HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 CorrespondenceIbrorrv E.lVmrsrrr
w hitsitl@r oaingfurhl ou. cotn
Wnrrsrrr Gr Gnossl p.c.
LAWYERS
320 M.lrN SrnuotSulrp 200
Cengouoar,n, Coloneoo I 1623
Ter.Bpnor,rE: (970) 963-6863
Frcsrutrt' (970) 96&8667
Enrc J. Gnoss*
qjg@aringfothlautam
rAlo odaltlcd ln llaeachn*lle
Garfield Courty Building and Planning Departnent
108 Eighft Steet Suire 401
Glenwood Spriner CO. 81601
Atteutioa: Kathy Eastley AICP
Re: The Sages at Aspen Glen Preliminsry PIan Applicatioa Hearing S€ptemb€r
19.2011
Certification of Compliance with C.R.S .24-65.5-lE3Notice Requirements to
Mineral Estntc Owners
This letter is to conliru that we have conducted a seach ofthe publio records of
the Cle* & Recorder and the Office ofthe Assessor of Garfield County Colorado
ptrsuail to the require,ments s€t forth h C.RS. 24-65.5-103.
The rccords of the Clerk and Recorder did not contain the idotity of any miueral estate
owrers ai described in the statut€ up to Friday August 5, 2011; and
The records of the Assessor did not contain the identity of any mineral estate olvnqrs as
described iu ttre statute up to Friday August 5, 201l; and
The rceords did not contain any Request forNotificatioa Foms filed with tho Clerft and
r€cordar pursuant to 24.655-103 (IIDO) as of Friday August 5, 2011.
Thaakyou
Sincereln \%
Whitsitt & GrossP.C.
By: Erio J. Gross
cc: Gord Z*ller
Tnrmsr E. Ilmtsrrr
whltsttt@tr.fingfuHazoorrlr-
Enrc rL Gnoess
q{g{lroartn€fothlarucofi
tA la d nl td tn Nal,mcirrllr...*
UInrrsrrt s GRoss,
+
LAWTENS
820 MawSmurtSunu 200
Canuolofi.u, Corcnaoo 81628
Ih,rmoxs (9?0) 968-6868
Freenilr.B (9?0) 963-6667
Aonmmrs C. Rowrrnny
arvubern{irwtng@hnxlmt
.IEArstE Heureprr&gat
jtqpecmdtqffilomoaa
Garfield County Building and Planning Departnent
108 Eighth Sheet Suite 401 .
Glenwood Spriap CO. 81601
Attention: Kathy Eastley AICP
Re: fire Sage at A$pen Gl€n Bpliminary Plan ApplicationEearing Decembqr 8.
2010
certification of compliance with c.RS. 24-6s.s-l0SNotice Requirments to
MineralBstate Owners
This letter is to confirm that we have conducted a seffich on November 5. 2010 of
the public records of thc Clerk & Record€r and the Office of the Assessor of Grfield
county colorado pursuant to the requireureots set forth in cR.s. 24-6s.s-103.
Ihe records of the Clerk and Recorder do not contain the identify mymheral estate
orynerc as describedin the statute; and
The records of the Assessor do not contain tlre identis any mineral estate onarers as
described in tho statute; and
The records did not contain any Request for Notification Forms filed rvith the Cleft and
recorder pursuant to 24-65.5- 103 (IID&).
Thankyou.
Sincerely,
lYhitsitt & Gross P.C.
By EricJ. Gmss
cc: Gerd ?.;ller
Information Map
NGS
1*5'4,t14
ffii,li
I
i
I
I
!'."-
Page 3 of 3
r
,l
J
@,0rta ,)*r'//
\
s//#eRtNc
.NA ./2,
tglff,,,,,t r.rtlttE?
N
\\hr* BE
al95-tEn-00-368
Onval Flt
$
$
B
$
2898-t 9t -00-865
FAIRWAYS AT ASPEN GTEN
MOUNTAIN EROSS
ENGINEERING, INE.
Crvtr lxo ExvrnoxutNmr Coxsulrtxc lxo Dtsrcx
November 29,2010
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfie.ld County Planning
108 8th Sheet, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Review of Segec et Aepen Glen Applicetion: SPPA6479
Dear lkthy:
This office has perfonned a review of the documents provided for the Sages at Aspen Glen
Subdivision Preliminary Plan Application. The submittal was found to be thorough and well
organized. The following questions, concerls, or comments were generated:
l. The haffic analysis that is referred to is the original haffrc report for the Aspen Glen
development n 1992. The Applicant asserts that the actual fiafIic that has been or will be
generated is less than the report anticipates and therefore there will be no significant impacts.
This may be the case for the interior traffic generated. However the assumptions in the
traffic report concerning the background haffic, particularly on CR 109, should be verified
and the traffic report updated as necessary.
2. The soils report was for the Aspen Glen development and was generated in 1993. No
information is included to show where the borings were performed and it is difficult to
determine if this original report is applicable to the Sages. The applicability of the soils
report should be determined and updated as necessary
3. The applicability of the Division of Wildlife letter, concerning Aspen Glen, that was included
should be determined for the Sages and updatcd as necessary.
The '\nrill setry'e" letter for sewer and water does not address the requirements to deterrnine an
adequate water supply per Section 7-lO5.C of the Garfield County regulations, The
Applicant proposes to use the altenrative as discussed in Section 7-105.C (7). Please veriry
that the water supply plan is on file and meets with the criteria of that section.
The "Drainage" section of the Engineering Report shows that the Sages will tie into a
conveyance system designed to accommodate project flows, will avoid direct discharges, and
will prwide adequate water $allty. The report is silent about how the Applicant proposes to
address the deteution required in Section 7-207.C.
The "Drainage' section of the Engineering Report says no off-site areas are hibutary to the
Sages but the &a;inage plan shows a culvert directing flows from the west beneath CR 109
onto the southwest coflrer of the Sages. Sheet Cl calls for both ends of this culvert to be
plugged. The Applicant should discuss this in greater detail.
5261/2 Grand Avenue . Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PHz 97O,945.5544 o FAX: 970.945.5558 o www,mountaincross.erg.com
5.
Jages at Aspen Glen
Page2 of2
November 29,2010
7 - The Sages proposes a dead-end with no turnaround and with no apparent connection of right-
of-way intended for the futue per Section 7-307.A.7.c. The Applicant should addre.ss the
termination of Allison Road.
8. The tumaround radius is listed in the curve table as 32.83'. This radius is less than typical
minimum standards. The Applicant should address this radius.
9. The sewer line slope is designed as very flat, less than0.6%. With relatively low volumes of
flow from few residences the velocities will not be very high and solids will likely settle.
The approval of he RFSWD will be required.
10. The sewer line is shown at a depth that is shallower than the water line. This will require that
the water services be less than the minimum bury of 5.5' or that they will be below the
sanitary sewer line. Either case will require special construotion practices. The Applicant
should address how these utility crossings will be constnrcted.
11. The water service to Lot 4 appears to conflict with the proposed manhole.
12. The sewer main flows outside of the proposed roadway prism of Allison Road. Although it
stays within the proposed utility easemenf, this is generally discouraged. The Applicant
should consider realigning the sewer.
13. The sewer main flows offproperty prior to connection to the main line tie-in. The Applicant
will need to provide evidence of permission and agreements with the affected owner.
14. On Sheet C5 the easement is located as a Sanitary Sewer Easement but contains shallow
utilities. The Applicant should verify the tlpe of easement.
15. The easements shown on the Preliminary Plat are not congruent with what are labeled as
easements in the constuction drawings.
Feel free to call if you have any questions or comments.
uoI,Nr4IF{#Boss pr{qp{&pB${,ql n$c.
CMI end Envlronmcntrl Conrulting end Dedgn
826 % Crnad Avcnuc, Glouwood Spdngg C0 81601
P : 970.945.5544 F: 90.945.5558 www.mornurincrocs-cng.com
Sincerely,
H
Associotion atHomeownerc Aspen Glen, Ina
Norember Z9,2O7O
Ms. Kathy Eastley
GarfieH County Buildirg and Planning Department
1OB 8th Street, Suite r()1
Ghnwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: S4es atAspen Glen Preliminary Plan
Dear Ms. Eastley,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Plan submittal fur Sages at Aspen
Glen. The Aspen Ghn Design Review Committee (DRCI and HOA Board of tlr'rectorc have been
working with Gerd Zeller for seraeral years on thr! project. The DRC ard the Board support a
dwelopment of no more that 13 dwelling units but onty achieved with singte-family dwelling
units or duplex units. The DRC and the Board have also supported a PUD Amendment to reduce
the ftont yard setback for a duplex from 25 fuet to 20 feet in the Club Viltas Resftlential zone
distrLt
The Board and the DRC have revierrved the submitted Preliminary Plan apptication and find that
the application is consistent with past support: 13 dwelling units divided betnleen 7 slngle-
family parels aM 3 duplex lots- Additionatly, the proposed text amendment accurately reflects
prarbus agreements between the lloAn DRC and Mr. Zetler: reducing the minimum front yard
setback for a duplex in ttre Club Vilhs Residential zone district ftom 25 ftet to Z0 feet.
As part of the review of the applicatba the HOA sougltrt the advice of Mr. David Kotz of
SchmueserGordon Meyer, tnc- Mr. Kotz has represented Aspen Glen in cMl engineering
rnatters. Attached is corresponderrce from Mr. Davld Xotz in which he confirmsthatthe
preliminary plans hrye been designed to adhere to, if not excee4 the Aspen Glen pUD civil
engineering standards includingthose of Garfield County.
The Aspen Glen Board of Directors does hercbysupport the Sages Preliminary plan and Text
Amendment as submitted with the following conditbns of approval:
1- A review of the Subdivision lmprovements Agreemert (StA), CC&Rs and Bylaws finds tlnse
documents to be comistent with past representations to the Aspen Gten Board of Directors
primarily in fte fact that the Sages will become a sub+ssociation of the Master Association of
Aspen Glen ard the sub-association will be responsibte for improvements and maintenance of
alt timited and General Common Elements. The SIA states that the road, Allison Way. witt be
dedicated to the Homeowners Association atAspen GleO lnc Hourever, the StAdoes not
oosoBatdtustewav #y#f,&ffiL Tel: (970) 963-ii62
:!
speciry a timeframe when the road will be dedicated. The HOA would like to suggest that the
road 's transferred when:
o all infrastructure is completed as onfirmed by the County/s release of the Pubtic
lmprorement funds related to this imprcvemeng
. allAspen Glen HOA annual assessments and DRC related ftes are current;
o a final Plat has been reorded; and
o a deed is presented transftning ownership.
2. The CC&Rs outline in Article 8 the prorisions for maintenance, landscaping and special
easement Paragraph 8.1(c| discusses drainagg inigatbn and other waterfuatures however it is
not clear whether irrigation of limited and Beneral cxrmmon elements will be achieved by
potable or non-potable water. lf Mr. Zelhr intends to use non-potable or ditch water for
irrigation purposes an agnaernent to do so will be required fmm the Aspen Glen Oub and the
Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen, lnc. as these entities own and maintain the non-
potable water infrastructure as well as the water rights.
3. The Aspen Ghn llOA Board of Directors requests that all basic infrastructure improvements
fior the Sages be completed at one time.
4. After mass grading of the site and installation of basic infrastructure is comphte, the entire
development wilt be revegetated and lrr'gated to ensure native grass grourth arroidftE ten weed
covered lots untilvertftrl development ocurs. The Aspen Ghn HOA will reguire a builde/s
@mpletion depostt, the specific amount to be determined, to ensure that proper raregetation
oocur9
S. ft is helpfutthat the application inctudes a conceptual tardscape ptan and concephral
graphics deprcting bulk and mass of a typical duplexand single-family home prodrrct. However,
consistent with the Sages draft CC&Rs, this profect will be required to comply with all Design
Guidelines, eftctive at the time of submittal, related to the exterbr desfin of the homes as well
as landscaping including ofl fencing berming and flantings. Support for this Preliminary Plan
does not negate the deign revbw process and requirementsto adhere to the Aspen Glen
Design Guidelines. lt is also erqected thatftrture denelopmem will adhere to al! zoning
requirements of the Club Villas Resident'tal zone district as amended.
5. Alt Aspen 6ten devebpment review fees will be applicabb prior to any improrements to
property occur at the sages.
7. As noted in previous referral comments, a small detention pond in the southwest corner of
the property was included in some plans. Ttris is next to the back gate and the ability to install
landscaping in this area will be important. A detention pond may notsupport landscaping of
any signiFrcance.
8- Ahhough a Wpical section has been provkled fur the retaining uall that will panlhl County
Road 1(D, the Aspen Ghn DRC will require desfin details of the retaining wall and will ereect
the improvement to be consistent with the design quality found in similar features within Aspen
Glen. The ability to add plant materbl parallel to County Road 1(R will be critical in order to
screen the back side of the two duplexes from the road and provide privacy for the residences-
NS|BaldEagleWay Cobonfule,CO 81623 Tel: (970)963-3i62 Page2of 3
Enail:llanor@sqr*m
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. lf you have arry questions or comments
rqardingthis referral please do not hesitate to contact our DRC Administrator Leslie l-amont at
963 -8434 o r I lamont@ so pris.net.
Sincerely,ltuL
Ned Collum, President
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 24,2OtA
HOA Letter February 10,2010
HOA letter November 20, 2008
A0E0 BoldEryleWay Csbondole CO E1623 Tel: (970) 963-i362 PageS of 3
Email : ll onon@opris.na
scHMuEsER i coRDON I MEYER iL)r FNrroilD li-PtNGsi
Er{GTNEERSISURVEYORS I I I WEST SrnH STRES, sulrE 2oo
GLENwooD SPRTNGS. CO a I 60 I
970.945. lOO4
g7o 945.5948 Fff
November 24,2010
Leslie:Lamont I
Aspen,Glen HOA
0080 Bald Eagle,Way
Carbondale, CO:81623
Via E-Mail: llamont@sopris.net
RE: The Sages atAsp-en Glen - Preliminary Plan Subdivision Application
Dear Leslie:
,Per our telephone conversation Iast week, this letter will document 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. As such, The Sages project presents no unique conoerns for the HOA
from an engineering perspective.
Regarding the completion of improvements, it is my understanding that the public infrastructure
,willbe constructed in its entirety and the vertical construction will occur based on market
,conditions. A Subdivision 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 hope this adequately addresses the HOA's concerns about engineering matters associated with
this development.
RESpeCtfu lly su bmitted,
SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC.
11l/;h f
David M. Kotz, P.E. \
/
C:\Documents and Settings\caudel\Local Seftings\Temporary lnternet Files\OLKDE\LLamont-PP-Referral.doc
Gi.iNNisoN
I 03 WBT ToMrcHr AvE, SurE A
GuNNrsoN,COAl23O
970.64 L5355
97A.641.5358 F x
AEP=N
I O I FoUNoERS PLACE, L,NIT I 02
PoBoxzl55
ASPEN,COBl6ll
970.s25.6727
97o.9e5.41 57 FAx
GRaND,.JrJNcTloil
2766 CoMP^ss DRIVE, surrE l02
cmND JuNcrroN, cO a l5O5
970.?45.257 I
970.245.2A7 I Ftx
MEEKER
32O THIRo STRE$
MEEKER, CO Al64l
970.A7A.5lAO
97o.e7a.4lel $x
RI]T('T]RRAL T''ORIvl
Garfietd County Building and Planning Department
108 8m Street, Suite 401, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Date Sent: November 4,2010
turn Requested: November 24,2010
945-82l2lFax:384-3470
t as referenced above. Your comments
are an important part of the evaluation process. In order to reviJw "l-:11tf:*t":J;l-c;' comments and
il|"il"r#'" ro"i'r[t" in" siiir-r6;, we request your response by wednesdav November 25th.
Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision
Phone: 970-945-8212Staff Planner: Kathy Eastley (Beastlev@earfieldcountv.com)
Applicant: Gerd Z,elter
Contact Person: Eric Gross - Whitsitt and Gross
Location: Aspen Glen PUD - along CR 109 at the rear entrance gate
iminarv Plan for subdivision o
;.Omilti;nr-mfi
:
Engineering - Mountain Cross Eng. \
I PAPER
noad & Bridee 0aper) - \
Atornev (CD)
Planning Commission \IO PAPER
VesctationManager (CD) -. \CD
Board of CormtY Commissioncrs \5 PAPER
Environmental Heslth fr&naSer (CO)-->.T\r
Planner \Papa and UL)
Tn,-nfCerhnndale \\an
XpenCmgOe \CD
Gcoloeioal SurveY (Fee) \-
Wildlife Division *O*"rtf
-J
i1li 'r'i,.; ;.i
',i..:'..
I
r:- nl-tlai - tro,.lenndale \CD and oaoer
Roaring Fork Water and San \CD
RE-l School District ' \CD Wo-n-S BFt.q6SourceGas \CD
a-
XcelEnergy \
Garfield County
BAILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
October 26,2010
Eric Gross
\ Jh'rtsitt & Gross, P.C.
320 Main Street, Suite 200
Carbondale, CO 81623
ej g @ roari ngforklaw. com
Reference: The Sages at Aspen Glen - Preliminary Plan
Garfield County File No. SPAA6479
Dear Mr. Gross;
The Building and Planning Department has reviewed the supplemential materials
submitted on October 19, 2010 and have determined that the preliminary plan
application is technicalty complete. Scheduling of the Planning Commission hearing
has been set for December 8, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
As a matter of process, the Planning Commissions shall hold an advertised public
hearing on the proposed action at a regularly scheduled meeting. The Applicant shall
be solely responsibte for the publication, property posting, and mailing of al! notices.
The ULUR noticing requirements must be met
1. Notice by Publication. At least thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) calendar
days prior to the date of a scheduled public hearing before the Planning
Commission, and at least thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) calendar days
prior to the date of a scheduled public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant shall have published a notice of public hearing in a
ne\ rspaper of general circulation in the area that the proposed land use chanle
is located. Publication of said notice shall follow a form prescribed by the
Gounty.
Publication is required in the Rifle Citizen Telegram, a weekly newspaper. In
order to meet the minimum 30-day notice the notice must be published.. on
November 4m. Deadline for notice to occur on that date is Friday, October 29m at
noon.
2. ilotice b Adjacent Property Grneru. Except for text amendments to the
provisions of this Resolution and existing Planned Unit Developments, at least
thirty (30) and not more than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the date of a
scheduled public hearing, the applicant shall send by certified mail or by a
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 " Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
(970) 945-8212 " (970) 285-7972, Filc: (970) 384-3470
nationally recognized overnight courier, return receipt requested, a written notice
of the public hearing to the owners of record, as shown in the office of the County
Clerk and Recorder or Assessor at least 30 days prior to sending notice, of all
adjacent property within a 200' radius. Within the same time period wriften notice
shall be provided to owners of mineral in interests in the property (other than
construction materials as defined in Section 3+32.5-10 CRS, as amended) in
accordance with Section 24€5.5-101, et seq., CRS, as amended. (Reso 2009 -
53)
3. Posting of Notice. Exept for text amendments to the provisions of this
Resolution and existing Planned Unit Developments, at least thirty (30) and not
more than sixty (60) calendar days prior to the date of a scheduled public hearing
the applicant shall post a notice of the public hearing on the property. Such
notice shall consist of at least one sign facing each adjacent road right-of-way,
and located so as to be fully visible from the road right-of-way generally used by
the public. Such signs shall be provided to the applicant by the Planning
Department. (Reso 2009 - 53)
4. The notice shal! include the property's legal description, a short nanative
describing the cunent zoning and proposed land use change, and an announement
of the date, time and location of the scheduled hearing, nafftes sf the ovyners of the
property and thei r desig nated rep resentative.
5. Proof of lrlotice. At the public hearing, the applicant shall provide proof of
publication.
Enclosed is a suosested public notice in Word format so you can add necessary
information, such as the lega! description of the subject site.
The public notice documents for the Planning Commission public hearing are provided
as a courtesy. The Applicant must veriff that all information provided in these
documents is conect. As always, it is the obligation of the Applicant to conect any
deficiencies such that proper notice in form and substance can be established.
llo&: I have abo endo.cd a refuiral form *,hbh lLilr fie fuderel, .m and locel
agsncbr u,ho will rwisry fu applicetion ar rcGtral agombr, a udl a3 0te
PLenning Cqnmirkrn and Board of Gounfy Gommiroionerr. Wc wi,ll ngullu
fouileen ({4} CD'c and ninabcn (f9} pper copier of ttre aSicffon and rll
supplemental nrabrhb no hbr flran ffi, f flc coef,o. have not
bem cubmitbd by thit dnrb., your ruUb hmdng mey be iooperdizod.
Feelfree to contact me with any questions.
Tutoruv E, Wst'rslrt'
te hi.t s ii xE ra d r irg fb r hl.tt w. cor.r't.
Enrc J" Gnoss*
ej g@ r oa r i ng fa rhl aw. c o m.
*,lleo ad,mlttad l* l[a$aohwc,,t
*s.da4fr,
t**rrsrrr s Gnoss, P.c.
LAWTERS
320 MarN Srllnnr SurtB 200
Cansol,rparn, Coronapo 8 1623
TELnpHoNp, (970) 963-6363
FacsrMu,p, (970) 963-6667
October 12,2010
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County
Building and Plaruring Department
108 8tl' Street, Ste 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: The Sages at Aspen Glen - Preliminary Plan Subdivision Application
Dear Ms. Eastley:
This letter is in response to your letter dated August 13,201A regarding the
issues/information that needs to be resolved prior to the determination of technical completeness
for the Sages at Aspen Glen - Preliminary Plan Subdivision Application. Listed below are your
concems and our responses.
Concern 1: Mr. Zeller must provide a letter of authorizationfor you to act on his
behalf in the review of this application.
Response:We have enclosed a letter from Mr. Zeller granting this authorization.
Concern 2: The subdivision application requires that the proposed number of lots and
number of units is identified on page 2 of the application, Please clarify this section by
fi.lling in both the number of lots and corresponding units, for example 2 duplex lots/4 units...
Response:We have included this correction on page2 of the resubmitted application.
Concern 3: The Land Use Resolutio.n does not contain a definition of "single-family
detached" units - how do this dffirfrom duplac units.
Response:We define a single-family detached unit is one that is single farnily use but
it is a stand alone unit, it is not attached to any other unit.
Concern 4: The Preliminary Plan map:
a. Does not require certificates.
Aouu:rgnu C. Rowupnnv
c. ra w l> er ry@ ret a r in g fo r h lan o, c o m.
Crpnvr, A. Ilrssur,rruvc
Pamlegal
e he ry Nboor ingfu r k bw. c am
Response:
Concern 5:
b. Has some inconsistency as the chart lists singlefomily attachedfor
lots 8 and 9 yet one of the notes states that Lots S8 through Sl0 are duplex
lots. As stated above, the County does not recognize single-family
attached units (perhaps and Aspen Glen term?) so it is best to describe
consistently as "duplex. "
c. The calculation contained in the chartfor provision of parking
spaces is somewhat confusing. Perhaps the chart could state that SF
requires x #per unit x # of units :...
a. We have corrected this issue in the enclosed updated plat maps.b. We have changed the nomenclature of single-family attached unit
to duplex in the chart.
c. We have included a formula to show the number of parking spaces
required on page 2 of the application and in the chart on the map.
It is understood that Aspen Glen PUD was analyzed during the review and
approval of the zoning. Site specific infurmation may or may not have been provided
regarding certain issues; however, the applicant is responsiblefor demonstrating
compliance with the standards and criteria contained within the Land (Ise Resolution.
a. The Land Suitability Analysis (LSA) requires a review of the
current conditions of the site. Though the submittal addresses each of the
criteria of the LSA, there is no demonstration how the conclusions were
reached. For example, the submittal contains a geotechnical analysis
which is then referenced to support the statements that there is no
geologic hazard associatedwith the site. The same cannot be said
regarding existing vegetation, wildlife, and archeology. The LSA
discussed each of these components andfound that it would not be
impacted by the proposed development; however, no supporting
do cumentation fr om qualified profes sionals was included. Pleas e provide
the following supporting doct mentation :
1) What ii the existing vegetation on the site? Provide map
and inventory.
2) Provide an analysis of what wildlife occurs on the site,
location of migration corridors, etc.
3) A records search is required to determine if any
archeological sites have been identified in the vicinity. Or, if this
was demonstrated during the original review of the P(ID, please
provide that document.
a.l. 'We enclosg amap of and inventory of the existing
vegetation on the site completgd by Schmueser, Gordon & Meyer.
2. 'We enclose a letter dated Iily20,1993 from the Division
of Wildlife that addresses the wildlife issues.
Response:
differences between the look of the single-family detached units as compared to the duplex
units. As these are the only two types of units in the development (and they all look identical
to the units shown), we do not think it necessary to show a visual of all the lots.
Concern 6:
is that?
Response:
Concern 7:
Response:
3. We enclose a letter dated September 14,2010 from Flattops
Archaeolo gical Consultants which addresses the archaeolo gical
concerns.
The visibility analysis appears to include only 4 of the proposed lots. Why
We submitted the visibility analysis with only four lots to show the
There was not section 1l in the submittal. Wy is that?
Section 11 is the preliminary plan engineering report. The engineers
submitted the report to us as a bound report. We, in turn, also submitted the report to you as
a separate bound report. You should have received three copies of this report with the
application. If you did not, please inform us and we will submit three copies as required.
Concern 8:Demonstrate compliance with School Land Dedication.
Response: We will pay the appropriate fee due based on the calculation provided by
the school diskict.
Concern 9:Demonstration of the adequacy of water and wastewater requires a "will
serve" letterfrom the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. I did notfind that letter
in the submittal documentation.
Response:We enclose a "will serve" letter from the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation
District dated August 24,2010.
We feel we have addressed all of your concerns and believe the application should be technically
complete. Please contact us as soon as possible if you disagree.
Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please feel free to contact me if you disagree.
Sincerely,
WHITSITT & GROSS, P.C.
EJG/rlm
Enclosures
b qnfld d,L&rattLrlarnuuxNEarE
t* r*fivg .b tb,2W-,:Rr.A, tu Ae/rO/ro
F TATTOPS ARCHAEOI.OGICAI EONSU 1TANTS
P.O. BOX 864
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
(970) 37e-2846
September t4,z0t0
Mr. EricJ. Gross
Whitsitt & Gross, P.C.
320 Main Street, Suite 200
Ca rbondale, Colorado 81623
CC: Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County, BuiHing & Planning
108 8d'Street, Suite (}1
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE: Letter Report of Findings-Class I Cuhural Resources Study for The Sages at Aspen Ghn SuMivision
Application, Parcel *2395-410-00"/t05, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Gross,
This letter report of findings serves as documentation for the completion of a Class t Cuhural
Resources Sttdy of the proposed The Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision (Parcel fiB95-41O{D4(E) in
Garfield County, Colorado. This report satisfies the requirements of the Garfield County Unified land
Use Resolution, Article lV Section +fizE part 8b: A determinatbn of the effect on gnificant
archaeobgical, cuhural, paleontologial, historic resourices. The proied encompasses portions of the
Sectbn 13 and 14 Township 7 South, Range 89 West. Cultural resource files br Sectbm 13 and 14
were reviewed for this strdy.
The proposed proiect area ls bcated approximately 5 miles north-northrest of Carbondale,
Colorado. GarfieH County Road l(D borders the urestern edge of the proposed subdivision, lble 3 of
the Aspen Ghn Golf Course borders the property on tre north and east, and Bald Eagle Way borderc the
property on the south.
The file search was conducted on September 14 2010, by reviewing the Colorado Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservatbn's COMPASS database. One previously recorded historic linear
site has been recoded in Section 13, T7S, R89W. This histor'rc linearsite isthe C,olorado Midland
Railroad grade (5GF1663), which is plotted in the northeast quadrant of Section 13 on the Cattle Creelq
Colorado 1S1 {photorevised 1987) UsGstopographic map. The railroad grade was fieH ernluated
eligible in 1!D3 base.d on its significant ontributbn to the transportatbn needs of tlrc Roadrg Fork
Valhy in the late nineteenth century. The Colorado Midland Railroad was inorporated in 1883 and"'
built by John J. Hagerman. lt was the first standard gauge railroad built over the Continental Divide in
Colorado, running from Colorado Springs to Leadville and through the divide at Bush Tunnelto Aspen,
Glenwood Springs, and west to Grand Junction. The C.olorado MHland ceased operations in 1918
Kae McDonald
Principal I nvestigato r
f lattopsarch aeo log i cal I I @ @ m c ast. net
(Urquhart L970:1321, and much of the line was scrapped in the early 1920s. Due to impacts to the
railroad grade since the Colorado Midland ceased operations in 1918 and the line was scrapped in the
early 1920s, segments of the railroad grade will need to be individually analyzed for integrity of location,
design, materials, workmanship, feeling and association and theircontribution to the overall integrity of
the railroad grade as a whole.
One previous cultural resource inrrcntory project has taken place in the study area. This proiect
was the Oak Meadonrrc Wildlan&Urban lnterf;ace Fuel Reduction Project, compteted in 2fi!5 by l(ae
McDonald, Ph.D., Consulting Archaeotogist fior the Bureau of Land Management€lenwood Springs Fietd
Office. The Colorado ffice of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Suruey tD number is GF.LM.R312:
No sites were recorded in Sections 13 and t4,WS, R89W as a resuh of this proiect.
ln comparing the top(Eraphic map with the proposed proiect map, it appeanr that the Golorado
Midland Railroad Grade (56F1663) is located well outside the current project area and will not be
affiected by the proiect. Therefore, based on the results of this Class I inventory, Flattops Archaeological
Consuttants recommends a finding of no historic proprtia $ected. Howorer, should other anttural
resources be discovered or unearthed during grounddisturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist
should be notified.
lf you have questions or conoers, phase do not hesitate to contact me at your comlen'ence.
Principal I nvestigator
REFERENCES CITED
Urguhart, Lena M.
t97t Glenwod Springs: Spa in the Mountoins. Frontier Historicalsociety, Ghntrood Springs,
Colorado.
Gentonnlsl - pari tcctton
!o!!,*o !!r*
t
Augurt lg, ttlB'I li -t Olenwood Port
i. llu.
3\
l{ar Ca.llr
,rtt *i1, u I
od
E
Et
Q,o lllrcnd
ilor--u-ru-J
ttr, !..h h lIt.r
GRAND
rtrrilaiaia tacnui
t EGEIID
-.f--{--.F f,|OLltO i,utiolo.-lr-..--r. OlWli At 0 ilO CiA{O! IAILiOAO
"!r*o CLtrmod
Sprlnar
\
cctdlrt
\
' C0ll3 ovElll
RIVER
MINES
COAL
AND
AND COKE COMPANY
COKE OVENSfli$LlrH?/$01r.{0
rarfiof, ltlitt .
uillor milt
ttit o
{3rrrrr1*
tltilrlot *e-aJ
ci3gr rug
!!!r,
irrurcrI lllaltarl
BrgE PoFt?[rt co
'I' 6ttl/,I
corr 8ltltr
,fl I
J
t
fl
ahorva qreq ksy to cool mtnlng developments oround turn of ihc ccnlury.
i.aar, i tf *, ' . nJJ-r|T_--T r,.:r.
Lg RrvER
hlaclc rrold rhat hrrurrrh+
I$ 'larrt t,
,i.t ryt.lr.t lnnrJrhiron rat rtrh, ?rtLo
aiN,
'gsv
,, e{ frdsr
,r,9 t f 3rro,lr@ar:'
o
c\,"ofi4 - it:t .'-.
CATTLE CREEK, COld
N3922-5_wt07l5/,.s
1961
AraS ,[St62 w NE:-SERIES Vs?i
of o."Cl .*n'
o443OC'?4O
o,3",
6rJ'c{t3
./ ,.
J.,
rti'
!
a .-.
o10.
{: .tz).
t
o
"-fr:i 5f-.*a{1',nc
{;E:'-1-l:'I ;U
\r'-;5-..
I
)qa=*aB
-\.,;
,G
tl.
ttrait;
1t.
L.
it
I
-r;"'#,":1 ---i
->.4
F1ATTOPS ARCHAEOIO@ICAI CON$U1TA]{TS
P.O. BOX 864
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
(970) 37e-2846
September142010
Mr. EricJ. Gross
Whibitt&Gross, P.C.
320 Main S-treet, Sute 200
Carbordale, Golorado 81623
CC: Mr. Fred Jarman
Gafield County, BniHing& Planning
108 SthStr€et, Sulb4()l
Glenwood Springs, Colondo 81@1
\l- i' -i r
RE: Letter Report of Findlngs-Class I Cultural Resourcs Study forThe Sages at Aspen Ghn Subdlvlsbn
Application, Parcel fi1395410{X}405, Garfield County, Colorado
DearMr. Gross,
This htter report of findings serves as documenbtion fiorthe ompletion of a Chss I Cultural
Resoulres Sttdy of the proposed The Sages at Aspen Glen SuMivision (Parrel #2395"010{X}4(E} in
GarfieH County, Colondo. This rcport etisfies the requirements of the GarfteH County Unifud tard
Us ResduUon,Artide lVSecffon4-$2E partSb: Adetermination of the eftcton srrifum
archaeologbl, cul&ral, pleontologhal, historic resources. The project encompasses portlons of the
Sectbn 13 and 14 Tosmship 7 South, Range 89 West. Cultural resource files for Sectbns fii and 14
were reubwed for this study
The proposed proJect area k located approximately 5 miles norttr-northwest of Carbondale,
Colorado. GarfteH Couttty Road 1(B borden the western edge of the proposed suUfuisioO lloh 3 of
the Aspen Gbn Golf Course borders the property on the north and east, and Bats Eagle Way borders the
property on the soudr.
The file seardt uras conducted on September 14 2O1Q by rwiewing the Colorado ffie of
Ardaeo@y and Historic kesenration's COMPASS dabbase. One prwiousf recorded hisbtic linear
site has been remrded in Sectircn 13, fr$ RgrW. This historic linear site is the Colorado Mfiland
Rallroad grade (5GF1663), ri'hich is plotted in the northeast quadrant of Sectkrn 13 on the Cattle Creel$
Cobrado 1951 (photore\rlsed 1987) USGS topognphic map. The rallroad grade rras fieE ennhnted
elig[ble in 1$t3 based on its significant conHbution to the transportatbn needs of the Roariry Fort
Valley in the late nin&enfi oentury. The Colorado Mldland Rallroad ms incorporated in 1883 and
built by John J. Hagerman. lt rms the ftrst standard gauge railroad built over the Contlnenbl DMde ln
Cobra&, runningfrom Colorado Springs to Leadville and through the divide at Bush Tunnel to Aspen,
Ghnwood SPrings, and west to Grand Junction. Tlre Colomdo Midland ceased operatlons in 1918
Fae Mctbnad
Prittcioal lnwsligator
fl attryarchaslqial*e @ co mast. n et
(Urquhart L970:L321, and much of the line was scrapped in the early 1!)20s. Due to impacts to the
railroad grade since the Colorado Midland eased operations in 1!118 and the line was scrapped in the
early 1920s, segmentsof the railrcad grade will need to be individually analfzed for integrityof location,
design, materials, uorkmanship, feeling and association and their contribution to the overatl integfity of
the railroad grade asa whole.
One previous cultural resource inventory project has taken place in the study area. Thb Proiect
was the Oak Meadors Wildlan&Urban lnterface Fuel Reduction Project, ompleted in 2fi15 by Kae
McDonald, Ph.D., Consuhing Archaeotogist forthe Bureau of Land Management€lenwood Springs Field
Office. The Colorado ffice of Archaeology ard Historic Preseruation Survey lD number is GF.LM.ffil2.
l,lo sites were recorded in Sections 13 and l4,TlS,R8gW as a result of this proiect
ln comparing the topographic map wtth the proposed proieA map, it appears that the Colorado
Midland Railroad Grade (56F1663) is tocated well outside the annent prolect area and will not be
afieaed bythe proiect. Tliereftire, based on the resuttsof thisChss I inventory, FlattopsArchaeolryical
Comultants recomrmends a finding of no historic propertia otfected. Hourever, should ottrer cuttural
res(rurces be discovered or unearthed during grounddishrbing actiuities, a qualiffed archaeologist
should be notified.
lf you have questions or concems, please do not hesitate to contact me at your @rpen'rence.
Principal I nvestigato r
REFERENCESOTED
Urquhafl tena M.
t97t Glenwad Sprfngs: Spo in the Mountoirs. Frontier Hlstorical Society, Ghtnilood Spings,
Colorado.
r3.{..rglenwood Folt
k"t racono $t!
6h,rx€d
Sfllaer
Gentcnnlst - porl Sestlon
!o!!,ro
I?,N
t ECETID
-.f-.r-.F ltol/ts ulrtoAo
r-.1--rl-r...1- 0tilWe Ar{0 tO 0iAX0! iAtLiOrO
RIVER COAL AND COKE COMPANY
MINES AND COKE OVENS
!!",
, i.[u.
a\
ftrilr'
f,cildur
IGS Gtllll.l-ft tt
lltr Corlh .
d
ad
I
o!"*o
.r
\ o,crtr
"*
, lnra ov€xt ilB-J+-*J-J
il.r lr.hhr{ht
GRAND
rqnoi{tail lcarrtr
lllrt0tl ]ntt3
,E!g$ gq
.trT[rt co
t ' tc;at\ ClEtt rltG ,e{!/,tl
,f'
-9
coar 0rBrx
a0ir. i.tttr ' --tim-T &uw.
E AALg RtvER
*3" i
r.t rr.rrra It aqfqrr f.f.f1
ahowg oreo ltey to cool mlnlng developmcnrg oround turn of thc cenfury.
hlanlr rrrrhl +hrr+ hrouaht
Eq,
o
=d
G
E
o
oo
=t,c
G,t-o
^F
CATTLE CREEK, col{
N3922.5_wl07l5r.5
1961
AttS {662 M|HERTES V8T
irN, a*'t,tr at ,n345e
rH a a Sltor@rrlr-'r
OlGt
:XA
.....j
.{ -.
-:?-T
G}go
f
I
TE-*-4 {'_j
--a:
2
ar:-Jri:,
tr-r.,:'l
-i.
tr
I,
/
-/
I
,Gi
+S>:_(
i" ' --:ffi,
Sqtembu 8,2010
Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning
108 8fr Street, Ste 401
Gle,nwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: The Sages rt Aspen Glen - Preliminary Plet Subdivision Applicetion
Dear Ms. Easfley:
I, Gerd 7*lle4the owner and applicant of the property known as the Sages at Aspen
Glen, hereby gtve my permission ana atrthority to Whitsitt & Gross P.C. to act on my behalfwith
respect to our-application for Preliminary Plat Application and an Amendment to the PUD of
Aspen Glen pursuant to the Garfield County Land Use Code.
Please feel free to contact me should you require additional information orhave any
questions. Thankyou.
Sincerely,
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATUBAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF W!LDLIFE
AN EOUAL OPPOFTUNITY EMPLOYEF
Perry 0. Olson, Director
6060 Broadway
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 297-1 192
July 20, 1993
For Wildlife-
ForPeofle
Aspen Glen
555 E. Durant Ave., Suite 4AAspen, CO 81511
Dear Ms. Hart:
r will address each of the following areas which you haverequested: vegetative screening, rla ... buildin| envelopes,L/4 acre building enveropes, urlage'screening .or16"lL anamigration corridors off 109 Rd. -----) vv'-YYre \
L- vegetative- screeling For Blad Eagre Nest protection zone -The plan :1:l1g be adequare wirh the changes v""-ria. as outlinedin my 6/15/93 letter to you and your 6/2L7g3 i.it.r ro me. rf theberm raised to L0 | along-with tha vegetative screening adjustinentprovides the solid screen we suggested, then the vegetativescreening plan should be adequa[6.
2. 3/4 tr'c. Lot Building Envelopes - As r mentioned in ny 6/L6/g3letter, the sink hores dictite "n.r-rop" location. oue to lotsize there is not much foom for adjustment. Low profile homesin these locations would be best. -pi"..ment of homes as far backas possible, especiallv ol the lots just southeast of the bridgemay be helpful. rf this has been doie then envelopes are locatedadequately. rn addition, we recommend no sale or advertisement oflots within eagre protection zone until prot."tion-zone is removed.
l. L/4 ec. Buildi!{_!1ve1opes Along Roaring Fork River - As stated, ln #6 of your 6/ZL/93 letter, tiese "rr.r61op.; ;;-;"w adequately, located.
Bridge screening concept - The screening concept for the brid,geis acceptable as long ls the new height of 1,2.6" will totallyblock both sides of 6ridge traffic. I agree with #7 of your6/21/93 letter. rf sere6ning is removabie, then it shourd, bein place each f?11 when eagI5s arrive,-g"r"r.r1y around Nov. 15.Screening should remain in place untii ih.r" is nest abandonment.
DEPARTMENT oF NATUHAL RESOURcES, Kenneth satazar, Executive DirecrorullSSloN, William R. Hegberg, Member . Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Felix Chavez, Member . Rebecca L. Frank, MemberF' Swift, Secretary ' George VanDenBerg, Chairman . Arnold Salazar, Member . Thomas M. Eve, vice Chairman
ffi
5. Migration corridors off 109 Rd. The corridors as outrinedmay aI1ow some movement. . once development build out is achieved,r do not rhink they wilr be of *o.h ,lr,r. u= irr"y-ieaa intothe main development. They *iv-pro"ia" .".."= for deer and e1kto the golf course which courd-rlsuri in damage to fairways andgreens' what may deteimine use of these corridors is the amountof activity associated with trre trome"it"= west of 109 Rd.
Sing6re1y,w,
July 20, 1993
Page Two
Aspen Glen
Kevin w{y'qhtDistrict Wildlife Manager
Carbond.ale
KW/1mP
r would like to thank you for Aspen Glen's cooperation in dealing withour suggestions for the screenin! plan ior the eagles. rt is appreciated.
DearIVlr. $qoss,. ,,.:..
F1ATTOPS ARCHAEOTOGICA1 CONSU1TANTS
P.O. BOX 864
GLENWOOD SPBINGS, CO 81602
(970) 37e-2846
September L4,2OIO
Mr. Eric J. Gross
Whitsitt & Gross, P.C.
320 Main Street, Suite 2fi)
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
CC: Mr. Fred Jarman
Garfield County, Building & Planning
1OB 8d'Street, Suite rt01
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81501
RE: Letter Report of Findings-Ctass I Cutturat Resources Study for The Sages at Aspen Glen SuMMsion
Application, Pa rcel #2395410-00405, Ga rfi eld County, Colo rado
:. Thig ,letteq report of findinBs.sgrves as docurnentation for the completion of a Cl6ss i CuhUral
Resources Study of the proposed The Sages at Aspen Glen Subdivision (Pdrcel #239541(HD405} in
Garfield.County,.C.olorado. This report satisfies the requirements of the Garfietd Countri Unffidd:land
Use Resolution, Article IV Section C502E part 8b: A determination of the effect on significant
archaeologi,cal, culturaf paleontologi,cal, historic resources. The project encompasses portions of the
Section 13 and 14, Township 7 South, Range 89 West. Cultural resource files for Sections 13 and 14
were reviewed forthis study.
The proposed project area is located approximately 5 miles north-northwest of C.arbondale,
Colorado. Garfield County Road 1(D borders the western edge of the proposed subdivision, Hole 3 of
the Aspen Glen Golf Course borders the property on the north and east, and Bald Eagle Way borders the
property on the south.
The file search was conducted on September 14 201Q by reviewing the Colorado ffice of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation's COMPASS database. One previously recorded historic linear
site has been recorded in Section 13, T7$ R89W. This historic linear site is the Colorado Midland
Railroad grade (5GF1663), which is plotted in the northeast quadrant of Section 13 on the Cattte Creetg
Colorado 1961 (photorevised 1987) USGS topographic map. The railroad grade vrns field ernluated ;
eligiple in 1993 based on it5 signfficant aontribution.to the transportation needs of the Roaring Fork'
Valley in the.latg pineteenth century. The Colorado Midland Railroad.was incorporatedin 1883 and"
built by John J. Hagerman. lt was the first standard gauge railroad built over the Continental Dlvide in
Colorado, running from Colorado Springs to Leadville and through the divide at Bush Tunnel to Aspen,
Glenwood Springs, and west to Grand Junction. The Colorado Midland ceased operations in 1918
Kae McDonald
Pincipal lnvestigator
f lattop s a rch aeo bg ical 9 9 @ co mc a st. n et
(Urquhart t97O:L321, and much of the line was scrapped in the early 1920s. Due to impacts to the
railroad grade since the Colorado Midland ceased operations in 1918 and the line was scrapped in the
early 1920s, segments of the railroad grade will need to be individually analyzed for integrity of locaton,
design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and their contribution to the overall integrity of
the railroad grade as a whole.
One previous cultural resource inventory project has taken place in the study area. This project
was the Oak Meadows Witdland-Urban tnterhce Fuel Reduction Project, completed in 2fi)5 by Kae
McDonald, Ph.D., Consulting Archaeologist for the Bureau of Land Management€lenwood Springs Field
Office. The Colorado ffice of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Survey lD number is GF.L"Ul.R312;
No sites were recorded in Sections 13 and LA,TIS, R89W as a result of this project.
ln comparing the topographic map with the proposed proiect map, it appears that the Colorado
Midland Railroad Grade (5CF1663) is located we!!outside the curent projea area and will not be
affected by the proiect. Therefore, based on the results of this Class I inventory, Flattops Archaeological
Consuhants recommends a finding of no historic properties affected. However, should othercuhural
resouroes be discovered or unearthed during grounddisturbing activities, a qualified archaeologist
should be notified.
lf you have questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me atyourcorwenience.
Principal lnvestigator
REFERENCES CITED
Urguha$ Lena M.
1977 Glenwod Springs: Spa in the Mountoins. Frontier Historicalsociety, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado.
fl3i-.r0lenwood Port Genlcnnlul - port Sectlon Augurt 33, ltt$ '
, L'lru f,.toi
Nci Co.lL .
i,tt t
c,t,
nit u
I
d
od
GEao
l6rand @flncilrtatl tat.ft[
il.Elt=L*J-J
IS., tc.h b rilhr
FAttfioPeu
L EGEIIO
-.{--{--.r- iilDlxto affL8oto
r4El-.r{- DIWEi rflO ilO 0itflO! iALiOAO
'!"ro 6lanwood
sprhe3
*o cf,ilfi
h
, COl(3 OvgilE
GRAND RIVER
MINES
COAL AND COKE COMPANY
AND COKE OVENS!!r,n,!!r*
ahows creo key to cool mlnlng developments oround turn of the century.
k",
se:
fl
f/
EIoLE co.
---
lrlxtn co
rt --'*t*'/ t_ff" &;'''^''''$\q
tl!W. ' i aat1, ;ff g,T a,tzw.
EAALE EI,VER
r.lt rr.rr.a rt nltry a.4.rt
hLnnlc rrrrld +hh+ hraurlh*
tLt rorrrl.rr.t tlrn.rahorcn rad fothy ?ttho
Edo:6
G,
tr
o
oo
=tc6(,
^F
*tN , apgv 'tfr al' N3ast
,,rl f t 3lEo^@rrarr]t
'\
-.1#
CAMLE CREEK. COLC
N3922_5_w107 t,n.s
1961
AMS {8i62 rv NE_SERIES v8T
'--'i:'
I
Ol
C\I
oe{
-zofd2
-:Z-,-.'A't
-.-'j'--.-7 "
-^.--y'':-t"-aE--d.rb---'.'(o
(o
G?
-r'.2)
=:
2()
t1ru,#
.G
RoaRrNc Fonx W.q.rnn & SaNtrarroN D
August 24,2010
Mr. Gerd Zeller
PO Box 37
Aspen, CO 81612
Re: The Sages at Aspen Glen
Dear Mr. Zeller:
This letter will confirm that the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District has the ability to
provide, and will provide, domestic water and sewer service to up to 13 units (10 lots) which are proposed
for The Sages at Aspen Glen. Aspen Glen Golf Company, the developer of The Sages at Aspen Glen, has
previously conveyed adequate water rights to the District to enable the District to provide water service to
the 13 units proposed for The Sages at Aspen Glen. The District's existing well field produces more than
enough water to provide water to the 13 units proposed for The Sages at Aspen Glen.
Similarly, the District's wastewater treatment facility has existing excess capaclty to provide
wastewater treatment service to the 13 units proposed for The Sages at Aspen Glen.
Provision of water and sewer service is conditioned only upon payment by the properly owner to
the Dishict of its standard water and sewer tap fees and water and sewer service fees for such service.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions regarding the District's commitment.
Sincerely,
POBox 1002
GLENWOOD SPRTNGS, CO 81602
Trr-: (970)945-2 144 . Fax (970)963-0987 RFWSD
BILLTNG: PO BOX 326
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602
Trr: (970)876-5008 . FAx (970)876-2944
WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT
ISTRICT
Garfield County
BAILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT
August 13, 2010
Eric Gross
Whitsitt & Gross, P.C.
320 Main Street, Suite 200
Garbondale, CO 81623
ejg@roaringforklaw. com
Reference: Aspen Glen PUD Preliminary Plan forthe Sages at Aspen Glen
Dear Mr. Gross,
The Building and Planning Department is in receipt of the preliminary plan for the Sages and
have rcviewed the documentation for technical completeness.
The folloving issuee/infonndion will rrcd to be rcsohrcd prior to a determination d tecfinical
completeness:
1. Mr, Zeller must provide a letter of authorization for you to act on his behalf in the rcview
of this application;
2. The subdivisim application requires that the foposed number of lots and number of
units is ldentifled on page 2 of the application. Pbase danfy thb edion by fillirq in
both proposed number of lots and conesponding units, for example 2 duflex lots/4
units...
3. The Land Use Resolution does not contain a definition of "single-family detached" units
- hqr do these difrerfrom dudex unitre?
4. The Preliminary Plan map:
a. Does not require cefficatee
b. Has some inonsistency as the chart listrs single family attacfied for lots 8 and 9 yet
one of the notes states ffnt Lots S8 throryh S10 are duplex lots. As stabd above,
the County does not recognize single'family attached uniE (perhaps an Aspen Glen
term?) so it is best to deecribe consistently as'duplex'.
c. The calculation contairpd in the cfiart for povision of parkirc spaoes b somwhat
conftrsirU. Perhaps the drart oouH stab that SF requires x # per unit r # of unib
5. !t is understood that the Aspen Glen PUD was analyzed during the review and appoval
of the zoning. Site specific information may or may not have been provftled regarding
certrain issues, horever the applicant'ls rceponsibb for demonsffiating oomfliance wi$t
the standards and criteria oontained wihin the Lard Use Resolt.ttion.
a. The Land Suitrability Analysb (LSA) requirw a rwieur of the cunent conditbns of the
site. Thor4gh the submittal addresses eacfi of fte criteria in the LSA there is no
demonsfratbn hour the oonclusions were rcacied. For example the eubrnittal
ontains a geotecfinical analysis wfiich is then refercned to support the statemente
thd th6re is no goologh,huard associated with the site. fie same cannot be said
regardrg existing vegeilation, wiHlife, and arcfieology. The LSA discussed eacfi of
108 Eighth Street, Suite 401 , Glenwood Springs, CO 8160|
(970) 945-8212 " (970) 285-7972 " Fax: (97q 384-3470
these components and found that would not be impacfed by the proposed
development, however no supporting documentation from qualiFled professionals
was included. Please provide the following supporting documentation:
1) Vvhat is the existing vegetation on the site? Provide a map and inventory.
2) Provide an analysis of what wildlife occurs on the site, Iocation of migration
conidols, eta
3) A records search is requircd to determine if any archeological sites have been
identified in the vicinity. Or, if this ruas demonstated during the original revierv
of the PUD please prcvide thatdocument
6. The visibility analysis appears to include only 4 of the proposed lots. Why is that?
7. Therc is no section 11, In the submittal. Was it omitted intentionallf
8. Demonsfiate oompliance uith Scfrool Land Dedication.L Demonstnation of the adequacy of water and wastewder rcquires a Tvill serve' letter
from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation Disfuict I did not find that letter in the
subrniEal documentra,tion.
Ptease respond to these items, the ULUR stipulates that the applicant has 60 days to satisfy the
above issues. Feelftee to contad me with any guestions.
Gc:File
W
Iltnteawner.Aqten Glctr 's Atssttcialiott
February 25,2ALO
Ms. Kathy Eastley
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
108 8th Street, Suite 40L
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Sages at Aspen 6len Zonlng Text Amendment
Dear Ms, Eastley,
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on a PUD Amendment proposed by Mr. Gerd Zeller for
the Club Villa Residential zone district in Aspen Glen which applies to the 4.243 acre parcel near 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 Directors (the Board) and our Design Review Committee (DRC) have been
working with Mr. Zelter 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 withln the Club Villa Residential zone district.
The Board supports this change to required setbacks conditional upon Mr. Zeller'; project containing no
more than 13 totaf dwelling units at build-out. Although Mr. Zeller originally submitted a sketch plan
that propos€d 15 total units (including seven single family homes, one duplex, two triplexes), for a total
of 15 dwelling units, he has since agreed with the Board to limit total density within the Sages project 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 him or any successor from submitting another plan entirely. However we
believe that, with the addition of a 13-unit density cap on this property, there will be enough constraints
on the pioperty, inclUding the 15rh Supplemental, to prevent a development that is inconsistent with
Aspen 6len and the intent of the zone district.
Thank you for the opportunlty to provide input. lf you have any questions or comments regarding this
referal please do not hesitate to contact our DRC Administrator Leslie Lamont at 963-8434 or
llamont@sopris.net.
Sincerely, ./ 4
ar^r^wNed Collum, President
Homeowners Association at Aspen Glen
Attachnrent:
HOA tetter November 20, 2008
0080 Sald Eagle Way Carbondule, CO 81623 Tel: (97Q 963-3362 Fax: (970) 9634550
Lance Lucket!, Cammunity Services Direclor Email: lance@opr;is.net
ffi
l{ofiEotonor'sAspen GIet Associatlott
Novembff2O 2008
Ms, KlathyEasfley
Garft eld County Butldlng and Planning Elepartmert
IffiSsStreet,Suite rt01
Glenmood Sprin$" CO 81601
Be Sagns at Aseen G[en Sketch Pbn f,eulw
Dear Ms. Eastley,
Ihank yorr furthe opportudtyto oomment on the submitted land use applbatbn from
Mr, Gerd Zellercalhd the Sqps at Aspen Glen. Thank you as well fiortaHng the tlme to
meet ufth our Design ReuieurAdministrator Leslie Lamont.
The Aspen Glen IKIA Eoard of D|rectors and our Design Revierr Committee (DRCI have
been wo*ing widr Gerd on this proiect for a year: We reallze thatdeuCopnrcnt has
ahirays been phnned for this area rruSthin Aspen Glen and our lnterest has been to
ensure tfiat development is oonsistent with the character of Arpen Glen and the
proposed densltyof the slte is approprbte. I helin e ?t has been Gerds lnterest to
ec$lish a uro*ing relattonshlp with us tfiat udll facilitate the daneloprnent of his parcel.
We trnderstand tratsftedr Ptan ls onlya rarieur byttePlannlng Commbson and'the
Purpose is to seek kritial input on the proiecc input that the applicant may or may not
dloose to folloer. ln addition, because the property is zoned Club Villas, slngfe family,
duplex and triplex units are allorued uses and the zoning does not limit tlre mix of unit
type. ZonirU des howsbr define the minimum lot size fur eac*r unit type ard the
minirnum h she for a trlpler< ts smalhr than the requirernent br a dupldx or a dngle
famlly home- Reulen, of fre submittat oonftrms that Gerd has srbmttted a plan for
seuett single f;amily lots, one duplex lot and trro triplex lots for a total of 15 drrelling
units on site.
After urorking wlth Gerd for a year we offer the followlng raniew of hls applkatlon.
L The number of units on this site is a crttical ehment of the proposal for Aspen
Ghn. The HOA Board of Directotr doco not *ryport a tripler prcduct on the site
and the Board only supports a Btal of 13 dwelllng units on site.
NEABaldtugleflay Csbottdor", CO 5t623 Tel: (9?O) 963-3362 Fc (W0)963155A
fince f,aqk?q Conwuaity S*vitces Dtrcoor fuuil: lanc@oprts.rct
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 minifium
lot slze requiremenB. He has told us flnt he will oonvert the tdplex lots to
duplot lots after subdtvislon apprwal via an administratirrc amen&rrent to the
approved subdivislon. However, it is not clear to us what that Broocss entails or
when the conyelsion worrld occur.
3. Ahhough we do not dktnrst Gerd's cornmitment to Aspen Glen true believe that
we cannot "trusf that dranges will occur after a subdivlsbn plat has been
remrded and the land bemmes entftled for 15 drrdling units. Therefure we ask
thatthe Garfteld County Buildlngand planningstaffand the phnnlng'
Commhsion reoommend that the total number of dtuelsng unie witl not exceed
fil dwefi.'tng un0ts and to protribit the constructbn of any triplex bulHlngs on thE
Sages parcel.
4. We abo reommend that the applicant and the &unty staff identify a
mechanlsm to ensure ttratthe density ls limited b 13 uni&
5. We reommend that the Sages deryelopment beome a suLassociatiqr wfthin
the master assoclation of Aspen 6len for landscape and other matfienanae
purposes
6. We are cqnerned *tat the 3O fu setback from County Road t0g (CR lGr! ls not
large enorrgh to support bndscapingthat will be crltical fur screenlng the
development from the red and requlred dainageand slope retention systems.
7. We recomrnmd that the prdiminary plan subm3ttal Inc.{ude a cross *ction
drawing of the propocal ftom CR ,og to the tvlb triplsr lots tfiat are adiacent to
cR 1(D. This drawing shordd indude a building fo rm vuft hin the hrildrng'
envelopes (with Proposed heights of the buildings) in order fur County starf anC
our.DRC to study pos{bh impacts.
8. We recommend a second cross section drawirqgfiom.Bald Eagh Way{6olden
Bear on the submittted plan! to dre forrt of.the dupler lot including the huilding
forms and helglrts forthe same purpoees as olfiired aboue.
9. We call staffs attettion to the small detention pond in the southnuest conrer of
the property. This is an arca next to our back gate and the abilityto instatl
landscaphg in thls area wrlll be important A deterfibn pord may not support
landsca ping of any signlfrcance.
Thank you for requesting our input and urc bok fioruaard to parttclpatng in thb re16euu
asthe appl'rcation makes iB uaythrwgh the Garfield County hrd use revierru prooess. lf
you have any questbns or oflimenB rcgarding this refurral please do not hesttate to
mntact our DRC Administrator Leslle tamont at g6:l-8434 or llamont@sopris"net
shcgryly,
$il,-'
DougHacker, President
Homeownerc Association at Aspen Glen
0Ul0 Batd Eagle Wqy Co'ton&lq CO 81623 Tal: (970) 963-i362 Fa: PTil) 9634SsO
Larye Lwtpl t, Cwwmiq 8*r lc* D ireclor Enoil : l@sopr is. nd