The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About22 RFTA Consultation and Supporting DocumentationMertes, Peter From: David Pesnichak <dpesnichak@garfield-county.com> Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 3:24 PM To: Mertes, Peter; Smith, Charles J. Cc: Dan Blankenship; Downing, Walter J.; Forman, Wayne F. (WForman@BHFS.com); 'DiFulvio, Dave' (ddifulvio@F-W.com); Angela Henderson; Tamra Allen Subject: RE: Carbondale Investments -REC Proposed Crossings of the RFTA Railroad Corridor (Sander's Ranch, Bair Chase, Cattle Creek, REC) Attachments: NTC letter - REC PUD Prelim Amd - 7-22-15.pdf Hi Pete and Charles, Thank you for coordinating with RFTA to satisfy item #3 of the Not Technically Complete letter dated July 22, 2015 (attached). I look forward to reviewing the additional documentation as required by this letter prior to October 5. 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/ Gar, te1dCounI From: Angela Henderson [mailto:ahenderson@rfta.com] Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 2:30 PM To: Tamra Allen; David Pesnichak Cc: Angela Henderson; Dan Blankenship; Downing, Walter J.; Forman, Wayne F. (WForman@BHFS.com); Mertes, Peter (Peter.Mertes@hdrinc.com); 'DiFulvio, Dave' (ddifulvio@F-W.com) Subject: FW: Carbondale Investments -REC Proposed Crossings of the RFTA Railroad Corridor (Sander's Ranch, Bair Chase, Cattle Creek, REC) Importance: High Tamra- You amra- You have requested information from RFTA regarding the type of trail crossing that the River Edge developer will be required to build as part of the River Edge project. 1 There are several legal crossing agreements currently (road, utility, trail) in place with RFTA for the parcel that now belongs to Carbondale Investments (REC). The developer is proposing several changes (locations and types) to the existing agreements, including the Trail crossing. The current approved agreement for the trail crossing is for a grade - separated crossing of the Rio Grande trail. The developer has asked RFTA staff to consider an at -grade (type) trail crossing in the same location as the newly proposed (location change)at-grade road crossing of the Railroad Corridor. Staff has stated that we will, with an engineering/legal reimbursement agreement in place, review the traffic study for the proposed at -grade trail crossing. Please see the email sent to the developer below. However as with Garfield County, a staff recommendation is just that, a recommendation. The RFTA Board of Director's may require that the developer adhere to the original crossing agreements (road, utility, trail location and type) for all of the original agreements or a part of the agreements. I have requested that once we have received the reimbursement agreement, reviewed the traffic study and made a recommendation for the type of trail crossing to the developer (at - grade or grade -separated) that the developer bring all of their proposed crossings to the RFTA Board of Director's for review and direction. I will keep you (Garfield County) updated throughout the RFTA process. Please let me know if this is sufficient information for Garfield County or if you require any additional information from RFTA. Please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you, Angela M. Henderson Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations (970) 384-4982 — office (970) 948-4443 - cell From: Angela Henderson Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:16 PM To: 'Forman, Wayne F.' Cc: 'Mertes, Peter'; Smith, Charles J.; Dan Blankenship; 'Downing, Walter J.'; 'DiFulvio, Dave' (ddifulvio@F-W.com) Subject: Carbondale Investments -REC Proposed Crossings of the RFTA Railroad Corridor Importance: High Wayne - We had a RFTA board meeting last week where we(staff) recommended that the RFTA Board allow a new soft surface trail connection to the Rio Grande Trail in two separate locations for a local public not for profit facility (see the attached article). The recommendation was made to support the connection because the connections met the requirements of the current RFTA Recreational Trails Plan contained in the 2005 Comprehensive Plan. The RFTA Board of Director's denied one of the connections because they want to think long-term about how many connections we are going to allow to tie into the Rio Grande Trail for safety reasons. As staff I thought that this one was an easy one, a 30 day revocable, soft surface trail connection to the Rio, not a crossing, just a connection. At a staff level we review the plans, look at the Railroad Corridor, try to assess what we(staff) think is best for the Railroad Corridor and the general public and then make our recommendations to the RFTA Board of Director's based on the Engineering and Legal recommendations (expert opinions) but ultimately staff does not make the final decision about crossings and/or connections, the RFTA Board of Director's makes the final decision and they try to assess the long-term implications to the Railroad Corridor. Your development is asking for a change in location for road crossings, utility crossings and now the type of trail crossings that are currently approved under the original agreements associated with the parcel that Carbondale Investments has acquired. 2 I've been speaking with Dan Blankenship about this project and feel the need to be very clear (again) with you about our role as staff, to make sure that I am setting realistic expectations about the process for the final approvals for this project. While we(staff) will review the locations and designs of the crossings as proposed by your engineers and make recommendations to our Board of Directors based on our best assessment of the proposed crossings, using our experts for reviews, I do not want to set any expectations on your part that the RFTA Board of Director's will accept Staff's recommendations. With all of that said, with an engineering/legal reimbursement agreement in place, RFTA staff will have our rail engineers review the traffic study for an at -grade trail crossing in the same location as the at -grade road crossing. Once this review is completed, whatever the outcome (an at -grade or grade -separated trail recommendation) I would strongly recommend that you bring all of the REC proposed crossings to the RFTA Board of Director's for their review and direction because they may provide different direction than the recommendation ultimately provided to them by RFTA staff and RFTA's engineer's. I hope that this information is helpful. Please feel free to reach out to me if you need any additional information or further direction from RFTA staff. I will be forwarding this email to Tamra Allen in Garfield County to let her know that once we have received an engineering & legal reimbursement agreement from Carbondale Investments that we will begin reviewing the traffic study for a trail crossing. Thank you, Angela M. Henderson Assistant Director, Project Management & Facilities Operations (970) 384-4982 — office (970) 948-4443 - cell From: Forman, Wayne F. [mailto:WForman@BHFS.com] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:42 AM To: Angela Henderson Cc: 'Mertes, Peter'; Smith, Charles J. Subject: Carbondale Inv Angela: Do you think you will be in a position to provide the letter we requested acknowledging RFTA has a process to consider an at -grade trail crossing within the next couple of days? We have a Friday deadline this week to respond to the County's completeness comments and would like to include your letter with our submittal. Thanks very much and let me know the status of the letter and of your willingness to arrange a meeting with us, you and Dan to confirm next steps. Also, please forward me your estimates for the costs to review our crossing design materials, and a form of reimbursement agreement, as we discussed. Regards, Wayne. Wayne[ .Norman® Brownstein[lyatt[Larber3chreck,4LP0 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202 303.223.1120 tel 720.987.3120 cell WForman@BHFS.com STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is attorney privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution 3 or copy of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by calling (303)-223-1300 and delete the message. Thank you. 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. 4