The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01.046 CorrespondenceFebruary 20, 2015 Garfield County Community Development Dave Pesnichak 108 8th Street, #401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Carbondale Investments PUD/Preliminary Plan Amendment - Letter of Authorization Dear Mr. Pesnichak, I, Ted Skokos, Managing Member of Carbondale Investments, LLC ("CI") formed under with address of 5121 Park Lane, Dallas, TX 75220, hereby execute this Letter authorizing Peter Mertes, Senior Project Manager for HDR, Inc., to act on CI's and matters related to the processing, review, and approval of the PUD and Preliminary Application recently filed for CI's property. Neither Peter Mertes nor HDR, Inc. shall have any other or further authority to act on nor any other or further authority relative to CI's property. Sincerely, Ted Skokos, Managing Member Carbondale Investments, LLC 013738\0001\11910852.1 the laws of Texas of Authorization my behalf for all Plan Amendment CI's or my behalf CGarfield County STATEMENT OF AUTHORITY Pursuant to C.R.S. §38-30-172, the undersigned executes this Statement of Authority on behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC a limited liability company (corporation, limited liability company, general partnership, registered limited liability partnership, registered limited liability limited partnership, limited partnership association, government agency, trust or other), an entity other than an individual, capable of holding title to real property (the "Entity"), and states as follows: The name of the Entity is Carbondale Investments, LLC and is formed under the laws of Texas The mailing address for the Entity is 5121 Park Lane, Dallas, TX 75220 The name and/or position of the person authorized to execute instruments conveying, encumbering, or otherwise affecting title to real property on behalf of the Entity is Ted Skokos The limitations upon the authority of the person named above or holding the position described above to bind the Entity are as follows (if no limitations, insert "None"): None Other matters concerning the manner in which the Entity deals with any interest in real property are (if no other matter, leave this section blank): EXECUTED this Signatur Name (printed): Ted Skokos Title (if any): Managing Member day of February , 2015 STATE OF kwS ) )SS. COUNTY OF Oct (1ti.S The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this !" day of February by ed S1[ -o k -os , on behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC limited liability company Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires: 03-22 (1 (Date) [SEAL] , 2015 ,a 20 MY TAYLOR LEE filar/ Pubic, Scale of Tem � ,,,+ My Omission Expies 0322.2417 hdrinc.com January 20, 2016 David Pesnichak Garfield County Community Development 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: River Edge Colorado — PUD and Preliminary Plan Substantial Amendment — Carbondale Investments, LLC — Garfield County File Numbers PDAA-8212 and PPAA-8214 Mr. Pesnichak: Carbondale Investments requests that the public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners for River Edge Colorado - PUD and Preliminary Plan Substantial Amendment be rescheduled for April 18, 2016. I am making this request and providing the timeline waiver request (attached) on the condition that both applications for River Edge Colorado and the GCCI Rezone (File Number ZDAA-8388) are both heard on April 18, 2016 and that any further extensions of the hearing date will require additional requests/waivers signed by myself. Sincerely, Peter L. Mertes Enclosure 1670 Broadway, Suite 3400, Denver, CO 80202-4824 (303) 764-1520 rie Garfield County TIMELINE WAIVER REQUEST 1/20/2016 (Date) I Peter L. Mertes (print name) hereby waive any applicable timelines specified in the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended and/or conducting a public hearing before the Garfield County Planning Commission and/or the Board of County Commissioners for (project name and number) River Edge Colorado - PUD and Preliminary Plan Substantial Amendment - Carbondale Investments, LLC - Garfield County File Numbers PDAA-8212 and PPAA-8214. Signed by: (Applicant or Authorized Representative) 6SGM Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. dba SGM 118 West 6th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-1004 Fax (970) 945-5948 TAMARA ALLEN GARFIELD COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 108 EIGHTH STREET, #401 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81601 Project Invoice Date: Invoice No: 2014-367.001 Garfield County Planning Review For Professional Services through November 14, 2015 Invoice November 20, 2015 2014-367.001 - 2 Phase 02 Professional Labor RIVER EDGE Hours Rate Amount Project Review Cokley, Daniel Senior Engineer II 1.00 150.00 150.00 Fowler, Michael Senior Engineer II 6.50 150.00 975.00 Totals 7.50 Total Labor If you have any questions regarding this bill, please call. Project Manager: Michael Fowler 1,125.00 1,125.00 Phase Total $1,125.00 Invoice Total $1,125.00 ICGarfield County April 29, 2013 VIA EMAIL Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck c/o Wayne Forman 410 17th Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Dear Mr. Forman: I have reviewed your request on behalf of Carbondale Investments, LLC ("Cl") in regard to submitting an approved CDOT access permit and RFTA/PUC access approval for the River Edge Colorado amended PUD and Preliminary Plan as a part of a technically complete application. As described in the Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended ("ULUR") Section 4-203.L.5, Traffic Impact Study, the County will accept "evidence of consultation with CDOT [and RFTA] for future access permits," for the proposed State Highway 82 access and the RFTA crossing to render the application complete. Though the County would prefer to have evidence of the approved permits at the time of application in order to avoid the chance that these accesses may again be modified, we do acknowledge that the risk is largely that of the applicant's and will process the application with "evidence of consultation." In order for the applicant to demonstrate compliance with Section 7-107 of the ULUR , planning staff will certainly recommend that the Board of County Commissioners require, as a condition of any approval, the approved access permit and crossing approval. Respectfully, Tamra Allen Planning Manager Cc: Glenn Hartmann, Senior Planner Carey Gagnon, Assistant County Attorney David Pesnichak From: Angela Kincade <akincade@rfta.com> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 4:00 PM To: David Pesnichak Cc: Angela Kincade Subject: FW: River Edge Colorado Amended PUD Attachments: 2014-08-15 REC Chart of Crossing Rights under RFTA Agreements.pdf Dave - Pete Mertes reached out to me regarding the grade -separated trail crossing and since I believe he has provided you with a copy of most of our email exchanges regarding the crossings for the REC project, I thought that I should go ahead and forward a copy of our latest email exchange. If you have any questions please email me or give me a call. Thank you, Angela M. Kincade Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) (970) 384-4982 — Office (970) 384-4870 — Fax Office Hours -Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm From: Angela Kincade Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 6:17 PM To: 'Mertes, Peter' Cc: Angela M. Kincade (akincade@rfta.com) Subject: RE: River Edge Colorado Amended PUD Pete - Just to be clear, RFTA and REC haven't formalized any new agreements for crossing rights yet. What we have discussed to date is what RFTA and the developer believe to be the existing crossing rights for REC and the possibility of creating new agreements with REC for the newly proposed crossing locations (The process for creating new agreements is wholly dependent on final approvals for this project and the proposed crossing locations by Garfield County). The document attached is the document provided by the REC attorney to RFTA outlining REC's interpretation of the crossing rights for this parcel. This is the document that we have been working from. If you open the attachment it specifically calls out an at -grade vehicular, pedestrian and utilities crossing with a grade -separated trail. I don't believe that we have changed our stance on this issue. It is my recollection that we had discussed the possibility of relocating the grade -separated trail crossing outside of the Railroad Corridor, potentially into the open space easement to reduce the construction costs of building the grade -separated trail to a "Railroad" standard. I hope that this answers your questions if you wish to discuss further please give me a call in my office or on my cell, 948-4443. Thank you, Angela M. Kincade 1 Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) (970) 384-4982 — Office (970) 384-4870 — Fax Office Hours -Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm From: Mertes, Peter [mailto:Peter.Mertes@hdrinc.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 1:52 PM To: Angela Kincade Subject: River Edge Colorado Amended PUD Angela, We have received a letter from Garfield County requesting that we provide some clarification regarding our clients approach to crossing the RFTA corridor. As part of the PUD submittal we were required to provide evidence of consultant with RFTA to demonstrate that we are working together to come up with a crossing that is acceptable. We had provided much of the past correspondence that has been going on over the last year or more as evidence of this. The following is the specific comment and request for clarification that we received on May 11, 2015: "In the letter dated April 16, 2015 from Pete Mertes, "An at -grade crossing for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic is proposed for crossing the RFTA corridor". However, correspondence between County Staff and Angela Kincade of RFTA indicate the following: "If Garfield County agrees to a change in location for the new crossing and the crossing is in the location that REC has proposed to RFTA then there is enough queuing distance from the signal for a safe at -grade road crossing of the Railroad Corridor. The Rio Grande Trail will have to be grade -separated for the safety of the users. What the developer had proposed was building it outside of the RFTA corridor within their open space easement to limit the expense of building it to accommodate freight rail and this option is acceptable to RFTA but the trail will have to be grade -separated." As a result, it appears that RFTA and REC have differences of opinion as to the results of the included correspondence. Please clarify the Applicant's approach to providing access across RFTA's corridor." Could you provide the correspondence document that the County is referring to above? Based on all of the discussions we have had with you during the past year was that RFTA staff were in agreement with our approach of an at grade vehicular crossing and an at -grade ped/bike crossing provided the corridor was treated as a rail corridor and that there would not be an preclusion for future rail. If now RFTA is saying that the bike/ped trail has to be grade separated to be safe, this is certainly a change in direction that has not been communicated to us. As matter of fact we provided an analysis of the at -grade intersection based on the number of vehicles conflicting with bikes/peds and provided what the recommended solution would be in accordance accepted standard practice. Let me know when you have a few minutes to discuss. Peter L. Mertes, PE Senior Project Manager HDR 1670 Broadway, Suite 3400 Denver, CO 80202-4824 D 303-323-9820 M [970-379-8357] peter.mertes@hdrinc.com hdrinc.com/follow-us 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 2 Chart of Crossing Rights Under Various Agreements with RFTA (8.15.14) Crossing Right Agreement 100' easement at milepost 367.51 with one-time relocation right (up to 300' north or at any point south along corridor) for an at -grade vehicular, pedestrian and utilities crossing with grade -separated trail crossing Easement Grant* Upon submittal of plans, RFTA will approve at- grade vehicular, pedestrian and utilities crossing with grade -separated trail crossing at milepost 368.08 (existing Cattle Creek access) § 4, LOU (references Easement Grant)** 18' license at milepost 368+343' (existing Cattle Creek access) for vehicular access to present agricultural uses and construction access and, after development, license is for emergency access, vehicular access if principal access is blocked, golf carts and golfer crossing, and golf course maintenance and operation License Grant (Construction and Emergency Access)*** Upon submittal of plans, RFTA will approve utility crossing at milepost 368.14 § 5, LOU (references License Grant (Construction and Emergency Access)) Upon submittal of plans, RFTA will approve grade- separated crossing with utilities at milepost 367.66 § 6, LOU (references License Grant (Construction and Emergency Access)) Two licenses for underpasses of corridor between mileposts 367.3 and 368.77 for access for golf course maintenance and operation, golf carts, pedestrians and bicycles, and utilities License Grant (Underpasses)**** * Easement Grant - Easement Grant Railroad Milepost 367.51 between Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC and RFRHA dated July 30, 1999 and recorded August 2, 1999 at Reception No. 549751, as amended by Amendment to Easement Grant Railroad Milepost 367.51 dated November 8, 2000 recorded November 15, 2000 at Reception No. 572244 ** LOU — Letter of Understanding between RFTA and LinksVest/BairChase dated April 11, 2002 (not recorded) *** License Grant (Construction and Emergency Access) - License Grant Railroad Milepost 368+343' between Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC and RFRHA dated July 30, 1999 and recorded August 2, 1999 at Reception No. 549752, as amended by Amendment to License Grant Railroad Milepost 368+343' recorded November 15, 2000 at Reception No. 572246 ****License Grant (Underpasses) - License Grant Between Railroad Milepost 367.3 and 368.77 between Sanders Ranch Holdings, LLC and RFRHA dated July 30, 1999 and recorded August 2, 1999 at Reception No. 549753, as amended by Amendment to License Grant Between Railroad Milepost 367.3 and 368.77 recorded November 15, 2000 at Reception No. 572247 013738\0001\11504181.1 David Pesnichak From: Mertes, Peter <Peter.Mertes@hdrinc.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2015 4:25 PM To: David Pesnichak Subject: RE: River Edge Attachments: River Edge Colorado PUD - Emergency Vehicle Access on SH 82 Dave, See attached email from CDOT regarding HDR's previous coordination and discussions with them. Our approach is to promptly submit an access permit on behalf of the Cattle Creek Metro District for the approval of the southern Emergency Vehicle Access. Precedence has been set on the State Highway 82 corridor in at least 2 locations with the most recent permit for Cerise Ranch (that I am currently aware of) a few miles up valley. I was able to find the EVA permit application to CDOT back in 2000 for Cerise Ranch on the Community Development Website that you directed me to last week. Thanks for that information. Let me know if you need anything else. Pete Mertes, PE D 303-323-9820 M [970-379-8357] hdrinc.com/follow-us From: David Pesnichak [mailto:dpesnichak@garfield-county.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 4:58 PM To: Mertes, Peter Subject: RE: River Edge Hi Pete, I received your voicemail and just tried calling you back, but your voicemail did not pick up. For the evidence of consultation, if you can direct me to the appropriate documentation in the application, I would appreciate it. If it was not submitted, I will need some kind of "evidence", such as an email from CDOT relating to your conversation on the feasibility of permitting an EVA onto Hwy 82 at this location. Thanks, Dave David Pesnichak, AICP Senior Planner Garfield County Community Development Department 108 8th St Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-8212 dpesnichak@garfield-county.com http://www.garfield-county.com/community-development/ 1 David Pesnichak From: Angela Henderson <ahenderson@rfta.com> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2016 4:31 PM To: Mertes, Peter (Peter.Mertes@hdrinc.com) Cc: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak; Abbey Pascoe; Angela Henderson; Tucker, Charlie; 'DiFulvio, Dave' (ddifulvio@F-W.com); Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US; Downing, Walter J.; Brett Meredith; David Johnson Subject: FW: RIVERS EDGE COLORADO CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW - PETE MERTES (HDR) APPROXIMATE MP 367.70 & CDOT Application for River Edge Emergency Access Attachments: 2016-01-06 - Rio Grande Trail Crossing Traffic Operation Assessment Review.pdf; 2000-09-25 Open Space Easement Exhibit.pdf; 2016-01-28 MP368.50_Conservation Covenant Area.pdf Importance: High Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Pete - This is a follow up to my previous email regarding the traffic and design information submitted to RFTA for review, as well as a follow up to the Garfield County Planning Commission comments provided at the meeting held on January 13tH To date staff has an insufficient amount of design information to review and provide a recommendation for approval or denial to the RFTA Board of Director's for the newly proposed crossings, road, utility, drainage and/or pedestrian, being proposed by the River Edge Colorado/Carbondale Investments, LLC (REC) developer. In addition, we have reviewed and provided a response (see attached) to the traffic study submitted by the REC developer to support an at -grade trail crossing, sent to REC on January 7th, 2016. (see original email below and RFTA response attached) To recap for Garfield County, a summary of the current list of approved crossings are: • One Class II Corridor Crossing and underground utility at MP 368.08 (Cattle Creek location). This crossing will include a grade -separated trail crossing. This crossing can be used for the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) and construction access. Once the construction is completed, this access must be gated and locked for emergency access only. This approval is by agreement only between Sanders Ranch/Bair Chase/REC and RFRHA/RFTA and is NOT intended to imply any approval by or on behalf of the Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) as it relates to their management of the Highway 82 Corridor. • One underground utility crossing at MP368.14 • One Class I Corridor Grade -Separated crossing together with an underground utility at MP367.66. • Two Underpasses between MP367.3 and 368.77 for pedestrians and bicyclists. • The REC developer must place the following note on the final approved plat(s): o "The Railroad Corridor passing through or adjacent to the development as shown on the plat(s) for this development, is owned by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) and is railbanked and bound by a Decision and Notice of Interim Trail Use/Railbanking issued by the Surface Transportation 1 Board (STB), Docket No. AB -547X. As such, RFTA intends to use the Railroad Corridor for Interim Trail purposes and as a Tong -term transportation corridor. The conditions of the STB decision require that this Railroad Corridor remain subject to the future restoration of Rail Service." • A portion of the Railroad Corridor (MP368.5 — MP369.00) is encumbered by a Conservation Covenant. All improvements to the Railroad Corridor anticipated in this area to be made under the various licenses, easements, and/or agreements concerning the Sanders Ranch/Bair Chase/River Edge Colorado development will not change or will enhance the conservation values of the Railroad Corridor • There are also 3 conservation easement areas conveyed by Sanders Ranch to RFRHA/RFTA. The extent of the Conservation areas are highlighted on the attachment labeled 2000-09-25 Open Space Easement Exhibit. What has been proposed by the REC Developer is a change in location for all of the crossings, road, utility, drainage and/or pedestrian, currently approved under various types of agreements (easements, licenses, Letter of Understanding) between Sanders Ranch/Bair Chase and the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA)/RFTA. • One at -grade road crossing at MP367.7 (Terrace Parkway) • One Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) at MP368.65 (This EVA as proposed, would be built in a Conservation et Covenant Area and RFTA staff will not recommend approval of this location for an EVA or any other type of X41' tJ crossing). This EVA should be moved back to the Cattle Creek location at MP368.08 or proposed in a location that does not impact the Conservation Covenant area • One underground utility at MP368.08 • One pedestrian connection to the Rio Grande Trail at MP368.08 • Proposed 25' Glenwood Ditch easement inside of the 50' Easement area already granted to RFTA(????). I cannot tell if the intent is to pipe under the RFTA Open Space Easement and Railroad Corridor....but if this is the plan why is it only showing a 25' Ditch easement underneath the 50' RFTA Open Space Easement??? In order for RFTA staff to take any recommendations to the RFTA Board regarding this application, staff will require: • a sufficient amount of design for each individual crossing as well as a sufficient amount of drainage design for drainage impacts to the RFTA Railroad Corridor (Please see the email chain below regarding the design information necessary to provide a review for this project. • Provide design for any proposed pedestrian access to the Rio Grande Trail. • The questions and comments regarding the traffic study addressed, the traffic study revised and resubmitted to RFTA for review (See 2016-01-06 — Rio Grande Trail Crossing Traffic Operation Assessment Review) • REC must include the Conservation Easements granted to RFTA on the Plat Maps and address how the area will be landscaped, irrigated and maintained by the development to keep the open space easement and Railroad Corridor in good condition and free of weeds. • A plan that limits the amount of direct access from the development onto the Railroad Corridor and/or the Rio Grande Trail. • An agreement to cancel all of the existing agreements in place and develop new agreements for any newly approved uses of the RFTA Railroad Corridor by the RFTA Board of Directors. This will merely be a paperwork cleanup exercise to limit any future confusion about what crossing rights have been granted to the development. I have copied in the Garfield County Planning staff reviewing this project as well as Dan Roussin at CDOT (CDOT Access Control Manager). They have been copied in to keep them abreast of where RFTA staff is in the review process and Dan Roussin specifically, so that he is aware that an agreement exists between the developer and RFTA that allows for an t • JpEmergency Vehicle Access (EVA) located on Highway 82 at the Cattle Creek location IF an EVA is approved by CDOT. In conclusion, RFTA staff would like to finalize the review and take the information to the RFTA Board of Directors for their review as soon as humanly possible.......but staff cannot begin the review process until we have received a sufficient amount of design for each proposed use, road, utility, drainage and/or pedestrian, to ensure that the crossings meet the design guidelines required to protect the RFTA Railroad Corridor and the Trail users. 2 In addition to seeking approval from the RFTA Board of Directors, the newly proposed crossings will need to be reviewed VCAND approved by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Both of these reviews (RFTA & the PUC) will require time.......staff does not want to be the cause of any unnecessary delays in the review process. Staff respectfully requests that the REC developer review the attached information and provide the design information necessary for staff to begin the review process in earnest. This email is meant to address direct impacts to the RFTA Railroad Corridor and does NOT attempt to respond to any of the comments submitted by RFTA staff regarding the impacts to the RFTA Transit system. 1 will defer to David Johnson, RFTA's Director of Planning to address comments/concerns and/or mitigation specific to Transit. Thank you for your time and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions, comments and/or clarifications regarding this email or any of the attachments. Thank you, Angela M. Henderson Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations (970) 384-4982 — office (970) 948-4443 - cell From: Angela Henderson Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:33 PM To: 'Mertes, Peter'; Tucker, Charlie Cc: DiFulvio, Dave; Angela Henderson (ahenderson@rfta.com) Subject: RE: RIVERS EDGE COLORADO CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW - PETE MERTES (HDR) APPROXIMATE MP 367.70 & CDOT Application for River Edge Emergency Access Importance: High Pete — I am attempting to respond to all things REC with this email. First — (Traffic Study) - There are several comments regarding the traffic study that need to be addressed before we can provide a reasonable response to Carbondale Investments request for review of an at -grade pedestrian crossing. Please see the letter attached. Second- (Conceptual Design) - I understand that this is a conceptual design and that the developer doesn't want to expend additional funds for design until the RFTA Board of Directors agrees to the new locations and a consolidation of the existing crossing rights. However if there isn't a sufficient amount of information provided as a part of the conceptual plan for our engineers to provide some kind of reasonable response then I cannot take it to the RFTA Board for review and approval. Third — (Request for a letter to CDOT on the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) relocation location) — I can (with Dan's permission) draft a letter to CDOT outlining the right to an EVA however I cannot provide support for a change in location without the express blessing of the RFTA Board. Please let me know if a letter outlining the right to an EVA will help with CDOT. Thank you, Angela M. Henderson Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations (970) 384-4982 — office 3 (970) 948-4443 - cell From: Mertes, Peter[mailto:Peter.Mertes@hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 8:20 AM To: Tucker, Charlie Cc: Angela Henderson; DiFulvio, Dave Subject: RE: RIVERS EDGE COLORADO CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW - PETE MERTES (HDR) APPROXIMATE MP 367.70 Charlie, Thanks for the comments. While I can't disagree with your comments, our submittal was for an initial concept review with the intent of reconfiguring and consolidating existing crossing agreements. We did not initially at this time submit a 30% level design for evaluation. The RFTA corridor crossing rights plan shows the known existing crossing right location as well as proposed crossing concepts, locations and types, EVA's, utility crossings, etc. Until we have a general concurrence from RFTA on our proposed approach we are not going to invest a lot of time and resources into 30% level design. I will follow up with Angela to determine what is necessary to proceed. Pete Mertes, PE D 303-323-9820 M [970-379-8357] hdrinc.com/follow-us From: Tucker, Charlie [mailto:ctucker@F-W.com] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 2:02 PM To: Mertes, Peter Cc: Angela Henderson; DiFulvio, Dave Subject: RIVERS EDGE COLORADO CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW - PETE MERTES (HDR) APPROXIMATE MP 367.70 Hi Pete, We are reviewing the conceptual plans submittal dated October 27, 2015 and the December 7, 2015 follow-up letter, and would like to request additional information, in an effort to provide a comprehensive review and response on behalf of RFTA. We realize that this is a conceptual plan level review, generally considered a 30% design level, however there are items missing that affect the design which we need to adequately understand conceptually in order for us to complete our review. The conceptual (30%) design review plans set was anticipated to include the entire project from the 4. What we have received is primarily the Terrace Parkway Crossing (the development's arterial road), some partially complete application forms and little else. Some supporting documentation was attached, but there is very little in a design sense in a working drawing to comment on. We need to see everything affecting the RFTA corridor for the entire length of the Rivers Edge comprehensive project with enough detail to comment on how the development impacts RFTA's infrastructure and varied uses. My understanding is that we are supposed to be looking at the overall project impact on the adjoining RFTA corridor, not just key pieces like Terrace Parkway, to assure RFTA that the proposed development impacts are mitigated to RFTA's satisfaction. Before we can finalize our review, we need the following information included in the plan set: (1) At the Terrace Parkway crossing: a. A profile along the trail/railroad berm (old railroad centerline). None is shown. We cannot see how the roadway will meet the railroad/ trail grade and keep the approaches all in the same plane within 33 feet of the centerline of the nearest proposed track to meet the AASHTO/AREMA joint suggested specification. 4 b. Drainage information - in the area of the crossing is non -extant with no evidence of cross drains or surface drains. (2) Area Drainage a. Overall, there is a major commercial operation planned for the area between CO -82 and the Rio Grande trail with 405,000 +/- square feet of commercial space under roof plus the paved parking area to support it. We need to see how all of this soon to be impervious ground area is to be drained. West to the river, north to an existing Arroyo or south to Cattle Creek, the drainage has to go somewhere and not be to RFTA's detriment. Questions raised include: • What will this do to the existing railroad -constructed drainage structures? • Will those existing drainage structures be able to handle the new demand? • We would like to understand the impacts on existing RFTA assets, mostly bridges (1) and culverts (4), that Rivers Edge may be anticipating using. b. Parallel to the railroad berm at the crossing, will the existing ditch grades require culverts to pass water under the new roadway. With the future shoo -fly, will there be accommodation for drainage in the area enveloped by the roadway? How are we keeping water out of the rail/trail crossing areas coming down the Terrace Parkway grade? (even in really bad weather, people are still using the trail) c. Are the proposed trail connections going to have any drainage or asset conflicts. (We can't see anything to tell yet) (3) Utility Crossing (s): a. During the previous iterations of this development project, it was pointed out that the utility corridor with its buried pipeline and cable utilities would move to be out of the roadway. Where are they supposed to be going?; how deep across the R/W cross section?, etc. While there is a series of agreements granting a crossing, there is no data relating to the location and placement of transmission and distribution lines in the working drawing. Plan and profile for the trail axis and the utility corridor centerline are needed to show adequate cover, position and casing of the utility lines. b. Along with the utility crossing, there was thought to be a temporary crossing to allow construction. We see nothing on this plan set that addresses this at the present. Plan and profile for the trail axis and the temporary road access are needed. (4) Emergency access crossing: a. Also agreed to is an emergency access crossing somewhere near the existing private farm crossing north of Cattle Creek at MP 368.06. We see nothing currently in the working drawing to indicate what is proposed or how the developer intends to prevent improper use of the crossing by non -emergency personnel and their vehicles along with how the trail / future railroad crossing is to be accommodated and trail users protected. Plan and profile for the trail axis and the road access are needed, but not necessarily to the detail of Terrace Parkway. (5) Traffic Study related issues: a. Because of the issues raised by the supplemental traffic assessment (see Jason Frerick's comments in his letter under separate cover), there are now multiple MUTCD and AASHTO suggested design standards that will change to meet new criteria. Until some of those issues are addressed, it is not possible to comment on signage placement and related mitigation for MUTCD warrants and AASHTO Bicycle Standards compliance which are both included the RFTA design guidelines and standards. We really need to be seeing what the status is AFTER the revised traffic assessment numbers are assembled. (6) Basic Geometry and Survey Control issues. a. While we are still reviewing conceptual design at the 30% level, it would be extremely helpful to have major crossing locations, etc. tied to RFTA's survey control and have enough data (crossing location and angle of crossing) to correlate the proposed improvements to RFTA's records and see if there any known 5 conflicts that can be identified from existing data and have some assurance of avoiding any future access issues. While the site is mostly a greenfield, there is some historic infrastructure and drainage in place. The goal is to not have water ponding on or cutting new channels on the RFTA corridor at completion. b. Please include some of the radii and distance data shown for the trail re -alignment on the approaches to the crossing so we can confirm compliance with AASHTO Bicycle trail standard per Section 5.2 in that manual. c. The trail sight line triangles/ stopping distances are missing altogether (AASHTO Bicycle 5.2.8) Please include on the plan set. (7) Trail Connections to the new development. a. Trail Connections are not shown on the planset. Where are they supposed to be? Plan & profile needed. We are working with what we have so far, but we expect some of this will change with the supplemental traffic analysis modifications and there are still many gaps to be addressed that we would like to see additional detail on. Thanks, Charlie Tucker, LSI Project Manager - Railway Services Farnsworth Group, Inc. 5613 ITC Parkway, Suite 1100; Greenwood Village, CO 80111 p 303-692-8838, ext. 218 1 f 303-692-0470 1 c 303-475-7200 ❑ Direct: 303-407-6716 www.f-w.com 1 www.greennavigation.com 1 http://www.f-w.com/railroad.php?page=railroad ctucker@f-w.com ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS-SURVEYORS/GIS PROFESSIONALS - ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS - LEED, GREEN BUILDING & COMMISSIONING PROFESSIONALS Bloomington, IL • St Louis, MO • Denver, CO • Chicago, IL • Atlanta, GA • Los Angeles, CA • Madison, WI • Peoria, IL • Pontiac, IL. Effingham, IL • Champaign, IL • Colorado Springs, CO • Fort Collins, CO • Normal, IL • Shorewood, IL• Durango, CO. Dallas, TX. Indianapolis, IN 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. 6 ®e nmO'pr+ w .1060,111 a rc. OM 13.1110140D - .an MIS - 8091903 '0! O0IJ VBIi :oNTOW ®amnermwomcrosas ,sw man. art kwi90 Som m0/030 4mPwG dnoa9 N!i049ro wpvyadw..1 MINRl0liTrnV gllOMSU.IE j %+od WWtotl ra LOOL/!VA SFO owl P 9 8 9 88da at9 )+1698 Wd ms'Po. d 91�'x,�eeLe V9i §s 8 8 ReM-(O-Wend y0ue9 uadMi $ peo6i!eH 8P08.10 O9 4 ..atua0 a00 0J Jo uoarod uenuBaS men° *gm • A.^rS MOH Pe0&6H 9 13385 3911 H�; S<l /././g a i t/� Y' r`F i.',/d i .� F� 1' / /070.3S 11,d u- 1- 0 m //19 y \ 3 ;41 /off !F /10;7-7s 0 8 W d Sly `9 y6gcy m, L(1 m a Ico o vm J ui r m c w i o 2_c W v W raj• ' 176 U o1 Q c rn y CO Z E tJJ o co ar o O .o H c s 6,0,x.1., toy •ao xoLLOb MP • 1.1 et w/mTn t •tr t a9 at.. t••®9 •..To u 9m91010 w .w.Vxi 64919 00 7!00!00 A•M 0a644 9940 6449494 ugtayodt9941 Wed 699999 raiz ;•4 x••a MO/0']0 T90! 0) M/MAOW'9.otl 10060.-4 9406 e 6 13345 304 103161 89907 ay� 0 c 0) ttl -C C tin NE (r N t6 O = Q NX �Y d y! /11619.6/ •S�l t rod �1 �� 4 13160 340 93149 st:g1 Z& dnoa5 1 L��JOMSUJE� 0999n00 00 %MS '0 ro3 aw90u Wd 40 ?AM 'St.t 9t 9'1 9g10.3 9 Wd 199'0'6700 pue Wd tag 'NWW'591 96994099 ABM -3O-146!9 409848 uadsy Pa0368H 9998440 0!y ; 190990 iettlY3A 10 00990d luatuBaS'l GRP* - 90MS MO8 P..11.11 to 0 -110 / h'Q, ylg Z� '16, , ii ubsay.� -' n..s a • mw. mama load 3101.11140 ,y, ,,,e,a e..... am.mmeiser® 0999103 PERS 0,9900 MAD C2.9 W 90.4.3 =az .1.100.9.3111.10-10111110 r m Wd Vt9'M8&i'SLl $ T Y mg99S 9 '11.1 W9 Weal 999 00094 99L0 12.4...0 P. 7(d 191 MW9049&19C MPS �4JOMSUd a A dam. A•M-IO-146&1 110u241 Dads+l a P90{rey aP.0+D o9! 9 J00.100 101.11.10d 1.3 t o pod IOOi/Na SPO S X e* 91690 - S MO l PEW[9191 5i 01 31 19/1 / i / iN j yy� / l 1 / illi ; / • ;� / al i 71; s K / 1 / gL / \3 �/ 14! Ggrooy f4400 �3S ./% 4996, '`'119 S c m co 2 = m Q / r U- oLN 3" Fg • o • • . • • .. • • • 0 ra020a, 00,01 m 411.13Med MUM 30‘ 0 tenW , 5'W 1000G-W.0a-tJn 9 C091) 00 007 A00 000,01 9500 H!nWM 000spo09x,1 *00 00x09* 110113 Nli '0140011 00./000 .1=0,0 Nf0.1I9014 .00.0 ariara 010c avodsexaeato 0,000000010I 900.010010 mals ,0,00 9104000 Wd V19 W491.1 Tit '91 4'L '09009 4 Wd 019 WSW 900 Wd Vq'A0f01 591 Vs 0.0003 ertozie MSU E j '= you4000,43g wads* 111.IO*WO4 PSI=tl aP004) 0em-i oldti V 4 mea + 0 w 00410c1Puumeg Vaelp aP1aO - 4amnS MOH P1.0Makt R spi 4 k 9 b Qti 1;R .eb B 0 • 0 iiiig Eiko 000 m0:1 .0 000 ate 10,00000000.m+Ar..r `�wn �. \� �i X170 11.11 PM MB ma m--: MIL. Ill a- Mt OM 3030030 WI tem. 04 � fe, to. 0003 Rowan 0000 cam WWI* r® 4 00/'W000 a949 00 •••• =4140 30* N90f1.5 9918 004041000 uonwoods 1 wad 040.043 OIAL ,05 ION Md000:944 0 HY1410011 4100010 :Lima i /610/4!04 4400 __ _ 000040000 10 a AS 344000 aawa* 1..-' Wd 419 MerPua 110 419 008643 u0904$ a MBBtl i� 6 6 ® anoae . .oM-)O W61H 4o�8 � Y F S; y1JOMSUJE j .y PBOwau.es m��s Moa P :4 d 1miw-y<tw.w.,-men..,-4R. fir '®`wn-.-Iw Is -al mu mit si mi '111 11 111 1111 ROARING FORK RAILROAD CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AREA ASSESSMENT November 7, 2005 Prepared For: Mike Hermes, Director of Properties and Trails, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Prepared By: NEWLAND PROJECT RESOURCES, INC I. Introduction, Approach to the Assessment On June 30, 1997, the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA), a public entity created in 1993 by the towns and counties within the Roaring Fork Valley, purchased the Aspen Branch of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Right-of-way from the Southern Pacific Transportation Company. The purchase was funded by a consortium of state and local interests including Eagle County, Pitkin County, The City of Aspen, The City of Glenwood Springs, the Town of Snowmass Village, the Town of Basalt, the Town of Carbondale, the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, The Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Program, The Colorado Department of Transportation and the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO). Each of the funding participants agreed to the placement of a Conservation Easement on the corridor to protect the "conservation values" of the property. The conservation easement required that no new structures, fences, crossings, or pavement be placed, or that any mining or harvesting of timber occur on the corridor. The Aspen Valley Land Trust (AVLT) was designated as the steward of the conservation easement. AVLT was charged with the task of protecting the conservation values of the corridor by making an annual assessment of the property, noting any potential violations, and formally reporting those violations to RFRHA. RFRHA would then be responsible for correcting any of the violations to the satisfaction of AVLT. On February 3, 2000, a Comprehensive Plan for the railroad corridor was adopted by RFRHA. One of the components of the plan was to reduce the size and scope of the conservation easement on the corridor. The plan cited that upon careful inspection and assessment of the corridor through the Corridor Investment Study (CIS) process, many portions did not contain the attributes described as conservation values by the conservation easement. As such, these portions of the corridor did not warrant protection under the conservation easement. In addition to the reduction of the size of the conservation areas, RFRHA received strong advice from a member of their federal legislative contingent that a conservation easement on the corridor would significantly hinder RFRHA's ability to receive federal funding participation for future transportation improvements. In response to this issue, the Comprehensive Pian did the following: • It changed the Conservation Easement to a Conservation Covenant. The covenant on the deed of the property requires the owner to abide by its terms through self-regulation. (This is different from the previous conservation easement, which is an encumbrance that runs with the land and requires some one other than the owner to regulate compliance.) It reduced the size of the area covered by the conservation covenant to encompass only those areas of the corridor that contain the "conservation values" described within the original conservation easement. The size was reduced from 34.59 mites (the full length of the corridor from Glenwood Springs to Woody Creek) to 17.50 miles (roughly one-half of the corridor). A detailed description of each of the 10 Conservation Areas follows as Appendix A of this report. On January 17, 2001, an Agreement was reached between RFRHA and Great Outdoors Colorado that replaced the Conservation Easement with the Conservation Covenant. This change resulted in an overall reduction in the GOCO grant for purchase of the property from $2.0 million to $1.5 million. On November 15, 2001, the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) accepted ownership of the railroad corridor from RFRHA and RFRHA was dissolved. RFTA then replaced RFRHA as a party to the Conservation Restriction Agreement. RFTA created a Covenant Enforcement Commission made up of representatives from each of the entities that the Authority serves. It is the responsibility of the Commission to meet annually to make an assessment of the ROARING FORK RAILROAD CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 1 NOVEMBER 7.2005 - NEWLAND PROJECT RESOURCES, INC rail corridor and to recommend to RFTA that it make any corrections necessary to insure that the conservation values of the areas described within the Conservation Restriction are not compromised. Through a competitive procurement process, RFTA selected Newland Project Resources, Inc., to provide the services necessary to conduct a thorough annual assessment of the 10 conservation restriction areas to discover if any potential violations exist. The following report is a compilation of the assessment conducted in September and October of 2005 of the 10 Conservation Areas: Chapter II is a spreadsheet that summarizes the observed violations, the remedies recommended, and the actions taken to address each violation. The spreadsheet is a living document — a checklist to be used by RFTA to track violations and the actions taken to resolve them. e Chapter III is a summary of remaining violations. • Appendix A of this report describes the 10 Conservation Areas. • Appendix B of this report describes the 2005 visual inspection conducted of each Conservation Area. During the visual inspection, structures, fences, crossings, timber harvesting, mining activities, paving, roads, trash, weeds and other improvements were noted as "Potential Violations". Photographs of the violations on corridor at the time of the inventory are also included. ROARING FORK RAILROAD CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 2 NOVEMBER 7, 2005 - NEWL.AND PROJECT RESOURCES, INC CONSERVATION AREA #3: Milepost 368.5 to 369.0 (0.50 miles) This section of the railroad corridor covers the broad bend in the Roaring Fork River between the Sanders Ranch property and the ranchette parcels near Aspen Glen. Sage shrubs predominant in this section that are some of the most mature sage plants in the valley. The mountain shrub ecosystem on the corridor in this area provides excellent habitat for birds and small animals. The Roaring Fork River sweeps towards then away from the railroad corridor, providing access opportunity and riparian habitat protection. Outstanding views of Mount Sopris are also provided on this section of the railroad corridor. ROARING FORK RAILROAD CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AREA ASSESSMENT PAGE 12 NOVEMBER 7, 2005 - NEWLAND PROJECT RESOURCES, INC Farnsworth GROUP January 6, 2016 Angela M. Henderson Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations Roaring Fork Transportation Authority 1340 Main St. Carbondale, CO 81623 5613 DTC Parkway, Suite 1100 Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111 p 303.692.8838 f 303.692.0470 www.f-w.com 1 www.greennavigation.com Via email: ahendersonrfta.com Re: River Edge Colorado — RFTA Corridor Crossing Traffic Study Review Dear Angela, This letter is to summarize our review of the Rio Grande Trail Crossing Traffic Operations Assessment for the Rivers Edge Development, as prepared by HDR, dated October 15, 2015. We have the following comments and/or recommendations: 1. Revise the report to stand on its own. Currently there is discussion of the 160 -acre site without any reference to the previously completed Traffic Operations/Access Assessment report dated December 2013. Include a complete discussion of the 160 - acre site or provide reference to the previous study where the 160 -acre site is discussed. 2. Provide impact and mitigation for two trail crossing scenarios: a. The Rio Grande Trail crossing the roadway. b. The Rio Grande Trail crossing the roadway adjacent a potential future at -grade railroad crossing. This discussion should include analysis for various railroad traffic levels that would support a commuter railroad operation, safety of both crossings, and protection necessary for the at -grade railroad crossing. 3. Include the potential 405,000 square foot commercial development between the Rio Grande Trail / Railroad Right of Way (ROW) and SH 82 in this analysis. This analysis should clearly indicate the amount of trips accessing the commercial development from the north of the 26 -acre site via the future connected roadway network. 4. Provide a listing of the Appendix in the Table of Contents on Page 1. 5. Provide the existing traffic count volumes along SH 82 in an Appendix. The directional distribution along SH 82 cannot be verified without these counts. 6. Revise Figures 4, 5, 6 to clearly outline where the future single family homes and the single family homes are located. The current coloring and labeling is not clear. ENGINEERS 1 ARCHITECTS 1 SURVEYORS 1 SCIENTISTS lig Farnsworth GROUP Page 2 of 3 7. Revise notes and/or calculations in Table 1 on Page 5. Note "[a]" is an incorrect label since the Single Family Housing uses the Trip Generation Manual, 8th Edition and the Future Single Family Housing uses the Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Note "1" discusses SH 82 instead of the trail crossing. Either adjust all calculations to the Trip Generation 9th Edition or reference the generation that comes from the previous study and uses the 8th Edition. Ideally the Trip Generation 9th Edition should be used. Revise all notes accordingly. 8. Revise Table 1 on Page 5 to include the two single family homes on the 14.5 acre Goluba property. 9. Several small rounding and math errors were noted in Tables 2 and 3. No action is required since the changes will not affect the mitigation impacts. 10. Revise the text in Section 5 to note that 100% of the single family housing (160 acres) will use the proposed new access across the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) ROW. 11. Include the existing 2011, 2014, and 2015 pedestrian and bicycle counts in an Appendix. 12. Revise the first paragraph on Page 10 to indicate that RFTA conducted the pedestrian and bicycle counts between June 2014 and August 2015. 13. Revise Figure 7 to also include the 2014 and 2015 pedestrian and bicycle counts. 14. Revise the report to use the more conservative 2011 pedestrian and bicycle counts since the 2014 and 2015 pedestrian and bicycle counts were lower. Use the peak count from the highest month, not the average for the three month for the analysis. The Guideline for Pedestrian Crossing Treatment calculations in the Appendix should be revised, including any mitigations. 15. Revise final paragraph on Page 10 to include Saturday Peak Hour vehicles crossing the Rio Grande Trail. 16. Revise the third bullet point on Page 11 to provide a clear recommendation on the traffic control for the roadway. It is unclear if Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Sign Series R1-5 or R1 -1/R1-2 is recommended. 17. Revise the third, fourth and sixth bullet point on Page 11 to provide sign guidance on both the Rio Grande Trail and the roadway. The specific detail from AASHTO should be referenced or provide as a figure. The RFTA Design Guidelines and Standards should be consulted and a recommendation given. All signage and pavement marking should consider the potential future at -grade railroad crossing location and impacts. 18. Provide a discussion, calculations, and recommendation from MUTCD Signal Warrant No. 4 for this mid -block pedestrian crossing. Farnsworth GROUP Page 3 of 3 19. Provide a discussion and recommendation for a grade separated bike crossing. 20. Revise the ITE Calculations Table Page 1 of 2 to read "Weekday, AM Peak of Adjacent Street". AM Peak Hour of Generator Zabel is incorrect. Revise the PM accordingly. 21. Revise the ITE Calculations Table to read "Dwelling units." The Gross Floor Area label is incorrect. 22. Provide the completed directional distribution calculations in the ITE Calculation Table for the Daily Traffic Generation or remove this part of the table. Currently the calculations are incomplete including the directional distribution. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact us. Sincerely, FARNSWORTH GROUP, INC. ...pi_ ,„,„4„, Jason L. Frericks, PTOE Sr. Project Engineer jfrericks@f-w.com IIIIIIIII 1 \. \ • • O a0 ' LL re Jo HN Z Z O U 11 1 1 0 Daa 0 >- w a. rd la z o0 > WW0 W Zgr ao 7 11 L- h 14 cic) \\ `.'\ `\ 31.4.0 ICOmivei ca._o, Ewa ..mmme