Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Vacation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council holds public hearing on vacating 300 South right-of-way; state code would extend parcels
Summary
At a public hearing the council discussed a proposal to reduce the city's right-of-way along 300 South between Main and 200 East so recorded property lines match the visible improvements; staff said state code will automatically extend adjacent parcel descriptions and the county recorder will update tax records.
At a recent Gunnison City Council meeting, council members held a public hearing on a proposal to vacate portions of the city's right-of-way on 300 South between Main Street and 200 East so that recorded property lines match the existing roadway and adjacent improvements.
City staff described the change as an effort "to fix this problem that's been with us for many years about our right of way actually being on a lot of people's front doorsteps," noting the goal is to align legal descriptions with the observed location of fences, sidewalks and other improvements. Staff said the proposal would replace the historic right-of-way line with a new alignment shown on the council exhibits and would reduce the width at the intersection to roughly 56' to 60 feet, expanding to about 70 feet in other segments.
The council hearing included questions from several residents about practical effects. One resident asked what would happen to the small piece of land just off Main Street and how future curb, gutter and sidewalk work would be handled on steep terrain. A staff member responded that the city had not adjusted the historic line at one particularly steep north-side parcel and that future improvements, if undertaken, would be designed to address those elevation challenges; the staff member also noted that standards can be adjusted when topography makes the standard layout impractical.
On the legal effect, staff said state code generally dictates that when the city vacates a right-of-way, the adjacent property owners' parcels are automatically extended to the new right-of-way line. The county recorder, staff said, had advised how the extra area would be described; staff indicated the added areas would appear on adjacent parcels' tax records the following year. A resident later said the additional area to their parcel would be "less than a tenth of an acre" on paper.
Residents also raised concerns about a nearby proposed development (referred to by a neighbor as the Dan Young property). Staff said stormwater and flood-hazard matters tied to that development would be addressed through the planning and zoning process and noted the planning commission had reviewed maps showing areas identified by the state for flood-mitigation standards.
No final ordinance adoption was recorded in the transcript of the hearing. Staff told the council that the next step would be to take an ordinance with the exhibits, record it with the county recorder and have the county treat it similar to a subdivision plat. The council did not record a final vote on the vacation during the portion of the transcript provided.
The public hearing covered project alignment, how deed descriptions and tax records would be changed, and topographic constraints affecting potential future curb-and-sidewalk improvements. The council asked staff to continue working with residents and the county recorder on precise legal descriptions and the timing of record updates.
