Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMountain Cross EngineeringMOUNTAIN CRoss ENGINEERING, INC. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design September 18, 2025 Mr. John Leybourne Garfield County Planning 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Review of Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge PUD Revocation Applications: PUDA42-24-9048 & PUDA-07-25-9079 Dear John: This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Zoning and River Edge PUD Revocation Applications. The submittals were found to be thorough and well organized. The review generated the following comments: 1. The application materials propose to calculate the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a total for the project. The application materials also propose to construct the project in phases. This would make tracking and calculation of the FAR difficult. It would be more easily determined and more consistent with the PUD construction sequence to calculate FAR on a per Phase and/or Neighborhood basis. 2. The application materials allow that minor changes would not require a zoning change or variance and would be approvable by the Planning Director. They go on to list what minor changes might include. However, the following would be better in a more formal zoning change and/or variance to the PUD: increases to the FAR, increase to the commercial space, decrease in setbacks, and exceptions to the Dark Sky standards. 3. The S-60 Street Standard should define the angle of parking. Parking standards dictate different parking stall lengths depending on the parking angle. In other words, the dimension of 18' would be more congruent with 45' parking. Other sections of the application materials specify 60' degree and would require 19'. The street standard dimensions may need to be revised, depending. 4. The S-30, S-25, and S-20 Street Standards should better define how intermittent parking will be managed. If parking is allowed on the street, it would need to include extra 8' of width to accommodate a parking lane. 5. The A-20 & A42 Street Standards seem to suggest two-way traffic. Typically, 16' width is minimum for two-way traffic. If trash or other equipment is to be allowed in the alley, the street standard would need to be widened or dedicated as one-way. This should be clarified. 6. The application materials state that ADUs will be allowed. This needs to be quantified and clarified to account for water and sewer EQR demands and overall PUD density calculations. 7. The application materials suggest that some neighborhoods would not provide garages and parking would only be available on the street. Dedicated/reserved parking stalls on the street would be a minimum. Otherwise, two parking spaces should be provided for each lot, on the lot, for any that do not provide a two -car garage. 826'h Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com Harvest Roaring Fork PUD Page 2 of 2 September, 2025 8. The application materials prohibit garage -doors on the front of a CM lot. The applicant should review this in light of garage doors for transportation businesses, pedestrian access, or for open patio access. 9. SF-1, SF-2, SF-3, and SF4 and other lot types with a "Rear with Garage"; setting a garage on a narrow alley with only a 3' of setback makes the turning movement into the garage very difficult. Additionally, the garage walls typically make it difficult to see conflicting traffic. The garage should be setback further to accommodate the turning and backing movements Al the alley widened. 10. SF-2 with a zero4ot line and only a 5' setback does not allow for drainage. In these cases, the setback will need to incorporate a drainage easement for the adjacent lot and a 10' setback should be provided. 11. The applicant should pursue conversations with RFTA for providing a bus stop in the Village Center. 12. The engineering report proposes that detention would not be warranted. This is typical and acceptable based on the rationale provided. However, water quality treatment should still be provided prior to discharge and a safe, non -erosive, conveyance should be provided to the historic drainage ways. 13. The application materials mention two CDOT access permits: #325027 and #325028. But permit #325028 did not appear to be included in the application. It's possible that two copies of #325027 was included. 14. The traffic study proposes that the retail plaza would have a 90% internal capture from the PUD. The remaining trips would become external project trips. Reviewirlg the trip generation Tables 1 & 2 it is unclear how the 90% is being calculated and applied. The applicant should provide more clarity. 15. The geotechnical report recommends that individual reports specific to each phase and each building be required. The applicant would need to provide these for each phase and each building permit. 16. The applicant should discuss how it will be decided if and/or when a fire station will be constructed. Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments. incerely S, Hale, PE Inc. Mountain Cross Engineering, Inc. Civil and Environmental Consulting and Design 826'h Grand Avenue, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 P: 970.945.5544 F: 970.945.5558 www.mountaincross-eng.com