hazard areas, wildlife areas and limited access and utilities. .,.:�� i:. � g. Re-opening the road to public travel would not . + � comply with the polioy expressed in Section 2-22 of the Land Use �_ .�� Code, ��Water Resources Impacts," and would occur at the expense a of established water-dependent agricultural activities and would l� � . :� 11 �� 3 _ '� .--. ':sa `r x�-�-� - - �`'='��z� ._ . , . '.�,.fi'�i_^ . ' . - . . , . -_:r•. .. - . . �-'�:i.- . . �� 6 " _ � � �Wiw; x I y :�, ':' , -. . .. � . I j_;. . . - '��4�:;3..,`Ar • ' _ ' y� i.. . Y�� ' , ;� �,� ��, _ � . . q��p_i�'3'�8� ' '��.+:."� ��i��t yj�"��i�.'7�,'}'l�,,t �:. ��4%`��T x ,R•3,_ Z1��h~ p�R;1�;. .�,q SaF�� ,y �� .� 4 �'�' '�4'. .� ��i xc� � � � ��J�� - � �� f ��4 3 'i F �j ,�!f � ��` �� .; ,p �` ��. 4i, a��Y, �t�19 .��' . . .'N � " . ..... _ . . `'' .M1.1�?�4':�... � ..�.: ... , . . . . . . . i ,:.� " 1 eooK ��.J P��GE �� i _ ' unduly interfere with the efforts to maintain a natural vegetative x buffer along its surface waters such that the surface and ground- as waters of the area are not encroached upon by land uses or other ----- human activities which could cause deterioration of water quality M or impact the natural treatment processes provided by meadows and ;� wetlands. ..:� S.� .' . ' � Specifically, the County finds that the road would a ° follow East Sopris Creek so closely that construction and public :�� use activities would have unavoidable negative impacts upon water '�<� quality. Riparian vegetation would be lost if the road was , .• upgraded. Riparian veqetiation provides important wildlife habitat � =�r. , I,:y:� as well as acting as a natural filter and buffer against erosion. ;.�� Vacating the road will help to maintain the high water quality of " '� this stream by preserving the natural treatment processes provided �'�� • by meadows and wetlands. � >� 4:.•.� h. Re-opening of the road would not comply with ' � r :_� the policy expressed in Section 2-24 of the Land Use Cade, "Com- i .`� ;.�;� patibility with Adjacent or Nearby Public Lands,�� and will: make ! � it likely that development surrounding or near public lands will �<` � cause high concentrations of populations in such areas; permit :� activity and/or development that will encourage the intrusion of ;' '� �1 : -�y roads and high levels of human activities on such lands; and make � .. �d it likely that any activity and/or development will result in _� �. !�� adverse environmental impacts on such lands, such as water or air . � 5� �. pollution and threats to wildlife habitat by dogs or human acti- � �� vity. ; ' . �.. l ..Y ;'t��' 12 ! - � t;: .__ +� .. ;" ti� ��^# , ._, . a-f- �, F�_ - � � ..-.. br��-ti1� . �. . .. .. . � -� � . . . : � . . � . :.s.t:.. � . .� a � , � � , . .ti:if':' !:,`.:......_'..:... } r* * , r i t �?'r � j...•:..' �� N�;J� • ' � , r�� an:�.�1;�; � ' � - , ��'� „*�;;� x�..�� ' . 4{ A . aL- 4 r . ' �.�'�"�"^'� . C . ,w�l.h4r�.� .�•� . .a��:),' , . i � E�QN �.i.� Pr�GE �O The County further finds that re-opening of the road , will unduly encaurage intrusion of high levels of human activities � on public lands without providing a necessary access to such lands, as such access is already provided by other reasonably - ��, nearby routes. " . , 3 `:, �w"1 The United States Forest Service and the Colorado 3 ;t Division of Wildlife both have recommended that the East Sopris ':� a Creek Road be vacated. The Forest Service also has indicated ,! '..� that it does not desire to use the road as a trail access to ":� National Forest Service lands because of extensive boggy areas � and associated maintenance problems and the availability of � '� • � alternate aecess to public lands. The Planning Staff also has c:,� •. � concluded that a road would result in adverse environmental 7 � impacts. A trail easement wauld have proportionately less envi- � ronmental impacts; however, a trail would have many of the same � impacts as a road in the same location and the County would � become responsible for maintenance of a trail that the Forest . ' .,:t,. � ^ Service will not accept because of high maintenance costs. ' . f�Vacating the road completely will eliminate the County's duty to ` - upgrade and maintain an expensive alignment. '� There is a potential alternate recreational trail up � • ,��. .. the East Sopris Creek drainage which Petitioners described at the t BOCC meeting on Apri1 14, 1986. The indicated alignment is on �'-`� higher ground and on public lands. The County supports the f ' z: concept of establishing, if feasible, a public trail on such �::�;�� ` alignment. �; �;` . 13 i;:<s , ;t'.. '.. ... ,�y'��r" ' - - _ , . v � �i-.i ..: �'i JS �, fi: �.�.... _ 4, . . .. . .. ... . . .. . i �,.� � 1 � � . . i�- w�+F��.'... . a .;� �r ,,. , . . - . . . ._.. � `� ..,r.�' r� . r, � i t' :.�1 r,.,.+...,;;,';- j_::::,;,'': �- . �� ' ' . 4�� , ' R�� = � .�'��: ,� ` � ' � �g�� . ��..� ..�;' _., _ .�.�'„�.: �z=� .- eoo� �'�.9 pacE ��. 12. With respect to the alternate Maurin access, al- , though that access has adverse impacts in those areas set out in t paragraphs ll.a.-ll.h., above, the relative length, location and � �,. .... private nature of that access (and conse � '"�� quential lower traffic �, _. t'_s ;. �_ volumes and management of those traffic volumes by the affected � '` ' property owners) makes it likely that the adverse impacts of the �' ,;_ ;� alternate access will be less than those generated by the re- �, . `{ opening of the East Sopris Creek "Road" to the public. #' . • . + 13. With respect to the impact of re-opening of the � =��. � i��,, � road on the Road and Bridge System, the County finds that its - � � overall Road and Bridge budget is barely adequate to maintain its ' 3 . .# present road system and the addition of the East Sopris Creek ' Road, in light of the fact that it would primarily be a 6.1 mile . � long driveway to serve three private residences and an access •� road to public lands with other existing adequate access, is � ' unwise and not in the best interests of the County as a whole. �= : � { � With respect to the "offer'� by the Adelson/Hull/Johnson ' '�� group to pay for the reconstruction and maintenance of the East � •"��" � Sapris Creek "Road" according to driveway standards, the County � finds that the offer is deficient insofar as it fails to meet the � conditions necessary to comgletely indemnify the full potential � � public financial exposure oP such reconstruction and maintenance. � i 14. With respect to the impact of re-opening of the road on the general County budget, the County finds that its � ; overall budget is barely adequate to meet its operational costs �; for basic public services and to meet other, more pressing, �� . . f= 14 � �: ' . .a . � .J �. ._ ., . . . . � � . :_ �.r �.,.� ^,L r .::': . �� .-1-� � a . � � r' "-. .. �-" .'�. �' .. . � '� ,� � .,.. . ��fr�F�� '�' ' � � '' ' !.- '� • ' -�:�;,. p .;.;� � "- �'..... . . � .. . , ... . . . � . ..��. .. .� r . . . ' . . � '� .. .. . . . . �� .. 1 ' ..r-�'..�.'.. � " . .:.:j�. ' '. , , � t , . � , � � . � � :%y'�'C..�::` �� rR. W� , , _ ' .... . � . ,�� -. ,_�,��».w.w .,_ ..��+�� ` . �� 4.Y • � ..Y�i�1�_tv .3 d��?L.s. . . .��. ��},�..i.h r�}� �:' . .. eooK ��.� a�tcE �.� capital and maintenance expenditures, and there is no money in the present general budget available to transfer to the Road and Bridge budget to meet the demands of a re-constructed and re- � �:a>;;:-_ opened East Sopris Creek "Road." ;:::• - With respect to the potential claim by the Adelson/- �' `i Hull/Johnson group for damages for this vacation under a theory j" � ?� of inverse condemnation, the County believes that the taking, if �� ;.i;" . any, resulting from this vacation constitutes an insubstantiai . #' . '� . impairment of the value of the property and, in any event, the ' �� vacation is conditioned on a satisfactory resolution of any such ��`�`�'. �� € . • � clazm. If a condemnation award were to be won, the County would ' � then be in a position to best judge the public cost of the vaca- � tion. . � t � 15. With respect to the impact of re-opening o£ East �' ;� So ris Creek Road on the Count 's � � � P y general liability exposure, the �: �? County finds that the increased exposure caused by re-opening of r i; the raad is not equal to the public benefit of the road. i -• : .--� Further, the County finds that vacation is necessary to � �` minimize this exposure. Through the public hearing process, the . ' , ti .e�; x County has heard from citizens who have used the road in the � recent past under the assumption that it was a County road. The '� reasoning found in Wheeler v. Eagle County, 666 P.2d 559 (Colo. • r, 1983), makes it necessary for the County to re-evaluate its � �'; . s: policy of non-vacation of roads and management of ].ittle-used �' - � roads. Wheeler leads to the conclusion that the County can no �'� � �`1` longer afford a policy of maintenance to minimal standards on 'l1 , �..., 15 �, �, . �':+ !' .__ . t ��.��,;:�,M� � � . Y. ..a .!� _l.�' �t:- .�� .'." . . � �h ..a . . . . � � . � __..�,.__ _ r�,c.±. . � - - . � .- .. . . �ri%«a'. `.il . . . . . .. �_,� - �.:�i: . � . .. ' . �� r � , ;a;'. � . � x " � �� , . , i Y. i5i t,:..,;%::,.�:::,;.:.� . {�-r..'_�.��'.�"..�:. ``��'� � ' . ��"� . , �J .. . • s � b: .s}.' ' �c'y, x i r�uE t ki�,y,:rh�ai�}�..y�td � � � :.. ., ,.. r'. , ',�. �y �� 3....�f. � �� - !�<c �� Ts �rt� �� .n� a r '`' � �'.� � L�^S�Y � �� ' Sv� �� .., a. _n.. ._�JfR�:'. < ,. , ' ::!,�. . ... .� .� e . .. • �^h B��N ��!_7 �°�CE �� little-used public roads. Although it is in the public interest ;' to provide seaondary roads, where needed, it is not in the public j � in�erest in this case to expose the public treasury to liability �:`� ` � for accidents involving this road. � `� 16. With respect to certain issues raised by the Adel- � ,�� son/Hull/Johnson group in connection with the vacation of the - `� "road" (potential County liability Por "approval" o£ "inadequate° ,`,�� _�.., �� access for the Adelson/Hull/Johnson property as part of Civil _ " � '_� Action No. P-1201; the present development status of the Adelson- _ . /Fiu1lJJohnson property and the Maurin access; the extent of the - County�s duty, if any, to maintain the Capitol Creek Road to the . „� Maurin access for year-round wheeled vehicle access; the exact * " r. present (pre-petition) legal status of the entire 6.1-mile length � �� • . of the East Sopris Creek ��Road;" the conflicting testimony ;�1 ;� relating to the creation, location and historioal use of the '� "Road;" and the representations by one member of the public and i � � ._:� the Adelson/Hull/Johnson group of a willingness to assist with the ' :�� I'?� responsibility of maintaining a trail easement or a road), the . ;.. County finds that such issues are either outside the soope of �� "f-" {� issues to be addressed in this vacation proceeding or that, ' .,� having been considered, they do not outweigh the findings and <� conclusions on which the County's decision to vacate is grounded. ;., �'� 17. The County finds the record before it is sufficient F , i to make a determination on the merits of the Petition, and the ,� County has considered all of the information it deems pertinent 4. .. :{ to the merits of the Petition. �4 1 :;! � ,..� 16 � _ � :� -.fi . . r�.`� � .. .. . . � . . . . . . . � .', ' ' . . . . �.. ' � . ' .. . . . " ' ::�'; " � E � , � . 'd . . ••Vy,.��.~:':.�-- . . �L, _ . y�-y-.} ..'�� ..... � ' ..� .. �-. '......... � J / � F t� ( :: �'. � __ _ _._�.w.. _ �.�� ___ „� �.W..,.�.� _. _. -- . .. ,�q:_� , ' . . ��'� " �� , e.�i, , , � • r'�.�°,�'f3 �t1r° .�y��S`�� _ �`a�.��r,� � �� c�`+k+�'��'�r t�n.��''� r I v��'T"�� ' '� r . x�•. . -�.�' Y ��: �.,�-� .n��,� �yk'r i 1��:,. �� ry l�. ��;`.. i. .t, � � ..��`��'.... . . . . ... .. .�... . � ..:iLsk�s�. . � y ,� so�k ��.5 Pa�� .� � 18. The County finds the Petftioners have shown ade- � quate reasons for vacation of the East Sopris Creek °Road" and � its vacation will promote the health, safety and welfare of the people of Pitkin County. -�� 19. The County finds it has the power and authority to i� y vacate the East Sopris Creek "Road." � �. y� THEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the County ap- • ,_ r.: : :;;� proves and grants the Petition to Vaca�e Roadway and that any ��: =� present public interest in the East Sopris Creek "Road," whether ��_ �. obtained by deed, procedure, prescription or otherwise, be va- +:` �• �> cated, according to the following conditions: • =,'s . 1. That the. effective date of this Resolution be ;, f � dela ed for 30 da s until 4:55 ' X Y ( P-m., October 8th, 1986) to .�;, enable Adelson/Hull/Johnson to file whatever legal action they -� believe is necessary to protect their rights hereunder. '" 2. That if the Adelson Hull Johnson � l / group file a claim .•;�1 . : +- � for damages on a theory of inverse condemnation, then the effec- tive date of this Resolution be delayed until such claim is {" finally disposed of or adjudicated and any judgment thereon has �r�,� L � been satisfied, or until the Board of County Commissioners of ,� Pitkin County otherwise orders and directs by supplemental Reso- �� '�:=7 , -..i: . lution. �; ';� . :A �,_� ' � ::11 �" ��. . � .� 17 x '� t� s ,::� .t ._. ; � ;,,.: �j ' . � .. ..� � '- . :� . . . )fi ' � �,; .�-. :' :� .:. ' .__ . , . .. - , , ,�.�-.� . . : .. .: . . . ...� . . ., �, . - ..� i'^ - . " . . ' ' � . � . ... .. .. . . 5�� . - �� . , . ,`�i.I . . . . r ' . , : 1 � I i 1 �� ti� . .... - � - ...., � � �..� '' j�-<:'.;..,',��-��'.-�. . ::'^i.�:: i�, ::f..� . - . . . . . i .,�'v'�r` �� , b% , "r "�3i � t J y ' ;, . ' �, �;aa:, � . ., <.. . , �. t- � w � ._`. t �' �� .,1� .. , _:,. . �.:..:� �oy��tr� . �}?a. �� __ ...i. Y.:.( w� ..., -.. ..r, .. -�. ... �: . .. „ .. � . �. . .. 4� :, -.'��.. . .� C3: .. �. :' .: ..... .. .: � . . . . . . ,�i =' eooH �J�.� PAGE �� .: � APPROVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin j County, Colorado, by a vote of a to o, (Commissioner Blake was ! absent), at its regular meeting on the 8th day of 5eptember, 1986. ...-_-w �� ,�j 4� ;.„�=:. f BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS � OF PITICIN COUNTY, C07ARAD0 �Y . By: He en Calin anderud 3 Chai oman , � ATTEST: •! ( � ? //Gr�4i6 {Y��%!h Deputy Cle & Recorder t. � �� f s i; ' APPROVED A�TO FORM: ; / } , :�- � � � �-��-a� . ;:f:�. I Gar�jr S� E ary � Assista t ouit Attorney i ! � � � ; _' . ; � / ; t;� 'x I � � i �.: . I $ . �.'.-�4'. , Y lg �( � 5 I _ �. �: i ;r :,; • - - 1 �.m� ..:�. .,-: �- .-. ' � � � .__,ay�rx.��.4 T :,'. _ , . • ._... , . ..:, , . .:. . ..-. ._ , r ..+,r �5'�T,�, . . . . �'�iM'��:� _ ' . . . � . . . � � � Y2'• . . ' � � .+ . � - - . �a r . , ��,�,";„ ..: . . . � � . . . ��h � - TF.... ':��. s > : .% �� r�� . _ .. �'. ' -" ......_. ..._...._.__:... y i ..: .�� . . f. _ .: ... � 4 r�.� . .. . ./ .._- . � ''' "^ k i.`� : ��S.,.a: 1 . lr`y4'.Ai;�i'{:.:.. I . *;Y � -�J . . � �' 3'.: Y iA �.�+ �ws lts4�k � t. �.;''f:., . !� ;