HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCC 09.19.11September 19, 2011 Hearing Exhibits
The Sages at Aspen Glen Preliminary ptan
A Proof of Publication
B Proof of Mailing
C Garfield county unified Land use Resolution of z0ot, as arnended
D Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as arnended
E Application
F ltaLReport
G StaffPresentation
H Planning Commission Sketch Plan Comments(minutes from tZ O/08 meetine)I I&mo datedNovember 18,2010 from Mike prehm, [oad & Bddse
J Ivlemo datedNovember 23,2010 from Steve anthonv@
K Letter dated November 30, 2010 from Bill Gavette, Carfonaae fire protection
L Email dated November 9,2010 from carla westerman, Sonrce Gas
M letter dated November 29, 2010 from Cluis HateM
N Letter dated November 24, 2010 from Jeff Dea@
Resources
o LetterdatedNovember 24,2010 from TC Wait Coloffi
P Emaiil dated November 30,2010 fiom Janet guck, roum of carbondale
0 Lg{g! dated Novembeillr20l0 from Ned Cotlum, pr€s,ident AG I{OA
R Memo dated December 1,2010 from David Kotz, pffi
s Letter dated December 3,z}lflfuom Steve pawlakJp Geotech
T Letter dated April 18, 201I from Jess Westley. Ge
U Letter dated July 27,2011 from JeffDeatherage, Division
V lefui*p4<d al A ltlNlJ/Ur( t ' t
REQUEST
PROPERTY OWNER
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
stzE
ACCESS
WATER & SANITATION
EXISTING ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCgltg/71
KE
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PUD Preliminary Plan
Gerd Zeller
Eric Gross - Whitsett and Gross, p.C. and David Kotz - SGM
Aspen Glen PUD adjacent to CR 109 - Sections t3 and 24,
Township 7 South, Range 89 West
4.243-acres
Highway 82 or County Road 109
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation Dastract
Planned Unit Development - Club Villa Zone District
Subdivision
t.GETTIERAL PROJECT DESCRI PTI ON
The Aspen Glen Planned Unit
Develbpment is Located
approximately midway
between the City of Glenwood
Springs and the Town of
Carbondale on the west side
of State Highway 82. The PUD
was approved in 1992 and has
been developing for almost
two decades. The original
PUD approval assigned
subzones within the property
designating both use and
density around an l8-hole goff
course. Subdivision of the
property requires Preliminary
Plan approval and subsequent
final plat approval and
recording.
The Sages at fupen Glen, a 4.24-acre site located north of the CR 109 entry to Aspen Glen, seeks
preliminary plan approval for 10 lots (7 single famity and 3 duplex lots) which woutd result in 13 units (7
t
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCg/LslL7
single family and 6 duplex units) tocated within the PUD Club Villas zone. The Club Villa zone ,ffo*, tlf
"Single-family attached and single-family detached residential dwellings intended for individual lot
ownership, which may include golf villas, townhomes, club villas and duplexes." The PUD also describes
zoning standards including minimum lot sizes and setbacks specified for each type of unit as well as the
required parking spaces per unit.
The Prelminary Plan proposes a total of 13 units in the following unit configuration:
ITUMBEROFTOn;# ulrflTs ACREAGE
7 single family lots
3 duplex lots
Public Right-of-way
Open Space / Common Areas
7 units
6 units
1.91 acres
1-32 acres
.60 acres
.41 acres
13 units 4.24 acres
Historv/Backsround - The Aspen Glen PUD was approved by the County in1992 by Resolution 92-055.
The zoning of the site to PUD required subrnittal of sufficient informa.tion for the County to determine
and mitigate potential impacts of development. The overall site was reviewed by wildlife biologists,
geologists, civil engineers and traffic engineers at the time of zoning however the subdivision of the sites
required submittal of preliminary plans and final plat for ultimate development permitted by the zoning.
Over the past two decades the County has reviewed numerous preliminary plans for the Aspen Glen
PUD and will continue to do so untilthe project reaches build-out.
II. ZONING ANDADJACENT USES
The Aspen Glen PUD is located between CR
109, the Roaring Fork River, and State
Highway 82. Adjacent residential
subdivisions include Westbank, lronbridge,
and Teller Springs to the north and Coryell
Ranch and Midland Point to the south.
Public Land (BtM) is located to the east
and Rural zoning to the west.
The Aspen Glen Club Villa District is
approved for a total of 155 units and,
according the Leslie Lamont, Administrator
of the Aspen Glen Design Review
Committee, there are currently 63 units
constructed and 25 lots platted in this
subzone. There is sufficient density
remaining within the zone district in the
PUD to allow for this proposal.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCC9ILS/t7
KE
!il.REFERRAT AGENCIES
Comments have been requested from the following agencies and comments recgived and are integrated
throughout this memorandum as applicable.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
L2.
13.
Road and Bridge: EXHIBIT I
Vegetation Management: EXHIBtT J
Environmental Health: No comment
Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of County): EXHIBIT M
Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT N and EXHIBIT U
Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT O
Colorado Division of Wildllfe: No Response
Carbondale FPD: EXHIBIT K
RE-l School District No Response
Town of Carbondale: EXHIBIT P
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District: No Response
Source Gas: EXHIBIT L
Aspen Glen Homeowneds Association: EXHTBIT Q and EXHIBIT T
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PIAN
This site is located in Study Area 1 within
the Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent
Land Use Districts Map, Study Area 1,
indicates that the site is designated as
"Subdivision".
The Goals, Objectives, Policies and
Programs of the Comprehensive Plan were
reviewed and the proposal is in general
compliance with applicable components of
the Plan, including Housing,
Transportation, Compatibility and
Agriculture.
V. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Reviews submittal requirements inctude the following sections of the ULUR.
The criteria and standards for review are listbd in bold italics below, followed by a Staff Response.
A. Section 4-502 (C)5. Landscape Plan
Landscape Plan. Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200 feet for properties exceeding 160
acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties less than 150 acres in size. The landscape plan shall
include the following elements.
Coryrebensirc Ptao Pmp$ed Led Use DisEictr. Stdy -CI€a f
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCC9l,:gl71-
KE
o. Topographic information at least two (2) loot contour interuals.
b. Locotio1 ol all lot lines and improvements to the Frctpertf, ond location of ony eosements of
record.
c. ldmtifimtion ol oll existing deciduous tree ond onilerous trees ol six inches (6') in caliper or
greqter' and which trees wilt be preserued ond which tress witt be removed or relocated; oneas
where other existing vegetotion will elther be preserued or removed; the type, locotion, size and
number oI planB that wilt be hstalled; spectfrd seed mixtures.
d. An estimate of the @st ol supplying and installtng the matertols depicted in the land*ape
plan.
e. A desuiptlon olthe prcpced progmm to maintoin the landscaping afier it hos been instutled.
Staff Response: An adequate landscape plan has been provided as shown below:
\
\ L^&scA?ErGFBENctsPr.ahrrffi
B. Sectio,n 4-502(Dl Land Suitabilitv Analvsis
7. Public Acessto Site. Show historlc public access to or
through the site.
Staff Response: Aspen Glen has a main access point from SH 82 and a secondary access located
south of and adjacent to the subject site onto CR 109.
2. Access to adioining Roadways. ldentily access to adjoining roods and slte distance and
I nte rcecf,;i on constroi nts.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCellelTT
KE
Staff Response: The original Aspen Glen PUD considered impacts to both SH g2 and CR 109.
There do not appear to be any site distance or intersection constraints.
i
3, Easements. Show all eosements defining, limiting or allowing use types ond ocess.
Staff Besponse: All easements of record are required to be identified on the plans and any
proposed easements will need to be legally described on the final plat, dedicated by deed and
accepted by the proper entity. All necessary documentation will be required to be recorded along
with the final plat.
4. Topogmphy and Slope.Topgmphy ond slope determirntion.
Sta* Resoonse: The site sits below the County Road but is fairty leve! across the property.
5. Naturol Feqtures. significant notuml feotures on*ite and off-site.
Staff Response: The Aspen Glen golf course is located east of the project area with a steep hillside
up to cR 109 on the west.
6. Drainoge Features. Existtng dminagesand impoundmeni, notuml and manmade.
Staff Response: The parcel slopes from west to east and a buried pipe captures flow from CR 109.
7. Woten Hlstoric inigotion, tailwater issues, woter demands, odequde woter supply plan
pursuont to seaion 7-1a.
Staff Response: trrigation will be via the Kaiser-Seive/s ditch at the discretion of the devetoper
who holds those rights. An adequate water supply plan is on file from the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District.
8. Hoodplain. Flnd plain ond fld frtnge delineations. '
Staff Response: Not applicable.
9. Soits. Soils determinotion, percolotion constroints, as applicable.
staff Response: Chen Northern provided the original engineering study for Aspen Glen, including
a soils determination. Based upon the soils types the Applicant's engineer recommends that a
site-specific geotechnical and foundation report be required at final plat. Staff has included this as
a recommended condition of approval.
70. Hozards. Geologic hazards on-site, and odjacent to site.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCC9/LsltL
KE
Staff Response: Sinkholes, debris flow and surface depressions were analyzed and found to be of
minimal concern with this site. A berm was constructed on the east side of CR 109 as part of the
original approval and during improvements to CR 109. This was determined to mitigate potential
hazards to the Sages site. A Geotechnical Study is recommended as a condition of approvat and
must be submitted at finat plat to further analyze this issue. The Colorado Geologic Survey has
responded to the referral request, EXHIBIT O, with nine recommendations as follows:
1-
5-
1- Tfte Hnlerddb plrn slmH te sfiri&d h Chen lfoltrem for mnrxnt pe{aLrfoq b tre
gearhgic Eondlirns d&e efu ard flrre il prupooed hd use rrd gadng plarsh srsre
tmy are h mrhnnarceuith he phdrical reffimreodafiom ild Htrrent
undersfoifirg sf tm ft wrdfiare
TtE ffien D&dren repoil hdc#s pkflnehs rerB irEhIBd duli.]q tE lgg3
im'eUigmm- ft mrH be wdd b reuisuffi & * itpwhfrsfo grundrr&r
rudfimsadirFaobbtre#e-
'lhe ffiem t&rfierm rcputirffiEtem marsffi of drdfiolEs, defressed ffi ild
dehis ffqm uffrin fte Efte- Tlpsa atm dronH be deillyfrdenffied m lhe phl rd
speffc mifualftm npesul* shodd be dstNiled ln ptd nofua
loeafuns rrd dsdsr dtrs dtre debrh defledftm sfrucfuns dnuH h prwided frr
teriBx-
A rehiftrT udl is pmpd dong fte reshm e{e of tae pmpety, al}awrtb CR lm.
AdqesffiIiUaqFbsln dd be mmideedh encrc lhatte ml b@nHy
desfined ad Fqosed gtedA ahrg frrehe dfte slse wll not ffieh umsbtle
mtdlfima b fte aqffiil f,Enty ]ffid.
Seasmdfi shdhrgroudil#rmay he prccentin areardffrb sib- emmpl*
sesufue drafuqge ilidd he estilIdld fu rfiTly Lres ad sftsufu mrdul[merp# uifrrh 5 frd dflE swralty high gruundrmh Ble.
Ihe * ee t[@srsilire b moishre- fu]be gtaftU dE dduort h F Etre rt Ek
fiom irfrffiiq sols ilomd shrfums ad prumrt m of sEllilng urder- [ou*#
usags lrudsqiq dtflH he rced ammd sfrucfues-
ttesigur{erld s6suEce geoisdrnicd Ln@ga,funs *f,dd h mrdrchd pir h hrdeq-
Fo:mddflon derfuns may eqrile dffiral mifualim ba+d on trefurdngs dftb
nueUfgfnn- tarye to*srrPybeenmrnhmed atdflfirulril r muH im@frnudalftm
de{;e
Eidmre strBUH hG F o,uded fu @d[r] hnrrcmnrers regnrdLq fte geohgfu mrdimrs
f,tfteBite-
7-
Staff has included a recommended condition of approval that a site-specific geotechnicat and
foundation report be.required at final plat. The findings of that report may require additional
conditions of approval that will be determined at final plat.
77. Notuml Hobitot. Existing floro and launa habitot, wetlands, migrotlon routes.
Staff Comments: Historically used for agriculture such as grazing and hayfields, the site is a high
river terrace with vegetation consisting primarily of cultivated agriculturat grasses. No specific
wildlife concerns were identified and the deer and elk continue to use the golf course for grazing.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife did not respond the referral request.
72. Resource Areas. Prctected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, palentologiul ond hlstorlc
tesourae arcas.
6
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCC glLeltL
KE
Staff Comments: No known resource areas have been mapped within the proposed development
area.
Section 4-502(E) lmpact Analvsis. The tmpact Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the
proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisry. The
lmpact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the applicant witl ensure that impacts will
be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in the lmpact
Analysis.
7. Adiocent Property. An oddds list ol real property adjacent to the subject prcFertf, and the
mailing oddress lor each of the property ownerc;
Staff Comments: This information has been provided.
2. Adiacent Lond ltse. Existing use of odjacent property ond neighbortng propeftiy wlthin TS|W
mdius.
Staff Comments: The application does include a map of uses within a 150d radius of the site.
These consist mainly of residential development, vacant land, roads and utilities, a gravel pit and
the Colorado River.
Site Features. A dexription of si|r- feotures such as stteoms, areas subject to flading lak*,
high ground water oreas, topography, vegetative cover, climotology, and other leotures thot
may oid in the evoluotion of the proposed developnent.
Staff Comments: This site sits on a bench above the Cotorado River on a flat terrace that has an
abrupt rise to the west and CR 109. No watercourses or wettands are present on the site and
vegetation is prima rily un-irrigated grasses.
Soil Choroctert*ics. A description ol srltl chamcteristics ol the site which hove a significant
influence on the proposed use of the lond.
Staff Comments:.The Roaring Fork corridor is welt known for geotechnical issues including
corrosive soils, sinkholes, debris flow and surface depressions. These issues were al! evaluated
when the zoning was applied to the property however the subdivision standards require site
specific review. A condition of approval is recommended by the Applicant's engineer and Staff
has included it the recommended conditions to the Commission.
Geology and Hozard. A description of the geolqic chomcteristics o! the areo including arry
potential notural or man-mode hozards, ond a determination of what elfect sudt factorc
would hove onthe propsrld use of the land.
8.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCg/79/17
KE
Staff Comments: Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) responded, EXHIBIT O, and provided some
comments for consideration. Staff has included those comments in the recommended
conditions of approval.
Efrect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy ol Supply. Ewluation ol the efrect of the
proposed land use on the mpacity ol the source of woter supply to meet ert*ing ond fufurc
domestic ond ogricuftumt requirements and meeting the adequate water supply requiremenB
oltuctiutT-IU.
Staff Comments: Potable water is proposed to be provided by Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District who provided a "wili serve" letter. Even so, the Division of Water Resources
(DWR) responded to the referral request, EXHIBIT N, that "insufficient information was
provided" and they "cannot comment on the potentaal for material injury to existing water
rights". !t appears that additional information needs to be obtained from the District to
foruvard to DWR for a determination of "no materia! injuq/'. This is a critical issue in
determining an adequate water sirpply therefore the application should not move forurard to
the Board of County Commissioners until such time as that determination is received from DWR.
Staff is recommending this as a condition of approvat.
Ellect on Groundwoter and Aquffer Reeharge Ateos. Evoluotion ol the relationship ol the
subiect prcel to fladptains, the nature o! nils and subsails and their obitity to adequotely
support waste disposal, the slope ol the land, the efftct ol sewage eIfluents, ond the pllufron
olarloce runofi, streomflow ond groundwoter.
Staff Comments: lmpervious areas are timited in the development, no on-site waste disposal is
proposed. The drainage plarr does incorporate best management practices for temporary and
permanent pollution control. A Stormwater Management Plan and Erosion Control Map are
part of the application materials. Prior to construction a Colorado Discharge Permit System
(CDPS) Construction Activity Permit must be obtained. Further details regarding these issues are
required at final plat when detailed engineering report and plans are submitted.
Environmental Eflects. Determination of the *isting envitonmentol conditions on the porel
to be developed and the etlects ol danelopment on those conditions, including:
o. Determinotion ol the long term and short term elfea on flom and fauna.
b. Detenninotlon ol the efrect on significont ardtoeologicol, cuftuml, polentologiml, historic
fegouraes.
e Determlnotion ol the effict on designated envircnmental tesources, inctuding cridoit
wildlilehoffiat.
(1) lmpact on wildlife and domestic animols through qeation of hozordous ottradlotts,
alterotion ol existing native vegetatlon, blockade o! migration routes, use potterns or
other disruptions.
8
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCglrslTL
KE
d. Evoluation of ony potential rodiation hazard that moy have been identified hy the Stote or
County Health Departments.
e. spill Prevention control and counter Meosures plan, il applicoble.
Staff Comments: Long-term impacts on flora and fauna are not anticipated to occur as
revegetation is planned and a significant amount of open space exists within this community.
No known historic resources have been identified on the site.
The traffic from this development was originally contemplated when the pUD was analyzed.
Updates will be provided pursuant to the memo from sGM, ExHtBtr R.
g. Tm!fic. Asessment ol tmlfic impc9 based upon a tmffic study prepared in onplionce with
Sedion tt-502(t).
Staff Comments: Given the number of proposed units the overatl traffic impacts associated with
this development will be minimal. A traffic analysis was included in the submjttal and updates
are planned to be provided.
70. Nuisonce. lmpac9 on adiacent land from generation ol vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glarc or
vibrotion, or other emanations.
Staff Comments: Noise and dust are the most likely nuisances to occur, particularly during
construction. The HOA has experience in dealing with these issues and are most likely to be the
enforcing entity. No other nuisance impacts to adjacent land wil! result by the approval of this
subdivision.
77. Reclamotion Plan. A reclomation plon consistent with the standards in Sectlon 7-272.
Staff Comments: A landscape plan has been submitted which adequately reclaims the areas
disturbed by construction.
C. SECt|ON 7.1@ GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE CHANGE PERM]TS
7. Section 7-7O7 Comptiance with Zone District llse Restrictions
Staff Comments: A pending PUD Amendment is anticipated to be approved by the Director of
Building and Planning on December 20ft. This amendment is being requested to revise the zone
text for duplex setbacks in the front yard to 20'. Once approved this application will be is in
compliance with the zone standards.
2. Sedion 7'702 Compliance wlth Comprehensive Plan and lntergovernmentol Agreements
9
4.
Staff Comments: The project appears to
Plan.
3. Section 7-703 Compatibit@
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCC9/L9/LL
KE
be in general conformance with eh Comprehensive
Staff Comments: There are no compatibilaty issues associated with the approval of this
subdivision.
Sectlon 7-lWSufficient Legol ond physicol burce olWoter
Staff Comments: lt does not appear that the Division of Water Resources has sufficient
information to determine that no material injury will result from the 13 additional taps issued by
the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Staff is recommending that the Board of County
Commissioner hearing not be scheduled until such time as a "no material injur/, letter is issued
by the DWR.
*ction 7-7(B Adequote Water Suppty
Staff Comments: The site is within the service area of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District and the district has provided a ,,can and willserve,, letter
*ction 7-7(b Adequate water Disttibution ond wostewoter,systems
Staff comments: The distribution systems will be included in a subdivision improvements
agreement with the County and final engineer plans and reports are due at Final plat. The
District has the authority to review the distribution systems based upon their rules and
regulations to provide service. Eventually those tines will be dedicated to the District.
7. Sedion.T-70 Adequate public lltllities
Staff Comments: Source Gas responded, EXHIBIT l. that they have no issues. Electric service is
alSo available to the area.
8. ftdion 7-7(E Access and Roodways
Staff Comments: The Aspen Glen Homeowne/s Association has reviewed the road to determine
compliance with Aspen Glen standards (as originally approved by the County), EXHIB;T e. ln
that an attachment to that letter David Kotz, P.E. with SGM states that "...The Sages pretiminary
Plan drawings have been developed based on the same (or higher) standards, details and
specifications that SGM applied to previous phases in Aspen Glen. lt is my opinion that this
dbvelopment, as proposed, complies with the Garfield County code requirements and Aspen
Glen PUD guidelines."
5.
6.
10
9. Sedion 7-7(D No Significont Riskfrom Natuml Hozards
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCC9IL9/71
KE
Staff Comments: There do not appear to be significant risk from natdral hazards other than
those identified by Cotorado Geotogic Survey (CGS), EXHIBIT O, and conditions of approval are
recommended regarding submittal of site specific geotechnical reports and anatysis at final plat.
The Town of Carbondale responded to the referral request, EXHIBIT P, that the County should
require a geotechnical report for this subdivision.
D. SECIiON 7-2OO GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR IAND USE CHANGE PERMITS
7. Section 7-207 Proi,tection of Agricufturat londs
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
2. Section 7-202 Prctection olwildtW Hobitat Areas
Staff Comments: The Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has not responded to the referral request for
this application. The submittal documentation does inctude a CDOW tetter from 1993 regarding
screening, vegetation and wildlife corridors. lt is unclear how this relates to the current project.
Given that Aspen Glen is an existing subdivision, the impact associated with the addition of 13
units would be minimal.
g. Section 7-203 Protection of WAlonds and Woterbodl*
Staff Comments: No known wetlands occur on this site.
4. Section 7-2(N Protection d Woter Quality fum pottutant
Staff Comment: Stormwater and erosion controls are proposed for both temporary and
permanent pollution control. Concern has been identified by Mountain Cross Engineering
EXHIBIT M, and Road & Bridge, EXHIBIT l, regarding the proposed plugging of the cutver that
directs flows from the west beneath cR 109 (at the southwest corner of the Sages). Dave Kotz,
P.E. has responded, EXHIBIT R, No. 6 states that the "This 18" culvert was not contemplated in
the original Drainage Master Plan but was added as part of the CR 109 construction...SGM wilt
revise the onsite drainage plan...to safely handle the flows." Staff is recommending that the
items included in EXHIBIT R become conditions of approval.
5. Section 7-2(R Etosion ond Sedimentation
Staff Comment: An adequate Erosion and Sediment Control Ptan performed by Boundaries
Unlimited has been submitted.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCe/Ls/7L
KE
6. Sedion 7-2$ Droinoge & Sedion 7-207 Stormwoter Run-Olf
Staff Comments: ln addition to the culvert issue identified above, other drainage issues were
identified in the Mountain Cross Engineering response, EXHIBIT M. These items are addressed
in EXHIBIT R, the responses are included as recommended conditions of approval.
7. Sedion 7-2(BAirQuolity
Staff Comments: Necessary air permits will be obtained during the construction of the project,
and it is not anticipated that ongoing air quality issues associated with the proposed 13 units
would result.
8. Sedion 7-2G) Areos SubjeA b Wilfire Hazards
Staff Comments: This level site is located between the gotf course and CR 109. lt is not
anticipated that significant wildfire hazards exist.
9. *ction 7-27o Areas SubJect to Notural llazords ond Geolqic Hozards
Staff Comments: CGS response to the application does identifu concerns related to geologic
hazards. Staff has included recommended conditions of approval regarding submittat of site
specific geotechnicat anatysis at Final plat.
70. Section 7-277 Areos with Archeolqial, Poleontolqbal or Hi$ortml lmprtonce
Staff Comments: There are no known areas of historical importance within the property.
77. Section 7-272 Reclamotion
Staff Comments: A significant Landscape Plan was submitted, and the Aspen Glen HOA has
responded regarding the HOA requirements for submittal of completion deposits for proper
revegetation on the site. The HOA goes on to state that the Applicant will have to comply with
the required Design Review Process.
E. SECTION 7.300 SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS
7. *dion7-!Nl Comptible Design
Staff Comments: The proposai appears io be compatible with the overatl Aspen Glen pUD.
2. SedionT-!102 Building D*ign
t2
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCelLslLT.KE
Staff Comments: Not applicable, the site will be required to comply the Design Guidetines of
Aspen Glen at the time of construction.
Sedion 7-!103 Design and Scale of Development
Staff Comments: Excessive site disturbance will not be required and the devetopment is
designed to be close to access and utilities. The Applicant has worked closely with the DRB and
HOA of Aspen Glen over the past two years to assure that the design and scale of the
development is complimentary to the overall Aspen Glen community.
4. Sedion 7-3U Olts-trcet parking and Looding Standards
Staff Commehts: The Applicant has demonstrated that compliance with off-street parking
standards can be achieved within the proposed subdivision.
5. Section 7-il(R Londscaping and Lighting Standards
Staff Comments: The standard plat notes will be required which state that the lighting must be
downward and inward facing to the property. The Applicant has submitted an adequate
Landscape Plan.
6. Section 7-!t(fi Snow Storage Standards
Staff Comments: lt appears that adequate snow storage areas have been provided.
7. Sedion 7-!107 Rwdwoy Stondords
Staff Comments: The site complies with both the County standards as well as the Aspen Glen
standards.
8. Section 7-3(D Tmil and Wallcway Standards
Staff Comments: The project does propose relocation of the golf cart path. This shall be
finatized at final plat when documentation must be provided regarding the vacation of the
easement and acceptance of that vacation by the golf club/HOA.
9. Sedion 7-3N WilW Stondards
Staff Comments: Other than the issues identified by the Division of Water Resources it would
appear that the standards have been met.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCg/L9/7L
KE
F. SECTTON 7- 400 SUBpIVtStON STATpARpS ANp pEStGN SPEC|F|CAT|ONS
1. Sedion 74,07Geneml Subdlvision Standords
Staff Comments: Given that the site is within an established subdivision and the HOA has no
significant issues, it would appear that The Sages meets the minimum general subdivision
standards.
2. *cllon 7402 SuMlvlslon Lots
Staff Comments: The lots sizes and configurations are appropriate.
3. *ctlon74Oll frre Protxtlon
Staff Comments: Bill Gavette, Carbondale Fire Protection District, has responded to the
application, EXHIBIT K, that the access is adequate and that the proposed water supply and fire
hydrant locations are acceptable. The final comment from the District is that lmpact Fees in the
amount of 5730.00 per unit will be required upon execution of an agreement between the
District and the developer. These fees are included as a Staff recommended condition of
approval.
*dlon 7& Survey Monuments
Staff Comments: This issue will be further reviewed at Final ptat.
SeAlonT4(E Standardsfur Publtc Sltes ond Open Spce
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided open space as well
as an open space manaBement plan.
The ULUR requires satisfactaon of impact fees at final plat
including Schoo! Land Dedication (or fee in-lieu), as well as other
applicable impact fees including the Fire District fees (S730/unit)
and County traffic impact fees.
The School Land Dedication (fee in-lieu) will be calcutated at fina!
plat, based upon a recent appraisal of the unimproved property,
and payment will be due at the time of recorded in the plat. The
traffic impact fee willalso be calculated at flnat plat with payment due at the time of recording.
5.
L4
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCslts/LL
KEVI. STAFF CONCERNS AND ISSUES
The major issue at Planning Commission was a letter regarding material injury from the Division of water
Resources. Based upon additional information and a revised letter from the DWR this issue has been
resolved.
Recommended conditions of approva! mitigate remaining issues and impacts that may result due to the
creation of the proposed lots. Other conditions of approval are standard concerns typicatly associated
with a preliminary plan and are indicative of requirements at final plat.
vrr. succEsrqp HNptNGs
The following are findings suggested by the Planning Commission should the Board of County
Commissioners approve the Sages at Aspen Glen Preliminary plan:
t. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners.
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Cornmissioners was extensive and complete, that
all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submjtted and that alt
interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Preliminary Ptan to create seven
(7) single family lots and three (3) duplex lots may be in the best interest of the heatth, safety,
and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County if recommended conditions of approvat are
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
4. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequatety met the
requirements of the Garfield County Comprehensive plan of 2000, as amended.
5. That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the
requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2@8, as amended.
vl[.
The Planning Commission considered this application at a public hearing on Decembe r 8,2OlO at which
time they unanimously voted to forward a recommendation of APPROVAT to the Board of County
Commissioners for the Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision, with the following conditions:
L. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before
shal! be conditions of approval
2. Preliminary Plan approval shall be vatid for a period of one (1) year from the date of approvat by the
Board of County Commissioners.
3. The Applicant shall comply with the final plat requirements in addition to those requirements
contained within the Garfield County Unified Land use Resolution of 2008, as amended (ULUR):
15
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCe/Lg/lL
KE
a. The Final Plat shall contain the following notes:
, ,
i. Contro! of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
ii. No open hearth solid-fuelfireptaces witl be altowed anywhere within the subdivision. One
(1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-7-401, et.seq., and the regutations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelling unit. All dwelling units will be
allowed an unrestracted number of naturalgas burning stoves and appliances.
iii. Allexterior lighting shall be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting
shall be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property
boundaries.
iv. Colorado is a "RIGHT-TO-FARM" state pursuant to C.R.S. 35-3-11, Et. Seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells
of Garfield County's agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a
county with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban
sensitivity may perceive such activities, sights, sound, and smells only as inconvenience,
eyesore, noise and odor. However, state law and county policy provide that ranching,
farming and other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County sha!! not be
considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the law and in a non-
negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noises, odor, lights, mud,
dust smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on public roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil
amendment, herbicide, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturally occur as
part of legal and non-negligent agricultural operations..
v. All owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under state law and
county regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences dnd irrigation ditches,
controlling weedt keeping livestock and pets under control, using property in accordance
with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and
landowners.are encouraged to learn about these rights and responsibilities an act as good
neighbors and citizens of the county. A good introductory source for such information is "A
Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University
Extension Office in Garfield County;
vi. Fencing on the property shall comply with the Division of Wildlife specifications for
wildlife-friend !y fencing;
vii. The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholly severed and
are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore altowing the potentia!
for natural resource bxtraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or
tessee(s).
b. The Final Plat shall contain the following certificates as contained within the Ptat Certificate
Appendix of the ULUR:
15
The Sages at Aspen Glen
BOCCe/Ls/7L
KE
Certificate of Dedication and Ownership;
Lienholder Consent and Subordination Certificate, if applicable;
Board of County Commissioners Certificate;
Title or Attorney Certificate;
Treasurer Certificate of Taxes Paid;
County Surveyor Certifi cate;
Clerk and Recorder Certificate;
Surveyor Certificate.
The Applicant shall delineate and legally describe all easements on the fina! plat and convey all
easements to the responsible entity. This dedication shall be in a form acceptable to the County
Attorney's Office and transfer shall occur at the time of recording of the final plat. These easements
shall include, but are not timited to all easements of record, utility easements, drainage easements,
water system easements, stormwater drainage easements, open space and any internal roads
required as a part of this development.
The vacation/relocation of the golf cart path must be clearly documented at final plat inctuding a
letter of acceptance for the vacation of the easement from the Homeowne/s Association or Club
representative;
The Applicant shall provide a map and inventory for the property for Garfield County listed noxious
weeds. lf noxious weeds are present the Applicant shall provide a weed management plan and
address the weed management of the site, including common arias, within the covenants. This
information shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Vegetation Manager of Garfield
County prior to submitta! of the final plat application;
Prior to approva! and recordation of the final plat the Applicant shall be required to comply with
Resolution 2008-05, and submit the required 5730.00 per unit residential impact fee for the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District.
8. The Applicant shall submit an unimproved property appraisal for the site at final plat. This appraisat
is necessary to calculate the Fee in-lieu of School Land Dedication which shall be due and payable
prior to approval and recordation of the final plat.
9. A site specific geotechnical and foundation report shall be required at final plat.
. The responses from SGM, Dave Kotz, P.E., EXHIBIT R, shall be incorporated herein and considered
conditions of approval. This information shall be provided prior to submittat of the finat plat.
lo, Au,ovvt^sv\ol +Av mhLorAA
V\l}lll-
^l Ab WC
t.
ia.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
6.
7.
17
PLANNING COM1VIISSION MEETING
MINUTES FROM DECEMBER IO,2OO8
PC Members Present
Cheryl Chandler
Jook Jacober
Bob Fullerton
Shannon Kyle
Adolfo Gorra
Greg McKennis
StaffPresent
Fred Jarman, B&P Director
Kathy Eastley, Planner
Dusty Dunbar, Planner
Deborah Quinn, Assist Cty Atty
Roll call was taken and the following members are absent tonight: Phil Vaughan, Sean
Maftin and Terry Ostom.
A motion was made by Bob Fullerton to approve the minutes as written for the Planning
commission Meeting dates of september 24e, october l$, and November 12,2oo&.
Shannon Kyle seconded ttre motion. A vote was taken and all approved unanimously.
The first item of discussion is a public meeting request to review a Sketch Plan
Application for the Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision. The property is located within the
Aspen Glen PUD. The parcel is approximately 4.243 acres in size and 15 units on seven
single-family lots, one duplex lot and two triplex lots are proposed. The applicant is
Gerd Zeller.
IGthy Eastley is the County Planner on this project. Present for the applicant is the
owner Gerd Zeller, he lives in Aspen Glen and JeffMackintosh with Schmueser Gordon
Meyer.
cheryl chandler explained the process we will follow tonight for this item.
Kathy Eastley entered exhibits A-J into the record. All are accepted into the record.
Kathy Eastley presented the staffcomments and project information next. The Applicant
proposes to subdivide a4.243-acre parcel within the Aspen Glen PUD to allow for 15
units on 7 df lots, l-duplex lot, and 2-fiiplex lots. The zoning on this parcel is the Club
Villa ResidentialT-one District within the PUD zoning which allows for single-family
attached and single-family detached residential dwellings intended for individual lot
ownership which may include townhomes and duplexes.
Water and sewer will be provided by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District.
This parcel is located in Study Area I of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan which
the map designates this areas as Subdivision. A vicinity map was shown locating the
property towards the back of the Aspen Glen PUD along CR 109. A Sketch Plan Map
was also shown. A discussion tookplace on the site plan showing road and location of
the differentfpes of lots.
This application was referred to the Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen for
comment. Their Board has some concerns. The first is related to the number of units
being proposed on this site. The HOA Board of Directors does not support a triplex
product on the site and they only support a total of 13 dwelling units on this site. They
are also concerned with the 3O-foot setback from CR 109 and that it is not large enough
to support landscaping. Property is lower than CR 109 by 8 to 10 feet. Other items were
broughtup in their letter @xhibit fD which are listed and included with the staffreport.
The Garfield County Engineer commented on this application and his comments are
included as Exhibit I within the staffreport. Some of his concerns are the dead-end sfieet
length which exceeds 600-feet; the Right-of-Way doesn't meet the County standards, and
easements that are needed.
Kathy Easfley said some of the items that need to be discussed are:. The Right-of-Way width. Road configuration
o Density
o Unittpe
. Unit configuration
Greg McKennis asked for clarification of road markings on the site plan. Greg
McKennis asked do we know why the Engineer found the road found to be insufficient.
Kathy Eastley responded that the stipulation in the regulations state that the cul-de-sac
can't exceed 600'. Greg McKennis asked so the road is too narrow? The County
Engineer felt there was insuffrcient ROW width in order to get the utilities and everything
in the roadway
Kathy Eastley spoke to Leslie Lamont who is the Administuator for their DRC at Aspen
Glen. Kathy Eastley was asking about the standards that Aspen Glen has because these
are private roads within the development. From the information that Kathy Eastley
received she said the roads may be insuffrcient based upon the standards at Aspen Glen.
Kathy Eastley said we did receive referral comments back from the Carbondale Fire
District and they didn't seem to have much of an issue with the road configurations.
They stated that the access appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. (See exhibit
G included with staffreport)
The applicant's representative JeffMackintosh will speak next. He met with ttre Fire
Distict and they said there was no problem with the proposal. He also spoke about the
water main. Roads are private and meet ROW requirements. Applicant used the same
ROW process that the Sundance area used within the Aspen Glen PUD. Could put in an
easement for ROW if necessary.
Gerd Zeller spoke next and he said they want to do everything that they are required to
do. Don't ttrink what they have proposed on roads are any different from other roads that
4re out there now. Gerd mentioned that the retention area is for inigation. Gerd also
2
spoke about the setback requirement of 20'. He has been working with Aspen Glen about
the density which applicant iS requesting 15 units. He agrees with the HOA that he will
change his application request from 15 units to 13 units. Could change from a triplex lot
to a duplex lot. Gerd Zeller thinks that duplexes require bigger setbacks.
Greg McKennis asked so you are going to change that to a duplex and are they happy
wittr that. Gerd Zeller believes they are.
Kathy Eastley said the PUD guide for Aspen Glen stipulates minimum lot size and
minimum lot depth for different tlpes of units whether it is a single-family attached
which would be considered the triplex or the duplex lot. Kathy Eastley was unable to
find the provision that ttrey were talking about. Some further discussion needs to take
place to decide whether it would be a PUD Amendmentto change the minimum lot area
in the Club YillaZone District so they could put a duplex rather than a triplex on the lot.
Jock Jacober asked what the question on everybody's mind is. Gerd Zeller said it's the
densrty. Crreg McKennis said there is a letter from the HOA included in our packet.
Kathy Easfley would like to explain the whole density issue. In the PIJD the Club Villa
Zone DisfricJ was designated a number of units for an area. It is an HOA review of what
goes where. There is a pool of density within the PUD.
Gerd Zeller said before he even thought about coming to the County he went to Aspen
Glen HOA to work on a plan because he wanted to have some sort of agreement on what
was being proposed. Jock Jacober said he likes the high density in the infrastucture rich
area and he likes the availability for the opportumty for smaller units. Jock encourages
this tpe of thing. Thinks diversity of housing within Aspen Glen is a good thing.
Bob Fullerton said he respects the HOA's comments. Hate to see you have to do a PUD
Amendment to change the types of lots. Bob has some minor concerns with the length of
the cul-de-sac but he is going to go with the Fire District if they have no problem with
them. Bob Fullerton thinks the size of the roads should really match up throughoutthe
subdivision
Greg McKennis said the UOA haa a problem with the 30' setback offof CR 109. Gerd
Zeller said he was surprised to see that. Code requires a 20' setback. Gerd Zeller said he
has changed some of the setbacks as suggested and he will make some adjustnent
between lot 6 & 7 at Preliminary Plan stage.
Jock Jacober asked about CR 109 and said it is in a dismal shape. Cheryl Chandler said
Aspen Glen did improvements to that road. Jock replied they did a mighty bad job. Jock
Jacober said he is assuming that CR 109 has a ROW. Fred Jarman said there is a
prescripted ROW and probably a 50' ROW.
Cheryl Chandler asked was the back gate ever written in as an entrance. Gerd Zeller said
everyone refers to that as a back gate. It is a radio controlled gate.
3
Moved to the public for comments next. Leslie Lamont would like to speak first. Ms.
Lamont has been the Design Review Administrator for Aspen Glen since 2004. She
works with the design committee and they have worked with Gerd,Zeller and the HOA
for over a year on this proposal. Ms. tamont is not a resident of Aspen Glen. Her
concerns are:
. The width of the pavement in Aspen Glen is 26-28'and ROW's are 60-80'
ROW shown on prirposal does not meet Aspen Glen standards.
Detention pond<oncemed with landscaping around this project. Detention
pond takes up a huge corner in this area.
Concerned with setback from County Road. Want to make sure it is safe for
everyone that uses that County Road. It is completely out of oharacter to have
development that close to the road. 'Want to see a profile of the road.
In regards to number of units. This zone district is unique within Aspen Glen that
it allows s/f homes, duplex homes and triplex homes attached. There is no other
area within the PUD that has all three of these types of units together.
Possibly create greater setbacks for single family homes.
Perhaps Gerd Zeller can submit a Text Amendment to change these to single
family and duplex lots.
Fred Jarman wanted to make two points. The first is on the notion of a TextAmendment.
.In the new Land Use Code we will be using the first of January 2009;there is a much
lesser type ofprocess you can go through as opposed to the current code. The second
question Fred has is that he recalls that there is a trigger that would require Aspen Glen to
install a stoplight at Highway 82. Itwas a density trigger. Fred doesn't know what the
figure is right offthe top of his head but he knows it was a realistic trigger and it was an
obligation by Aspen Glen to the Board of County Commissioners with their approvals
back in the 90's when this development was approved. Fred is asking the applicant if
they have looked into ttrat at all (trigger for light) and if not, that really does need to be
looked into.
Jock Jacober asked is Aspen Glen HOA a referral agency for this application? Kathy
Eastley said this area is included in the Master Association for Aspen Glen which means
they get assessed just like everybody else in this development. Therewas a comment
regarding the formation of a sub-association for this area to pay for the maintenance of
the roadway in that particular area.
Cheryl Chandler asked Gerd Zeller what would happen if you make it 8 units like the
Peaks at Aspen Glen. Gerd Zellq said he originally came through to Aspen Glen maxing
this out with the idea of making reasonable size duplexes. Gerd talked furlher about
triplex lots and what you could see would be the second story because of the berm.
Fred Jarman said when Aspen Glen was approved originally there was an obligation that
at a certain point of build out that Aspen Glen would have to install a light at Highway 82
and their entance. Gerd Zeller said that the HOA wants to add a light but they can't
have it per the State. Cheryl Chandler said that ls because you have to meet a certain
number frst before the State will authorize one.
a
a
4
No further comments were made. Sketch Plan comments are good for one year from
tonight's meeting date.
The nefi item on the agenda is a Public Meeting request to review a Sketch Plan
Application for the Clark Subdivision which is to be renamed as the Rilee Subdivision
because of duplication in subdivision names. The property is located south of Rulison on
CR 301 and is approximately 40.715 acres in size. Three residential lots are proposed.
The applicants are David and Angela Clark.
Present for the applicant tonight is David Clark and he lives at675} CR 301 Parachute,
Colorado.
Cheryl Chandler reviewed the process we will follow for this application tonight.
Dusty Dunbar is the County Planner and stre will present the project information and staff
comments next. This proper{y is 40+ acres and 3 residential lots are being proposed. The
proPerty is located at6750 CR 301 and is currently zoned AgriculturelResidential/Rural
P"otrty (A/RIRD). Access is proposed offof CR 301. Water will be provided to these
lots through a shared well. This parcel is located in Study Area} of the Comprehensive
Plan and shows a designation of this properly as Outlying Residential. The property lies
outside ofthe municipal sphere of influence.
A site plan of the proposal was shown and discussed. Photos of the site and surrounding
area were also shown.
Items of discussion:
A Well Sharing Plan will need to be included with the Preliminary Plan submittal.
Drainage: Property drains gently south to north. There is a small pond on the
property.
Irigation: Irrigation from the shared well is to be limited on the lots. These
limitations will require some type of management and will need to be addressed at
Preliminary Plan stage.
Water: Appears to have sufficient water to serve development. well permit that
is in place allows tlree households to use.
ISDS: Must have required separation from water system.
All lots are to access offof CR 301.
All driveways need access permits from the county Road & Bridge Departnent.
Property is located within Traffic Sttrdy Area I which will require fees to be paid
at final plat:
Property is located within RE-2 School District which will require fees to be paid
at fmal plat. Will need updated comments from School Distriit at Preliminary
PIan stage.
Fire Protection: Required to have suffrcient water for fire flow. Need updated
comments from the Fire District at Preliminary Plan stage.
Will need plat note for severed mineral rights.
a
a
a
a
a
a
5
r Wildlife / Fencing: Applicant will be required to identiff wildlife habitat and big
game ranges. This property is mapped as'"overall Range" for Mule Deer, Elk,
Black Bear, and Wild Turkey. Fencing types recommended by the CDOW should
be required in this area.
o Engineered foundations will be a requirement of the subdivision approval.
Comments are good for one year from tonight's meeting date.
Moved to the applicant for his presentation next. David Clark said that Dusty Dunbar did
a good job with her review. Mr. Clark would like to build another house on one of the
proposed lots and sell his bigger home that is on his current property.
Bob Fullerton asked Mr. Clark how the well has been out there. David Clark said it's
very good. David Clark said all of his property is hay pasture. He himself sees a low fire
danger. The Fire Chief wants a cistern at each house for holding water and then the well
for use.
Greg McKennis said water is a concern.
No public comments were made. Sketch Plan comments are good for one year from
tonight's meeting date.
The next item on the agenda is a public meeting request to review a Sketch Plan
ApplicationfortheCoffinanSubdivision. Thepropertyislocated atl837 CR100. The
parcel is approximately 149 acres in size and two lots are being proposed. The applicant
is Doug Coffrnan.
Present for the applicant is Kelly Cave, 823 Blake Avenue #202, Glenwood Springs
Colorado. The Applicant is actually Rex Coffinan.
Fred Jarman is the County Planner and he will present the project information and staff
comments. This is a request to split offone lot from the 149 acre parcel. This land went
through the Exemption process back in 2004. The 100-year flood plain cuts through the
site. Question is where the flood plain lies. Can't build in floodway. You can build in
flood fringe as long as the first floor is at least one foot above flood level. Need to really
define where flood fringe and floodway are located. Believe application can meet all the
goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Slough Ditch runs through the
property. Applicant crossed over the ditch to get access to lots that were created through
the Exemption process. Fred Jarman told Kelly Cave to look into that.
Need to drill a well. Water table is high. Sewer system should be engineered ISTS
mound systems.
If applicant decides to come back with a Preliminary Plan Application it will be reviewed
and processed under the new Land Use Code regulations. Fred Jarman handed out a list
of those requirements.
6
GARFIELD COL]NTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
' Date Sent: November 18,2010
Comments Due:
Name of application: Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision
Sent to: Garfield County Road & Bridge
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notiff the
Planning Departnent in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attachyour own additional sheets as
necessary: Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff Contact: Kathy Easfley
109 8e Sileet, Suite3Ol
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge has a concern with the plugging or
elimination of the 18" culvert across county road 109 just north of the intersection of
Bald Eagle Way and county road 109. This culvert and the drainage from this culvert
along the North side of Bald Eagle Way need to remain open.
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Deparfinent
By: Mike Prehm Date November 18- 2010
Revised 3l3O/N
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
MEMORANDUM
Kathy Eastley
Steve Anthony
Comments on the Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision Preliminary plan
November 23, 2010
Thanks for the opportunity to comment the Sages at Aspen Glen. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
o Inventory and mapping-The applicant needs to map and inventory the property for Garfield
County listed noxious weeds. The area close to CR109 has had various thistle issues in the past
o Weed Management-The applicant shall provide a weed management plan for the inventoried
noxious weeds.
r Covenants-Weed management is not addressed in the covenants. May we request that the
applicant mention noxious weeds and remind each lot owner that it is their responsibility under the
Colorado Noxious Weed Act and the Garfield County Weed Management Plan to manage County-
listednoxious weeds?
r Common area weed management-staffrequests a statement from the applicant indicating the party
that will be responsible for future weed man4gement in common areas on the site.
Revegetation
r Please provide a map or inforrnation, prior to final plat that quantifies the areq ln terms of
acres, to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This
information will help determine the amount of security that will hel4 if any, for revegetation.
r The security shall be held by Garfield County until vegetation has been successfully reestablished
according to the Reclamation Standards section in the Garfield County Weed Management Plan.
November 3O,2O10
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8th Strecq Suite 201
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
BE: Ihe Seges at Aspen Glen, Preliminryy Plan
DearKathy:
I have reviewd the apptication for the proposed Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision The
application was reviewed for cornpliance with the International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 edition,
adopted by the County, I would offer the following comments.
Acceso
The proposed access is adequate for emergency apparafts.
YYater Suonlies for Fire kotec{ion
The proposed water supply and fire hydrant locations are acceptable.
ImoectFees
The dwelopment is subject to development impact fees adopted by the District. Ibe developer
will be required to enter into an agreement with the District for the payment of dwelopment
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and payment of the fees are due prior to the recording
of the final pl*. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agreeme, rt is executed. The current fee for residential developme,nt is $730.00 per unit.
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance.
Sinoerelv^ ANlW
Bill Gavette
DeputyChief
Carbondale & RuraltrIre Protecfon Dlstrict
3fi) Meadowood Drive o Carbondale, CO 81623 o 97G963-2491 Fax nG%34569
Fromr
To:
Subject:
Date:
Westerman, Carla
Kathy A. Eastlev;
Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision-SPPA6479
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:34:52 PM
Kathy, I have received the Preliminary plan for the sages at Aspen Gten
Subdivision. At this time SourceGas has no issues with the proposed Subdivision in
its current state. The developer will be responsible for any changes and upgrades
necessary to furnish natural gas to this new subdivision.
lf there are any other questions, please feelfree to contact me.
Thanks!
Carla Westerman
Field Coordinator
*uunrfu
970-928-0407
ptotlt\T
HIYGINEE
C*.ll aro fNvutolnn{fnTAt (oxstttttxc *xn Orserd
Novernber 29, 20t0
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Plarrning
108Ith $keeL Suite 401
Oleuwaod $prings, CO 81601
REI Review of Srge* rt Arpun Gler Appltc*tlon: $PPA64?9
Dear Kathy:
'l'tris office has periformed a review of the documents provided for the $ages at Aspen Cleo
Subdivision Preliminary PIan Applicalion. ThE submittal was found to be thorough and well
crgnnizd. Ihc following guestions, concsrns, or comments worns geficfrated:
I. Ths tralllc analysis that is refbrred to is the original treffic r€psrt for the Aspn Glen
developrnent in 1992. The Applicanl a$$srlr that the actual traffic that has been or will be
generatetl is less than the reporl *nticiprte* axl therefore there willbe no significant impacts.
This rnay be ttre csse for the intrrior traffic geaerated. However thc assurnptions in tho
tr&flic report conceming the background traffic, particularly on CR I09, should bc veri{ied
*rd fhe trafiic reporf updated r$ n€cesssry.
2. The soils report was for thc Aspen Olen dcvelopmcnt and was gpfierated in lgg3. No
information is included to show where dre borings were performed and it is difftcult to
deteffiine if this original rqport is applfoable to ths $ages. Thc applicability of the ssils
rel)ort should be dttmrnined and updated e$ nssessary.
3. The applicability of tlrc Division ofWildlife lcttcr, conceming Arpen Clen, that was included
should be detemrined for the $agcs aud updatd ss $€ces*ary.
4, The '\rill serve" letter tbr sswer artd waterdoes not address the requiremantn to determine nn
adequate $rater sqpply per Section 7-105.C of thE Garfield County regulations. The
Applicant proposffi to u$s the altcmative a.r discu*sed in Section 7-105.C (fi. PlEase verify
th&t the wilersupply plart is <n file and meets rryith the criteria of that section.
5. The *Drainage" section of the Engineering Report shows ttat the $ages will tiq into a
conveyencc systwn dedgn*d to accommodate projoct flows, rvill avoid direct disutrarges, ond
will pmvide dequate water quality. The report is silent about how the Applicurt propCIses to
a&ess the detsntion r*quirod in Sestion 7-207.C"
6. The "Drninege' roc{ion of the Engineering REport sfl}ts no off-site are!$ af,e tributary to lhc
Sfl*6 fut ths &ainage plan showe a culvert directing flows &om the nrest beneath CR 109
onto he southwcst corn€r of the Sages. Sheet Cl calls for both ends of this culve( tp be
ptuggod. ?he ApplicM ehould di.scusr this in greeterdetail.
826112 Crand Avtnre r filenr,rood SpninS,r, CO 8160t
PH: S70.9{5"5544 . f,{X; 9f0.T45.555S e w*,w-rnountaincross-erB tom
suges*t t:H!1f;
N*vcmher?9, ?010
7. The $agrs propo$es a rlead-end rvilh no turnaround end with no apparent coRrrsotion ofright-
of,-tray intended fur the future per $rctian 7-307.A.7.c. The Ap,plieant should address the
terrninatiorr of Ailison Road-
8. The turnarouad radius it listed in the curv€ table c$ 33.83'. This radius is les* than flryical
nrininmrn stand*rds. Tfre ABplicant shouldaddress this rsdius.
' 9. The sewer line slope is desigrd as very flat, [ess thar] 0.6%. \4rith re]atively low volunres of
flow frum ferrv residertecs the velocities will not be very high and solids will likely settle.
The approval ofhe RFSWD will be requited-
I0. The sewer lfne is shown at a depth that is shallower than the water line. This rvill require tbat
the watcr seryices bc less than the rninimum bur}r of 5.5' or that they will be below the
ranitary sswer li$e. Either case will require special constflretion practieer. Thc Applicant
shopld address how these utility crossings will bc consfrEcted
1l- The water service to l"ot 4 appears to conflict ruith the propo+ed rnanhole.
1?, ?he sewer main flows outside of the propo$€d roadwily prism of Allison H.oad. Although it
stays within the proposed utility $E$err6nt" this is generally discouraged. Tlre Applicmt
should eansider rcaligning the sewer.
13" Tlre $ewer rnain flows ofTproperty priar to connnction to the main line tie-in. The Applicant
will need to provide evidence ofpennission and agrec*rent* wiLh the affectod owrer.
14. On $heei C5 the easemeat is lo-calcd as a $anitary Sewer Easemcnt but cortains shaXlow
utilities. The lrpplicant *hould verify the type of e*sement.
15. T'he e&$ems.nts shown on the Pre[irninary Plet are not congruert ryitlr rryhat are labeled as
sasefirsnts in the eonstr*ction drawings.
Frel free to call if you have any questions or commenl$.
MOUHTAIN CNCIS* EFIGINEEB,ING. TNC.
Cirit rsd f,nvlro*nmntd Conraltlrrg*nd tkriga
8tr6 f4 6raod A?$q*. $lcmrrynod Sprfurgr, g0 S I 60 l
P: 97$,9C5J5.{4 Fl 9't0.*l-S.5558 yusw.mountsirs$s*crrg.com
Sinccnely,
Chris Hal€" PE
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
November 24,zUA
Kathy Eastly
Garfield Coung Building and Planning
108 Bth St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs C0 81601
Sages @ Aspen Glen Subdivision Preliminary Plan
Section 13, T7S, R89W,6TH PM
W. Division 5, W. District 38
Dear Ms. Easfly:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposalto suMivide a parcel of 4.243 acres into
7 single{amily lots and 3 duplex lots. The applicant proposes to provide water through the
Roaring Fott Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an
augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 93CW192 as a wat6r supply for the Aspen Glen
Development. The potable water tystem is to be provided via this plan through the Aspen Glen
Well Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are cunently assigned wellpermit nos. 59215-F, 4963S.F. and 59214-
F, respectively. $ewage disposalwill be through a centralsystem and willalso be provided by the
Dlstrict" A letter of commitment from the Diskict was provlded.
The District's plan for augmentation provides for a tptal of 606.5 EQR's, a golf
course, clubhouse, and 15 lakes. The last conespondence from the District to the Division of
Water Resources dates February 5, 2003. At that time there were 519 lots platted wiffrin ihe
Aspen Glen PUD. No current information regarding the number of EQR's available for
development has been provided. ln addilion, it was stated in a reporl from Resource
Engineering, lnc., dated June 8, 1993, that there is no EQR allotment for duplex struclures
located on the west side of the Roaring Fork River. Pursuant to CR$ 30-28-136(lXhXll), a
municlpality orquasi-municipality is required to file a report with lhe county and the $tate Engineer
documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without
causing injuryto existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included. See the attached
Guidelinee for SuMivision Water Supplv Plqn Reports forthe n6ces8ary information.
A report by Resource Engineering, lnc., daled May 24, 1995, indicates that the Aspen
Glen Well Nos. 2, 3 and 4 well have a combined capacity of 1,340 gallons per minute, which
excee& Aspen Glen's build-out peak day demand of 700 gallons per minute.
Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot commenl on the potentialfor
injury to existing water rights under the provislons of CRS 30-28-136(l Xhxll). lf you or the
applicanl has any questions concerning this matter, please contact Karlyn Adarns in this office.
Office of the State Engineer
1313 Sherman Street, Suite 818 o lfenver, CO dOZOI r Phone: 303-86G3581 r Fax:303-865-3589
www. $rater.5tate.(u. u$
D EPAR]'IV{EN'I' OF NA"IUITA L Ir SSOUITCE$
Brll Ritrirr, rr.
Covrrynot'
iUihe Krng
[.retr.rtivg Director
Dick tfolie. F.E.
Direc$r,Slate Engtmer
Re:
Kathy Eastly
Sages @ Aspen Glen Preliminary Plan
November 24,2410
Jeff Deatherage
tlUater Resource Engineer
JD/kBalSages at Aspen Glen Subdiv.docx
Alan Madellaro, Division Engineer, Division S
Bill Blakeslee, Water Commissioner, District 38
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY- seruing the people of Colondo
Deparfnert of Nafural Resources
1313 Sherman Steet, Room 715
Denver,CO 802G1
Phone: (303)86&2611
Fax (303)86&2461
November24,2010
Ms. Kahy Eastley
Garfield County Planning
108 th Street, Suite 401
Glenuood Springs, CO 81601
Legal: Sl3ofT7S,R89W
COLORADOEreltfl
DEPARTMENT OF
I{ATURAL
RESOURCES
Re: Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
CGS Revlew No. GA-11.0003
Dear Ms. Eastley;
!n response to your request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), CGS has performed a
technical review conceming geologic hazards for the above-mentioned proposed development.
The site consists of approximalely 4.2 acres and is being divided to include 10 residential lots (7
SF and 6 duplexes). The lots will be prcvided seMce by the Roaring Fork Sanitation District. The
review package included he project application packet, preliminary engineering report (4/10) by
David KoE, preliminary construction plans (3/4/09) by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, preliminary plat
(4/13/10) by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, and geotechnical engineering study (528/93) by Chen
Northem. The geotechnical report was done as a supplement to turo initial studies for the Aspen
Glen area, wtrich rlere not submifted as part of the refenal.
The site is located north of Carbondale and east of County Road 109, west of the Roaring Fork
River. A number of ponds and inigation ditches are present in the area. Groundwater levels were
encountered arcund 31 feet below ground surface after drilling in 1993. Groundwater may be
shallow in areas where ponds are located, or form perched water tables seasonally on clayey
lenses in the subsurface soils.
Surficial deposits are predominantly alluvialtenace sands, gravels, clays and cobbles, The Eagle
Valley Evaporite was encountered between 23 and 33 feet below grcund surface. Low density
soils may be present at depth in this area, and may consolidate/collapse under a load. The area
has been mapped as having possibly hydrocompactive soils. Tln geotechnical rcpol did not
include any boing location maps, srfe geologic maps, or hazard area identiftcation maps.
Primary geologic concems fur the development of this property include water-sensitive soils,
potential sinkholes, shallow groundwater, potentially water-sensitive soils, and potential debris
floun. CGS ofiers the following comments for Countyconsideration:
Bill Rlter, Jr.
Go,Brnor
Mlke King
Executiw Direc'tor
Mncent Matthewr
Dlvlslon Dir€ctor and
State Geologtst
The cunent site plans should be submitted to Chen Northem for comment pertaining to the
geologic conditions at the site and cunent proposed land use and grading plans to ensure
they are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and cunent
underctanding of the site conditions.
The Chen Northem report indicates piezometefti were installed during the 1993
investigation. lt would be useful to review that data as it pertains to grcundwater
conditions and impacts to the site.
The Chen Northem report indicates there are areas of sinkholes, depressed areas, and
debris flovta within the site, These areas should be clearly identified on the plat, and
specific mitigation measures should be detailed in plat notes.
Locations and design details of the debris deflection structures should be provided for
review.
A retaining wall is proposed along the westem edge of the property, adjacent to cR 109.
A slope stability analysis should be considered to ensure that the raall is adequately
designed and proposed grading along the toe of the slope will not create unstable
conditions to the adjacent county road.
Seasonglly shallow grounduater may be present in areas of this site. Appropriate
subsurface drainage should be established for utility lines and subsurface construction
expected within 5 feet of the seasonally high groundwater table.
The soils are likely sensitive to moisture. Surface grading should work to prevent uater
from infiltrating soils around structures and prevent areas of standing uater. Lourwater
usage landscaping should be used around structures.
Design-level subsurface geotechnical investigations should be conducted priorto building.
Foundation designs may require additional mitigation based on the findings of this
investigation. Large rocks may be encountered at depth wtrich could impact foundation
design.
Disclosure should be provided to potential homeoumers regarding the geologic conditions
at the site,
Based on the material included in the refenal, CGS does not have enough information to provide
adequate evaluation of the proposed development. lf you have further questions about this site,
please contact me at (303) 866-2611.
Cc: file
4.
5.
1.
2.
7.
9.
Engineering Geologist
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Janet Buck
Kathy A. Eastlev;
The Sages at Aspen Glen
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:54:39 PM
Kathy -
The Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed the application for the Sages at
Aspen Glen at their November t8,2OLO meeting. The Planning Commission would
like to offer the following observations and comments:
1. A copy of this land use application has apparently been fonruarded to
the Division of Wildlife for their review and comments. The Planning
Commission feels strongly that any recommendation offered by the Division
of Wildlife,should be considered.
2. The Planning Commission suggests that the County shoutd be sure to
require a geotechnicat report for this subdivision.
3. The Planning Commission noted that a portion of the Golf Course
easement is located within one of the building envelopes.
4. The Planning Commission discussed the road alignment and noted that
it resulted in a deadend. ltold them that Fire District had been contacted
for their comments.
Ptease let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Janet Buck
Town of Carbondale
fl
Association atHomeownets Aspen Glen,Ina
November 29,zOtO
Ms. Xathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
1O8 8th Street, Suite 4O1
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: S4cs atAspen Ghn Preliminary Ptan
Dear Ms. Eastley,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Prcliminary Plan submittal br Sages at Aspen
Glen. The Aspen Glen Design Review Committee {DRC) and HOA Board of Directors hnre been
working with Gerd Zeller for several years on this project. The DRC aM the Board support a
development of no more that 13 drrelling units but only achhved with single-fami[ dwelling
units or duplex units. The DRC and the Eoard have also supported a PUD Amendment to reduce
the frofi yard setback fur a duplex from 25 fuet to 20 feet in the Club Mllas Residential ane
district.
The Board and the DRC have reviewed the submitted Preliminary Ptan application and find that
the application is onsistent with past support: 13 dwelling units dlvided between 7 single-
family parcels and 3 duphx lots. Additionalfi, the proposed text amendment accurately reflects
prwious agreements between the FOA' DRC and Mr. Zellen reducing the minimum front yard
setback for a duplot in the Club Villas Residential zone dlfirict from 25 fuet to 2O feet.
As part of the review of the applicatbn, the HOA sought the advice of Mr. David Xotz of
SchmueserGordon Meyer, lnc. Mr. Kotz has representedAspen Ghn in civil engineering
matter. Attached is correspondence from Mr. Davld Kotz in which he confrrms that the
preliminary plans harre been designed to adhere to, if not exceed, the Aspen Glen PUD civil
engineering standards including those of Garfield County.
The Aspen Glen Board of Directors does hereby support the Sages Pretlminary Phn and Tert
Amendment as submitted with the following conditbns of approval:
1. A review of the SuMivision lmprcvemenE Agreernent (StA), CC&Rs and Eylaws finds these
documents to be comistent with past represertations to the Aspen Glen Board of Direcbrs
primarily in the fact that the Sages will become a sub-associatlon of the Master Association of
Aspen Glen and the subassociation will be responsible for imprwements and rnaintenance of
all limiled and General Common Elements. The SIA states that the road, Allison Way, will be
dediated to the Homeowners Association at Aspen Ghn, lnc. However, the SIA does not
O08oBatdtugtenfs), #ffi:##:L Tel: (970) 963-3362
specifu a timeframe when the road will be dedicated. The HOA would like to suggest that the
road is transfurred when:
r all infrastructure is completed as confirmed by the County's release of the Public
lmprorementfunds related to this improvemeng. all Aspen Glen HOA annual assessments and ORC related ftes are curent;o a final Plat has been recorded; and. a deed is presented tramfurring owneshap.
2. The CC&R; outline in Artide I the prorisiom for maintenance, landscaplng and special
easement. Paragraph 8.1(c| discusses drainage, in'gatbn and other unter fratures however it is
not clear whether irrigation of limited and generat oommon elements will be achieved by
potable or non-potable uaater. lf Mr. Zeller intends to use non-potable or ditch water for
inigation purposes an agreernent to do so wilt be required from ttre Aspen Glen Oub and the
Homeowners Assochtion at Aspen Glen, lnc. as these entities own and maintain the non-
potabte water infrastructure as well as the water rights.
3. The Aspen Ghn iloA Board of Diremors reguests that all basic infrastructure improvements
for the Sages be completed at one time-
4. After massgrading of the site and instaltation of basic infrastructure is complete, the entire
development will be revegetated and lrrigated to ensure native grass growth avoidirng ten weed
covered lots until nertfrzl development ocorrs. The Aspen Glen HOA will requile a builde/s
oompletion deposit, the specific amount to be determined, to emure that proper ranegetation
occunt
S. lt is helpfulthat the application includes a onceptuat ladscape ptan and conceptual
graphi,cs deprairry bulk and mass of a tlrpical duplexand single-family home product. However,
consistent with the Sages draft CC&Rs, this profect will be required to comply with all Oesrgn
Guidelines, eftctive at the time of submittal, rehted to the exteriOr design of the homes as uuell
as landscaping includingoflfienciry bermingand plantings. Supportforthis Preliminary Plan
does not nqate the design revhw process and requirements to.adhere to the Aspen Ghn
t eqgn Guidelines. lt is also erpected thatfuture development will adhere to al! zoning
requirements of the Oub Wlas Residential zone district as amended
6. AllAspen 6len development reviewfees wi,ll be applicable prior to arry improtements to
propertr 6ccur at the sages.
7. As noted in pradous reftrral @mments, a small detention pond in the southwest comer of
the property was induded in some plans. Ttris ls next to tire back gate and the ability to install
landscapiry in this area will be important. A detention pond may not support landscaping of
arry sfinificance.
8- Although a typhal section has been profided fur the retaining wall that witl panlhl County
Road 1(D, the Aspn Gtsn DRC will require design details of the retaining wall and will e,eed
the improvement to be consistent with the design quality found in similar featurst within Aspen
Glen. The ability to add plant material parallel to County Road 1(D wlll be critica! in order to
scrcen the bad< side of the tulo dupleres from the road and provide privacy for the residences"
il)saBawEdslewo "*#t,f3,jffi,*"Y P7q %83362 Pagetofs
Thank you for the opportunrty to provide input. tf you have arry questions orcomments
regarding this referral please do not hesitate to contact our DRC Administrator Leslie tamont at ,
9634434 or llamont@sopris.net.
Sincerely,WL
Ned Collum, Presidem
Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen
Cc Aspen Ghn HOA Board of Directors
Aspen Glen DRC
Mr. Gerd Zeller
Mr. Eric Gross
Attachments:
SGM Letter - November 24, 2OtO
IOA Letter February 10, 2010
HOA Letter November 2A,2@8
NN BddEagleWay Cobondale CO 81623 Tel: (970) 96j-jj62 PageS of 3
Email : il onon@sopris - nzt
scHMUEsrn loonooN I r"rwen elENivocD f5PRtNGSj:fi,-,\/
ii:
GuNi.llsoN
I 03 \Ty'EST ToMlcHI AvE, SU TE A
GuNi'IsoN,COAl23O
970.641.5355
970-6,41.5358 FA
AsP-N
I O I FouNoERs PLACE, Uxr I Oz
POBor2l55
ASPEN, CO El6l I
970.9?5.6727
970.925.41 57 FAx
Gaaxo JuNcrtoN
2768 CoMFrss DRIVE, SurrE l02
GF.a,No JuNcTroN, CO a I 5O5
970.e45.257 I
97o.245.2a7 I Fx
I I I WEsr StxrH STREEr, SU|TE 2oo
GLENwooD SPRINGS, CO B I 60 I
970.945-lOO4
970.945_5S4E} FAx
MEE(ER
320 TH|RD STREET
MEEKER, CO Ale4l
970.A7A.SlAO
97o.a7A.4lAl Fx
E
i
NGtNE.En!rIsuRYEyoR3
Via E-Mail: llamont@sopris.net
iREi
*
.The
Sages atA€p-en glen - Pre,liminary Ftan Subdivision Application
DearLeslie: ; : : ' ;
,Per our telephone conversation last week, this letter will document that The Sages Preliminary
:Plan drawings have been developed based on the same (or higher) standards, details, and
;apddificatfron$ thaf SGM applied to previous phases in Aspen Glen. lt is my opinion that this
rdevelopment;asiproposed, complies with the Garfield County code requirements and Aspen
,Glen PUD gu,idelines. As such, The Sages project presents no unique concerns for the HOA
from an engineering perspective.
, ,Regarding the completion of improvements, it is my understanding that the public infastructure
.r ... :wilLbe;constructed in its entirety and the vertical construction will occur based on market
, ;copditions, A S-gbdivision lmprovements Agreement will be executed with the County prior to: ,Final Plat; That agreement will require a form of security for the public improvements.
,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,
i 'l hope-this"adequately addresses the HOA's concems about engineering matters associated with
, ,this deve!-o,pment.
ReSpe"ffilly submifted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
C;h r
David M. Kotz, P.E. \
/
C:\Documenb and Settings\jcaudel\Local Seftings\Temporary lnternet Files\OlKDE\Llamont-PP-Refigrral.doc
Aspen Glen Honrcawner's Association
February 25, 2010
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8tr'Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81501
Re: Sages atAspen Glen ZoningTextAmendrnent
Dear Ms. Eastley,
I would like to take this opportunity to comrnent on a PUD Amendment proposed by Mn Gerd Zeller for
the Club Villa Residentia! zone district in Aspen Glen which applies to the4.243 acre parcelnear the rear
gate to Aspen Glen that Mr. Zeller proposes to develop as the Sages at Aspen Glen. As you know, the
Aspen Glen HOA Board of Dlrectors (the Board) and our Design Review Committee {DRC) have been
working with Mr. Zeller on the Sages project for severalyears. lt is our understanding that he now
proposes a PUD amendment to change the front yard setback requirements for duplexes from 25 feet to
20 feet within the Club Villa Residentialzone district.
The Board supports this change to required setbacks conditional upon Mr. Zetler's project containing no
more than 13 total dwelling units at build-out. Although Mr', Zeller originally submitted a sketch plan
that proposed 15 total units (including seven single family homes, one duplex, two tripldxes), for a total
of 15 dwelling units, he has since agreed with the Board to limit total density within the Sages pmject to
13 dwelling units: The Board continues to support development of up to 13 dwelling units, as per the
attached letter of November 20, 2008.
We understand that the PUD Amendment proposed by Mr. Zeller, in order to reduce applicable
setbacks, does not preclude hlm or any successor from submittlng another plan entir:ely. However we
believe that, with the addition of a l3-unit density cap on this property, there will be enough constraints
on the property, including the 15th Supplemental, to prevent a development that is inconsistent with
Aspen Glen and the intent of the zone district.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. lf you have any questions or comments regarding this
referral please do not hesitate to contact our ORC Administrator Leslie Lamont at 963-8434 or
llamont@sopris.net.
Sincerely, ,/ - n
^r^a-wNed Collum, President \
Horneowners Association at Aspen Glen
A.ttachment:
HOA Letter November 20, 2008
0A8A BaH Eagle Wry Carbondale, CO 81623 Tel: (970) 963-3362 Fax: (970) 9634550
Lance Luckell, Communigt Sentices Director Email: lance@opris.net
ffi
I{omeopnerts' Aspen Glea A,ssociatlon
Nowmber20 2008
Ms. KHhyEasdey
Garft eH Aounty Buildlrg and Planniog Deparfnent
tffSsStreet,Suite r$O1
Ghmwodsptns, CO816Ot
ne: Sepset Aspen clcn Skatdr Plan ftevlw
DearMs. Eastley,
Ihank you fur the opporturff to oommeot on the submiBed land use applkatbn frorn
Mr, Ged Zeller cafied the Sages at Aspen Glen. Thank ylou as umll for taking the Bme to
meet wlth our Design ReryienrAdministrator Leslie lamont.
IheAspen Glen tKlA Board of Dtrectors and our Design Review Commlttee (DRC) have
been rarc&ing urith Gerd on this proiect for a year, We reallze tftatdeudopment has
ahmys been planned for this area widrin Aspen 6len and our tnterest has been to
ensure that denelopment is oonsistent with the character of Aspen Glen and the
proposed derrsityof the slte b approprtate. I belhrre it has been Gerd's lnrterest to
esbbli$ a uro*ing relationshlp with us that udll facilitate the dorelopment of his parcel.
We undersnd &atSketch Ptan is orka rev'rerr by0rephnning C;ommls$on and the
purpo6'e is to seek hrithl input on the pmle* input that the applicant may or may not
ctoose to fulloar. ln addition, because the property is zoned Club Wlas, slngle family,
dupleot and triplar units arc allowed uses and the zonlng does not limft the mix of unit
tVpe. Zoning does houevbr define the minlmum ht stse for each unit type and the
minirnum k she for a trlplen ls smalhr ttran the requircment for a dupldx or a dngle
family home R€n hu, of fte submftal oonftrms that Gerd has submtted a plan br
seu€n sirclrhmlly lots, oneduplex lotandtwotriplex lotsfor atoalof 15 dwelling
uniBonsite.
Afur rarorking wlth Gerd for a yeirr we offer the followlng renbw of hls applhatlon.
L lhe number.of units on this site is a crltical element of tfte proposal br Aspen
Gbn. The HOA Board of Dir€ctors docr not support a triplex product on the site
and the Board only srpports a total of lil dwelllng units on site.
|OEONd @btray tubotdotq CO 6162s rel: (970) g63-3t62 Fc: (mQ9634550
Iawe l,eke, Cwmniy Sentces Dlrcaq Enail: ldtu@sopris. rca
2- Gerd has stated to the Board that he intends to build only 13 units on the
property but zonlng forces him to identify two triplex lots to meet the minimum
lot slze requlrements. He has told us that he wfll oonvert the trlplex lots m
duplot loB after suMlv0slon approaal vtra an administrative amen&nent to the
approved subdivisbn. Homrcr, it is not dear to us what that process entails or
when the conyersion would occur.
3. Although we do not distrust 6erd's cornmitment to Aspen Glen urc bdtwe that
we cannct trust" that dranges will oocur after a srbdivlsbn pht has been
remrded and the land becomes entitled for ,5 dudling units, Therefore we ask
thatthe Gafield County Buitdlngand plannlngstaffand the planning'
Commhs,ion reommend that the total number of duuelling untts will not exceed
X3 dwelling urfts and to prohibit the consiluction of any triphx bulldinp on the
Sages parcel.
4. We abo reoommend that the applicant aod dre Gounty shff identtfu a
meclranlsnr to ensure that the densfi is limited to 13 uniB.
5. \ile reomrmend that dte Sagles development become a sub-associatlqr within
the master associabn of Aspen Gten br hrdscape and other malntenance
purposes.
6. We are oncerned ttrat the 3O fioot setback fiom County Road l0g (CR 1@l ls not
large enough to support landscaping that will be critical for screen&rg the
derelopmern from the red and requlred drainage and slope retentbn systems.
7. We recomrnend that the preliminary plan submittal lnclude a sus section
drawing of the propml from CR 1Og, to the tu,o t iptex lots tftat are adjacent to
CR 10!). this draring$orrld lnc&.rde a buildingform wtthin the building'
erwelopes (wtth pmposed heights of the buildings) in order br County sta.ff anC
our.DRC to study posslble lmpacts
8. We recomrnend a second cross sectlon dnwlqfiiom BaH Eagle Way {Golden
Bear on the submitted ptanf to the front of.the duplex lot includini the building
fo-rms and helghts for the same purposes as oltlined aboue.
9. We call staffs atterrtion to the small detmtion pond in dre southuuest comer of
the property. This is ar area next to our back gate and the abilityto infill
landscap'r,ng in thls area will be important A detentbn pond may not $pport
landscaping of any slgnifrcane.
Thank you for requesting our input and vue bok fionrard to particlpatlng in tlds revierr
as the applicatbn makes if unythrough the Gafield County hnd use rcuieu, prooess" tf
you have any questiorr or comments rcgadlrq this reftral please do not hesltate to
mntact our DRC Mmlnistrator Leslle lamont at 96]8434 or lhmont@sopris.net.
sinogply,
{,il.*
DougHacker, President
Homeorrwrerc Association at Aspen Glen
0080 BatdEqleWay CdfrondqteCO 81623 Tel: g7A)963-s3& Fa: (970) 96345s0
Iatw Lwkdt Connaniq &ttla DirEctor Enloil: lat@tagis,nd
s
I conooru
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
SCHMUEgER lueven
ENGrr.EERBlsuRvE
MEMORANDUM
Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planning
Chris Hale, P.E., Mountain Cross Engineering
David M. Kotz, P.E.
December 1,2010
Sages at Aspen Glen, Pretiminary Plan Application
Reiponse to Referral Comfients
This memo presents my responses, as the Applicant's engineer, to refenal
comments received earlier this week. The intent here is to make a quick
response that can be incorporated into your staff report prior to today's packet
deadline. \Mile sorne matters may take some additionalcoordination time with
the referalagencies, I believe all items can be addressed in a relatively short
timeframe if they are not resolved here.
Mountain 9ross Enoineerino (MCB November 29. 2010 Letter
Review engineer Chris Hale, applicant Gerd Zeller and I had a productive
meeting this moming. This memo will summarize our discussions and proposed
@urses of action. Chris is copied and asked to identiff any exceptions.
Responses to the enumerated items in the letter are:
1. The concern here is the current level of background trafftc on CR 109 may
be higher than the assumptions in the original Preliminary Plan report.
SGM and MCE agree that interior Aspen Glen traffic will be less due to the
decreased number of lots. SGM is to research available CR 109 traffic
info and provide a report on triggers for left and right turn lanes and
intersection function for Chris' review. Based on personal observations, it
is my opinion that CR 109 improvements are nowhere near being
wananted. \Mrile this is a valuable piece of info for Garfield County, I do
not believe any CR 109 improvements necessitated by background traffic
shouH be the responsibili$ of this proiect. Additionally, I believe the
master developer fulfilled their obligations with the CR109 reconstruction
in the mid-1990's. i
2. SGM willtransmit boring locations to MCE. The originalpreliminary plan
soils report was comprehensive and included the Sages parcel. lt is
sufficient for this application. As noted in the application text and on the
plans, SGM has mandated additional geotech work prior to Final Plat for
foundation design, verification of road structural section and to define any
other site-specific concerns.
3. The letterwas included to show the DOW had no specific concems on the
Sages parcel. We would expect the DOWto comment on this application
if there are any wildlife concerns.
4. Water service to the Sages parcelwas contemplated from the earliest
stages of Aspen Glen. Discussion with RFWSD engineers indicate that
ample water is available and a water supply/master plan update was
submitted to Garfield County for the reent "Cattle Creek Crossing"
development. The original plan was completed and approved by Garfield
County and the Division of Water Resources in the mid-1990's. The
RFWSD is required to submit accounting forms to the local D\AIR office to
ensure compliane with the plan. The Sages is one small part of Aspen
Glen which is but one development in the Districts service area. As such,
I believe the RFWSD prefers the one time "plan on file" route rather than
detailed responses to each future subdivision application. The District has
indicated they willassist as needed in this application.
5. ln accordance with the Aspen Glen Drainage Master Plan approved in
1993, detention and aftenuation of peak flows is provided by downstream
swales and ponds constructed for the overall development.
6. This 18'culvert was not contemptated in the original Drainage Master
Plan but was added as part of the CR 109 construction. The ditch was
supposed to be graded to flow to the 30" cmp to the NW. My intentwas
to abandon the culvert, and force the flows to the 30" and not have to deal
with these flows on Lot S10. As County Road & Bridge opposes the
abandonment, SGM wil! revise the onsite drainage plan as discussed this
morning to safely handle the flows.
7. The road geometry was developed based on input by the Carbondale &
Rural Fire Protection District and is in conformance with their interpretation
of the fire code. They have issued a referal letter approving the plans.
8. See above response and note outer radius exceeds 45'. We view this as
a tumaround as opposed to a local road and would not apply the 40'
centerline radius criteria.
9. The sewer grade is governed by the existing manhole invert elevation and
site constraints. However, it exceeds the 0.4% typical min. slope for 8"
lines. The RFWSD will maintain as neessary.
1O.This is another site constraint. The water services are continuous and
have no joints. As such, the District can approve and comply with state
regs. SGM will incorporate any special construction details the District
wants.
11. SGM will revise water service location and issue revised plan.
12.As discussed, the design minimizes manholes and will stay. The District
requires that no large trees and minimal landscaping be installed over the
sewer.
13.Formal easement will be executed prior to Final Plat. Aspen Glen golf has
verbally agreed to the easement.
14. Extraneous label will be removed.
15. For clarity, plat omits graphic display of blanket easements as noted in the
"Easement Statemenf on the cover sheet 1 of 3.
Please call me to discuss any of these items.
.-DMK
hITPWSRI'H . FAWLAK GIOTTCHNICAL i"is: y ,'tr y.i).,\.11-l
rrL ;r i l : i'i i;;.1r,:r-,j,) rir gi,,; ir, i. j r. { r ), r i
December 3,2010
Zeller Construction
Attn: Gerd Tnllq
P.O. Box 37
Asperl C,olorado g16l}
Job No. I l0 4064'
Subjecr Reqponse to Colorado ceo]9src{-survey Review and ceolog ic1azafisurnmary for prerimin*yp]r:
lhe sages at Aspen cten,riro rueb w.yand County Road 109, Garfield Countf Colorado
Dear Mr. Z*ller
As requestd we are-providing response tro the colorado Geological survey (cGS)review dxed Novembfr- 24,2010 ofthe proposed developmeut. A reprosentative ofHepworth-Pawlak Gmtechnica[ Inc. observed the subject site onDecemba 2, 2010. Ourrqponse to the CGS comments and reconuuendations for the preliminary plan design arepresented in this report and wse conducted according to our agreement for pmfesional
services with Zeller constnrdion dated Decernber z, zarc.
Previous studies: The Sages at Aspen Glen development site is located within the areaoriginally evaluated as part of the Aspen Glen Develiprnent by chen-Northern (1991 and1993) and Huntingdon (1993). The findings ofthose rtoaio have been inoorporated intoour findings.
site Development: Ten lots, i single family and. 3 duple& and an access streef areproposed' Grading for the infrastructure oonskuction will typically be minor. Retainingwalls up to about I fBet high will be built in the northern purt to the west of Ipts 4through 7. The existing earthen berm along county Road I09 *iii"oti" ai*J"a in theCounty right-ofway but will be excavated on the project site for the retaining walls andpotentially the individuat buildings. offsite drainage &om uphill of county i.oad 1ogcurrently flows onto the south end ofthe project site.
Geologic concernsl,The primary geologic conditions that could potentially impact theproject site oonsist of I) sinkholes related to Eagle Valley Evaporitg 2) water sensitivesoils that could cause settlement related dishess of structures, and 3) debris flows orfloods caused by thuxlerstorm tunofffiom the nearby valleyside. These concerns were
addres.sed by cGS as 9 cornments in their review rqport. our findiags and
recommendations to address these comments are presented below.
P:rikcr -it,11-r9,iI "71 lt) * i.".r.,L.;radr: S1..rinrs i lg"f:ri l-Ii6: . $iL,err.rl:*rli. tl?r.,!_;i6,:" i rlsli
Zcller Construcr.
December 3,2AlO
PageZ
Findings and Recommendations: Our findings are presented to address CGS oomments
in the order given by them. We are currently in the p.r* of coaducting a geotechnical
engineering study including subsurface exploration for groundwater conditions, retaining
wall desig4 Pavement sections and preliminary foundation desgn that will be appropriatefrr the final plan d"sigo.
. 1) In our opinioq ttre proposed land use and grading plans are in confurmance with
the recommendations by Chen-Northem (1991 and lgg3).2) The pizomet&s"installed by Chen-Northern (199:,) for groundri;ater level
monitorirrg were bcated in areas close to the Roariag Fork River md the project
site is not known to be impacteit by shallow grorrndwater.
3) Tte project site is not knowu to be impacted by sinkholes or depresed areas but is
uderlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite that is known to be associated with sinkhole
dwelopment. In our opinioq the risk of firtrne sinlfiole development at the
project site tbnouglrcu the service life ofthe frcilities is low *a *itigrtion is not
warranted, but the homeownqs should be made aware ofthe ri*. Theproject site
is impacted bypotentiat debris flows or floods that are described in the fo[owiqg
item4.
The existing earthen berm along cormty Road 109 is an effective debris flow
mitigation stnrcture for most ofthe dwelopment. The berm terminates next to
Bald Eagle Way and the south ad ofttre dwelopment is exposed to debris flows
ad.floods. The berm should be e*ended around the oomer ad down along Bald
Eagle way to the east end ofbuilding envelope on lat l0 with 6 nriniqrum height
of 3 fret. As an alternativg ad6ris flow or flood impact walt couh be built. The
berm along CountyRoad 109 should maintain a mininnra height of4 feet
measured firom the roadside ditch invert.
The retaining walls along the west side ofthe project site will mainly sulrport the
eartherrberm and their oonstnrction is rrot expected to rmdsmine tne roaa rigfu-ofway The site specific conditions ofthe bearing soils and excavation out frce
sltould be determined by the geotechnical engineer at the time of constnrcfiorr
4)
s)
6) Groundwater is not e4pected to be shallow in 'tis area and sbuld not adversely
impac't buried utilities but seasonal perclred water could developed. Below grqde
structures such as retaining walls and baseinents should be protected fiom
seasonal groundwafer by underrdrains tpical ofthis tSpe of mnstruction.
7) Alluvial fan soils cover the project site and are tSpically known to be moistgre
sensitive. Positive surfrce gradbgaround the buildings, proper bacftfill
corryaction atrd limited irrigation are recommended to reducepoterrtial sgrface
water infiltation.
8) A geotechnical study should be conducted at the individual lots for site-specific
desigr recommendations for foundation, grading and drainqge designs. The
JobNo.1l0406.{
estacfr
Zeller Construcr-_^r
December 3,2010
Page 3
geotechnical study currently bging poformed will provided general subsurface
conditions and preliminary design recommendations to be incluOed in the final
plan design.
9) The findings of our review and the forthcoming geotechnical study report shouLl
be provided to the prospective homebuyers.
If you have anyquest'ions orneed firther assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH _ PAWLAK GEOTECIil{ICAL, INC.
5*6..-* tM
Steven L. Panla( p.E.
Rev. by:
SLP/ksw
- Attn: David M. Ifuta PE
Attachment CGS Review Letter dated Novemb er 24,2001
References:
chen-Northerrq 1991, Preriminary Geotechnical Engineering study, proposed Aspen
Glen Development along the Roaring Fork River between Glenuaod Spriigs and
carbondale, Ga(ield county, colorado, dated Decemb er za,l99l, Job No. + t tz
92.
chen-Northenr, 1993, Geotechnical Engineering sadyfor preliminary plat Desigfi,
Propos ed aspen Glen Development, Garfie td comty, colo rado, dated May 2g,
1993, Job No. 4 ll2 gZ.
Huntingdon, 1993, Debris Flow Hazard Mitigation Sadyfor pretiminarv plat Design,
Proposed Aspen Glen Development, Garfield County, Colorado, dated Augulst 16,
1993, Job No. 4 I lZ 92.
IobNo.110406A
ceeecrr
Aprill$ 2011
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
1OB 8th Street, Suite 4O1
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: S4es atAspen Glen Prcllmlnary Plan
Dear Ms. Eastlen
Thank you for the opportunity to @mment on the Preliminary Plan submittal for Sages at Aspen Glen.
As the General Manager of the Aspen Glen Club I wanted to offer the Club's input to the Prcliminary
Plan submittal for Sages.
We have been working with Gerd Zellerforseveratyears on thas prolect. The plan that was submitted is
consistent with our conversations to date however there are several items that should be noted as
Garfield County begins review of this submittal. '
o A golf cart path easement exists on a small portion of the Sages and we have been uorking to
identfi a new location and alignment of the path. The alignment included in the plan submittals
has not been approved by the Club. However, we took fonrard to our continued discussions with
Gerd to find a specific location and alignment.o The golf cart path crosses Bald Eagle Way in close proximity to the entrance of Allison Way (the
Sages streetl. Even though golf carts must cross Bald Eagle Way, it would be unsafe for gotf carts to
travel down the street before accessing the relocated golf cart path. We will continue to work with
Gerd to ident!ff a safe and appropriate crossing of Bald Eagle Way.o Finall% due to the location of lots, 5, 6, & Z some extensive plantings and careful design witl be
required to protect the homes and occupants from stray golf balls. Additionalty, the Aspen Glen
Club will require liability waivers covering allsage's properties.o It has been statad by Mr. Z,efler that he intends to use non-potable or ditch water from the
Kaiser Siever ditch for irrigdion purposes. At this point in time it is rmclear how muoh, if
an5 wato Mr. Zeller is elrtitled to use. Any use of the water and the ineastucture necessary
to convey the water to the Sages must be ageed upon by the Aspen Glen Golf Club and the
Aspen Glen Homeowneni Association as these e,lrtities own and maintain the nonpotable
water infustrusture as well as the waror righfis. Any agreement shall include brs not limit€d
to ths costs to maintainthe Kaiser siever atcn ano the detivery of water.
Thank you for the opportunrty to provide input. lf you have any questions or comments regarding this
referral please do not hesitate to contact me at 704-1905 or iess.westlev@ourclub.com.
Sincerely,
Jess Westley, Generat Manager
Aspen Glen Club
DEP,AITTil,I E\'T OF ]"J.,\TURA I",'{rSOU RCTS
DIVISION OF WATEIT RESOURCES
Juty 27,2011
Office of the State Engineer
l3l3 Sherman Street. Suite 818 ' Denver, C0 80203 : phone 303-g5d-3591 o Fax 303{66-3599
http://r,r'a ter.state,c0.u $
foirn lt. l{rrkenlcxrner
Govemor
Mikr l(ms
Erc.:.rtied'Dirrctor
Dirk !fal!e, tt.E.
l)l x,ciar;Sla t* E n gine*r
Kathy Eastly
Garfield County Buitding and planning
108 8th St Ste 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re: 9rg"u @ Aspen Gten Subdivision preliminary plan
Section 13, TTS, RggW,6TH pM
W. Division S, W. District 3g
Dear Ms. Eastly;
We have re-reviewed the above referenced proposalto subdivide a parcel af 4.Z43acre$into 7 single-family lots and 3 duplex lots.. The. appitant prop;se$ to provide water through theRoaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (Districti pursuant to water rights and an augmentationplan decreed in Case No. 93CW192 as a water suply forthe Aspen 6len oevetopment. prepotable n'ater system is to be provided via this plan itri'ough the Aspen Glen Well Nos. 2, J ar.d 4,which are.currently assigned wellpermit nos. sb2ts-r, qieso-r, ana sgztq-i, orp**tr*lySewage disposal will.be through a centrat system and wilt atso Ue provided by'the ilstrict. A lettarof confirmation from the District was provided.
The District's.plan for augrnentation provides for a total of s06.5 EQR,s (225.5 EQRs onthe west side of the river and 38, EQRs on ihe east side of the river). a gof .oj*, clubhouse,and lS lakes; this equates to approximately 643 lots and a clubhouse. ln a letterfrom the Districldated March 28, 2011, it states ihat tne Ddtrict is welt witnin tne number of EeR,s allowed by their93CW192 decree. Specifically, 103 EQRs are cunenlly in use on the east side of the riyer and195 EQRs are in use on the west side of the river. T# Disil; stated that they ao not track thenumber of platted lots: rather when the customerapplies for and pays the tat ?* r* *nnection tothe District's system, the District calculates the EQRs for each customer based on the type ofduaelling unit that $ll be constructed. At this time, the usirlct *irt* that there are approximataty301 parels on the west side of the river and 185 parcels on irr. east side of the river that could bedeveloped as residential.
.ln a subsequent emait from Scott Grosscup. dated June 1,2011, he states that there areappraximately 486 datte! lots within Aspan Olen witfr a total UuitO out potentiai of SSe Utr.However, as pointed 9d.by Mr. Grosscup in the letter dated Marcfr 2g, 2011, the number of lotsdgo n-ot conespond to the number of EQRs that will oe used. For insiance,', iot ptrtt"O to;. "single family home will likely use one EQR per lot where as a lot platted for a duplex will use morethan one EQR per lot. Horalever, the relationship between EQRs'and type of .unit;wip,in th,development has been defined by Resource Engineering in a report oiieo June g, 1993. ltohould be noted that there can be more than one unit pei tot, such as with dupleies.-A directreference relating the number of lots to the number of units for the pUD was noi piovioeo.
Kathy Eastly
Sages @ Aspen Glen Preliminary Plan
July 27,2411
Though the development is cunently reported to be within the build out limits set by the
augmentation plan decreed in court case no. 03CW192, this office has not been provided with the
number of allowed EQRs associated with platted lots within the PUD. lt is our understanding that
the District does not maintain a record of the number or EQRs, or number/types of units, that have
been platted but have not yet purchased taps. Therefore, based on the information currenfly
provided, we cannot determine if the ultirnate number of lots and units at build out will create a
water demand of more than the 606.s EeRs allowed within Aspen Glen.
ln regards to the a review for adequate water quantity, a report by Resource Engineering,
lnc., dated May 24,1995, indicates that the Aspen Glen well Nos. 2, 3 and 4 well have a
cornbined capacity of 1,M0 gallons per minute. whictr exceeds Aspen Glen's build-out peak day
dernand of 700 gallons per minute.
From the information provided by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District, and the
letter of commitment provided by the District to The Sages at Aspen Glen, it would appear that
there is legal and physical water supply available for the proposed subdivision at the present time.
However, based on our understanding that the District does not keep record of how many EeRs
they have committed to serve through their "letters of confirmation", this office can only consider
thesc letters to indicate that water is available for purchase at the time of the letter, not a
guarantee that the District will have water available to the subdivision in the future. We cannot
determine if the ultimate number of lots and units at build out will create a water demand of more
than the 606.5 EQRs allowed within Aspen Glen. This office recommends that, if the county is not
confident that the potential water demand at build out of the PUD will not exceed that of the-
decreed augmentation plan, the county require that the applicant obtain taps from the District prior
to the signing of the final plat. So long as the applicant purchases taps beiore the subdivision is
created and the District operates according to the terms and conditions of its current plan for
augmentation, this office finds that water is legally and physically available and will not cause
iniury to existing water rights pursuant to Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1XhXl,). lf you or the
applicant has any questions conceming this matler, please contact Kariyn nOanis in this office.
Sincerely,
f\
w:_,
Jeff Deatherage, P.E.
Chief of Water Supply
JD/kaa/Sages at Aspen Glen Subdiv ii.docx
ec. Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division 5
Eddie Rubin, District 37, 38, 39, and 45 $upervising water commissioner
A Mem ber ofdte Club Crp Fami ly
September 14,2011
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
c/o Planning Department
108 8m Street, Suite 401
Garfield County Plaza Buitding
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Re: Application ot Gg{ Zeller for approval of Subdivision Preliminary plan for a 4.243 acreparcel located within the Aspen Glen pUD adjacent to county Rbad 10g
Commissioners:
I am the generalrnanager of Aspen Glen Golf Club (the "Golf Club"). As an adjacent property
owner, the Golf Club has several concerns related to the proposed subdivision.
Belogation of Cart Paths. First, the Golf Club has an easement for golf cart paths on thedevelopment parcel. ln order for the development to proceed, the g-olf cart paths will have to berelocated and the easement vacated. The Golf Club is willing to work with illr. Zeller regarding
the relocation of the golf cart paths, provided that such retocJtion does not create ,nv "letv
-
issues or other risks to the Golf Club such as legal action from existing homeownersielarOing
the placement of the cart path closer to their homes. The Gotf Ctub viiil not agree to vifute itscart path easement until all concerns related to the proposed subdivision are iesolved to itssatisfaction.
Golf Ball Liability. Due to the close proximity of the lots in the proposed subdivision to the golf
course, we are concerned about enant golf balls entering onto the lots and causing property
damage and/or personal injuries. Therefore, we request that as a condition to graiting appiovat
of the subdivision plans, a release of the Golf Club from golf ball liabitity be incllOed in-the deedrestrictions for the development, the individual deeds, and/or the plat. in addition, we request thatother easements for golf play, such as easements for noise, overspray, etc., also be ptaced onthe development property via the deed restrictions, the individual dee6s, and/or tfre piii
Easements. The proposed development will require various easements over the Golf Club,sproperly, including easements for stormwater drainage, drainage improvements, water lines,sewer lines and possibly other utilities. The Golf Club is willinfto work with Mr. 2e1er to grant thevarious easements he will need, provided that such easementi do not create any adverse affect
on the drainage characteristics oithe golf course or the use of the golf course, aie not unsighgy,
and do not create any increased risk or exposure to the Golf club.
Construction Activities. We are concemed about the impact that construction activities will have
T.!he use and enjoyment of the golf course. We request that restrictions be imposed regarding(i) the parking areas for.construction equipment and contractor vehicles, (ii) the it ag" oiconstruction materials, (iii) the location of trash bins and portable toilets piaced on thj
AsprN GleN CLUB:05215 Ber.p EAGLE WAy o CARBONDAtrE, COLoRADO gl62i e g70-704-lgO5 0Etxg70-704-g6g2
development parcel, (iv) permitted hours for construction activities, (v) noise levels, (vi) dustlevels, (vii) measures to controlerosion and stormwater runoff, (viii) sitety measrrei such asbarricades and fences, (ix) screening of the construction area from-the golf course, and (x)
maintenance of the construction site in a neat and orderly manner. We-atso ,equeit thit a timelimit for construction be imposed so that it will be compleled as expeditiously as'possible; forexample, a requirement that construction of a home be completed through iisuance of a
g.erlilicatg o.f-o-ccupancy within 6 months from the commencement of construction. please notethat the Golf Club is not willing to grant access or other construction-retated easements over itspropefi for the proposed development.
Pesig!-and Lan9scapjno. .Since the proposed development is so visible from the golf course, wehave concerns about the design of the hbmes and relited improvements, and theiandscaping.we.request that the proposed development be subject to ceriain deed restrictions reiiioiig t6edesign of the homes and regulating the auxiliary stiuctures, related improvements anllandscaping that may be placed on the lots. To ensure consistency with the existing homesadjacent to the golf course, we requestthat the proposed development be subject tI tne RspenGlen Design Guidelines or guidelines consisteni wiih same.
I will not be able to attend-the p_ublic hearing on September 1g, 2011, so please consider thislettel qs the expression of the Golf Club's views anb concerns regarding ine proposeo
-
9^u!!iv19i9n lf you have any questions or would like to speak wit[ me, ican be ieached at(970) 704-1905.
A Mernber of$e Club Arp Farnity
September 14,2011
Ga{eld County Board of County Commissioners
c/o Planning Department
108 8'Strcet, Suite 401
Garfield County Plaza Building
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
Re: Application of.Ggfl Zeller.for approval of Subdivision preliminary plan for a 4.243 acreparcel located within the Aspen Glen puD adjacent to county Rbad 10g
Commissioners:
I am the general manager of Aspen Glen Golf Club (the "Gotf Club'). As an adjacent propertyowner, the Golf Club has several concems related to the proposed SuOdivisior.
- - - -'
Relogation of Cart Paths. Firct, the Golf Club has an easement for golf cart paths on thedevelopment parcel. ln order for the developm-ent to proceeo, ir," g-olf cart datns wiii nave to oerelocated and the easement vacated. The Golf Cluo is wirring'd work with Mr. Zeller regardingthe relocation of the golf cart paths, provided that such rerocitibn-ooes not .r".t" .nvilr"t11issues or other risks to the Golf club such as legal action tom Liisting homeowners regardingthe placement of the cart path closer to their hoires. rrre eoii Ciub wl ilt;;;" iJ riLt" iscart path easement until all concerns related to the proposea iuooivision areiesouloio ttsatisfaction.
Golf Ball Liabilitv. Due tothe close proxim-Q oj rre bts in the proposed subdivision to the golfcourse' we are concerned about errant golf balls entering onto th6 tots ano cjuiirJ pi"p"rtydamage 3ry{q personal injuries. Therejfore,_w_e request that as a condition to JraitinJlpprovalof the subdivision plans, a release of the Golf Club tiom drb;[ tiabitity oe inctiolo--in"tie oeeorestrictions forthe development, the individual deeds, ariolorffri pht. tn addition, we request thatother easements for golf play, such as easem.ents roi noise, overlpray, etc., also be ptaced onthe development property via the deed restrictions, the inoitilouii deeoi, "niloiine-piJ'
Easements. .The proposed dev_elopment will require various easements over the Golf Club,spropert_y' incruding easements for stormwatlogltgg, drainage improvemenb, water lines,sewer lines and possibly other utilities. The Golf ctu6 ii wirriffi 116* *itt, Mr. Zeler tJ gr:ant thevarious easements he will need, provided that such easemen6 oo not create any -overse arecton the drainage characteristics of the golf cource or the use of the golf corrs",
"ie-not
,nsighly,and do not create any increased risk oi exposure to the Golf ClLb-.
construction Activities. we are concerned about the impact that construction activities will haveon the use and enjoyment of the golf coursie. We request tnat ie.triaions be imposed regarding(i) the parking areas for construction equipment and iontractor vehicles, iiU in" [t*Iddir:rconstruction materials, (iii) the location of-trash bins and portable toilets pidceO on-ttil- -
AsprN GLeiq CLUs: 0545 BAID EAGLE wAr . cARaoNDAr-E, coLoRADo 81628 . 970-704-l9os . FAx 970 -701.-96gl.
development parcel, (iv) permitted hours for construction activities, (v) noise tevels, (vi) dust
!eve!s, (vii) measures to control erosion and stormwater runoff, (viii)'sifety m"asur"s such as
banicades and fences, (ix) screening of the construction area frbm'the gof course, and 1*1maintenance of the construction site in a neat and orderly manner. We-atso request thai a time
limit for construction be imposed so that it will be compleled as expeditiousty as possible; forexample, a requirement that construction of a home be completed through iisuahce oi a
certificatg of gccupancy within 6 months from the commen@ment of construction. please note
that the Golf Club is not willing to grant ac@ss or other construction-related easements over itsproperty fur the proposed development.
P=Tiql':elq:rElqscaP:Po. .Since {e proposed development is so visible from ure gotf course, wehave oonoems about the design of the home.s and related improvements, and thelandscaping.
We.requ$J ffrat the proposed development be subject to ceriain deed restrictions regardi;g tie
lesign of the homes and regulating the auxiliary structures, retated improvemen6 anl-landscaping.that m-ay be placed on tne bts. To ensure consistency witn the existing tromesadjacent to the golf coutse, we request that the proposed development be subject 6 fre nspenGlen Design Guidelines or guidelines consisteni wiih same.
lwillnot be able to attend-the p_ublic hearing on September 1g,2011,so please considerthis
letter.as.the expression of trre Golf Club's viLws and concems regarding itre p,oposeo -
g$9irjign lf You have any questions or would like trc speak wit[ me, ican 6e reached at(e70) 704-190s.
*yna_(
HARRISON AI'^T RHONDA LINGLE MANAGIMENT TRUST
5307 DEL MONTE DRIVE
HOUSTON, TX 77056
713-840-1609
September 18,2011
Garfield County Commissioners
108 8n'Street
Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Public Hearing^rq8ardinS Gerd Zellerapplication for approval of Preliminary plan
(See Attached Public Notice)
The Harrisonand Rhonda Lingle Management Trust (the Trust) owns the residence located on
L.otl.1;2d9rg with lot H-l, both within feet of the Zeller Tract. This property and others will be
significantly adversely affected by the proposed development
We purchased the lots and home tn2002, approximat ely 2:ll2 years prior to the Zeller purchase
of the *Tracf' lrr,2004. Without our knowledge or conJent, in late 20b4, Aspen Glen Gblf Club
Management Company filed the 2'd Amend"d Plut of GolfParcelg (Zellerir*O. We have
received no notices of the proposed plans other than the Request for reductions in Setback
Requirements @ecember 2010) and the notice of heliminary Plan Approval meeting scheduled
for September 19, 2011. Additionally, w€ are attaching a copy of a letier from Bracewell and
Guliani law firm addressed to Aspen Glen Golf Management et al and dated June 23,2011.
We bring to your attention that certain document(s) were executed (in favor of Zeller and
contemporaneously with the property sale (12-17-200a) by Donald L. Paris acting as both
Vice President of Aspen Glen Golf Company (AGGC) and Board of Directors of The
Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen, Inc. (HOA). We submit to you that a conflict of
interest may have existed in favor of the developer selling the Tract and to the detriment of the
HOA and Aspen Glen property owners. It has been brought to my attention by multiple sources
ttrat a document may exist that may remove the Zeller Tract from Aspen GIen Design Review
Committee requiremants. If such document does exis! providing further evidence 6f conflict of
interest the potential of further devaluation of the existing property values (and associated
tax revenues) may be significantly heightened.
Also on 12-17'2004, a Declaration of Golf Course Corridor Easement-was executed thereby
creating Golf Cart Path easements. It would be premature to approve the Preliminary plan so
long as the easements exist. Such easements are not shorvn on the Preliminary plan and, the
Plan cannot be constructed as shown with the existence of these easeuents (the golf cart path
runs through the middle of the proposed street). Zeller is seeking to abandon rr.h.*.*rnts and
relocate the long-existing golf cart paths closer to the existing homes and lots in the Homestead
section of Aspen Glen. Such relocation, as contemplated, will be detrimental to existing
homeowners' enjoyment and/or property values and was certainly not reasonably contetplated
when we purchased our property.
w
Garfield County Commissioners
September LB,207L
PageZ
Additionally, the proposed development will be located on property that is habitually used by elkand deer while crossing CRl09 into the Asqel Glen properiy. it is our opi"io, ,rr* iestrictingthe patterns of the elk and deer will have a deleterious
"m*t on the animats and we hereby
request that the advice and consent of the Deparonent of Wildlife be obtained prior to furttreractions approving the development.
As you are a\ilare, additional concerns have been expressed by both homeowners and AGGC.We request that no apprwals'be granted without addressing thgs".on""rrs. oue a,rr. i"*.fnotifications regarding the2004 proper(y sale and associatJd filings, m4ny of the adversely
affected property owners may not be aware of the potential negative impacts to their property.
Thank you for your careful consideration of these matters.
Sincerelv.
il/t ;4l
Harrison M. Lingle, Trustee
&
Rhonda P. Lingle, Tnrs \ \
Attachments: Bracewell Giuliani letter da-ted J.err.e 23, 20ll
Cc: Richard Whiteley - Bracewell Giuliani, LLp
BRA,{JEru/ELI-
&CruLIAFJI
Texas
New Yort
Washlngton, DC
Seattle
Connsctlcut
Dubai
London
Richard F, Wh,teley
Partner
713.221.1123}fi(f..
713.222.3234 Fax
rictrard.whltaley@bgllp.com
Braoewell I Gldani LLP
711 Loulsiana Sttoel
Sldle 2300
Houslon, Texas
77002.2770
Jwte23,201l
C)rti.fied Mail RM
Aspgn Glen Golf Club Management Company
P.O. Box 81902
Dallas, Texas 75381
Aspen Glen Golf Company
9929StateHighway 82
Carbondale, Colorado 81 623
Re: Lots Hl aadH2 Aspen Glen, Carbondale, CO ('?roperty")
Gentlemen:
My finh has been retained by the Harrison and Rhonda Lingle Management Trust as
litigation counsel to address your plans to consider changes to the Aspen Glen golf course
hole nurnber 3. My client is the owner of the Property. Hole number 3 is adjacent to the
ProRer.tl.
Specifically, it has been brought to my attention that you are considering relocating the golf
cart path from the westerly side of hole number 3 to the easterly side of the tee box (adjacent
to the *Property"). Such a relocation will significantly and adversely affect both the value
and myblient'se4ioyment of the Property.
My client purchased the Property n 2A(I-. In November and Decemb er,20O4 (without my
client's knowledge or consent) Aspen Glen Golf Club Management Company filed the 2no
Amended Plat of Golf Course Parcel 9. This amended plat reduced &e arnount of property in
Parcel 9 along the westerly side on the tee box of hole number 3 thereby excluding a portion
of the area containing the existing cart path. On December 17, 20M Aspen GIen Golf
Compan,y granted a GENERAL WARRANTY DEED to Gerd 7*ller of the 4243 actes west
of Golf Course Parcel 9. Also on December 17 ,2004 Aspen Glen Golf Company execuled a
DELARATION OF GOLF COURSE CORRIDOR EASMENT wherein an easement
contaiuing the existing cart path along hole number 3 is declared. The aforementioned
documelts affrm that sufficient easements exist to leave the cart path in its current location.
My client shongly gbjects to any proposed plan to move the cart path to the east side of the
tee box. In the eVent that plans are rnade to move the cart path adjacent to the Property,
please be advised that my client will evaluate and pursue all of its available legal remedies.
BRACEWtrLL
8.G[LILIANI
Page2
Please consider this letter as notice of my client's objection to relocation of the cart path and
my request to be promptly notified of the current status and any proposed changes to the
current status-
Very tuly yours,
December 8,2010 Planning Commission Exhibits
The Sages atAspen Glen Preliminary Plan
ffirhffi,(t6I!I'
A Proof of Public Notice Publication
B Proof of Mailins
C Garfield Cormtv Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008. as amended
D Garfield County Comprehe,nsive Plan of 2000, as amended
E Application
F StaffReport
G StaffPresentation
H Plannins Commission Sketch Plan Comments (minutes from12ll0l08 meetine)
I Memo datedNovember 18,2010 from Mike Prehm, Road & Bridee
J Memo dated Noveraber 23,2010 from Steve Anthony, Vegetation lvlanager
K Lettpr dat€d November 30. 2010 from Bill Gavette. Carbondale Fire Protection
L F.mail dated November 9.2010 from Carla Westerman Source Gas
M Letter datedNovember 29.2010 from Chris Hale. Mountain Cross Eneineering
N Letter dated November 24,2010 from JeffDeatherage, Division of Water
Resources
o Letter dated November 24,2010 from TC Wait Colorado Geoloeic Suryey
P Email dated November 30, 2010 from Janet Buclg Town of Carbondale
o Letter dated November 29"2010 fromNed Collum- President AG HOA
R Memo dated December 1, 2010 from David KotzP.E. of SGM Eneineering
s I t*rA/rJpA t?)zltn-(.?nn S,k)El-^aAa,LFr bt-l( 1r-r4
REQUEST
PROPERTY PWNER
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
ACCESS
WATER & SANITATION
EXISTING ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
stzE
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCL2lslLO
KE
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PUD Preliminary Plan
Gerd Zeller
Eric Gross - Whitsett and Gross, P.C. and David Kotz - SGM
Aspen Glen PUD adjacent to CR 109 - Sections L3 and 24,
Township 7 South, Range 89 West
4.243-acres
Highway 82 or County Road 109
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
Planned Unit Development- Club Villa Zone District
Subdivision
G EN ERAL PROJEC.T DESCRI PTI ON
Located between the City of
Glenwood Springs and the
Town of Carbondale on the
west side of State Highway 82,
the Aspen Glen PUD has been
and approved and developing
subdivision for almost two
decades. The subdivision of
sites and development of the
project is ongoing, this
application contains property
that was considered for
residential development and
zoned as such in the Club
Villas sub-zone of the PUD.
The Applicant proposes to
subdivide a 4.243-acre parcel
to create ten (10) lots for
development as seven 17)
single family homes and three (3) duplex lots for a total of thirteen (13) units on the site. The Club Villa
Zone District of the Aspen Glen PUD altows for "single-family attached and single-family detached
residential dwellings intended for individual lot ownership, which may include gotf vitlas, townhomeg
I
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCt2l8/LO
KE
club villas and duplexes." The PUD also describes zoning standards including minimum lot sizes and
setbacks specified for each type of unit as well as the required parking spaces per unit.
A companion file for a PUD Amendment has also been submitted, and due to a determination that the
proposed amendment was not substantial the Director of Building and Planning will review and issue a
determination on the change.
Historv/Backsround - The Aspen Glen PUD was approved by the County in1992 by Resolution 92{5G.
The zoning of the site to PUD required submittal of sufficient information for the County to determine
and mitigate potential ampacts of development. The overatl site was reviewed by wildlife biologists,
geologists, civil engineers and traffic engineers at the time of zoning however the subdivision of the sites
required submittal of preliminary plans and final plat for ultimate development permitted by the zoning.
Over the past two decades the County has reviewed numerous preliminary ptans for the Aspen Gten
PUD and willcontinue to do so untilthe project reaches build-out.
!t zoNtr{G ANp ADJACENT USES
The Prelminary Plan proposes a total of 13 units in the following unit configuration:
NUMBER OF TOTS #UilrTs ACREAGE
7 single fumily lots
3 duplex lots
Public Right-of-way
Open Space / Common Areas
7 units 1.91acres
5 units 1-32 acrps
.60 acres
.41 acres
f,$rilCdco
13 units 4,24acres
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PC].zl8,ltA
The Club Villa District is approved for a total of 155 units and, according the Leslie ,.rr[f
Administrator of the Aspen Glen Design Review Committee, there are currentty'63 units constructed and
25 lots platted. lt appears that there is sufficient density remaining within the zone district in the pUD
to allow for this proposal.
t!I. REFERRALAGE]IICIES
Comments have been requested from the following agencies and comments received and are integrated
throughout this memorandum as applicable.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
L2.
13.
Road and Bridge: EXHIBIT I
Vegetation Management: EXHIBIT J
Environmental Health: No comment
Mountain Cross Engineering (on behalf of County): EXHIBIT M
Division of Water Resources: EXHIBIT N
Colorado Geologic Survey: EXHIBIT O
Colorado Division of Wildlife: No Response
Carbondale FPD: EXHIBIT K
RE-l School District No Response
Town of Carbondale: EXHIBIT P
Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District: No Response
Source Gas: EXHIBIT L
Aspen Glen Homeowne/s Association: EXHIBIT e
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PIAN
This site is located in Study Area 1 within the Comprehensive Ptan. The adjacent Larid Use Districts Map,
Study Area 1, indicates that the site is designated as '5ubdivision,,.
The Goals,
Objectives, Policies
and Programs of the
Comprehensive Plan
were reviewed and
the proposal is in
general compliance
with applicable
components of the
Plan, including
Housing,
Transportation,
Compatibility and
Agriculture.
tk Srgt.n rr Asprl
Cmrpaehensive Plan Propod rfld Uee Distiets. Snrdy Am t
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PctzlslL0
KEV. REVIEW CRITERIA & STANDARDS
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Reviews submittat requirements include the following sections of the ULUR.
The criteria and standards for review are listed in botd italics betow, followed by a Staff Response.
A. Section 4-502 (C15. Landscape plan
Landscape Plan. Landscape plans shall be scaled at 1 inch to 200 feet for properties exceeding 16O
acres in size, or 1 inch to 100 feet for properties less than 160 acres in size. The tandscape plan shalt
include the following elements.
o. Topogrofitic inlormation at least two (2) @ contour lnterwlls
b. Location ol all lot lines and improvemenB to the property, ond location of ony ea*ments of
record.
e ldmtifiotiut ol all existing dedduous tree and anlferous trees of six inches (6') ln aliper or
greater, ond whidr trees will be preserued and which tress wilt be removed or relouted; areas
where other existing vegetation will either be preserued or removed; the type, locotion, slze ond
number ol plants thot will be installed; specified seed mlxtures.
d- An eslimote oI the cost ol supplying and installing the moteriols deplcted ln the landscope
plan.
e: A description olthe papced progmm to mointain the landscoplng afier it hos been instolled.
staff Response: An adequate landscape plan has been provided as shown betow:
.{sE@/-\J,fr3rtfu@mJ 7:7
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PC72l8l10
KE
Section 4-502(Dl Land Suitabilitv Analvsis
7. Public Access to site. show historic public access to or through the site.
Staff Response: Aspen Glen has a main access point from SH 82 and a secondary access located
south of and adjacent to the subject site onto CR 109.
2. Accesis to adioining Roodways. ldentily aoceslt to odjoining roads ond site di$ance ond
i ntercedion con stroi nts.
Staff Response: The original Aspen Glen PUD considered impacts to both SH 82 and CR 109.
There do not appear to be any site distance or intersection constraints.
3. Easements. Show all eosements dfining,limiting or allowing usetype!, and access.
Staff Response: All easements of record are required to be identified on the plans and any
proposed easements will need to be legally described on the final pla! dedicated by deed and
accepted by the proper entity. A!! necessary documentation will be required to be recorded along
with the final plat.
4. Topogmphy ond Slope. Topogmphy and slope determinotion.
Staff Response: The site sits below the County Road but is fairly level across the property.
5. Notural Feotures. Significant notuml leotures on*ite and off-site.
Staff Response: The Aspen Glen golf course is located east of the project area with a steep hillside
up to CR 109 on the west.
6. Drainoge Features. Ertsfing drainages and impoundments, natuml ond manmade.
Staff Resoonse: The parcel slopes from west to east and a buried pipe captures flow from CR 109.
7. Water. Historic inigotion, tailwoter issues, wster demands, adequote woter supfly plan
purcuont to Sedion 7-704.
Staff Response: lrrigation will be via the Kaiser-Seive/s ditch at the disretion of the developer
who holds those rights. An adequate water supply plan is on file from the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District.
8. Floodplain. Flood plain ond flood fringe delineotions.
Staff Response: Not applicable.
9. Saits. Soils determinotion, percolation conslraints, os applicoble.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCLzlslLo
KE
Staff Response: Chen Northern provided the original engineering study for Aspen Glen, including
a soils determination. Based upon the soils types the Applicant's engineer recommends that a
site-specific geotechnical and foundation report be required at final plat. Staff has included this as
a recommended condition of approval.
7O. Hozards. Geologic hazords on*ite, ond adjacentts site.
Staff Resoonse: Sinkholes, debris flow and surface depressions were analyzed and found to be of
minimal concern with this site. A berm was constructed on the east side of CR 109 as part of the
original approval and during improvements to CR 109. This was determined to mitigate potential
hazards to the Sages site. A Geotechnical Study is recommended as a condition of approval and
must be submitted at final plat to further analyze this issue. The Colorado Geologic Survey has
responded to the referral request, EXHIBIT O, with nine recommendations as fotlows:
{.The f,,rrerft f,ib plms stmuH be fl&Ei&d b Ohen Nsshem fur crnr-ntperfuirnfrg htre
geslhgboonfrlions d tre sitead arneml prupoced hrd usB ild griadrng phrsfu emsue
ftey aru in mfunnmoe uih tre georhdtical retrttrnendatorE ?nd flitrnt
undersfur&q af tre sih mrdltims-
Ihe Gtren ilorhem rcput irdc#s plwndem rrerre irfuIed durirq fte f gffi
ilrneditrfun- lt rmrH be uscfrd h tedew ffidab m il perhins b gmmdulder
omfrl[rms and fup* b fte sih-
Tfte ffiffi Fhrlhem mpoil hffis ftse erp ereffi oldnlfioles, deprc#d aem, ard
dehriE florrs nift[n $E sirh- Tlm erem drould h deadyidenliftd m ftB pht ild
spetifc mitigalisn rmsurs *prdd be deffied in pld nder-
l-mfiom ad dedgrr dehih of fte dehris defrediryr sfructirres shrdd be prnrided fur
r€Nie$-
A tehhitq {dl is prryosed ahng ile n'wbm edge of fte Fmffi, adpwrth GB llE-
A s@e #li[ iltdl6b slmdd be corrirlaed b etu.rre thatfire ml b adq#y
deefined ad prupoeed gradng ahng ilretoe dtre @ uifi nd ffeah ilnshble
mrillft*rs b hB @mt munty med-
SeasonCly sHfomgrundnnternry he prusentin arc*dffrb site- Appmpri#
afiaffim drairrage shsrld be ed*I*red for rdility Lres ard flftsrr+ae uordrdin
ergeded uift in 5 feet of tre semally lfuh grcundunfor Hh-
The utib re ilddy srrilire b moifu re- $urhoe gradrq *odd {D* h F Err€ril uaftr
ftom infiltnalflrry sls amud stndtms ad pmrert a;eas dsbdirg nahr- lsrrrehr
mage Imdrylrg $ouH bB rrs€d elomd shlctres-
Besip-Ned subauhee geohdni'nd insdigatons shf,rld be mndu&d pir h buiHry-
Foraddon desiga may ruqlire adtifirral milEgalim ked on ilre fnfrrgu of ft[i
inuedigafion- tarye mdrs nny be enmunhrcd atdeptr uhe*r muH inpadfuudalin
de6ign"
Disclmre $outs te pturmded h pohnlhl horuonmers regardmg fts gmhfn wrflftns
at&eslte-
4-
5-
Staff has included a recommended condition of approval that a site-specific geotechnical and
foundation report be required at final plat. The findings of that report may require additional
conditions of approval that will be determined at final plat.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PcL2l&l]:o
77. Noturol Habitat. Existing flora ond launa habitat, wetlands, migrotion routes.
KE
Staff Comments: Historically used for agriculture such as grazing and hayfields, the site is a high
river terrace with vegetation consisting primarily of cultivated agriculturat grasses. No specific
wildlife concerns were identified and the deer and elk continue to use the gotf course forgrazing.
The colorado Division of wildlife did not respond the referral request.
72. Resource Arms. Protected or Registered Arehoeologicol, culturol, patmtologicol and historlc
resource areas.
Staff Comments: No known resource areas have been mapped within the proposed development
area.
Section 4-502(El lmpact Analvsis. The lmpact Analysis shalt provide a description of the impacts that the
proposed land use change may cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfo. The
lmpact Analysis shall include a complete description of how the appticant will ensure that impacts will
be mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be inctuded in the lmpact
Analysis.
7. Adiacent Propefi. An address list ol real property adjacent to the subject FropeftI, ond the
moiling addresslor ea& otthe property ownerc.
Staff Comments: This information has been provided.
2. Adiacmt Land Use. Ertsting use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within LS(W
rodius.
Staff Comments: The application does include a map of uses within a 150O radius of the site.
These consist mainly of residential development, vacant land, roads and utilities, a grave! pit and
the Colorado River.
Site Features. A d*aiption ol site leotures sudt os slreams, oreas subject to flading, laks,
high ground water areas, topogrophy, vegetative cover, glimotology, and other leatures thot
may aid in the evaluation olthe proposed danelopment.
Staff Comments: This site sits on a bench above the Colorado River on a flat terrace that has an
abrupt rise to the west and CR 109. No watercourses or wetlands are present on the site and
vegetation is primarily un-irrigated grasses.
Soil Charaef,;ertilics" A descriptiot ol soil dtorac/'r;rtstirs ol the site whidt have o signifiant
influence on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: The Roaring Fork corridor is well known for geotechnical issues including
corrosive soils, sinkholes, debris flow and surface depressions. These issues were alt evaluated
4.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCL2l8lt0
KE
when the zoning was applied to the property however the subdivision standards require site
specific review. A condition of approval is recommended by the Applicanfs engineer and Staff
has included it the recommended conditions to the commission.
5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geotogic chamcteristia ol fie area indudlng any
potential naturol or mon-made hazards, and a determination ol whot elfect sudr foctors
would have on the proposed use olthe land.
Staff Comments: Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) responded, EXHIBIT O, and provided some
comments for consideration. Staff has included those comments in the recommended
conditions of approval.
Efled on Existlng water Supply ond Adequacy ol Supply. Ewluatiut ol the effi ol the
proposed lond use on the capacity d the source o! woter supply to meet uisting ond fifiure
donestic and agficulturol requirements ond meeting the adequate woter supply requiremeng
olSediut 7-704.
Staff Comments: Potable water is proposed to be provided by Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitation District who provided a "will serve" letter. Even so, the Division of Water Resources
(DWR) responded to the referral request, EXHIBIT N, that "insufficient information was
provided" and they "cannot comment on the potential for materiat injury to existing water
rights". lt appears that additional information needs to be obtained from the District to
forward to DWR for a determination of "no materia! injuq/'. This is a criticat issue in
determining an adequate water suppty therefore the apptication should not move fomrard to
the Board of County Commissioners untit such time as that deternination is received from DWR.
Staff is recommending this as a condition of approval.
Eflea on Groundwoter and Aquiler Redrarge Areos. Evaluation ol the relotiutshlp of the
subied prcel to floodploins, lhe noture of sails ond subsoils ond their ability to adequotely
supPort woste dispwl, the slope ol the lond, the ellect ol sewoge effluents, and the poltutton
of surfoce runoff, stream flow and groundwoter.
Staff Comments: lmpervious areas are limited in the development, no on-site waste disposa! is
proposed. The drainage plan does incorporate best management practices for temporary and
permanent pollution control. A Stormwater Management Plan and Erosion Controt Map are
part of the application materials. Prior to construction a Colorado Discharge permit System
(CDPS) Construction Activity Permit must be obtained. Further details regarding these issues are
required at final plat when detailed engineering report and ptans are submitted.
Environmentol Elfects. Determination ol the adsting environmental conditions on the porcd
to be daneloped ond the eltects. of development on those anditions, induding:
a- Determination of the long term and short term effect on flom and founa.
7.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCLzlslt0
KE
b- Determinotion ol the effea on significant ordtaeological, cultural, polentologicol, historic
' resources.
c- Determination of the elfect on designated environmental resources, induding uitlcal
wildlite habitat.
(1) lmpcts on witdlife and domestic anlmals through creation of hazardous attmctions,
alhmtion of ert*ing native vegetation, blockade of mtgration routes, use potterns or
other disruptions.
d- Evaluotion ol any fientiol rodiotion hozard thot moy have been identified by frre State or
County Health Departments.
e. spill Prevention control ond counter Measures plan, if applicoble.
Staff Comments: Long-term impacts on flora and fauna are not anticipated to occur as
revegetation is planned and a significant amount of open space exists within this community.
No known historic resources have been identified on the site.
The traffic from this devetopment was originally contemplated when the pUD was anatyzed.
Updates will be provided pursuant to the memo from sGM, ExHlBlr R.
9. Trffic. Assesment of trafftc impacts based upon a tralfic study prepared in cunplionce wtth
Sedion 4-5020.
Staff Comments: Given the number of proposed units the overalt traffic impacts associated with
this development will be minimal. A traffic analysis was included in the submittal and updates
are planned to be provided.
7O. Nuisance. lmpaets on odiacmt land from genemtion of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glore or
vibration, or other emanotions.
Staff Comments: Noise and dust are the most tikely nuisances to occur, particularty during
construction. The HOA has experience in dealing with these issues and are most likety to be th;
enforcing entity. No other nuisance impacts to adjacent land will result by the approval of this
subdivision.
77. Redamatlon Plan. A redomation plan ansistent with the stondards in Section 7-212.
Staff Comments: A landscape plan has been submitted which adequately rectaims the areas
disturbed by construction.
C. SCCtiON 7-1OO GENEMLAPPROVALSTANDARDS FOR IAND USE CHANGE PERMTTS
7,. Sedion 7-7Ol Comflionce with Zone District ltse Resfiictions
9
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PcL2l8/70
KE
Staff Comments: A pending PUD Amendment is anticipated to be approved by the Director of
Building and Planning on December 20s. This amendment is being requested to revise the zone
text for duplex setbacks in the front yard to 2t. Once approved this apptication will be is in
compliance with the zone standards.
2- Section 7-7@ Confllance with Comprehensive Plan and tntergovernmentol Agreemeng
Staff Comments: The project appears to be in general conformance with eh Comprehensive
Plan.
3. SedionT-T03Compotiil,W
Staff Comments: There are no compatibility issues associated with the approval of this
subdivision.
Sedlon 7-7Otl Sulficimt Legal and physicol Source olWmer
Staff Comments: lt does not appear that the Division of Water Resources has sufficient
information to determine that no material injury will result from the 13 additional taps issued by
the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. Staff is recommending that the Board of County
Commissioner hearing not be scheduled until such time as a "no materiat inju4/' tetter is issued
bythe DWR.
Serf,iut 7-7(E Adequate Woter Suppty
Staff Comments: The site ls within the service area of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation
District and the district has provided a "can and willserve,, letter
6- section 7-7(E Adequote water Di$rthdion and wastewoter sfiems
Staff Comments: The distribution systems witl be. inctuded in a subdivision improvements
.agreement with the County and final engineer plans and reports are due at Finat plat. The
District has the authority to review the distribution systems based upon their rules and
regulations to provide service. Eventually those tines wilt be dedicated to the District.
7. Sectiq 7-707 Adequate Public Utititie
Staff Comments: Source Gas responded, EXHIBIT ! that they have no issues. Electric service is
also available to the area.
10
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCtzlglLo
KE8. Sedion 7-708 Access ond Roadwoys
Staff Comments: The Aspen Glen Homeowne/s Association has reviewed the road to determine
compliance with Aspen Glen standards (as originatly approved by the County), EXHIBIT e. !n
that an attachment to that letter David Kotz, P.E. with SGM states that "...The Sages preliminary
Plan drawings have been developed based on the same (or higher) standards, details and
specifications that SGM applied to previous phases in Aspen Glen. lt is my opinion that this
development as proposed, complies with the Garfield County code requirements and Aspen
Glen PUD guidelines."
9. Sedion 7-7$) No Signifimnt Risk Irom Natuirat Hazards
Staff Comments: There do not appear to be significant risk from naturat hazards other than
those identified by Cotorado Geotogic Survey (ccs), ExHlBtT o, and conditions of approval are
recommended regarding submitta! of site specific geotechnical reports and anatysis at final plat.
The Town of Carbondale responded to the referral request, EXHIBIT p, that the County should
require a geotechnical report for this subdivision.
7. Sediu 7-2Ol Protedion of Agricultural Londs
Staff Comments: Not applicable.
2. Sedion 7-20t2 Protedion qWidlile HabitatAreos
Staff Comments: The Division of Wildtife (cDoW) has not responded to the referal request for
this application. The submittal documentation does include a CDOW letter from 1993 regarding
screening, vegetation and wildlife corridors. lt is unclear how this relates to the current project.
Given that Aspen Glen is an existing subdivision, the impact associated with the addition of 13
units would be minimal.
3. Sedion 7-203 Protedion of Wetlands and Woterbodies
Staff Comments: No known wetlands occur on this site.
4. Sedion 7-2M Protedion d Water euality trom pollfiants
Staff Comment: Stormwater and erosion controts are proposed for both temporary and
permanent poltution control. Concern has been identified by Mountain Cross Engineering,
EXHIBIT M, and Road & Bridge, EXHIBIT t, regarding the proposed plugging of the cutver that
11
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCt2lsl1:D
KE
directs flows from the west beneath CR 109 (at the southwest corner of the Sages). Dave Kotz,
P.E. has respondbd, EXHIBIT R, No. 6 states that the 'This 18" culvert was not contemplated in
the original Drainage Master Plan but was added as part of the cR 109 construction...SGM will
revise the onsite drainage plan...to safety handle the flows." Staff is recommending that the
items included in EXHIBIT R become conditions of approvat.
5. Sedion 7-2(B Eruim ond Sedimentation
Staff Comment: An adequate Erosion and Sediment Control Ptan performed by Boundaries
Untimited has been submitted.
6. Sectlqt 7-2(b Dminage & Section Z-2O7 Stormwoter Run-Oll
Staff Comments: ln addition to the culvert issue identified above, other drainage issues were
identified in the Mountain Cross Engineering response, EXHIBIT M. These items are addressed
in EXHIBff & the responses are included as recommended conditions of approvat.
7. Sediola 7-208Atr euotity
Staff Comments: Necessary air permits wilt be obtained during the construction of the project,
and it is not anticipated that ongoing air quality issues associated with the proposed 13 units
would result.
8. Sedion 7-2(D Areas Subject to Wildfire Hozards
Staff Comments: This level site is located between the gotf course and CR 109. lt is not
anticipated that significant wildfire hazards exist.
9. sedion 7-27o Areas subiegt to Naturql Hazards ond Geologic Hozords
Staff Comments: CGS response to the application does identiff concerns retated to geologic
hazards. Staff has included recommended conditions of approvat regarding submittat of site
specific geotechnical analysis at Final plat.
7O- Sedlm 7-271Areas with Ardteolqical, Poteontologicol or Histortcd lmportance
Staff Comments: There are no known areas of historica! importance within the property.
77. Sediut 7-272 Redomation
Staff Comments: A significant Landscape Plan was submitted, and the Aspen Glen HOA has
responded regarding the HOA requirements for submittal of comptetion deposits for proper
L2
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCL2l8,l1:D
KE
revegetation on the site. The HOA goes on to state that the Appticant will have to comply with
the required Design Review process.
E. SECTION 7- 3OO SITE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
7. Sedion 7-307 Compatible Design
Staff Comments: The proposal appears to be compatible with the overatlAspen Gten pUD.
Sedion 7-302 Butlding Design
Staff Comments: Not applicable, the site will be required to compty the Design Guidetines of
Aspen Glen at the time of construction.
Section 7-3O3 Design ond Scale of Development
Staff Comments: Excessive site disturbance will not be required and the development is
designed to be close to access and utilities. The Applicant has worked ctosely with the DRB and
HOA of Aspen Glen over the past two years to assure that the design and scale of the
development is complimentary to the overallAspen Glen community.
Section 7-3WOlfstreet pa*ing and Loading Standards
Staff Comments: The Applicant has demonstrated that compliance with off-street parking
standards can be achieved within the proposed subdivision.
5. Sedion 7-3(E Landscaping and Lightlng Standards
Staff Comments: The standard plat notes will be required which state that the lighting must be
downward and inward facing to the propefi. The Applicant has submitted an adequate
Landscape Plan.
6. Serf,;iut 7-306 Snow Storage Standords
Staff Comments: tt appears that adequate snow storage areas have been provided.
7. Sedion 7-307 Roa&lay Stondards
Staff Comments,: The site compties with both the County standards as wetl as the Aspen Glen
standards.
2.
13
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCL2l8/10
8. Section 7-3(ETroit and Walkwoy Standords
Staff Comments: The project does propose retocation of the golf cart path. This shal be
finalized at final plat when documentation must be provided regarding the vacation of the
easement and acceptance of that vacation by the golf club/HOA.
9. Sedion 7-gU, artl,W Stondards
Staff Comments: Other than the issues identified by the Division of Water Resources it would
appear that the standards have been met.
F. SECNON 7-4OOSUBDIVISION STANDARDSAND DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
7. Sedlut 7407Gencrol Subdlvislon Standords
Staff Comments: Given that the site is within an established subdivision and the HOA has no
significant issues, it would appear that The Sages meets the minimum general subdivision
standards.
2. Sedlon 740t1 Subdlvlsion Lolr
staff comments: The lots sizes and configurations are appropriate.
3. Sectlotr T4Gl Flre Protection
Staff Comments: Bill Gavettg Carbondale Fire Protection District, has responded to the
application, EXHIBIT I that the access is adequate and that the proposed water supply and fire
hydrant locations are acceptable. The fina! comment from the District is that lmpact Fees in the
amount of 5730.00 per unit wllt be required upon execution of an agreement between the
District and the devetoper. These fees are included as a Staff recommended condition of
approval.
Sectlon 74Ol gurvey Monumcnb
staff comments: This issue will be further reviewed at Final plat.
74(E Standardslor publtc Sltes and Open Smlce
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided open space as weil
as an open space management plan.
4.
5.
14
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCL2l8lL0
KE
The ULUR requires satisfuction of impact fees at final plat including School Land Dedication (or
fee in-lieu), as well as other applicable impact fees including the Fire District fees (S730/irnit)
and County traffic impact fees.
The School Land Dedication (fee in-tieu) will be calculated at fina! pla! based upon a recent
appraisal of the unimproved property, and payment will be due at the time of recorded in the
plat. The traffic impact fee witl atso be calculated at final plat with payment due at the time of
recording.
VI. STAFF CONCERNSAND ISSUES
It would appear that there are several outstanding issues that need to be resolved, some at final plat -
but inability of the Division of Water Resources (DWR) to issue a finding of "No Materiat lnjury'' stops
this project from moving fonrvard. Given that the water is to be provided by the Roaring Fork Water and
Sanitization District Staff assumes that these issues can be adequately addressed. Staff recommends
that the application not move fonuard for BOCC review untit such time as the DWR issues a
determination of no material injury. Otherwise there is inadequate demonstration of an adequate
water supply.
Recommended conditions of approval mitigate impacts that may result due to the creation of the
proposed lots. Other conditions of approval are standard concerns typically associated with a
preliminary plan and are indicative of requirements at final plat.
VII. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
The following are suggested findings for the Planning Commission shoutd a recommendation of approval
be fonnrarded to the BOCC for the Sages at Aspen Glen Preliminary plan:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Planning
Commission.
2. That the hearing befqre the Planning Commission was extensive and completg that all pertinent
factE matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties
by the Planning Commission.
That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the
requirements of the Garfield County Comprehensive plan of 200O as amended.
That, with the adoption of recommended conditions, the application has adequately met the
requirements of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended.
3.
4.
5.
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PcLzl8lLo
KE
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission fonryard a recommendation of AppRoVAL to the Board
of County Commissioners for the Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision, with the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing before
shall be conditions of approval, unless specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2- Preliminary Plan approval shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval by the
Board of County Commissioners.
3- The Applicant shall comply with the final plat requirements in addition to those requirements
contained within the Garfield County Unjfied Land use Resolution of 2ffig as amended (ULUR):
a. The Final Plat shalt contain the following notes:
i- control of noxious weeds is the responsibility of the property owner.
ii. No open hearth solid-fuel fireptaces wil! be attowed anywhere within the subdlvision. One
(1) new solid-fuel burning stove as defined by C.R.S. 25-747,et.seq., and the regutations
promulgated thereunder, will be allowed in any dwelting unit. Atl dwetting units wil! be
allowed an unrestricted number of natural gas burning stoves and appliances.
iii. All exterior lighting shat! be the minimum amount necessary and that all exterior lighting
shall be directed inward and downward, towards the interior of the subdivision, except
that provisions may be made to allow for safety lighting that goes beyond the property
boundaries.
colorado is a "RIGHT-TO-FARM" state pursuant to c.R.s. 35-3-11, Et. seq. Landowners,
residents and visitors must be prepared to accept the activities, sights, sounds and smells
of Garfield Countfs agricultural operations as a normal and necessary aspect of llving in a
county with a strong rural character and a healthy ranching sector. Those with an urban
sensitivity may perceive such activitieg sights, sound, and smetls only as inconveniencg
eyesore, noise and odor, However, state law and county policy provide that ranching
frrming and other agricultural activities and operations within Garfield County shalt not be
considered to be nuisances so long as operated in conformance with the taw and in a non-
negligent manner. Therefore, all must be prepared to encounter noiseg odor, lights, mud,
dus!, smoke, chemicals, machinery on public roads, livestock on pubtic roads, storage and
disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or othenrise of chemical fertitizert soil
amendment herbicide, and pesticides, any one or more of which may naturatty occur as
part of legal and non-negligent agricultural operations
A!! owners of land, whether ranch or residence, have obligations under state law and
county regulations with regard to the maintenance of fences and irrigation ditches,
controlling weeds, keeping tivestock and pets under control, using property in accordance
with zoning, and other aspects of using and maintaining property. Residents and
landowners are encouraged to Iearn about these rights and responsibilities an act as good
!v.
v.
t6
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PCLzlslLO
KE
neighbors and citizens of the county. A good introductory source for such information is "A
Guide to Rural Living & Small Scale'Agriculture" put out by the Colorado State University
Extension Office in Garfield County;
vi. Fencing on the property shall comply with the Division of Wildlife specifications for
wildlife-friend ly fencing;
vii. The mineral rights associated with this property have been partially or wholty severed and
are not fully intact or transferred with the surface estate therefore atlowing the potentiat
for natural resource extraction on the property by the mineral estate owner(s) or
lessee(s).
b. The Final Plat shall contain the following certificates as contained within the plat Certificate
Appendix of the ULUR:
Certificate of Dedication and Ownership;
Lienholder Consent and Subordination Certificate, if applicable;
Board of County Commissioners Certificate;
Title or Attorney Certificate;
Treasurer Certificate of Taxes Paid;
County Su rveyor Certificate;
Clerk and Recorder Certificate;
Surveyor Certificate.
The Applicant shal! delineate and legally describe al! easements on the final plat.and convey all
easements to the responsible entity. This dedication shall be in a form acceptable to the County
Attorney's Office and transfer shall occur at the time of recording of the final ptat. These easements
shall includg but are not limited to all easements of record, utility easements, drainage easements,
water system easements, stormwater drainage easements, open space and any internal roads
required as a part of this development.
The vacation/retocation of the gotf cart path must be ctearly documented at finat plat including a
letter of acceptance for the vacation of the easement from the Homeowne/s Association or Ctub
representative;
The Applicant shatl provide a map and inventory for the propeay for Garfield County tisted noxious
weeds. lf noxious weeds are present the Applicant shall provide a weed management ptan and
address the weed management of the site, including common areas, within the covenants. This
information shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the Vegetation Manager of Garfietd
County priorto submittal of the final plat application;
Prior to approval and recordation of the final plat the Applicant shall be required to comply with
Resolution 2008-05, and submit the required S73O.OO per unit residential impact fee for the
Carbondale and Rural Fire Protection District.
The Applicant shall submit an unimproved property appraisal for the site at finat ptat. This appraisal
is necessary to calculate the Fee in-lieu of School Land Dedication which shall be due and payable
prior to approval and recordation of the final plat.
i.
ai.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
L7
The Sages at Aspen Glen
PcLa|&/LO
/KE
y''{ounty traffic impact fees shall be calculated at finat piat and shall be due and payable prior to
approvaland recordation of the fina! plat.
10. A site specific geotechnical and foundation report shall be required at finat plat.
11. This application shall not be scheduled for public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
until such time as a letter of "No Material lnjury'' is received from the Division of Water Resources.
12. The responses from SGM, Dave Kotz, P.E., EXHIBIT R, shatt be incorporated herein and considered
conditions of approval. This information shall be provided prior to submittal of the finat plat.
H&("z\r'(r^tltS^ 43
W>J,\0,
18
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MII\IUTES FROM DECEMBER 10,2OO8
PC Memberc Present
Cheryl Chandler
Jock Jacober
Bob Fullerton
ShannonKyle
Adolfo Gorra
Cireg McKennis
Staff Present
Fred Jarman, B&P Director
Kattry Eastley, Planner
DustyDunbar, Planner
Deboratr Quinn, Assist Cty Atty
Roll call was taken and the following mpmbers are absenttonight Phil Vaughaq Sean
Martinand Terry Ostom.
A motion was made by Bob Fullerton to approve the minutes as wriften for the Planning
Commission Meeting dates of Septemb er 24n, October I $, and November 12, 2008.
Shannon Kyle seconded the motion. A vote was taken and all approved rmanimously.
The fint item of discussion is a public meeting request to review a Sketch Plan
Application for the Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision. The property is located within the
Aspen GlenPLID. Theparcel is approximately 4.243 acres in size and 15 rmits on swen
single-family lots, one duplex lot and two friplex lots arc proposed. The applicant is
Gerd Zeller.
Kathy Eastley is the County Planner on this projeet. Present forthe applicant is the
owner Gerd Zeller, he lives in Aspen Glen and Jeffivlackintosh with Schmueser Gordon
Meyer.
Cheryl Chandler e4plained the process we will follow tonight for this item.
Kathy Eastley entered exhibits A-J into the record. All are acceped into the necord.
Kathy Easfley presented the staffcomments and project information next. The Applicarrt
proposes to subdivide a 4.243-aseparcel within the Aspen Glen PUD to allow for 15
units on 7 Jf lots, l-duplex loL and 2-fiiplex lots. The zoning on this parcel is the Club
Villa Residential T-one District within the PUD zoning which allows for single-family
attached and single-family detached residential dwellings intended for individual lot
ownership which may include townhomes and duplexes.
Water and sewer will be provided by the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District.
This parcel is located in Study Area I of the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan which
the map designates this areas as Subdivision. A vicinity map was shown looating the
property towards the back of the Aspen Glen PUD along CR 109. A Sketch Plan Ndap
was also shown. A discussion tookplace on the site plan showing road and location of
the differenttlpes of lots.
This application was referred to the Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen for
comment. Their Board has some concems. The first is related to the number of units
being proposed on ttris site. The HOA Board of Directors does not support a fiiplex
product on the site and they only support a total of 13 dwelling units on this site. They
are also concernedwith the 30-foot setback from CR 109 and that it is not large enough
to support landscaping. Property is lower than CR 109 by 8 to l0 feet. Other items were
brought up in their letter (Exhibit ID which are listed and included with ttre staffrepqrt
The Crarfield CountyEngineercommented on this application andhis commens ale
included as Exhibit I within the staffreport. Some of his concems are the dead-end stneet
length which exceeds 600-feeq the Right-of-Way doesn't meet the County standards, and
easements that are needed.
Kathy EaStley said some of the items that need to be discussed are:. The Right-of-Way widthr Road configuration. Densityr Unittype. Unitconfigtration
Greg McKennis asked for clarification of road markings on the site plan. Greg
McKennis asked do we know wlry the Engineer found the road found to be insufficient.
Kathy Eastley responded that the stipulation in the regulations state that the culde-sac
can't exceed600'. C:reg McKennis asked so the road is too narrow? The County
Engineo felt there was insufficient ROW width in order to get the utilities and everything
in the roadway.
Kathy Eastley spoke to Leslie Lamont who is the Adminisfiator for their DRC at Aspen
Glen. Ifuthy Easttey was asking about the standards ttrat Aspen Glen has because these
are private roads within the development. From the information that Kathy Eastley
received she said the roads may be insuffrcient based upon the standards at Aspen Glen.
Kathy Eastley said we did receive referral comments back from the Carbondale Fire
Disfrict and they didn't seem to have much of an issue with the road configurations.
They stated that the access appears to be adequate for emergency apparatus. (See exhibit
G included with statrreport)
The applicant's representative JeffMackintosh will speak next He met with the Fire
Distict and they said there was no problem with the proposal. He also spoke about the
water main. Roads are private and meet ROW requirements. Applicant used the same
ROW process that the Suudance area used within the Aspen Glen PUD. Could put in an
easement for ROW if necessary
Gerd Zeller spoke next and he said they want to do everything that they are requiredto
do. Don't think what they have proposed on roads are any different from other roads that
are out there now. Gerd mentioned that the retention arca is for irrigation. Gerd also
2
spoke about the setback pquirement of 20'. He has been working with Aspen Glen about
the density which applicant is requesting 15 units. He agrees with the HOA that he will
change his application request from 15 units to 13 units. Could change from a triplex lot
to a duplex lot Gerd Zeller thinks that duplexes require bigger setbacks.
Greg McKennis asked so you are going to change that to a duplex and are they happy
wittr that. Gerd Zeller believes trey are.
Kathy Eastley said the PIJD guide forAspen Glen stipulates minimum lot size and
minimum lot depth for differenttypes of units whether it is a single-family attached
which would be considered the triplex orthe duplex lot. IGthy Eastley was unable to
find the provision that they were talking about. Some firther discussion needs to take
place to decide whether it would be aPUD Amendmentto changethe minimum lot area
in the Club Villa Zone Disfrict so they could put a duplex rather than a tiplex on the lot.
Jock Jacober asked what the question on everybody's mind is. Gerd Zellqsaid it's the
denltty, Greg McKennts said there is a letter from the HOA included in ourpacket.
Kathy Easfley would like to explain the whole densrty issue. In the PUD the Club Villa
Zone Disfict wai designated a number of rmits for an area. It is an HOA review of what
goes w.here. There is a pool of density within the PUD.
Crerd Zeller said before he even thought about coming to the County he went to Aspen
Glen HOA to work on a plan because he wanted to have some sort of 4greement on what
was being proposed. Jock Jacober said he likes the high density in the infras;tucture rich
area and he likes the availability for the opporhmity for smaller rmits. Jock €ncourages
this type of thing. Thinls diversity of housing within Aspen Glen is a good thing.
Bob Fullerton said he respects the HOA's comments. Ilate to see you have to do a PUD
Amendment to change the tlpes of lots. Bob has some minor concerns with ttre length of
the cul-de-sac but he is going to go with the Fire Disfiict if they have no problem with
them. Bob Fullerton thinks the size of the roads should really match up throughout the
subdivision.
Crreg McKennis said the HOA had a problem with the 30' setback offof CR 109. Gerd
Zellet said he was surprised to see that Code requires a 20' setback Gerd Zeller said he
has changed some of the setbacks as suggested and he will make some adjustment
between lot6 & 7 at Preliminary Plan stage.
Jock Jacober asked about CR 109 and said it is in a dismal shape. Cheryl Chandler said
Aspen Glen did improvements to that road. Jock replied they did a mighty badjob. Jook
Jacober said he is assuming that CR 109 has a ROW. Fred Jarman said there is a
prescripted ROW andprobably a 50'ROVI
Cheryl Chandler asked was the back gate ever written in as an enfiance. Gerd Zeller said
everyone refers to that as a back gate. lt is a radio controlled gate.
Moved to the public for comments next. Leslie Lamont would like to speak first. Ms.
Lamont has been the Design Review Administrator for Aspen Glen since 2004. She
works with the design committee and they have worked with Gerd Zeller and the HOA
for over ayear on this proposal. I\ds. tamont is not a resident of Aspen Glen. Her
concerns are:. The width of the pavement in Aspen Glen is 26-28' and ROW's are 60-80'.
ROW shown onproposal does notmeetAspen Glen standards.o Detention pond:{oncemed with landscaping around this project Detention. pond takes up a huge oorner in this area.. Concemed with setback from County Road. Want to make sure it is safe for. everyone that uses that Cormty Road. It is completely out of character to have
development that close to the road. Want to see a profiIe of the road.o fu regards to number of units. This zone disftict is unique $rithin Aspen Glen that
it allows Vf homes, duplex homes and triplor homes atlached. Ther; is no other' area within the PUD that has all three of these types of rmits together.. Possibly create geater setbacks for single family homes.. PerhaPs C.rerd Zeller can submit a Text Amendment to change these to single
family and duplex lots.
Fred Jarman wanted to make two points. The first is on the notion of a Text Amendmenl
In the new Land Use Code we will be using the first of January 2009;there is a much
lesser type ofprocess you can go through as opposed to the current code. The second
question Fred has is Orat he recalls that there is a trigger that would require Aspen Glen to
install a stoplight at Highway 82. It was a density tigger. Fred doesn't know what the
figure is right offthe top of his head but he knows it was a realistic trigger and it was an
obligation by Aspen Glen to the Board of County Commissioners with their approvals
back in the 90's when this development was appioved. Fred is asking the applicant if
they have looked into that at all (tigger for light) and if not, that really does need to be
looked into.
Jock Jacober asked is Aspen Glen HOA a referral agency for this application? Kaflry
Eastley said this area is included in ttre Master Association for Aspen Glen which means
they getassessed just like everybody else in this development There was a comment
regarding the formation of a sub-association for this area to pay for the maintenance of
the roadrnray in thatparticular area.
Cheryl Chandler asked Crerd Zeller ufuat would happen if you make it I units like the
Peaks at Aspen Glen. Gerd Zeller said he origina[y came tlrough to Aqpen Glen maxing
this out with the idea of making reasonable size duplexes. Gerd talked firther about
triplex lots and whatyou could see would be the second story because ofthe berm.
Fred Jarman said when Aspen Glen was approved originally there was an obligation that
at a certain point of build out that Aspen Glen would have to install a light at Highway 82
and their entance. Gerd Tnller said that the HOA wants to add a light but they can't
have it per the State. Cheryl Chandler said that ls because you have to meet a certain
number first before the State will authorize one.
4
No furttrer comments were made. Sketch Plan comments are good for one year from
The next item on the 4genda is a Public Meeting request to rwiew a Sketch Plan
Application for the Clark Subdivision which is to be renamed as the Rilee Subdivision
because of duplication in subdivision names. The property is located south of Rulison on
CR 301 and is approximately 40.715 acres in size. Three residential lots areproposed.
The applicants are David andAngela Cla*.
Present for the applicant tonight is David Clark and he lives at 6750 CR 301 Parachute,
Colorado.
Cheryl Chandler reviewed the process we will follow forthis application tonight.
Dusty Dunbar is the County Planner and she will present the project information and staff
comments next. This property is 4Gl- actes and 3 residential lots are beingproposed. The
property is located at6750 CR 301 and is currenfly zoned Agriculture/Residential/Rural
Densrty (A/R/RD). Access is proposed offof CR 301. Water will be provided to these
lots through a shared well. This parcel is located in Study Area2 of the Comprehensive
Plan and shows a designation of this property as Outlying Residential. The property lies
outside of the mr.rnicipal sphere of influence.
A site plan of the proposal was shown and discussed. Photos of the site and surrounding
area werc also shown.
Items of discussion:. A Well Sharing Plan will need to be included with the heliminary Plan submittal.. Drainage: Property drains gently south to north. There is a small pond on the
property.o lrrigation: Inigation from the shared well is to be limited on the lots. These
limitations wiltrequire some type of management and will need to be addressed at
Preliminary Plan stage.o Water: Appears to have sufficient water to sen e development. Well permit that
is in place allows three households to use.o ISDS: Must have required separation from water system.. All lots areto access offofCR30l.. All driveways need access permits from the County Road & Bridge Departnent.. Property is located within traffic Study Area I which will require fees to be paid
at final plat:. Property is located within RE-2 School District which will require fees to be paid
at finalplat. Will needupdated comments from School District atPreliminary
Plan stage.. Fire Protection: Required to have zufficient water for fire flow. Need updated
comments from the Fire District at Preliminary Plan stage.. Will need plat note for severed mineral rights.
Itrildlife / Feneing: Applicant will be required to identiff wildlife habitat and big
game ranges. This prope4y is mapped as "overall Range" for Mule Deer, Elk,
Black Bear, and Wild Turkey. Fencing gpes recommended by the CDOW should
be required in this area.
Engineered foundations will be a requirement of the subdivision approval.
Comments are good for one year from tonight's meeting date.
Moved to the applicant for his presentation next. David Clark said that Dusty Dunbar did
a good job with her review. Mr. Clark would like to build another horrse on one of the
proposed lots and sell his bigger home ttrat is on his current property.
Bob Fullerton asked Mr. Clark how the well has been outthere. David Clark said it's
very good. David Clark said all of his property is hay pasture. He himself sees a low fire
dmger. The Fire Chief wants a cistern at each house for holding water and then the well
for use.
Greg McKennis said water is a concern
No public comments were made. Sketoh Plan comments are good for one year from
tonight's meeting date.
The next ite,m on the 4genda is a public meeting request to review a Sketch Plan
Application for the Coftran Subdivision. The property is located *. 1837 CR 100. The
parcel is approximately 149 acres in size and two lots are being proposed. The applicant
isDougCoffinan.
Present for the applicant is Kelly Cave, 823 Blake Avenue #202, Glenwood Springs
Colorado. The Applicant is actually Rex Coffinan.
Fred Jarman is the County Planner and he will present the project infonnation and staff
comments. firis is a request to split offone lot from the 149 acre parcel. This land went
through the E:remption process back in 2004. The 100-year flood plain cuts through the
site. Question is where the flood plain lies. Can't build in floodway. You can build in
flood fringe as long as the first floor is at least one foot above flood level. Need to reatly
define where flood fringe and floodway are located. Believe application can meet all the
goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Slough Ditch runs tbmugh the
property. Applicant crossed over the dirch to get access to lots that were created through
the Exempion process. Fred Jannan told Kelly Cave to look into that.
Need to drill a well. Water table is high. Sewer system should be engineered ISTS
mound systems.
If applicant decides to come back with a Pneliminary Plan Application it will be reviewed
and prccessed under the new Land Use Code regulations. Fred Jar:nan handed out a list
of those requirements.
GARFIELD COT]NTY
Building & Planning Department
ReviewAgency Form
. Date Sent November 18,2010
Comments Due:
Name of application: Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision
Sent to: Garfipld County Road & Bridge
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notiff the
Planning Departnent in the event you are rmable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attachyour owu additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-maile4 or faned to:
Garfield County Building & Plarrning
Staff Contact: Kathy Easfl ey
109 8s Sftet, suid3ol
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield County Road & Bridge has a concem with the plugging or
eliminaltion of the 18" culvert across cormty road 109 just north of the intersection of
Bald Eagle Way and county road 109. This culvert and the drainage from this culvert
along the North side of Bald Eagle \May need to remain open.
Name of review agency: Garfield Corm8 Road and Bridge Deoartnent
By: Mke Prehm Date November 18.2010
Revised 3/3Ol00
To:
From:
Re:
Date:
ME-MORAI{DUM
Kathy Easfley
Steve Anthony
Comments on the Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision Preliminary Plan
November Zlr 2010
Thanlc forthe opportunity to commentthe Sages at Aspen Glen. My comments are as follows:
Noxious Weeds
o Inventorl and mapping-The applicant needs to map and inventory the property for Garfield
Comty listed noxious weeds. The area close to CR109 has had various thistle issues in the past
I Weed Management-The applicant shall provide x wsed management plan for tte inventoried
noxious weeds.
. Cov€nants-Wsed managem€nt is not addressed in the covelrants. IMay we pErest that the
applicantmention noxious weeds and remind each lot oumertrat it is theirresponsibilityrmder the
Colorado Noxious Weed Act and fte Garfield Cormty Weed IMan4gement Plan to manege Cormty-
listednoxious weeds?
o Common area weed management-staffrequesb a statem€nt from the applicaut indicating the party
that $ri[ b€ responsible for future weed management in comnon reas on the site.
Rwegetation
r Please provide a map or infomation, prior to fi.al plat that quantifies the arca, in terms of
aclcq to be disturbed and subsequently reseeded on road cut and utility disturbances. This
information will help determine the amount of security that will held, if any, for rerrcgetation-
o The security shall be held by GarEeld County until vegetation has been successfirlly reestablished
accodingto the Reclamation Shdards section in the Garfield Couty Weed l!{anagementPlan-
November30,2010
IGthyEastley
Garfield County Building & Planning
108 8rh Srie€r, Suite 201
Gleirwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Ite Sagca at Aspen GIen, heliminary Ptan
Dear Kathy:
I have rerriewed the application for the proposed Sages at Aspen Clen Subdivision The
application was reviewed for compliance with ttre International Fire Code (IFC) 2003 edition"
adop:ed bythe Coun$. I would offer the following comments.
Access
The proposed ac@ss is adequate for emergency apparatus
Waten Suoolies for Ftre Pnotection
The prcposd water supply and fire hydrant locations are acceptabla
Imoacttr'ee
The derrelopment is subject to development impact fees adopd by the District lhe developer
will be reqtlired to enter into an agreement with the Distict for the payment of development
impact fees. Execution of the agreement and paynrent of &e fees are due pnor to ttre recording
of the final plat. Fees are based upon the impact fees adopted by the District at the time the
agrcement is executed. Ite current fee for residential development is $730.(D per unit
Please contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of my assistanca
Bill Gavette
DeputyCtief
Cartondale & Rrlral tlre kotection Districf
3fi) Meadowood Drive o carbondale,ca 81623 o 97o-963-z49lFaxgluxi34569
Fromr
To:
Subject:
Dah:
Westerman. Carla
lGthy A. Eastlev;
Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision-SPPA6479
Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:34:52 PM
Kathy, I have received the Preliminary plan for the Sages at Aspen Glen
Subdivision. At this time SourceGas has no issues with the proposed Subdivision in
its current state. The developer will be responsible for any changes and upgrades
necessary to furnish natural gas to this new subdivision.
tf there are any other questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank!
Carla Westerman
Field Coordinator
e*rt nrlo EHutotumt*t Cot'lsu$tHc*l.ts Offi6N
Novernber 29" 2010
Ms, Kathy Eastloy
Grfield County Plaaning
108 8rh Sfear" Suite 401
ffleuwood Springs, CO I 160l
tE: Reviers of SegecatArpen GIen Appltc*don: SPPA6479
Dear Kathy:
'ltis office has perforrmed a review tf the fucurrenb provided for tlre Sagm at Aspen Glcn
Sribdivision Pretinrinary Plan Apptiedion. The submittal was formd to be thorough acd well
orgruizd. T'hc following questiors, corrcerfis, or cdments wcre guromted:
I. The traffic anetynis that is nsf'ened to is the ffiginal ka{fic report for the Aspen Gten
development iu t992. The .{pplicant a$$qrt$ that tre achral traffic tbat has been ar rrill be
gencratod is less thafl the report ailiripatr$ ad fherefare thrme wiltr be no significant impacts:
This may be the crse fo,r ttrs interior traffic generatd" Ilowever tle assumpdons in the
uaffic report coucerning the background kaffic, parlicularly on CR. I09, *ouH be vsrifisd
cod the traffic report updated ss necessflry.
2. Tk soils rcport was for th Aspen GIen deve.iopmsnt and was gercmtod in t993- No
inf,oanation is includpd to show uhere the borings were perforrnd aild it is difficult to
detennine if fti$ onglnal rqort is applicabte to $re Sages. The applicability of ths soils
report shunld be detcrminod and updahd as trceessgry.
3. The rynlicability of the Division ofWiHltfe lctfm, corccming Arycn Gleq that *us iocfrr*a
should be dc.tsrolined for the Sages ard updated s$ o€sp$$afJt
4. The'\vill str$e* leffer for sewer anrd watereloes notaddress the roquirementu to delermiuc an
adequate urater sqpply per $ection 7-105.C of the Ceffisld County regulalions. ?he
Applicant proposes t0 use the alternative as discrssed in Sedion ?-I0$.C (il. Please verify
that lhe water fl$Bly plan is on filE and meets wifi the criteria'of tht section
5. The *Drain*gs" section of rhe Engineed*g Roport shows tlpr the $age*'will tie into a
sonvsyanse sysfto desi$sd to accorqmodale projoct ftows, will avoid direct disch*rE€s" f,rd
will provide adequate wate qrality. The reBort is silsrlt aborrt how thr Applicqrt proposcs to
ddross fhs detsntion rsquird in Sostkxl 7-20?.C.
6. The "Drainage' sectio*r of the Engin+Ering R.eport sayn tro off-site ar6as flre tributary Go thc
Sages but the drainagc plan shorvs a culvert dirccting flows from the west beneath Ctrt I09
onto thr souttrwest corrrcr of thc Sages. $heet Cl callg fo,r bo*r ards of this culverrt to be
p1nee6d. ThE Applicaffi should discuss this in greatmdetail
eZE 112 Crand Avenue r Clerwood Sprinp, CO 816$I
PH: 97O.9{5-5544 * fAX: 970.945.5.55S r wrylry-rfi}untaineross-€.dg;C6ftt
. suges.,frpff;
November19,2010
7. The Sages FrCIFoses a dea&end with no tumarouud and with no apparentcffifiectiou of right-
of-wuy intended br the future per Section i-XA7.A,.7.c. The Applicarrt should addr€ss the
tennl$ation of Allison ltoad,
L The hrmarourd radius is listed in the cunrre table as 32.83'. This radius is Iess tban tlfical
miuimunr std*rds. the Applicaut should address this radius;
9. The sewer lire slope is desigred as v-ery fla! [ess than 0.67o. Tfifh lphtively lowvolunes of
flow ftoqr ferv residemces the velocities urill not be very high and solids i*itt ti*ety sctth.
The appoval ofhe RFSWD will be requircd-
10. The scwcr line is ahown at a dryth that is shallower than the water line, This will rcguire tbat
the watcr seffic1cfl be less &an thq minimum bury of 5.5' or that thoy will he below the
uanitary sew€r line. Ei8rer cme will reqpire special constr!rctiou pr*ticm. Tlre Apf,icant
slwuld d&ess hsw these utility crossing* witl be cons,Uucted
I 1. The water sennicc to lat 4 appcers to coaflict with the proposed mmlrotre.
12. ?he Ecrrcr rrain flows ouhide of &e proposed mdnruyprisu ofAllinon Eod. Although it
stays within ttrc proposed utilify ememenl this is generatl-V discotraged. The Applicant
should coasider realigourg the s€wer:
13" Tho $ewetr rnain flows offpropsty priirr to connestiof to dre main line tie-in. The Applicant
win ffied t0 provide evidrnce ofpennisslon ana egroernents with the affetd ourner.
14, Oil Sheet Ci the eeseinent is located as a $anitary Sewe* Easemsnt hr conairu etrrallorv
rffilitics. Tho Appliwrt should verify the t5,pe of emenrent.
15. Ths easerents shouffi on tlre Preliminary Plat are not cangruent with ur.ht are lqbcled as
sasmenm in the construdion drawings.
Forl free to call ifyor heve any qrrcstions or comrnenl*.
Chris llale, PE
q*fi gHllal cnoss Bilfi NeE RIN{I Utifl
Ciril lsd Euylru*mntrl Conrdri* ffid $ccigfi
815 ilt fuod Avsnuc. Glsmmod Spri*ss, CO f t60i
ft 97L9455544 & 97)-$*-S.5558 rvw*surrrIeiocross-cag,m
DEPARTMENT OT NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
Bil.l Rittur, Ji-
Coverripr
MikeKins
Exeiutire"Dtrerctor
Dick Woltu, P.E.
Dlrectol.filate Engin€er
November 24,2010
Kathy Eastly
Garfteld County Building and Planning
108 8th StSte 201
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
Re; Sages @ Aspen Glen SubdMsion Preliminary Plan
Section 13, T7S, R89W,6TH PM
W. DiVision 5, W. District 38
Dear Ms. Eastly:
We have reviewed the above referenced proposalto subdivide a paret of 4.243 acres into
7 single-farnily lots and 3 duplex lots. The applicant proposes to provide waterthiough ttie
Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the District) pursuant to water rights and an
augmentation plan decreed in Case No. 93CW192 as a water supply forthe Aspen Glen
DeveloBment, The potable water sysfem is to be provided via this,plan through the Aspen Glen
Well Nos. 2, 3 and 4, which are curen{y assi$ned well permit nos. 5921FF, 4963S.F, and 5921*
F, respectively. Sewage disposal will be through a centralsystem and will also be provided by the
District. A letter of commitment from the Disttict was provided.
The, Districts plan for augnie.nlation pro$des. for a t0tal of 606.5 EQR's, a golf
course, clubhouse, and 15 lakes, The last conespondence.from the Distric* to the Division of
W"ter Resources dates February 5, 2003. At that time therc were 519lots platted within the
Aspen Glen PUD. No current informatisn r.egarding the number of EQR's available for
development has been provided. ln addition, it rrtras stated in a report from'Resource
Engineering, lnc,, dgted June B, 1993, that.there is no EQR allotment for duplexstryctures
located oh. the west side of the Roaring Fork River. Pursuant to CRS 30-2S-136(1){hXll}, a
municipality or quasi.municipaffiy is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer
documenting the amount of urater which can be supplied to the proposed development without
causing injuryto existing water rights. A report of this nature was Rot included. See the attached
Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supplv Plan Reports forthe necessary informalion.
A r.eport by Resource Engineering, lnc., dated May 24.'t995, indicates that the Aspen
Glen Weli Nbs. 2, 3 and 4 well have a cornbined capacrty of 1,340 gallons per minute, which
exceeG Aspen Glenls build-out peak day demand of 700 gallons per minute.
Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot contment on the potentialfor
injur/ to existing water rights under the provisions of CRS 30-2&136(l Xhxll). lf you or the
applieant has any questions concerning this matter. please contact Karlyn Adams in this office.
Offict of the State Engineer
13LX Sherman Streel Suite 818 o Denver, CO 80203 r Phone:303-86G3581 o Fax 303-866-3589
www.water.state.co.tts
Kathy Eastly
Sages @ Alpen Glen Preliminary Plan
Sihcerely,
br*,rD#{! e o of
Jeff Deatherage
Water Resource Engineer
JD/kaa/Sages at Aspen Glen Subdiv.docx
cc: Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer, Division S
Bill Blakeslee, Water Cqmmissioner, District 38
November 24,2010
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SUR\rEY- selins he peopte of Colondo
Departnent of N*rrd Resources
1313 Sheman Sfied, Room 715
Denver, CO 8@03
Phone (303)86F2611
Fax (303)86e2461
Nortember 24, 2010
Ms. lGtry Eastley
Garfield County Planning
108 8t' Sfreet Suite 401
Glenwood Spdngs, CO 81601
Legal: S13ofT7S,R89W
COTORADOErelE{t
DEPARTMENTOF
NATTJRAL
RESCIJRCES
Re: Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision - Preliminary Plan
GGS Review No. GA.11.0003
Dear Ms. Eastley
ln response to pur request and in accordance with Senate Bill 35 (1972), CGS has performed a
technical leview con@ming geologic hazards for the above-mentioned proposed development
The site mnsisb of approximalely 4.2 acres and is being divided to indude 10 residential lots fl
SF and 6 duplexes). The lots willbe provided service by the Roaring Fork Sanitation Disfrict. The
rcview package included fre project application packet, preliminary engineering report (4/10) by
David KoE, preliminary construction plans (3/4/09) by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, preliminary plat
(4113110) by Schmueser Godon M.yrr, and geotechnical engineering study (528/93) by Chen
Northem, The geotechnical report was done as a supplement to tup initialstudies furthe Aspen
Glen arca, which werc not submitted as part of the refunal.
The site is located north of Carbindale and east of County Road 109, rnest of tre Roaring Fork
River. A number of ponds and inigat'ton ditches are present in the area. Gmunduater levels were
encountered around 31 feet below ground surface after drilling in 1993. Groundwater may be
shallow in arcas where ponds arc located, or form perched water tables seasonally on clayey
lenses in the subsurface soils.
Surficialdeposih are predominantly altuviattenace sands, gravels, clays and cobbles. The Eagle
Valley Evaporite was encountered between 23 and 33 feet below gmund surhce. Low density
soils may be present at depth in this area, and may consolidate/collapse under a load. The arca
has been mapped as having possibly hydrocompactive soils. The gededninl rqoil did not
indude any hoing location maps, slte geolqic maps, or hazard arca identificatbn maps.
Primary geologic concems for he development of this prcperty include wder-sensitive soils,
potential sinkfioles, shallow groundwater, potentially unter-sensitlve soils, and potential debris
flours. CGS offers the following comments for County consideration:
Bill Ritbr, Jr.
Govemor
Mlke Kiry
EGortive Direcbr
Mncent Maffievrs
DMsion Direclorand
State Gedogist
1. The cunent site plans should be submitted to Chen Northem for comment pertaining to the
geologic conditions at the site and cunent proposed land use and grading plans to ensure
they are in conformance with the geotechnical recommendations and cunent
understanding of the site conditions.
2. The Chen Norftem report indicates piezometers ulere installed during tre 1993
investigation. lt umuld be useful to review that data as it pertains to groundumter
conditions and impacts to the site.
3. The Chen Norhem report indicates there arc arcas of sinkholes, depressed areas, and
debds flouts wiftin the site. These areas should be clearly identified on the plal and
specific mitigation measures shoutd be detailed in plat notes.4. Locations and design details of ilre debris deflection structures should be provided br
review.
5. A retaining uall is proposed along fte westem edge of the property, adjacentto CR 109.
A slope stability analysis should be considered to ensure that the rlrall is adequately
designed and proposed gmding along the toe of the slope willnot create unstable
conditions to ttre adjacent county road.
6. Seasonally shallow groundwater may be prcsent in areas of this site. Appropriate
subsurface drainage should be established for utility lines and subsurfae construction
expected within 5 feet of the seasonally high groundtuatertable.
7. The soils are likely sensitive to moisturc. Surhce grading should uork to prevent uater
ftom infilfiating soils around structurcs and prevent areas of standing unter. Lowuater
usage landscaping should be used around stucfures.
8. Design-levelsubsurface geotechnicalinvestigations should be conducted priorto building.
Foundation designs may rcquire additional ffiation based on the findings of this
investigation. Large rocks may be encountered at deptr wtrich could impact foundation
design.
9, Disclosure should be provided to potentialhomeowners regarding the geologic conditions
at he site,
Based on the material included in the rcfenal, CGS does not have enough information to provide
adequate evaluation of ffre proposed development. lf you have furtherquestions aboutthis site,
please contact me at (303) 86S2611.
Cc: file
From:
To:
Subiect:
Date:
lanet Buck
lGthv A. EasUev;
The Sages at Aspen Glen
Tuesday, November 30, 2010 3:54:39 PM
Kathy -
The Carbondale Planning Commission reviewed the application for the Sages at
Aspen Glen at their November t8,}OLO meeting. The Planning Commission would
like to offer the following observations and comments:
1. A copy of this tand use application has apparentty been fonrarded to
the Division of Witdlife for their review and comments. The Ptanning '
Commission feels strongly that any recommendation offered by the Division
of Wildlife should be considered.
2. The Planning Commission suggests that the County should be sure to
require a geotechnical report for this subdivision.
3. The Planning Commission noted that a portion of the Golf Course
easement is located within one of the building envelopes.
4. The Planning Commission discussed the road alignment and noted that
it resulted in a deadend. ltold them that Fire District had been contacted
for their comments.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Janet Buck
Town of Carbondale
H
Association dHometwttcts Aspen Glenr lna
Norember 29,zgLO
Ms lhthyEastlery
GarfieH County Buildir6 and Planning D€partment
1O8 8ftSUeet, Suite4ol
Glernuood Springs, @ 81501
Re SCs atAspen Clen ftEllminary Plan
Dear Ms. Eastley,
Thank you fior tfre opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Plan submittal for Sages at Aspen
Glen. TheAspen Glen Degign Rev'lew C,ommittee (DRCI and HOA Board of Directors hane been
wo*ing with Gerd Zeller for severa! yearc on this proiecL The DRC and the Boad zupport a
derdopmern of no more that 13 dunlling units but only achiened with singb-famity dwetllrg
units or duplex units. The DRC and the Board hrve also supported a PUD Amendment to reduce
the ftom yard setback fur a duplex from 25 ftet b 20 fuet in the dub Villas Residefiial zone
district
The Boardand the DRC have rwiered ttre submitted Preliminary Ptan applkation and ftnd that
the applicatbn is comistem wfth past support lll drrelling units diviled htween 7 sirUle-
f'amily parsels and 3 duphx lots. Additiomlli, the proposed tort amendrnent accurately reflects
prevbus agreements betrryeen the lloA, DRCand Mr. Zellen reducing the minimum frort yard
setback.for a duplex in the Club Vilhs Residotial zone distri'ct from 25 ftet to 20 feet
As part of the revr'ew of the appticatbA the HOA sougtt the advice of Mr. David Kotz of
SdrmrnserGordon Meyer, lnc Mr. Kotz hr rcpresented Aspen Ghn in civil engineering
matters. Attached is onespondence frrom Mr. David Xotz in whkfi he conftms that th
preliminary plam have been designed to adhere to, if not eNcee{ the Aspen Ghn PUD civil
engineeriry stardards indudingthose of Garfield County.
The Aspen Glen Board of Directors does hereby support the Sages Prelimimry Plan and Text
Arnerdment as submitted un'th the folbwing onditions of approwl:
1. A reviw of $e Subdivision tmprovemenB Ag€ement (SlA), CC&Rs and Bylaws finds these
documents to be coruistent with past representatbru to the Aspen Glen Boad of Directors
primarity iD $e fact hatthe Sages will beome a sub-associatbn of the MasbrAssociation of
Aspen Glen and the sub,association will be responsible for imprwements and maintemrrce of
atl timited and GeneralGommon Etements. The 5lA states that the road, Altison Way, will be
dedieted b the Homeowners Association at Aspen Gleo lnc tlo*raner, tte 5lA does not
O{)SOBddF%leWq CsWle,CO 81623
Enail: ll@ra@sryblat
Tel: (970) 963-1i62
specifu a timeframe when the road will be dedicated. The HoA would like to suggest that the
road h transfurred when:
e allinfrastructure is completed as oonfirmed ry the County's release of the Public
lmprorementfunds related t this improvemefi
r allAspen Glen HOA annual assessments and ORC related ftes are curem;. a final Plat has been reorded; andr a deed is presented transftrrirg ownership.
2. The CC&Rs ouUine in Artidi 8 the prwisiom fur maintenance, landscaping and speciat
easerrent. Paragraph S.l(cf discusses drainage, infatbn and other unterfratures horrever it is
not char whether irrigation of limited and Eenerat oommon elemenB will be achiered {
potable or nor'potabb uaater. lf Mr. Zetler intends to use non-potabh or ditdr vuater fur
irrigation purposes an agneement to do so will be reqUired fmm the Aspen Glen Oub and the
Homeowner Association at Aspen Ghn, lnc as tlrese entities own and mainbin the non .
potable water infrastructure as well as the water rights.
3. The Aspen Ghn IOA Board of Directorc requests that all hsic infrctructure improt Ernents
forthe Sages be completed at one time.
4. After mass grading of the site and instattation of basic infrastructule is @mplete, the entire
developmerfi witt be ]evegetated and lnfated to ensure natirre grass glorrth midilE ten weed
ooveled loS umil vertfr:al derclopment occurs. The Aspen Glen HOA will require a buildeCs
omphtion deposn, the specffic anrount to be determined, to ensure that proper rel6getation
occunL
S. h is helpful that the application includes a onceptual hrdscape ptan and correptral
graphics deprctir6 bull and mass of a typical drplerand single-frmily home producl Howaner,
corsistent with the Sages draft @&Rs, this propct wil! be required to cornpfi with all Design
Guidelines, effuctive at tire time of submittal, related to the exterbr design of the homes as well
as landsmping induding ofl ftncin6 beming and plantings Support fur thb Prcliminary Ptan
does not nqate the des'lgn reviEw pro@ss and requirements to adhere to the Aspen Glen
Des6n Guidelines" lt is also expected that future developmern will adhere to all zoni,ng
requirements of the Oub Wlas Resklent'nl zone district as amended.
5- Al! Aspar 6ten devehpment review ftes wtll be applhabh prior to any imprwemmts to
propertyoocur at the Sages
7. As noted in previous reftrral ommentr, a small detemion pond in the southwest oorner of
the property uns lnduded in some ptans. Thls is next to the back gate and Sre ability to instatl
lardscapim in this arca will be important. A detention pond may notsupport landsepirg of
anyslgniEcane.
8. Although a typhal section has been provlded brthe retainirq uliall that wilt parailel County
Road 1(X), the Aspen Ghn DRC will requirc desfin details of the rehining wall and will spect
the improrcment to be consistent with the d6ign qual'rty found in similar ftatures within Aspen
Glen. The ability to add plant mater'ral paralhl b County Road 109 will be critical in order to
scrcen the bad< skle of the tm duphxes from the road and provlde privacy fur the reskhnoes-
ilNBald@leWay CcbodolqCO 8162i Tel: p7Q%ii-3362 Pagezofi
Endl:llmo@ryi*na
Thanh you for the opportunrty to prwide input. lf you have any questions or comments
regarding this referral please do not hesitate to contact our DRC Administrator leslie Lamont at
963{4-34 or llamont@ soprirnet.
SinceretnlftL
NedCollum, Presidert
Homeowners Assochtbn at Aspen Ghn
Cr: AspenGten HOA Board of Directors
Aspen Glen DRC
Mr. @rd Zeller
Mr. ElkGross
Attadrments:
SGM letter- ilorember 24 2O10
HOA Letter FebnnrylQ 2010
HOA tetter l{wember2Q 2fl18
{XW Bald&qleYay CsAonAb,CO E1623 Tel: (970)963-3362 Pogei af3
Fnail:llawr@ryb.nat
cLENivocD SFFING,
I I a Wtssr SrxIH STREET. SulrE 2oo
GLENwooD SPFTNGS, CO B I 60 I
970.945. lOO4
970-E)45-5948 Fs
llamont@sopris.net
'ii::ii ,:!i
Per orir:t-elephonp. conversation last week, this tefter will document that The Sages Preliminary
rPlan drawings have;been developed ibased on the same (or higher) standards, details, and*-:spddifibattonS'thet
SGM applied to previous phases in Aspen Glen. lt is my opinion that this
--:developmenfas:proposed; complies with the Garfield County code requircments and Aspen, , iGlen PUD'gddelines. As such, The Sages project presents no unique concerns for the HOA
i i ,fror.n ay_r epgi4eering pelspective.
**'--.- il-hope-this adequately addresses the HOA's ooncerns about engineering matters associated with
, i uthis de."-v""e-lopment.
Redpeetfu lly su bmitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
C;h r
David M. KoE, ,.=.)
I
C:\Documents and Settings\caudel\Local Setffngs\Tempoery lnbmet Files\OLKDE\LLamont-PP-Rehrnl.doc
GUNNIBoN
I03 WESTToMlcHl AvE. SU]IE A
GuNNtsoN,COAlZ3O
970.641 .5355
970.641.5358 FrJ(
AsPEN
IOI FoUNDERS PLACE. UNr IO2
POBoxel55
AsPEir, COAl6l I
970.5?5.67?7
970.925.4137 Frx
GRAt{o JuNcTloN
2764 CoMPAss DRVE. SUrIE lOa
GRA,ND.JarNcrroN, CO A I 5o5
970.245.257 I
e7O.245.eA7l fla.
MEEKEF'
32O THTRD STREE
MEB<ER, coal64l
970.874.5 IBO
g7o.e7a.4lAl Frx
@
Honwowner'sAspen Glen Associttiion
February 25,ZOilA
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8d'Sreet, Suite4ol
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Sages atAspen Glen ZoningTextAmendment
Dear Ms, Eastley,
I would like to take this opportunity tp comment on a PUD Amendment proposed by Mn Gerd Zellef for
the Club Villa Residential zone district in Aspen Glen which applies to the 4.243 acre parcelnearthe rear
gate tii Aspen Glen that Mr. Zeller proposes to develop as the Sages at Aspen Glen. As you know, the
Aspen Glen HoA Board of Directors {the Board} and our Design Review Committee {DRC) have been
working with Mr. Zeller on the Sages project for several y€ars. lt is our understanding that he now
proposes a PUD amendment to change the front yard setback requirements forduplexes,from 25 feet to
20 tuet within the Club Villa Residentlal zone district:
The Bsard su.pports this change to required setbacks conditional upon Mr. Zeller's project containing no
more 'than 13 total dwelling units at build-out. Altho"ugh M n Zeller originally submitted a sketch pta n
that proposed 15 total unitr {includihg seven single family homes, one duplex, two tripldxEs), for,a total
of 15 dweiling units, he has since agreed with the Board to limit total density within the Sages p. roject to
13 dwelling units; The Board contlnues to support developme-nt of upto 13 dwelling units, as per the
attached letter of November 20, 2008.
Weunde,rstand that the PUD Amendment proposed by Mr. Zeller, in order to reduceapplicable
setback; does not preclude hlm or any successor frorn submitting;another plan entirely. However we
believe that, with the,addi$on of a l3-unit density c ap on this propertyr there will be enough constraints
on.the Property, incltidingthe 15s Supplemental, to prevent a development that is iriconsistentw-ith
Aspen Glen and the intent of the zone district
Thank you for:the opportunlty to provide input. lf you have any questions ot'comments regarding thls
referral please do not hesibte to contact our DRC Administrator Leslie Lamoiit at 963-8434 or
llamont@sopris.net.
Sincerely; ,/ - A
^r^^-.WNed Colluni, Presldent
Horneowners A5sociation at Aspen Glen
Attachment:
HOA letter November2O 2008
0080 Bald Eagte Way Cubond.ate. CO 51623 Tet: (970) g63.3j62 Fax: (970) 9634550
Lance Lucketl, Comnruaity Services Direaor Email: lance@sopris.net
ffi
l{ameowner's,Aspen Gten Associattott
November20,2008
Ms. KatlryEasdey
GarfteH County Building ard Planniog Departmefit
lBShstreet,Suite 4(}1
Glenu,qod Sprhrs, CO 81601
ne SA&satAspcn Gler Sketdt Fhn Reuienr
DearMs. Eastley,
Thank you fur the opporturfty b oommsrt on the submitted land rrse ryficatbn fronr
Mr Gerd Zdler cded the sryes at Aryen Glen. Thank you as well br takirg the tlrne to
meet ufih our Design ReuierrAdministrator Letb Lamont
The Aspen Glen tlOA Board of Dfrecbrs and arr lledgn Revieur Committee (DRCI haue
been *or&ing ud& Gerd on this proJect for a year, We realtze that derdoprnent has
ahnays been planned for thb area wttHn Aspen Glen and our intercst has been to
enstrre that developmmt is onsistent with the ctraracter of Aspor Glen and the
prcposed densityof the site h ryprhte. I betia,e it has been Gerrd's'mterest to
establidr a hlo*ing reHonshlp with us that wlll facilitate the development of hls parael.
We under*and didskeeh Plan h onlya ranialbydrePhnning Cornmts$on and'fre
purpose k to seek.hiti,al 'input on the prolect input that &e appficarrt mau or may not
dtoositofolbrr. tnaddmn,becausetfiepropertybzoneddubtlilr,slngfefamrty,
duplor and tripler units are allorircd uses and the zoni,ng does not lhtt tlrc mtx.of unit
type, &nirg does houuenrlr define tre minlmum h,t EEe fur each unit type and the
minimurn h she for a trlplex ls smalhr than the rcqurlrement br a duplHx or a dngle
famtfi home. Renrlew of $e submittat oonffms that6erd has sr,rbm]ttEd a ptan fur-
seuen single family lds, oneduplex bt andtnmtripler htsfur a totalof 15 drrefiing
uniBonsite
Afur uro*ing u,,ith Gerd for a year rre dffer ttre following rwiew of hts applicadon.
L Ifte number.of units on thb site is a cdttcd element of dre prrysal fur Aspert
Ghn. Ttre HOA Board of DErectons doer not support a triptex product on the site
and tlrc Board odysrypor*a total of 13 dwelltry uniB on sita
N6o Nd @le Way WQ @ 8t62s T* P?O)'963-3r6, Fc (??0) 98assa
Ifr@ lflcfu, CwAty $erxtua Dbwor Faail: Iarc@qrts.tu
2. Gerd has stated to the Board that he intends to build only 13 units on the
property but zonlngfaoes him to identifytuw tiplex lots to meet the minlmum
bt slze requlrements. lh hc toH us that he w[ll oonverttlre trlphx h,5 to
duplot loB after subdlr&lgt apprunl vi,a an adroinistratiye amen*nent to the
aPproved subdfuisbn. Horerrcr, it b not dear b us wftat Srat process entdls or
whenthe oonyersfurn would oocur.
3. Althoudr we do not dlstnrst Gerrd's commitment to Aspen Ghn rre bdlwe that
ur€ Grnnot tnd th* dranges witt omrr ffier a subdiulsbn pht has been
reoorded and the hnd besnes entithd frr ,5 &dllr'8 unlts. Iherefure we ask
tlratfie Garfteld Cqmty Buidlngand phnnfg sffi and the phmlng'
Cqnmh$on recorrnend that,the od numberof dtrcflirry untg wlll nd exd
fil duteilfuB units and to prdribit fte onslnrction of any triphx bulffing oo dre
Sages parcel.
4. We abo reolnmend th ilre applicant and dre Coonty statr ide@ a
medranlrntoensurc dutthe densityBHmited to ll untts.
5. We reondmendthatthe Sages dalelopnent beoonre a sub+ssociatbn wlthin
the master assodaEoit of Aspen Glen frr landsepe erd other mahrtenanGe
prrposls.
6. We are conerted that the itO foot setback fiom County Road 1O9 GR lGl! b not
largE enough to support hdscapingthat will be crtticat hr screenkrg the
deselopmem&om the road and regulred dra&r4eard slope retention qrstems.
7. We reoorrmendthat6epndlmlrary phn.gfimfittal ilrdude a crosssecdon
drmtuq of the propml from CR 10!l to the nim fipte. lrts that are adiacent tofi 1(I,. ftis drafing $ould incfude a buildiirg furm wtthin the bu[dirB'
enuebpes(wiilr proposd heEhtsdfte buildingpl in order brfourfistaffand
qr.DBC to study pqlble [mpatts.
8. We recommend a.semld crrss *cfion drawlrgftom BaH EaEfe Way fGolden8w on the$efftH phnl todrefrontoffte drryhr lot lnddinBtreburlfiu
foqms and heEhts for the same purposg as ofrhed aborla
9. We cdl sEFs dterrfron to the small detentfrrn pord in dresotrthwestoorrcrof
the property. Thb is an area next to our bac* gnte and the abifttyto irnstafl
bn&ping ln thls area rril be important A detentbn potd may not support
lan&epnng of any s@iftcane.
Tlrank yor fur reqresthgour input and vrc bk brunrd b padhlpatfig in thb reuicnr
as the appftcdon ma&es ir uny thTugh the Garffeld County hnd use reuienru proess. lf
yqt haveanyquesilbns orooEimenB regildirBthis reftrral pleree do not hsltateto
mntact olrr DRG AdmlnMor Leslie Larrqrt at 96$4434 or llamont@soprisnet
Shcereh-
@,-
DougHacker, Presidelt
Hsmeormss Associetion at Aspen Glen
Mt\tutd@tevay c*to*tcco ,iozs ret: (970)*i3-s3& Fc; o7o)9634ss0Law L@dl Comepiry W@ Dir$w Enqil: la@rybtd
SCHMUESER
ENGINEERSISURVEYORS
MEMORANDUM
Kathy Eastley, Garfield County Planning
Chris Hale, P.E., Mountain Cross Engineering
e
I oonoon I ueven
FROM: David M. KoE, P.E.
DATE: December 1,2O1O
RE: Sages at Aspen Glen, Preliminary Plan Application
Response to Refenal Comments
This memo presdnts my responses, as the Applicant's engineer, to refenal
comments received earlier this week. The intent here is to make a quick
response that can be incorporated into your staff report prior to today's packet'deadline. \Mrile some matters may take some additionalcoordination time with
the refenal agencies, I believe allitems can be addressed in a relatively short
timeframe if they are not resolved here.
Mountain Cross Enoineerino (MCH November 29.2010 Letter
Review engineer Chris Hale, applicant Gerd Zeller and t had a productive
meeting this morning. This memo willsummarize our discussions and proposed
courses of action. Chris is copied and asked to identiff any exeptions.
Responses to the enumerated items in the lefter are:
1. The concem here is the current level of background trafftc on GR 109 rnay
be hQher than the assumptions in the original Preliminary Plan report.
SGM and MCE agree that interior Aspen Glen traffic will be less due to the
decreased number of lots. SGM is to research available CR 109 traffic
info and provide a report on triggers for left and right tum lanes and
intersection function for Chris' review. Based on personalobservations, it
is my opinion that CR 109 improvements are nowhere near being
wananted. Wrile this is a valuable piece of info for Garfield County, I do
not believe any CR 109 improvements neaessitated by badqground traffic
should be the responsibility of this project. Additionally, I believe the
TO:
master developer fulfilled their obligations with the CR109 reconstruction
in the mid-1990's.
2. SGM willtransmit boring locations to MCE. The originalpreliminary plan
soils report was comprehensive and included the Sages parcel. lt is
sufiicient for this application. As noted in the application text and on the
plans, SGM has mandated additionalgeotech work prior to Final Plat for
foundation design, verification of road structural section and to define any
other site-specifi c @n@ms
3. The letterwas induded to show fte DOW had no speciftc conoems on the
Sages parcel. We would expect the DOWto comment on this application
if there ate any wildlife con@ms.4. I/VLater service to the Sages parcel was contemplated from the earliest
stages of Aspen Glen. Discussion with RFWSD engineers indicate that
ample water is available and a water supply/master plan update was
submitted to Garfield County forthe rcent'Caftle Creek Crossing"
development. The originalplan was completed and approved by Garfield
County and the DMsion of \A/hter Resouices in the mid-1990's. The
RFI rSD is required to submit accounting forms to the locat D\A/R office to
ensure compliane with the plan. The Sages is one small part of Aspen
Glen whicft is but one development in the District's service area. As such,
lbelieve the RF\AISD preferc the one time "plan on file' route ratherthan
detailed responses to each future subdivision application. The District has
indicated they willassist as needed in this application
5. ln accodance with the Aspen Glen Drainage Master Plan approved in
1993, detention and attenuation of peak florvs is provlded by downsffeam
srales and ponds consfruded for the overall development.
6. This 18" culvert was not contemplated in the original Drainage Master
Plan but was added as part of the CR 1Og construction. The ditcfi was
supposed to be graded to flow to the 30" cmp to the NW. My intentwas
to abandon the culvert, and force the flovrrs to the 30'and not have to deal
with these flows on Lot S10. As County Road & Bridge opposes the
abandonment, SGM wiltrevise the onsite drainage plan as discussed this
moming to safely handle the flows.
7. The road geometry was developed based on input by the Carbondab &
Rural Firc Frotection District and is in conformance with their interpretation
of the fire code. They have issued a refenal letter approving the plans.
8. See above response and note outer radius exceeds 45'. We vieur this as
a tumaround as opposed to a tocal road and would not apply the 40'
oenterline radius criteria.
9. The seurer grade is governed by the existing manhole invert elevation and
site onstraints. However, it eioeeds the 0.4oi gpical min. slope for 8"
lines. The RFI /SD willmaintain as necessary.
10.This is another site constraint. The water services are continuous and
have no joints. As such, the Disfic't can approve and comply with state
regs. SGM will incorporate any specialconstruction details the District
wants.
11. SGM will revise water service tocation and issue revised ptan.
12.As discussed, the design minimizes manholes and willstay. The District
requires that no large trbes and minimal landscaping be installed overthe
sewer.
13. Formal easement will be executed prior to Final Plat. Aspen Glen golf has
verbally agreed to the easernent
14. Extraneous labe! will be removed.
15. For clarity, plat omits graphic display of blanket easemenb as noted in the
"Easement Statemenf on the @versheet 1 of 3.
Please call me to discuss any of these items.
---DMK---.----.-
l'it L'*,,t tt 5",t'ntt,;,'k t"irOr
SClLr i i:'rrnrr Rrririi i51
(..iI*ri*ur:J $prings, (..t
ilir.-rne : t) j(L 1)-{ i- 7c115' XH,iiHJj-fil1o*,i*,i*
December 3,2010
Zellq Constuction
Attn: Gerd Znllq
P.O. Box 37
Aspen, Colorado 81612
JobNo. 11O406A
Srrbjecil Response to Colorado Geological.Survey Review and Geologic HawdSum}ary for PreliminaryPIan, The Sages at Aspen Glen, nid Eagle Way
and CountyRoad 109, Garfield Counf, Colorado
DearMr. Z*llg;:
As reryeted, we are providing response to the cobrado Gmlogical s,rvey (cGS)
review dated Noveub et 24,2010 of the proposed development. A representative 0f
Hepworth-Pawlak Gotechnical, Inc. observed the subject site on Decembs 2, 201O. 6111
respolse to the CGS oomments and recornmendations for thspreliminaryptan design are
presated in this report and were conducted according to our agreement forprofssi,onal
services with Zeller Coustnrction dated Decemb q 2, 2010.
Previous Studies: Ttre Sages at Aspen Glen development site is located within the area
originally evaluatd as Part ofthe Aspen Glm Development by Chen-Northern (1991 and
1993) and Hrmtingdon (1993). The fiadings ofthose .trai* have been incorpor*ed imo
ourfrrdings
sihDevelopment ra lotg,7 single familyand 3 duplex, and anaccess sfeet are
pttoposed- Grading forthe infrastructure oonstruction *itt typiraUybe minor. Retaining
walls up to about 9 feet high will be built in the northern purt t" the west oflots 4though 7. The existing wthsr berm along Coutry Road 109 will not be disturbed in the
county right-of-way but wll be excavated on the projwt site ftr the retaining walls arid
potentially the individuat buildings. Offsite drainagertom gphill of County n rO f Og
flows onto the south end oftheprojoct sita
Geologic Concerus: The primary geologo conditions that could potentially impact theprojffi site onsist of l) sinkholes related to Eqgle Valley Evaporitq 2) w*asensitive
soilsthat could causeseHleurent related dishess of structures, and 3) debris flows orfloods caused by thuderstorm tunofffrom the nearby valle,y side. These cong€(ns were
addressed by cGS as 9 cornments in their review report. our findinp and
reoorrrtnendations to address theseomments are presented below.
HEFWORTH . PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
Farker 'i0"3-84f i1 l9 e Colorado Sprirrgs 71g.6.33-5562 . S[li,errh,rrne ,,,70-46$-.l g.-tg
Zeller Consfruction
Decembs 3,2AlA
Page2
FiodhgF and Recommcndations: Our findings arepresented to address CGS oomrents
in the order given by them. We re currently in the prccess ofconducting a geotechnical
engineering study including subsurftce exploration 6r grormdwata conditions, retainiqg
wall desig4 pavemelrt sdions and preliminary foundation dsigp that will be appropriate
frr the final plan desiga
. l) In our opinion, the p,roposeit land use and gradiqg plans are in oon$rmance with
the recorrrmendatbns by Chen-Northern (1991 d lgg3).
2) The pieomet&i-installed by Chen-Northern (199!l) frr grolndr#ater level
monitoriqg wene located in areas close to the Roariag Fork River md the projeet
site is not knovmto be irnpacted by shallow groundwata.
3) Thrc project site is not knovm to be impacteil by sinktoles or depressed areas but is
uderlain by Eagle Valley Evqorite that is known to be assooiated with sinkhole
dwelopment. In our opinioq the risk of firture sinlfute at the
project site throughort the service life ofthe frcitities is bw and mitigation is not
warratre,4 bts the homeownans should be made awae ofthe rislc The uro'ect site
is ilryacfed bypotentiral debris flows or floods that are desc6ed inthe fr[owiqg
rtem4.
4) The ocisting earthen berm along Cormfy Road 109 is an eftctive debris flow
mitigation strucfire &r most ofthe dwelopment The bsm terndnates noct to
Bafr Eagle Way and the south md oftle derrelopaned is exposed to dcbris flows
eoal-floods. The berm shouH be extemded aound tte oomer and doum aloqg Bald
Eagte IVay to the east md ofbuilding mvebpe on t ot l0 with a rnirrimrm heigh
of 3 &Et As an alterndivg a debris flow or flood impact $a[ couffi be buift. The
berm aloqg coufy Road I09 should maiDtaia a minimum heigh of 4 feet
measrned ftom the roadside ditch invert.
5) The retaining walls along the west side ofthe project site will rnaioty sulpott the
earthen berm and theh oonstruction is not erpected to rmdennine the road rigtt-. of-way. Ibe site specific conditions ofthe beadng soils and excaration cut &m
should be defermind by the gpotechnical Fgrreer at the rime of construcfiolr
Q Ciroundwater is not expedod to be shallow in this area and shoutd not advmely
impact buried utilities brtr seasonal perclrd wder could dwebped- Bebw gradrc
structmes sucih as retaining walls and basements shouH be protected ftom
seasonal groundwater by underrthains tlpical sfrhis t5pe ofonsfuuction
7) Alluvial fan soils ovu the project site and are t5pically known b be moistgre
se,nsitive. Positive urfrce grading around the bufldiqgs, propwbackfill
compaction and limiterl irrigation are reconmmded to reducepotential snrface
waterinfiltratioa
8) A gotechnical shrdy shoutd be oonducted at the individuat lots for sit+specific
desigr recommendations frr foundation, sadrng and drainagedeigns. The
JohNo. tlO406A
eeeecn
Zeller Construction
December 3,2}rc
Page 3
geoteclurical study cu:rently being performed tvill provided genaal subsurface
oonditions and preliminary desrgnrecommendations to be included in the final
ptan design.
9) 39 findings ofour review and the frfficeming geoteckrical study report should
be provided to the prospective hornebuyos.
If you have any questions or ueed further assistmcg please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH _ PAWLAK GEOTECHMCAL, INC.
5*6--* fuA
Stevqr L. Pawlat p.E.
Rev. by
SLP/ksw
-Attn:David M. Kota PE
Attacbment CGS Rwieiw Letter dirfd Novemb et 24, ZCfI
References:
clren-Northun, 1991, Preliminary Geotrchnical Engineering study, proposedAspen
GlenDevelopment along the Roaring ForkRiuer between Gtenyood Spiigs and
carbondale, Gtrfiea county, colorado, ddd Deceurb e,r 20, l99l,Job No. 4 ll2
92.
chen-Northern, 1993, Geouchnical Engineering sudyft preliminary plat Design,
PrwsedAsnen GlenDevelopment, Gafietd cotmty; colorado, dld,d.\iay 2s,
1993, Job No.4ltT92.
Hnntingdon, 1993.Debris Ftaw Hazard Mitigatbn Studyfor pretiminary plat Design
ProposedAspen GlenDeveloprnent, Gfffrctd cotmty, colorado, dated Rugust to,
1993, Jbb No.4 I t292.
eeFtecrr
JobNo. lt04064
tnffreazs I Date 111/01t2o10
PUBLIC NOTICE
IAI(E IVOIICE thal Gcrd Zeltor has applied lo lhe
Planning Commisslon, Garlield County, Stale ol
Colorado, lo r€qussl a r€cornmerdation ol approv-
al for a Subdivigion Preliminary Plan ,or a
l.213.eileoaftel located whhln lhe Asoen Glen
PUD adFceil lo County Road log in the County of
caill€ld $ats ol Colorido; towh:
LeoelDescilpton: A ttacl ol land situate in
Sealion 13. TowNhlp 7 Soulh. Rlnce 88 WeBl ol
lhe Gth Principal Meiidian beirg moie padhulady
descn!€d rs follow8:
Beginning at a polnt on lhe €a6lerly dghl ol way
line of Couolv Hoad 109 and lhe w3sl llno ol znd
Amended Plbl ol Goll Courao Parcal 9, Asp6n
Olen, Fillno No, 1, Counly ol Grrrield, Stal€ of
Colorado wlence the W !6 corner ol Section 20,
Townahlo 7 Soulh. Bano6 88 Wesl ol lhe 6lh
Princioal'Meridian b€a13S57o23bl' E 51 94.20
leot; tlierrce alom lhe uesil llne of sald Goll Course
Pa.cal 0 thc totlowlno courses: N 79'46'03' E,
87.38 t6ot; lhence, S29"2S'03'E, 808,37 leeli
lh6nce. S 74"11'52'E, 10,61 feel; lhonoc, S
29"23'03'E, 440.20 toel: thence, S 53'15'43' E,
36.29 ,oeti thence, S 14034'33' E, 84.70 l.el; lect
lo tho north riohl of wav lins ol Golden Bear Ddve
as chown onllal of Aspen Glen, Flllno No. 6,
Counly olGadbH, Stab dl Colorado;
lhEnca slono said norlh doht ol wav line the
followho cou6es: thence 16.51 leel aloirg ihe arc
ol a 8111.80 leel radius non tanoonl oulva lo the
lell, having a central anclc ol 3'12'05'and
subtending i chord bearingt 75'32'33' W 45.50
leou lhence 29.ff| leet ilong lhe rrc ol a 1 99.75
feel radiug curve lo lhe rlghl, havlng e centrel
ade ol E l9'39'and lublonding a cllord b.adngI 7?06'20'W 20.01 feel: lhenc€ S 82't0'09'W
45.30 r€at lh.nce 61.711 feel along the arc of a
200.25 leel radlus curve to lhe leit, havlng a
osntral anglo ot l7"tl0'47' and 6ublendh0 a chord
bearlno 373'26'16'W 81.49 IsEt: lh€ncs 55.09
feet ald'no lhe arc of a 833.67 lo€l raditls ctrvs lo
lha lett. f,evlno a conlrel anol€ ol 3c47'l l' and
subtending a cf,ord bsa.lng 962'4247'w 55.08
leet lhoncb 30.,O feet aloog thr arc ol a 47.50 leet
radius crve lo the rhht. ha-vino a cenlralanols ol
46"19'29' and su5lehdlng-a chord beirlng
S 83'5$56'W 37.37 foet lo tho ea6t rlshl o, wai
line ol Counly Road 109: thsnos, ahns gald east
lloht ol wav line the followlno courgesilh€nc6. N
2E 02'45'W. 166.98 fael: thdnoe, N 20od1'20'W,
t I .95 le€t; lhenc. 5.t5.7e lccl along lhe arc o, a
1635.67|a€t radlus ncfl taruont curu'e lo tho ri0ht,
havino a cenlral anol6 ol 1 0"0706'and eublehd-
hE ct-ord bearlno N l6c0d57 W 543.26 lE€r:
rh6nc€, N 063y24' w, 135.tt4 feoB ro the pohr ol
beghnlng. County d Gafiold, Slat€ ol Cdohdo
Praclicd Dascdolion'. 4-24 rc/|e ptcpJedy located
al the norlhasi com€r o, Counlt Road 109 and
GoldEn Bear Driw ln the A6o€n Glen S(bdlvhlon
in GadleH Cornty.
Descrlailon ol Re(,uest- Applicent rsquast3 lo
bulld ireven sinole-lamilv homes arid lhree
duplerca lor lohl-ol 13 uniti on l0 btg wlltJn the
Time 11012s AM
pnipose development ar6a.
All Del3ons allecled bv th€ Drooosed subdivblon
ari lnvltad to appedr anit slate lhstr views,prol.sts or supporl. ll you can nol appear
perconaly al such hearing, then you are urgsd to
slate your viows by lelter, a3 the P16nnlng
Comnflssion will oive cohslds?atlon to lha
commonls of surroindlno DroDerlv ownors. and
othsrs afrect€d, ln decldln's whether to grant or
dony lhc reEuesl. The appllcatlon ,nay be
rcvl.i\red at thb olrlce or lhe Phnniru Depanmeil
localed at 1 08 6lh Slr€el, Suite 401. Garlleld
County Plaza Building, Glenwood Sprangs.
Colorado betfl€en the hoirre ol 8:30 a.m. and 5:o0
p. m., Mondry thtough Fdday.
A Plannlno Gommlrrlon Publlc Hcrrlng on thc
apolbetlon hrr bcrn rohodul.d lor tho Oth davol'Drcrmbrr, 2OlO. rr 8:30 P.f,. ln lh6
Comrnisslon Meetlng Boon, Gartleld Couniy
Adminislralion Buildinq. 108 8lh Street, Glenf,ooal
sprirge' colorado' -
phnnlno Deparrmeril
Garrleld corrnly
Publistred in lhE Crll'zan lelegram on Noue.nhar .1,
2010. lsz4629l
Ad shown ls not actual printsize
tron, Nov 01, 2010
5774629
1004320
(970)963-6363
Eric J. Gross
Ad Ticket #5
Name: \Mritsitt & Gross
AddfeSS. 320 Main ST#200
CitY: Garbondale
State: CO
10:24:59
Acct:
Phone:
E-Mail:
Glient:
Caller:
_Receipt Zip:'81623
Ad Name:
Editions:
Start:
Color:
Gopyline:
57746294
8CT'8PIN'
11t04110
5774629 rct 10.8.10 Zeller PC
Orlglnal ld: 0
Glass: 0990
Stop: tI|OU1A
lssue {
Rep: AT Legals
rua*9ill$EL*.*h6.tEB{d.tnd
l9ra6rkM..'45'4,.
E-arMsrh.r.b. r
h'd"&
:xr$#..hehM.
?HOryE
d..Mud..aJrM d'hq0]# rElrEr.t
nsaH.rrffisd'
ffi.HdrrnMffivrrafthBbat.sd
--bd----ffifil#{''*,*
i|lt't*ilht.r'Lslh,
Ad shown is not actual print size
Lines: 95
Depth: 7.93
Columns: 1
Discount: 0.00
Commission: 0.00
Net: 0.00
Tax: o.oo
Total 6S.07
Payment 0.00
i
il.
t,lr
?)1q- tft+- a€- 003
1!
t:ii
73qS-LL+t-iF- rrot
l:l!. !iIl
i!.i!
i!i:
1i
::.:
7-Tq5- )*l;i, W- 0q
.t'
iit:
if
iiitlrlr
r!r!
Ltt)2q,5- t4l,r 05- 0lO
iiLnr- 1+l; W- otl
i:,1l.li
t!i;ii31q- e4lii W- 0t1
3a* tati 08 - ouq
oPn,1.?+n Vr*l' lfl!li
li
? fu.t a Auu htA'*s
055 5yn 7-ru15e Wt"1
knrbandafu Co Slbo'l
&arcy M Luu'a\t an 1r, Tnrsl
lsr ftonlf,^ 6d,^Lwnq?
brrm;*^ t^A1 '+goq
55 Li awx . U-U
J0 hoY bsd
1"wr,"at y1t h ?(ttt{
vl
pud,.r frwi\ l;w;kd \'r4wneVP * I
fua"lo1h fudlreiv ?arfl'urswV ,,/51* ftinulu We'l
boca p-t"*an trL svWQ
4Y, L&
l4oZ flu<.br,Wf br,
Gb^rood'h4s L0 Elool
*+n*qon and Bl^on da Lt ryh- l\Aarrdgt "t*Trwsf-6?ol De( 7t{oa^fr- w Jttawsft.n, T-F T?o€b
t/zbqq - lb,4- e5-64
irt:
t:lit!lr
1j
t:ltl:23q5' t14- OC -O0gli
\/
lb*onuu,*'t Assq.io.hir, k Y^fk wtYrse, 6wVo^1
P0 6oy 7tzo1
t-L'tt*.. $c^) <?n^aa-- l?n-1^
I
:'
L7q5- t4l-6 S- Irt
.:
i:
:,
ir
::
1;
3qv-nz- 60 -38("ti!i
t:
ir
Ir
GoW(wwifurrr,l
,l,1q la i
Ir
iq7- lq-gp -lbs
11
1i
;:
,i
I
i'
:i
,
..,'
:'
;;
:i
l
i
;
..
:,
:'
..
?, f + I LLL a,'d klnfi WdL,e; w D"l**"'p
57vg frin,,4u Wa^f
Tlrx-a Fatzn, FL v7+1b
fry 6ten 6ot{ Clv"b Wryt ^,# Ca,,P ".1IO'fuf lqogvo v \/ r
SanAn toni6 , I[ 7o711
f1fitnGhn Go\ hw'PaaI ,/TkWlwxbry^t
10 bo(- z\1ol I
*rt+onlkr*l t Sc 2q1L{-lbok
bll0L
*nt$ffi
5OEE EEOE TEOII OEBO
i
I
i
fi
E
H
F
fit'
E
E
&
!o
r\.t!m
r
!O
!o
m
trl
EI
trt
trt
ruro
trt
E!trttrlt\
$
t.l
h00e
nroFm
rro
!o
m
rt
E3
trttrl
trt
ruro
trt
r
trt
trtF
lE
cII
x
II
\sV)5rr
K
sA
t^J.+
ff$r
ff*fTI
rt
tI
B.
I
T
T{
I!I!
t
E
T
E
I
tr
I
$
tr
sl
i{
r
VC
E
B,(
\)$
6r
!:
So
,t'
AE,
Iffif,8rEI!E
EEEtgI
t*E
8EE
I
I
"l
ff
f;E
51
5H
I
,r,
s
I
T
ili
t!
,$$$
ff $
hhrE tgEE tE[0 EagE hEEe
,l*I
!,l"fI
I
d
i?tg
I
,!
I
':El
mlrulF-l'lrllosm
d.
trl-
trt
tr!.
trtru!O
trl
rtrtctlr'
..,I
it
61 .
t
E
T
t
E
,$
EI$
EEE
3EE
fi,Es
lr
bE0tbPEE [0EE Ee90
ea
&
I
T
T+
0
fi
l
I
I
+
I
I
T
t
I
tr
x
l
tr
,t
$
Y)
a.L
+0
t
tr
$t.
t,EII
filglE
EE
ar lE!Er
EE
I
ng
I
$
If
E
$
I
l
E
E'
r
f,
BI
E
PC
h00e
I{
I
TEll'i[[ iI
{hI.E bEEE IEIItl EE
-,li
ill
Elli
ils
$lE
Ttg
U
t
tr
E
'Ie
I
E
I
t!
H
F
rntml-rlml
'CIdtFn-
trtFtrltrl
EI€trltrl
E!trlar\-
c
f,
I
I{
$
T
rE
iI
6l
c
f,
r
I
I
rtt
,
tr
I
I
$II
g
t
?€
$$
:.
FMiI
I
I!
i[u
Etrtr
ilritl'trtr
k$-
N
F\NNl3
E-( s
$$$
G L** ..i
i$r stf,L<pS:{s Fr
f;
f,E'
E
Et
U
$
-t
T
d
T
tr
!
I
,!
rl
$isoon
nlt
ol
,
tr
I
Tt
I
I
d
IIETE h9EE T EOB TEOE
ffiff
IIOE tI
tt
l
:f
I
n
!T
$,5HgEE
$
$
E
iII
I
r
C
I
x
trlmFm
r€ro
m
}{
ITtrltrl
trtru
rO
trt
rtrl
EIF
rt
I
fi
E
H;
E
#J
o(9
E
8,
-l
r\lml
rlloltol
'"li{lrrlEfltrtl
olruloltrrl
olEIIIfI
"ll
$f
II
iE3'l
I
hBBE tnE0 [lE0tl b0Ee
*" $,$IE r:[ E;.T ? F.E.{E;EET.
#tr8tE
It.f;ilE* r
S.;HHE tsnEqEEsFEEFFEf # 5;.il8Iq BTET
$I,F{HE g-
III
c
Is
I
I{
I
I
T
r
EB
trtr
r!
In
trtr
n
$
tr
.I
,*I
n{
c,
,
tr
ilI
I
.t
to
Eg
!F
6
b
cF
.E
Dl
,g
,ts
f;t
I
FI,!Fm
rF
!o
,toim
itcItrtItrIirrlolruIG
Itrt
E'rtrtItrt,F
rO
trt
rO
m
E'!O
rE
m
Htrt
trt
trt
trl.lll
rlgtrt
inIE'trtrF
ruFt\m
F
tOGm
r{ctdtrt
E
ru
rO
EtrtrltrtF
Fod0.
o]ffidF..
rfrmR.a5lh.
Grrdor.m.d Rt{$l(l)
Il.tlddO.5ilrF.a(E*'ililrR.qt*.d)
frlFfrprh.
Fote.
Att dF..
nfiItlfauFr!Eneilmrir{O.O
ndfrD.fr.il7..Gr$turt*htilro
Illlhlerf hr
H$
hHRL
hnlh.-lh.lFr'earrinr{h0
fu.tuoaluvh.(IidsffnlfiSifi4
til!fr.rtl..
6o>( Ztaol
PUBLIC NOTICE
TAKE NOTICE that Gerd Zeller has applied to the Planning Commission, Garfield Courty,
State of Colorado, to request a recommendation of approval for a Subdivision Preliminary Plan
for a 4.243-acre parcel located within the Aspen Glen PLID adjacent to Cowrty Road 109 in the
County of Garfield, State of Colorado; to-wit:
Legal Description: A tact of land situate in Section 13, Township 7 South, Range 89 West of
the 6u Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the easterly right of way line of County Road 109 and the west line of 2nd
Amended Plat of Golf Course Parcel 9, Aspen Glerl Filing No. 1, County of Garfield, State of
Colorado whence the W l/+ corner of Section 20, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the 6'
Principal Meridian bears S 57"23'0t" E 5194.26 feet; thence along the west line of said Golf
Course Parcel9 the following courses: N 79o46'03" E, 87.38 feet; thence,S29"23'03" E, 308.37
feet; thence, S 74ol l'52" 8,10.61 feet; thence, S 29"23'03'8,440.20 feet; thence, S 53o16'43'
8,36.29 feet; thence, S 14"34'35" E, 84.79 feet; feet to the norttr right of way line of Golden
Bear Drive as shown on plat of Aspen Glen, Filing No. 6, County of Garfield, State of Colorado;
thence along said north right of way line the following courses: thence 45.51 feet along the arc of
a 814.50 feet radius non tangent curve to the left, having a central angle of 3ol2'05" and
subtending a chord bearing S 75o32'33" W 45.50 feet; thence 29.03 feet along the arc of a
199.75 feet radius curve to the right, having a central angle of 8ol9'39" and subtending a chord
beming S 78"06'20" W 29.01 feet; thence S 82"16'09" W, 45.30 feet: thence 61.73 feet along
the arc of a 200.25 feet radius cunre to the left, having a central angle of 17"39'4'1" and
subtending a chord bearing S 73"26'16' W 61.49 feet: thence 55.09 feet along the arc of a
833.67 feet radius curve to the left, having a central angle of 3"47'll" and subtending a chord
bearing S 62"42'47" W 55.08 foet; thence 38.40 feet along the arc of a 47.50 feet radius curve to
the rigtrt, having a cenhal angle of 46"19'29" and subtending a chord bearing S 83o58'56" W
37 .37 fent to the east right of way line of County Road 109; thence, along said east right of way
line the following courses: thence, N 29"02'45" W, 166.98 feet: thence, N 20o41'20'W', 11.95
feet; thence 545.79 feet along the arc of a 1635.67 feet radius non tangent cune to the right,
having a cenhal angle of 19"07'06" and subtending chord bearing N 16"06'57" W 543.26 feet;
thence, N 06'33'24' W, 135.34 fee[ to the point of beginning. County of Garfield, State of
Colorado
hactical Description: 4.?A acre property locatod at the northeast corner of Cowrty Road 109 and
Golden Bear Drive inthe Aspen Glen Subdivision in Garfield Corrrty.
Description of Requesl Applicant rcquests to build seven single-family homes and three
duplexes for total of 13 units on l0 lots within the propose development area.
All persons affected by the proposed subdivision are invited to appear and state their views,
protests or support. Ifyou can not appear personally at such hearing, then you are urged to state
your views by letter, as the Planning Commission will give consideration to the comments of
surrounding property owners, and others affected, in deciding whether to grant or deny the
request. The application may be reviewed at the office of the Planning Department located at
108 8th Steet, Suite 401, Garfield County Plaza Building, Glenwood Springs, Colorado between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
A Planning Commission Public Hearing on the application has been scheduled for the 8n
day of l)ecember, 2010, at 6:30 P.M. in the Commission Meeting Room, Garfield County
Administation Building, 108 8th Sfreet, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Planning Department
Garfield County
:$.i#W#&;r
:, i?,
i:,,i.r't
t:),1;,',
,,2
+tt,#
:1t.,. :qi
ot,{J:1:tr$.
o
(}iJlall6I
I
i
i
I,ud,$n
N\ L6 -V
lo G,l{
/"t '^
1^h*
c-+rtl
G Ie,,.]
c(oqe
P++E
(;) ast 3.4 e,
o,hA,. .-
N). ral[r.€-tEAr
1c,ouAlU aA.
)
(^>e,e+
o+)
3'&e-S",*tk -r*)
co \^ ^{l \a.q,