"The Fields" subdivision

Transcription

9/8/2015
Eagle County Government Mail "The Fields" subdivision
Andrea Weber <[email protected]>
"The Fields" subdivision
1 message
[email protected] <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 10:19 AM
Dear Ms. Weber:
I am writing to submit comments before your September 10th deadline. My first observation is that having so little time to review such a substantial project is ludicrous. This project
would completely alter the character of the living experience in this part of the midvalley. The developer is
requesting to change the zoning to allow for much more dense development than is currently in place here.
Everybody in the midvalley should have ample time to scrutinize the developer's documents and respond.
More time should be allotted for this process.
My second observation is that CDOT specifically rejected the notion of installing a light at JW Drive and
Highway 82. That's why they built merge and exit lanes a year ago. Several hundred more cars per day going
into and out of the Tree Farm area would be untenable.
Thank you for your consideration.
John Maxwell https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fadc185ca098e1&siml=14fadc185ca098e1
1/1
Kevin C. White
Rachel Marble
979 Valley Road
Carbondale, CO 81623
[email protected]
Home & Fax 970-704-1553
Kevin’s cell 970-618-2455
Rachel’s cell 970-379-6633
September 8, 2015
Andrea Weber
Administrative Assistant
Eagle County Community Development
PO Box 179
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Dear Eagle County Community Development,
We have lived at 979 Valley Road for 16 years and our property is bordered to the east by the
proposed “The Fields Subdivision”.
We have some concerns regarding the proposed “The Fields Subdivision”.
1) Will the driveway easement through our property be used as an access to the “The Fields
Subdivision”?
2) Our irrigation water comes through a ditch system currently located on the 0554 Valley Road
property. This system needs to stay in tact to irrigate our pasture. Is there a plan for that?
3) Will the build out take place in a short time frame or take many years?
4) Does the development group has a resume of successfully completing project of this size? Do
they have any local experience? Can we see them? Do they have references?
5) We understand the 0554 Valley Road property is in the Arlian Ranch Subdivision. It is
subject to zoning and covenant restrictions of two acre lots and single family homes. We do not
see a need for that to change.
Thank you for hearing our concerns.
Sincerely,
Kevin C. White
Rachel Marble
9/10/2015
Eagle County Government Mail The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
Jennifer Emig <[email protected]>
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:27 PM
I'm sure you are getting plenty of feedback here so I will keep it short and sweet. To oppose this development is
literally a slap in the face to those of us who are working class professionals (and even more so to those that
are at the bottom of the income chain). My husband and I make a very comfortable living with our combined
incomes...comfortable for anywhere but here. We (collecively in the valley) NEED housing in a very urgent way.
Are you aware of how many young professionals move away or consider moving away or are actively planning
on moving away for one reason only they cannot find an affordable option for home ownership. I know that you
know this. If you don't, you haven't been paying attention. Please reconsider! Very disappointing to hear that it is
being opposed. Respectfully,
A hard working Roaring Fork Valley resident with a family to take care of.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb438c7ab7364e&siml=14fb438c7ab7364e
1/1
10/1/2015
Eagle County Government Mail RE: The Fields Sketch Plan COMMENTS
RE: The Fields Sketch Plan COMMENTS
Keith Ehlers <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:10 PM
To: Andrea Weber <[email protected]>, Sean Hanagan <[email protected]>
Andrea and Sean,
Below is one example of letters of support that were sent to Eagle County but do not appear in the comment
package you have provided. This person also contacted us to express support and shared the email he sent
to Eagle County Planning. It is concerning that letters of support are not being organized along with the
other letters from the Public. I don’t imagine any willful exemption of the letter was at play here, but could
you please include this letter of support in the package and comb through your files again to see if any other
letters were not included.
Thank you.
Keith Ehlers
3SE, LLC
President
9702107680
[email protected]
From: "Brett Leable, Hammerhead Operations" <[email protected]>
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15020175f052eac4&siml=15020175f052eac4
1/2
10/1/2015
Eagle County Government Mail RE: The Fields Sketch Plan COMMENTS
Date: September 9, 2015 at 7:12:24 PM MDT
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Subject: Fields subdivision sketch plan.
Sean, I'm taking the time out of my day as a small business owner, (and hoping you take time out of your day to read my
thoughts) to write to you and implore you to approve The Fields subdivision sketch plan proposal. As a builder making my way in this small mountain valley, I've faced struggles these past six years keeping myself and
10 workers gainfully employed. As construction workers, we could really use the economic benefits gained from a 100
dwelling expansion in the middle area of our valley. I think anyone that reads the paper can plainly see that rents have gone up considerably, while the availability of
mortgage lending has sharply decreased recently for the common person.
All this trickles down to the realization in my mind, that the common man can barely scrape by on the carpenters or
drywaller's or painters salary, and another building / growth stimulus of developer funds would put many hardworking
blue collar workers back on track to living and working comfortably in the mid valley. Best Regards,
Brett Leable
Hammerhead Operations [email protected]
9704013743
www.Hammerheadops.com
From: Andrea Weber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 9:22 AM
To: Keith Ehlers
Subject: Re: The Fields Sketch Plan COMMENTS
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=15020175f052eac4&siml=15020175f052eac4
2/2
9/10/2015
Bruce Wood <[email protected]>
Cc: Pam Wood <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:09 PM
We object to The Fields Subdivision, as proposed.
When we purchased our home at 85 Parkside Lane, adjoining the Rieser property, we did so with the
understanding that the Rieser's property was part of the Arlian Ranch subdivision which contained covenants and
was subject to zoning that would prevent development as what is being proposed now. While we understood that
there was the possibility of further subdivision of their 19 acre parcel, we never anticipated that it would be
possible for the property to be subdivided to the extent that is being proposed now. We anticipated that at some
point this parcel would be resubdivided into smaller 1 5 acre lots within what the current RR zoning might
allow, but not this.
With the density proposed in the Fields Subdivision, we are concerned that;
The proposal is lacking recreational areas. With the exception of some open space buffer areas on the north
and south ends, the only open space/park/recreation area for an estimated 100 200 children that will reside in
the subdivision, is a "small pocket park/playground" that is inconvenient to the majority of the lots. This seems
grossly inadequate.
The proposal lacks parking and adequate snow storage.
The proposal estimates additional traffic on Valley Rd of 787 daily trips. Valley Rd is narrow and is already
busy with speed limits being exceeded regularly. Many pedestrians and cyclists use Valley Road which has no
sidewalks available and deep ditches on both sides leaving pedestrians and nonvehicular traffic nowhere to go.
Improvements to Valley Road and a speed management plan must accompany such additional density in the
area.
The proposal lacks access to RFTA. The RFTA park and ride at El Jebel is already being fully utilized. The
distance from the proposed site is too far and lacks a safe route (see previous concern about Valley Road) for
pedestrian access to RFTA. The additional demand for park and ride parking will tax the already utilized overflow
parking at the Eagle County Building. If this is approved, perhaps a local RFTA shuttle looping through Blue
Lake, Willits and Valley Road corridor would be in order. Note: the applicant incorrectly claims in the Sustainable
Community Index checklist that the proposed site is less than 1/4 mile from the bus stop in Blue Lake. From a
walking distance approach (which is what the SCI criteria is asking) this site is between 3/4 and 1 mile from the
Blue Lake RFTA stop and would require a crossing of Hwy 82. Obviously, that is not realistic without another
pedestrian tunnel.
The three quarter intersection helps, but does not change the fact that there will be 787 additional trips on
one end or the other of Valley Road. More importantly, the traffic studies appear to assume that all of these
additional trips destination is "access to Hwy 82" and does not take into account that much of the traffic being
routed onto Hwy 82 at JW Drive will be reentering Valley Rd via El Jebel Rd in order to access Crown Mtn
Park/Eagle County Building, the RFTA park and ride, Movie Land, the City Market/shopping area, etc. further
congesting an already busy, poorly configured intersection.
The proposal will add population to an area of Eagle County already being inadequately staffed and
maintained by Eagle County. The Sheriff's department is frequently understaffed. Road striping on Valley and El
Jebel roads is rarely visible, leaving turning lanes at those intersections improperly used, thus compounding
traffic problems there. Existing subdivisions frequently see zoning, parking and rightofway issues unaddressed.
Road maintenance is lacking and intersections are over capacity. If Eagle County is going to approve rezoning
and new subdivisions of this density, it needs to be ready to commit additional resources to this corner of the
county.
Please understand that we do not object to subdivision and development of this parcel, only to the density which
is being proposed here.
Sincerely,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb5a8397dd0fbc&siml=14fb5a8397dd0fbc
1/2
9/10/2015
Bruce & Pam Wood
85 Parkside Lane
Summit Vista
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb5a8397dd0fbc&siml=14fb5a8397dd0fbc
2/2
9/10/2015
Chris Weaver <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:45 PM
Please approve this it is a necessity in the MidRoaring Fork Valley for working class people!
a. The Mid Valley Area Community Plan was a long public process that identified this site as being
appropriate for this level of development in close proximity to a “Community Center” like El Jebel.
*Optionally add: Just because it is not in the political interests of Basalt or Pitkin County who fail to
recognize El Jebel as a Community Center does not mean the needs of the greater Roaring Fork
Valley should be ignored.
b. Approval of the Fields will prevent urban sprawl that destroys the rural nature of the area because of
its appropriate proximity to infrastructure, utilities, shopping, jobs, and services. This site is one of the
last sites available according to any development planning document to provide housing near
infrastructure and although it may change the current use of this 20 acres to provide 98 homes, it will
save the 200 acres that would be needed to put those same 200 homes on any other property whose
rural zone designation requires a minimum of 2 acres per home.
c. Approval of the fields at this appropriate location will provide significant funding by way of
development fees specifically earmarked for traffic impact, school impact, emergency services impact,
etc.
d. Affordable Housing. It is no secret that affordable housing is a primary need in this area. Our school
districts, municipal workforce, emergency services, and land stewards are just a few of the public
sector entities who are screaming for affordable housing. The private sector is another significant need.
The traffic issues and associated pollution created by workers traveling from down valley as far as Rifle
could be relieved by providing the affordable housing proposed by the Fields Subdivision.
e. Approval of the Fields Subdivision will provide immediate relief to the current El Jebel intersection by
giving users of that intersection a safe alternative, and equally as important, it will provide nearly
$400,000 in road impact fees to Eagle County that can be used to further improve the El Jebel
intersection in concert with Eagle County’s master plan of the traffic in the area.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb448a7615ef53&siml=14fb448a7615ef53
1/1
9/10/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Please Deny Tree Farm Application
Please Deny Tree Farm Application
Schendler, Auden J. <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:50 PM
Dear Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission:
I’m writing to ask you to please recommend denial of the proposed Tree Farm development. Basically plopping
another town into the mid valley goes against all basic goodsense planning principles. I’m all for building density
into our town cores, putting a hotel in downtown Basalt, building up instead of out. But I’m really opposed to
sprawling out along the whole valley so our community looks like the outskirts of a major metropolitan area. We
haven’t even builtout Willits, itself arguably a bad planning decision, and now we’re looking at sprawling out
even more. No, please. Let’s maintain some level of rural character in our valley and not end up looking like the
Vail corridor.
Thanks for listening,
Auden
Auden Schendler
600 East Sopris Drive
Basalt, CO
(970) 3095383
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb484f9b594b1f&siml=14fb484f9b594b1f
1/1
9/10/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Writing in support of The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
Writing in support of The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
Walter Silveira <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:20 PM
Hello, my name is Walter Silveira, and I am a voting constituent (and a homeowner) from the Basalt area. I am writing in support of the fields subdivision affordable housing plan put forth by Chrissy Strom for the El
Jebel area. Please do not allow political agitators and classist, elitist "NIMBYs" to blockade development of
affordable housing for present and future young professionals. Their selfish, shortsighted, and isolationist
concerns over property values and luddite obsession with 'rural sensibility' are hobbling our economic and social
development. Please reply with your stance on the matter as soon as you are able. I sincerely hope you will take a stand for
progress and growth, rather than stagnation.
Sincerely, Walter Silveira
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb57b8873606cc&siml=14fb57b8873606cc
1/1
9/10/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Young Professionals Support the Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
Young Professionals Support the Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
Aimee Wood <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:03 PM
To Whom it May Concern!
My husband and I recently moved back to the valley (I grew up in the Basalt schools!) we are both young
professionals and managed (just barely) to purchase our first home (a small condo) in the Willits area last
November. It was a HUGE stroke of luck that we managed to find something small and affordable, and there has
not been something similar on the market since. We are in our early twenties, recent college graduates, and this
area can be massively appealing to our peers but it is consistently turning many of us away.
Rent is very high and climbing; and there is not enough small housing to go around. Most of my friends some
who have grown up in the valley and some who moved here with me after college have left the valley. We all
manage to get fantastic jobs here, and employment is doing well in the area, but unless we're lucky, it is very
very difficult to find an affordable place to live that is close to public transit. I understand that there are some
concerns about more traffic if there is further development but you'll notice quickly that many of my generation
are frugal and environmentally focused my husband and I use public transit and bike everywhere! We manage
to do this because we live in a place that was developed next to the highway and near where we need to go!
This new development is similarly located, and will be inhabited by similarly minded folk.
I am absolutely in support for more development. Economically, it allows us to take in more young professionals
like myself. What we have now is a constant influx of new blood for one or two seasons, only for them to move
away in a year or so. We need greater retention or this valley will stagnate.
I understand that we want the area to remain 'rural', but the proposed plan is developing in the center of an
already developed valley, right next to the highway. My parents own 85 Parkside Lane I grew up right next to
the lot that they are proposing to develop it has been clear land and horse pasture throughout my childhood. The
highway is visible and very audible it is not in a secluded and rural space. Better to develop it then many
smaller and more rural lots!
We would prefer to develop that large lot of land vertically with many small units, and then link it to the public
transit system. The Willits/El Jebel area is becoming a huge community center, and I've witnessed rent prices
increase dramatically. If we don't develop, this progress will only languish as new potential valley professionals
attempt to move in only to be turned away within a year or two. It is in the Roaring Fork Valley's best interest to
increase access to small and affordable housing units to bridge the gap.
If you have any questions for me or if there is anything more I can do to support this, please let me know. I've
known this valley all of my life, and I would love to see it blossom while maintaining its rural nature. Please
share this email with anyone you wish to.
Yours truly,
Aimee Wood
9703096815
1400 East Valley Road
Unit 214
Basalt, Colorado, 81621
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb56bfc7b4fe01&siml=14fb56bfc7b4fe01
1/1
9/9/2015
1 message
Ajax Accounting <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:38 PM
Sean & Andrea
I have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley since 2003 and finding
affordable housing in this Valley has always been a challenge. I have
recently moved to the midvalley from Aspen and I have seen many of my
peers do the same in an effort to rent or buy affordable housing in
order to remain in the valley. There is very little affordable housing
available in the midvalley as it lacks the govenment sponsored
employee housing that is found in Aspen and Snowmass Village. The
affordable housing proposed by the Fields Subdivision would offer
valley residents, like myself, to remain in this valley. I have seen
more and more people being pushed further and further down valley or
out of the valley completely due to the price of housing.
I have recently relocated my business from Aspen to Basalt as well
and become a member of the Basalt Chamber. The midvalley has so many
opportunities for individuals and small businesses alike.
The Willits/El Jebel Area has grown significantly since I first moved
here. It is now a selfcontained community with its own shops,
restaurants and entertainment. You don't need to go to Aspen for a
good meal or to Glenwood to go shopping anymore.The Mid Valley Area
Community Plan process identified the proposed Fields Subdivision site
as appropriate for this level of development. It is close to the
Willits/El Jebel area which is quickly growing into a major hub in
this valley.
By approving this development the county can prevent urban sprawl that
would occur if these 98 homes were to be built in a rural zoning area
where it would take 10 times the land to build the same homes.
Personally, I would rather see these 98 homes built on 20 acres rather
then the same number of homes being spread out to 196 acres. It would
allow more land to stay undeveloped and rural. Being a horse person
myself, I like to see open lands that are still used for animals and
ranching rather then urban sprawl like that found in suburban Denver
and the like. This is not Denver, it shouldn't look like it.
In addition, the development fees that would be collected from this
development would provide significant funding which could be
reinvested in the area. I think that additional development of
recreation centers in this area would be a wonderful benefit for this
area. The closest recreation centers are in Snowmass Village or
Carbondale, it would be great to have this type of amenity in the El
Jebel area and the fees collected from this development could help
with this type of improvements. The Fields Subdivision would provide
almost $400,000 in road impact fees to Eagle County which could be
invested in the improvement of El Jebel intersection which has become
dangerous due to the large increase of traffic in the area. The Fields
Subdivision would also provide an immediate solution to this busy
intersection by providing a safe alternative.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fb40bea573b1d0&siml=14fb40bea573b1d0
1/2
9/9/2015
I am in support of the Fields Subdivision, I think it would be a good
fit for the area and would provide much needed affordable housing that
is conveniently located.
Samantha Persavich
Ajax Accounting Services, Inc.
PO Box 4111
Aspen, Colorado 81612
9706406132 phone
8664812098 Fax
[email protected]
www.AjaxAccounting.com
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fb40bea573b1d0&siml=14fb40bea573b1d0
2/2
9/10/2015
Flynn StewartSevery <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 10:56 PM
Sean, Andrea,
I’m writing to you to express my support for The Fields Subdivision, and hope you will endorse this proposal
moving forward. I am a 35 yearold architect in the Roaring Fork Valley and have worked on multiple architectural
and planning projects both in and outside of Eagle County. I currently live in Basalt (Elk Run Subdivision), in a
single family home, and spend many weekends and evenings traveling to, or through El Jebel and Willits. The
proposed 98 homes are representative of the exact type of development that this area needs. I have other young
professional friends, associates and coworkers who, for the past 3 years, have been fighting and scratching to
get into this midvalley market. By developing 98 homes on 20 acres we can reduce our rural footprint.
Developments like Elk Run and Sopris Village are some of the highest sought after properties. These are high
density, small acreage lots that have thrived and after 30 years we have yet to develop an heir, or cousin, to
these neighborhoods. I’ve heard friends describe these 30 yearold subdivisions as tired and depleted, but they
still want in. These “tired” neighborhoods are completely void of any affordable properties. It is not that people
prefer to live in charming 30 year old homes covered in T111 siding, its that Basalt and El Jebel has simply run
out of supply, and demand is through the roof. This is my personal plea for new life in the midvalley… and while I also assume the development will provide
Eagle County additional revenue by way of road impact, school impact, traffic impact and emergency services
impact fees, ultimately it seems far simpler than that. The Mid Valley Area Community Plan was developed over
a long period of time, with both debate and analysis and this site was identified as appropriate for this level of
development. Please, just let it happen!
Thanks,
FLYNN S. STEWARTSEVERY
Principal
F&M Architects LLC
PO Box 6762
15 Kearns Road, Suite D
Snowmass Village, CO 81615
O: 970 987 2707
C: 970 319 4407
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb59c8bb5479bf&siml=14fb59c8bb5479bf
1/1
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fields
Fields
Bryce Halverson <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:46 AM
Hi,
I'm writing this email to oppose the Fields subdivision. This is a reply to a post of Facebook asking for support
for this subdivision. El Jebel is already over populated as is.
Thanks,
Bryce Halverson | Controls, Inc. | 210 AABC, Suite B, Aspen, CO 81611 | P. 970927
4845 | C. 9702743359 (PLEASE DO NOT TEXT THIS NUMBER) | [email protected] |
www.LEAXcontrols.com
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb7b885dcb5f64&siml=14fb7b885dcb5f64
1/1
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail The Fields Subdivision
The Fields Subdivision
clayton smith <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:16 AM
ReplyTo: clayton smith <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
To those reviewing The Fields Subdivision proposal,
I am writing this letter to beg that you approve the Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan. I have
seen the bickering over the years between those who live here now and don’t think anyone
else should be allowed to move in and ruin their view vs. those who realize that growth is
inevitable and must be planned for properly in order to preserve the values of the region. Eagle County and interest parties in the area spent a lot of time, energy and money in
recent years via an extensive Public Process to create the Mid Valley Area Community
Plan, implement the Affordable Housing Guidelines, and provide a fee schedule for any new
development to contribute toward its impact on Traffic, School, and Emergency Services
and I think the approved results of that process should be implemented. I have lived in this
valley my whole life and my family started out in the Snowmass area, but as the years
progressed over 3 decades my family and I have slowly been pushed down valley as a
result of economics related to limited housing and now several of us live more than 40 miles
down valley and must commute to enjoy and/or work in the area we grew up in. The
proposed Fields Subdivision is near a significant town (El Jebel) that has shopping, jobs,
services, and entertainment so there is no reason not to provide the needed housing
opportunities in this area at a reasonable density. The proposed Fields Subdivision is
sandwiched between two other housing neighborhoods of similar density (to the east and to
the north) so this is the perfect place to infill more housing near existing neighborhoods. Additionally, there is existing utilities available that will not require individual wells or sewer
or power lines that would be necessary if this housing was forced to be spread out over
larger area throughout the valley. The other debate this valley has witnessed over the years is among the governing entities in
the area. We cannot fault the Town of Basalt for acting as best they can to do what is best
for the Town of Basalt, but they do not seem to recognize El Jebel as the significant
Community Center that it is so I ask that you keep their political agendas in mind and
determine if their comments are based on how this development affects Basalt or how this
development protects and serves the current and future needs of the Mid Valley Area.
Thank you for considering my comments here and please know that I support the Fields
Subdivision as proposed and ask that you approve the Sketch Plan being reviewed.
Thank you.
Clayton Smith
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb80f8d682b5ca&siml=14fb80f8d682b5ca
1/1
9/11/2015
The Fields Subdivision
President SVHA <[email protected]>
Cc: President SVHA <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:59 AM
To all that are and should be concerned,
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Summit Vista Homeowners Association, of whom did not receive any
direct notice regarding this development. Is a developer required to notify bordering homeowners of any
proposed development? Summit Vista Homeowners Association which consists of 51 homeowners are against the proposed Fields
development. We had our annual meeting on August 26, 2015 and every attending homeowner agreed that this
development would not benefit the area. This proposal is too tight and has too many flaws to allow them to
proceed. Our subdivision, which borders the proposed property, has 51 homes on 20 acres with a 1.6 acre park
and 4.3 acres of open space/buffer along highway 82. As currently proposed they have 19 acres and are
offering .42 acres as Park or playground and 2.4 acres of open space//buffer to the highway. We already have
too much traffic on Valley Road and the proposal does not blend well with the Rural setting we have here, let
alone the zoning. The Crown Mountain park is one mile away, too far for easy access. RFTA bus transportation
is also one mile away, the way they measured it in the proposal is as the crow flies from the closest corner of
the property to a bus stop that is across the highway. People will still drive to the bus stop rather than walking
or riding their bikes that far. The entrance/exit to the property is not going to work, people will turn to head East
on Valley road rather than go to the highway. There is another development going in along highway 82 that is
set up for a higher density development with proper infrastructure, 554 Valley Road is not the place. If you allow
this property, which is in the Arlian Ranch subdivision, to rezone then each lot owner along this corridor can also
rezone their property. The proposal is lacking recreational areas. With the exception of some open space buffer areas on the north and
south ends, the only open space/park/recreation area for an estimated 100 200 children that will reside in the
subdivision, is a "small pocket park/playground" that is inconvenient to the majority of the lots. This seems grossly
inadequate.
The proposal lacks parking and adequate snow storage.
The proposal estimates additional traffic on Valley Rd of 787 daily trips. Valley Rd is narrow and is already
busy with speed limits being exceeded regularly. Many pedestrians and cyclists use Valley Road which has no
sidewalks available and deep ditches on both sides leaving pedestrians and nonvehicular traffic nowhere to go.
Improvements to Valley Road and a speed management plan must accompany such additional density in the area.
The proposal lacks access to RFTA. The RFTA park and ride at El Jebel is already being fully utilized. The
distance from the proposed site is too far and lacks a safe route (see previous concern about Valley Road) for
pedestrian access to RFTA. The additional demand for park and ride parking will tax the already utilized overflow
parking at the Eagle County Building. If this is approved, perhaps a local RFTA shuttle looping through Blue Lake,
Willits and Valley Road corridor would be in order. Note: the applicant incorrectly claims in the Sustainable
Community Index checklist that the proposed site is less than 1/4 mile from the bus stop in Blue Lake. From a
walking distance approach (which is what the SCI criteria is asking) this site is between 3/4 and 1 mile from the
Blue Lake RFTA stop and would require a crossing of Hwy 82. Obviously, that is not realistic without another
pedestrian tunnel.
The three quarter intersection helps, but does not change the fact that there will be 787 additional trips on one
end or the other of Valley Road. More importantly, the traffic studies appear to assume that all of these additional
trips destination is "access to Hwy 82" and does not take into account that much of the traffic being routed onto
Hwy 82 at JW Drive will be reentering Valley Rd via El Jebel Rd in order to access Crown Mtn Park/Eagle County
Building, the RFTA park and ride, Movie Land, the City Market/shopping area, etc. further congesting an already
busy, poorly configured intersection.
The proposal will add population to an area of Eagle County already being inadequately staffed and maintained
by Eagle County. The Sheriff's department is frequently understaffed. Road striping on Valley and El Jebel roads
is rarely visible, leaving turning lanes at those intersections improperly used, thus compounding traffic problems
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb8696c5c4aaae&siml=14fb8696c5c4aaae
1/2
9/11/2015
there. Existing subdivisions frequently see zoning, parking and rightofway issues unaddressed. Road maintenance
is lacking and intersections are over capacity. If Eagle County is going to approve rezoning and new subdivisions of
this density, it needs to be ready to commit additional resources to this corner of the county. 554 Valley Road is a part of the Arlian Ranch subdivision, the entire subdivision is zoned Rural Residential. The amendment of protective covenants that changed the paragraph 7 of article IV stated that the lots could
undergo resubdivision. It does not state the lots can be rezoned. The intent of the amendment was to allow
subdividing that would be cohesive to the existing Arlian Ranch. Here is a part of the Amendment dated and
signed September 25, 1985:
1. Paragraph 7 of Article IV of both said Protective Covenants entitled "Resubdivision" is hereby amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
Paragraph 7. Resubdivision. The lots or tracts located within the property and described on one (1) or more final
plats thereof may be resubdivided into smaller lots or tracts and may be conveyed or encumbered in such smaller
lots or tracts; provided, any such resubdivision shall be subject to and in compliance with the laws and regulations,
including zoning and subdivision regulations, of the County or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over
such action. 2. Except to the extent herein expressly amended, the above referenced Protective Covenants shall otherwise be
and remain in full force and effect and said Protective Covenants, as hereby amended, shall run with the land and
shall be binding upon all parties having or acquiring any right, title or interest in the real property which is subject to
said Protective Covenants, or any part thereof. ...
We sincerely recommend for the Eagle County Board of Commissioners and the Roaring Fork Valley Planning
commission to deny the Fields proposal. Best Regards,
Pam Wood
President
Summit Vista Homeowners Association
[email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb8696c5c4aaae&siml=14fb8696c5c4aaae
2/2
9/10/2015
Eagle County Government Mail The Fields
The Fields
1 message
Dawnette Smith <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:09 AM
Eagle County:
I have been a resident of the valley since 1998 and have been fortunate enough live in Cerise Ranch for 7 years.
I greatly enjoy and appreciate everything our part of the valley has to offer. The Fields would be an incredible
addition. It is conducive to the existing amenities, aesthetically fitting to the surrounding property and already fits
into the The Mid Valley Area Community Plan. I have had my own personal experience in finding affordable housing in the midvalley so I understand the
challenges facing many of my colleagues, friends, associates and neighbors in the community. In addition to
being a local resident, I am a real estate broker and have second hand experience with the affordable housing
issues in the midvalley through many clients and friends. The Fields will provide a solution to assist in providing
the major need of affordable housing in the midvalley.
The increased activity in the El Jebel intersection that will be created from residence of The Fields has already
been address which will benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and subdivisions. The thoughtful developers are
providing the appropriate road impact fees to Eagle county to further improve the safety of motorists and
pedestrians at the El Jebel intersection.
Approval of the Fields Subdivision will provide a plethora of benefits to the area. This opportunity should not be
missed by Eagle County and I strongly support the approval of The Fields.
Please confirm the receipt of this email to ensure that it has been submitted for the record to Eagle County.
Thank you,
Dawnette
DAWNETTE SMITH gri, cne, trc
Certified International Property Specialist
broker
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fb76049b7203fd&siml=14fb76049b7203fd
1/2
9/10/2015
[email protected]
c 970 618 1422
t 970 920 2300
600 E Main St Ste 103 Aspen CO 81611
600 East Main Street Suite 103, Aspen Colorado 81611
Visit www.stirlingpeak.com to search the MLS and local rental listings
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fb76049b7203fd&siml=14fb76049b7203fd
2/2
9/11/2015
Vanessa Kirianoff <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:29 AM
<[email protected]>
To whom it may concern,
I am writing in support of the proposed subdivision, The Fields.
I have lived in the valley for over ten years, own four businesses, and travel between Aspen and Glenwood
Springs on a regular basis. Last year, I moved down valley from Aspen due to the outrageous cost of living in
Aspen and my inability to find an affordable option with a little more space for my family.
I am in support of The Fields because I, as well as many friends of mine, who live and work in this valley are in
the same predicament; we need somewhere to live but don't have the fund for a home in Aspen, or the means to
buy an acre or more of land with a home. The new construction going up in the current Willits are condos selling
for almost a million dollars. The opportunities in this valley for a home or duplex with a yard in a nice and safe
are are few and far between, and the opportunity to bring in almost 100 more units is one that should not be
ignored for the sake of drawing people back to Basalt and away from El Jebel.
El Jebel has been an area with businesses and homes since as long as I can remember, and thanks to Whole
Foods and many other great (and local) businesses, has starting to thrive as a wonderful place to live.
Please consider this email as my full support of this subdivision, and my expression of the belief that this
development is a wonderful addition to the valley that will only provide a greater community mid valley and a
wonderful place for families to call home.
Thank you for your time,
Vanessa Keep
Sent from my iPhone
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb81811db56d0c&siml=14fb81811db56d0c
1/1
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail I do not support The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
I do not support The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Submittal
[email protected] <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Dear Sean and Andrea,
I am writing to let you know that I do not support The Fields subdivision. There are many concerns about this
subdivision, and I ask you to please give those concerns serious consideration when you review this submittal. Thank you.
Regards,
Linda Hoffman
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fba8f264f759f1&siml=14fba8f264f759f1
1/1
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: Affordable housing El Jebel area
Fwd: Affordable housing El Jebel area
Patrick Sieders <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:52 AM
The Mid Valley Area Community Plan was a long public process that identified this site as being appropriate for
this level of development in close proximity to a “Community Center” like El Jebel.
Just because it is not in the political interests of Basalt or Pitkin County who fail to recognize El Jebel as a
Community Center does not mean the needs of the greater Roaring Fork Valley should be ignored.
Approval of the Fields will prevent urban sprawl that destroys the rural nature of the area because of its
appropriate proximity to infrastructure, utilities, shopping, jobs, and services. This site is one of the last sites
available according to any development planning document to provide housing near infrastructure and although it
may change the current use of this 20 acres to provide 98 homes, it will save the 200 acres that would be
needed to put those same 200 homes on any other property whose rural zone designation requires a minimum of
2 acres per home.
Approval of the fields at this appropriate location will provide significant funding by way of development fees
specifically earmarked for traffic impact, school impact, emergency services impact, etc.
Affordable Housing. It is no secret that affordable housing is a primary need in this area. Our school districts,
municipal workforce, emergency services, and land stewards are just a few of the public sector entities who are
screaming for affordable housing. The private sector is another significant need. The traffic issues and
associated pollution created by workers traveling from down valley as far as Rifle could be relieved by providing
the affordable housing proposed by the Fields Subdivision.
Approval of the Fields Subdivision will provide immediate relief to the current El Jebel intersection by giving
users of that intersection a safe alternative, and equally as important, it will provide nearly $400,000 in road
impact fees to Eagle County that can be used to further improve the El Jebel intersection in concert with Eagle
County’s master plan of the traffic in the area.
Any other benefit that we as locals can recognize by providing attainable homes near jobs and local
infrastructure in accordance with county planning/zoning documents that emphasize the need to limit urban
sprawl by providing density near community centers like El Jebel.
Sent from Gmail Mobile
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb7beb54c3714b&siml=14fb7beb54c3714b
1/1
9/11/2015
Jennifer Emig <[email protected]>
To: Andrea Weber <[email protected]>
Cc: Sean Hanagan <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 9:22 AM
On side note I do agree with a plan like the Fields or anything like it that provides affordable housing. However,
there is one part about their plan that I wish was different. Way more than 25% needs to be affordable housing,
though I'd like that term defined by the developer. Then affordable but not deed restricted sounds great, if it's
actually affordable. The whole point is AFFORDABLE. 300K+ is not affordable for many of us. So again, I'd like
to see their definition of what that means. All of that said, if it truly is a ralistic affordable housing plan, I support
it 200%! There has got to be a solution or this valley will end up being occupied with only the wealthy and
anyone who has their home paid off already. "...proposed plans includes 98 condos, townhome and singlefamily homes, more than 25% of them will be
affordable housing specific. The remainder units will be affordable to the working class of the valley, but will not
have the deed restrictions of traditional affordable housing. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Andrea Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb7d9a3baecfde&siml=14fb7d9a3baecfde
1/1
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: The Fields Subdivision and Ace Lane
Fwd: The Fields Subdivision and Ace Lane
Sean Hanagan <[email protected]>
Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:28 PM
Forwarded message
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:51 PM
Subject: The Fields Subdivision and Ace Lane
I am writing this note to you because I feel very strongly that the Fields Subdivision, Ace
Lane, and the Crawford/Blue Lake projects are very detrimental to the Midvalley as they
appear now. The density is overwhelming. If any of the board or decision makers, or even
the developers lived in the Midvalley, they would feel the same way. This is rural Eagle
County/unincorporated Carbondale. The effect this would have on every service,
infrastructure and family here would be immense. Its hard to believe that this density would
even be proposed. Schools, police and ambulance and fire, roads, and on and on are
inadequate for the proposed density. Can you imagine City Market with this many additional
residential units?. I can't. Valley Road which goes in front of Summit Vista, Crown
Mountain, etc. has no shoulder and is a narrow, rural road. Traffic is already moving too
fast on it. Valley Road is busy now with walkers, dog walkers, bikers, joggers, children. More traffic on this road would be dangerous to say the least. For the record, I live in Summit Vista Subdivision, next to the proposed Fields Subdivision. If I have my information correct, the Fields Subdivision is 98 units on 17 acres. The Summit
Vista subdivision is 52 units on not much more acreage. And the Summit Vista homes are
VERY close to one another. Even if I didn't live in such close proximity to this proposed
project, I would be writing to you because of the absurdity of the density of these projects. The Board should come "walk a mile in my shoes", then they would understand that these
projects are a NO the way they are presented. There is so much at stake here. Don't let the Midvalley be ruined. It is rural. Urban density
is not appropriate for Midvalley. Don't let it happen. Thank you for taking my opinions and
STRONG feelings into consideration.
Connie Rice
Summit Vista Subdivision
Sean Hanagan
Planner II
9703288748
[email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fbe50284205d1f&siml=14fbe50284205d1f
1/2
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: The Fields Subdivision and Ace Lane
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fbe50284205d1f&siml=14fbe50284205d1f
2/2
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: fields development
Fwd: fields development
Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:29 PM
Forwarded message
From: <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:58 AM
Subject: fields development
We object to the fields development:
The area around El Jebel and highway 82 light is becoming a traffic nightmare for the
residents residing in the surrounding areas.
The commuters are bogged down already with the series of stop lights between Basalt and
on through Glenwood Springs.
Overbuilding the area contributes to the loss of "country feeling" that is treasured here. So far none of the arguments in favor of more housing and development have
addressed the crowding and traffic problems with any sense of reality.
We watch as developers set forth plans to address the concerns and then quietly change
"the deal" in the process.
Our vote would be "no" to development of "the field".
Thank you
Suzanne Driggers
resident of Blue Lake
[email protected]
Sean Hanagan
Planner II
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fbe512770a2019&siml=14fbe512770a2019
1/2
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: fields development
9703288748
[email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fbe512770a2019&siml=14fbe512770a2019
2/2
9/11/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: Fields Subdivision
Fwd: Fields Subdivision
Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:27 PM
Forwarded message
From: Patrice Becker <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:11 PM
Subject: Fields Subdivision
Dear Sean,
Looking over the proposal and sketch.
I encourage you to not approve this subdivision.
The traffic on 82 is already a nightmare. The impact to the El Jabel area will change our quality of life.
Sitting cars at traffic lights will increase the pollution. Life as we know it will change for the worst.
Car pollution, light pollution.
I do not agree with the traffic study. 98 residences! Will impact the highway in the mid valley.
Tree Farm, Willits, and this subdivision will ruin the reason we moved here.
I ask you to share my request with the others that are involved in making this decision.
Thank you for your time,
Patrice K. Becker
Sean Hanagan
Planner II
9703288748
[email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fbe4f29c82bfad&siml=14fbe4f29c82bfad
1/1
9/14/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: "Walkability"
Fwd: "Walkability"
Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 3:19 PM
Forwarded message
From: Ronald Kinnell <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:13 AM
Subject: Fwd: "Walkability"
Subject: "Walkability"
Fields developer claims "50% of the development is within walking distance (1/4mile)
of transit stop (5)". " the site is located LESS than 1/4 mile from RFTA bus stop at
Blue Lake". (Page 13)
The truth is 50%of the development is more like 1/2 mile,(as the crow flies), from the
RFTA bus stop in Blue lake. For someone to walk from the Fields property to the Blue lake RFTA bus stop: 1. They would have to walk to the UNLIT bike path from their home, 2,000 feet to
the end of the path, which ends at the,west end of the development.
2. Leap over an irrigation ditch.
3. Walk against the flow of HWY 82 for another 1,000 plus feet on the unlit HWY to
the new traffic light. (Imagine doing this during the winter months with HWY
chemical spray hitting you)! Five months out of the year it is dark out when people
go to work.
4. Cross eight lane HWY 82 roadway, ( wider than the main intersection at El Jebel
that has an underpass). 5. Then walk another .3 of a mile on the rural UNLIT roadway carrying your skies
boots and poles, or a couple of bags of groceries, finally reaching the RFTA bus
stop. Won't happen.
6. The RFTA local bus only stops at this stop once every half hour. The bus stop
that is 3/4 of a mile from the Fields subdivision has buses every 10 minutes, but
only 1% of the bus riders would walk that far to catch a bus.
I beg to differ with the developers mission statement, "will provide safe access to a
RFTA bus stop". Unless they plan to add lights to bike paths, and rural roads, and
plow the snow.
Page 15 "WALKABLE VICINITY Most errands would require a car..."
Developers claim that their subdivision is a 1/4 mile to Crown park. Again the truth
is, to walk (unlit bike path, that goes through Summit Vista and has never been
plowed in the winter), or drive to the entrance of Crown park, it is more like a 1/2
mile. Need to check out this developers measuring methods and accuracy of their
statements in their planning documents. Sure makes their development more
attractive then it really is. Again I would discourage you from changing this subdivision from Rural Residential
to RMR. The density of this subdivision is to high, (located so far from the
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fcdbad0b00d39c&siml=14fcdbad0b00d39c
1/2
9/14/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: "Walkability"
commercial center). They also need more open space inside this subdivision with
this many homes. We do not need any more cars on HWY 82 in this area, and this
development will do just that. High density should be reserved for subdivisions
within waking distance to the El Jebel center.
Subject: Fields subdivision density
Traffic backup is increasing in the mid valley, yet developers plan
to increase the density of their subdivisions. The Roaring Fork
Valley Regional Planning Commission and and Eagle county are
now approving developments with double the density of the
current subdivisions in the area. RFTA had to add bus slip lanes,
due to the traffic jams in the mid valley, (that kept their buses
behind schedule), by staying in the slow moving traffic. Adding
higher density subdivisions will only add more vehicles and
likewise more congestion.
The Fields subdivision, located about a mile west of City Market,
is asking to increase their density by asking for their P.U.D.
Application to be changed from the current Rural Residential, to
a multi family zone. They are cramming 72 duplex units, 26
single family homes into less than 20 acres! This is twice the
density of the surrounding subdivisions. This Fields subdivision
could add another 160 vehicles to the already midvalley
congested traffic. According to the Fields developers, most of
the errands would require a car due, to the distance from the
center of El Jebel. With the Tree Farm development of four
hundred units, and other developments on line for approval in
the midvalley, we could experience grid lock similar to what
Aspen has had to deal with for the past 25 years.
How can we stop the out of control growth being approved for
the midvalley? I agree with my neighbors and recent
commentaries in the papers, that it is time to stop any further
high density growth in El Jebel.
Submitted by Ron Kinnell El Jebel 29 year resident, 970251
0047
Sean Hanagan
Planner II
9703288748
[email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fcdbad0b00d39c&siml=14fcdbad0b00d39c
2/2
9/9/2015
Kristi Close <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:29 PM
ReplyTo: Kristi Close <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Please please please allow this development. As apart of the young, recently graduated, working class,
it has been very difficult to find living other than someones spare bedroom. Please help us stay in this
beautiful valley and community. a. The Mid Valley Area Community Plan was a long public process that identified this site as being
appropriate for this level of development in close proximity to a “Community Center” like El Jebel.
Just because it is not in the political interests of Basalt or Pitkin County who fail to recognize El Jebel as
a Community Center does not mean the needs of the greater Roaring Fork Valley should be ignored.
b. Approval of the Fields will prevent urban sprawl that destroys the rural nature of the area because of
its appropriate proximity to infrastructure, utilities, shopping, jobs, and services. This site is one of the
last sites available according to any development planning document to provide housing near
infrastructure and although it may change the current use of this 20 acres to provide 98 homes, it will
save the 200 acres that would be needed to put those same 200 homes on any other property whose
rural zone designation requires a minimum of 2 acres per home.
c. Approval of the fields at this appropriate location will provide significant funding by way of
development fees specifically earmarked for traffic impact, school impact, emergency services impact,
etc.
d. Affordable Housing. It is no secret that affordable housing is a primary need in this area. Our school
districts, municipal workforce, emergency services, and land stewards are just a few of the public
sector entities who are screaming for affordable housing. The private sector is another significant need.
The traffic issues and associated pollution created by workers traveling from down valley as far as Rifle
could be relieved by providing the affordable housing proposed by the Fields Subdivision.
e. Approval of the Fields Subdivision will provide immediate relief to the current El Jebel intersection by
giving users of that intersection a safe alternative, and equally as important, it will provide nearly
$400,000 in road impact fees to Eagle County that can be used to further improve the El Jebel
intersection in concert with Eagle County’s master plan of the traffic in the area.
f. Any other benefit that we as locals can recognize by providing attainable homes near jobs and local
infrastructure in accordance with county planning/zoning documents that emphasize the need to limit
urban sprawl by providing density near community centers like El Jebel. Thanks in advance for your time. Kristi Close https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fb4041266caada&siml=14fb4041266caada
1/1
9/15/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: Proposed Fields Subdivision
Fwd: Proposed Fields Subdivision
1 message
Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 2:26 PM
Forwarded message
From: Lisa DiMento <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Proposed Fields Subdivision
Dear Sean,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Fields Development in El Jebel.
Many concerned residents of the Blue Lake HOA, the Sopris Village HOA, The Emma
Caucus, Missouri Heights, and Basalt are very much against both the Fields Development
proposal and ACE Lane’s Woody Ventures, LLC, or any big development that has not taken
into consideration the huge traffic problems, air quality issues, government services in the
area, the affordable housing problem, the impact on the local schools (Basalt Elementary is
already beyond capacity with students along with teachers who cannot afford to live here),
the dangerous intersections at Hwy 82 and El Jebel Rd. and the intersection at JW Dr. and
HWY 82, the rentals and businesses that are sitting empty in Shadowrock and the Willits
subdivision, the impact on Mid Valley Metro, the impact on the town of Basalt, the impact on
winter wild life that range in this area, the impact of TOO MANY HOUSES, TOO MUCH
PROPOSED RETAIL AND DUPLEXES in a small unincorporated area. (If we have to call a
sheriff for any reason in our area we have to call Vail dispatch first!) The Eagle Planning
Office who think this is such a great development is out of touch with the residents and the
traffic problems that exist in this area.
The proposed Fields Sub Division is within a mile of Ace Lane’s Woody Ventures project
that wants to add 400 homes, 20% bigger than his last proposal and 134,558 square feet of
retail square footage. Dave Marrs of Ace Lane’s Woody Ventures was quoted in the in the
Aspen Times as saying “The El Jebel area is the perfect place for highdensity
development”. REALLY? According to who? Dave Marrs? You? The developers? The
residents of El Jebel? The residents of Basalt? The commuters who sit in traffic at the light
at Highway 82 and El Jebel Rd? The County Commissioners? Both proposals are TOO
MUCH development for this small unincorporated area too soon without any concern for the
above mentioned! Why don’t these two developments go to vote and you ask the registered
voters and residents of this area what they think of the high density project that are on the
table for this area? Remember we recently voted down the massive recreation center.
We will ask for a unbiased traffic consultant; not one paid for by the developers. We will
provide a petition of concerned home owners, not only the registered voters who voted
down a massive recreation center, but Basalt residents and Missouri Heights residents
who will be impacted by the two developments for the Eagle County commissioners. We will
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fd2b0cd8efdb92&siml=14fd2b0cd8efdb92
1/2
9/15/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: Proposed Fields Subdivision
ask that this proposal be put to a vote to scale back both ACE Lane’s Woody Ventures
proposal and the Fields Sub Division. Many of us cannot make meetings at 2:00 pm and
4:00 pm due to work. The Fields Subdivision is a proposal from a firm from in Atlanta, GA. Have they done their
homework as to how the combined 26 single family homes and 36 duplexes along with the
400 homes and 134,558 sq feet of retail the ACE Lane Woody Ventures project will affect
the traffic and congestion in this small unincorporated area of Eagle? Our way of life and
quality of life will be negatively impacted by the two developments. The growth in this area
needs to be slowed down and not driven by an increase development and tax base for
Eagle County. We invite your firm from Atlanta and Commissioners Jeanne McQueeney, JIll Ryan, and
Kathy ChandlerHenry to come down and witness the traffic from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm and
from 6:45 am to 9:00 am on any given week day at the intersection of Hwy 82 and El Jebel
Rd. Try turning right from westbound Hwy 82 onto El Jebel Rd and witness how crowded
and dangerous it is. We'll make a video to show at the first scheduled hearing. What will the
developers of these two projects do to relieve the congestion? These developments will only
add to the current problem. They both need to be scaled down with time spent on the traffic
problems and improved governmental services in this area. What makes anyone think that
El Jebel is the “perfect place for high density development”? We’d like to hear the reasons. Appreciate your time with this matter. I will forward this email on to the Eagle County
Commissioners, the above Homeowners Associations, the Roaring Fork Regional Planning
Commission, The Basalt Town Council and Planning and Zoning Commissioners, Missouri
Heights and Basalt residents, the Aspen Daily News and the Aspen Times since you have
asked to not have a “group email”.
Appreciate the opportunity to give a comment.
Lisa DiMento
Blue Lake Subdivision
Sean Hanagan
Planner II
9703288748
[email protected]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=14fd2b0cd8efdb92&siml=14fd2b0cd8efdb92
2/2
9/16/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: "The Fields" and "The Tree Farm" subdivision proposals
Fwd: "The Fields" and "The Tree Farm" subdivision proposals
Ogren <[email protected]>
Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:56 AM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am responding to the email below in regards to another midvalley subdivision proposal. Please consider the negative impact on our small valley of adding more and more units to
the already congested valley floor, our schools, the roads, our police and fire departments,
water and water treatment plant as well as the things I am missing. Between the Ace Lane Tree Farm project of what 400 units(?) and this proposal of 98 units,
the valley will be negatively impacted. The Crawfords have also proposed a small
subdivision on JW Drive. Can the midvalley really support growth of this size? The proposal appears to serve a developer from another state to make money and then
leave town. The traffic on Highway 82 is already at full volume morning and afternoon. Adding more commuters to the mix would not be a wise decision.
Just because there is open land, doesn't mean it should be filled with more buildings. To our commissioners, please thoughtfully consider the well being of the valley and its
limited resources prior to approving another development. Sincerely,
Dawn Ogren
227 Coyote Circle
Carondale (Blue Lake)
Original Message
From: Gina Shaw <[email protected]>
To: Gina Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wed, Aug 26, 2015 2:53 pm
Subject: "The Fields" subdivision proposal
Attention Blue Lake residents and owners,
I received the following notice from Eagle County Community Development for a proposed subdivision directly
south of Blue Lake (across Hwy 82) at 554 Valley Road:
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fd6a7d9a467c90&siml=14fd6a7d9a467c90
1/2
9/16/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Fwd: "The Fields" and "The Tree Farm" subdivision proposals
Thank you for taking the time to review the attached Eagle County Land Use Application for The Fields
Subdivision. The hearing date has not been determined. If you have any questions please contact Sean
Hanagan at [email protected]. Please submit comments by September 10, 2015. If no comments
are warranted, please let us know as soon as possible so we can move forward with the project.
Please do not respond in a group email.
Thanks,
Andrea Weber
PO Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631
P: 9703288746 F: 9703287185
[email protected]
The link below was provided to me by Mr. Hanagan:
www.eaglecounty.us/Planning/Documents/Referrals/SUS5557_Referral/
Thank you!
Gina Shaw
Blue Lake Owner's Association Office Manager
9709631300
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fd6a7d9a467c90&siml=14fd6a7d9a467c90
2/2
9/17/2015
Eagle County Government Mail Email to Sean Hanagan regarding both the Fields and Tree Farm Proposals
Email to Sean Hanagan regarding both the Fields and Tree Farm Proposals
Lisa DiMento <[email protected]>
Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:36 AM
Andrea,
It was nice to talk with you about the proposed ACE Lane Tree Farm Proposal and Field Subdivisions and the
numerous issues surrounding them.
My email to Sean Hanagan regarding the Fields Subdivision that speaks directly to the ACE Lane Tree Farm
Development is below for you send out to the Roaring Fork Planning Commission Members. You can either
forward this email or copy it onto another email which either you prefer. You assured me that the below email
would go to each RFPC member and all who will hear the comments from the residents of the mid valley.
Thank you again for your time with this important issue.
Lisa DiMento
[email protected] From: Lisa DiMento
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:28 AM
To: Andrea Weber
Subject: Re: Fwd: Proposed Fields Subdivision
Andrea,
Good Morning.
I left a voice mail for you to ask if I could possible have emailed to me of all the member of
the Roaring Fork Planning Commision: Kim Bock, John Eaton, Phillip Ring, Raul Gawrys,
Temple Glassier – Chairman, Judith Kula, Catherine Markle, Ken Ransford, and Charles Spickert.
Will the email address of [email protected] reach all of the members of the RFPC?
Thank you for your time!
Lisa Amador DiMenot
[email protected]
From: Andrea Weber
Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Fields Subdivision
Lisa,
Thank you for your comments. All comments are made part of the public record/file and will be presented to the
Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners.
Thanks,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=14fdc2a6067a8521&siml=14fdc2a6067a8521
1/3
9/17/2015
Andrea Weber
PO Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631
P: 9703288746 F: 9703287185
[email protected]
Forwarded message
From: Lisa DiMento <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:26 PM
Subject: Proposed Fields Subdivision
Dear Sean,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Fields Development in El
Jebel.
Many concerned residents of the Blue Lake HOA, the Sopris Village HOA, The Emma
Caucus, Missouri Heights, and Basalt are very much against both the Fields Development
proposal and ACE Lane’s Woody Ventures, LLC, or any big development that has not
taken into consideration the huge traffic problems, air quality issues, government services
in the area, the affordable housing problem, the impact on the local schools (Basalt
Elementary is already beyond capacity with students along with teachers who cannot
afford to live here), the dangerous intersections at Hwy 82 and El Jebel Rd. and the
intersection at JW Dr. and HWY 82, the rentals and businesses that are sitting empty in
Shadowrock and the Willits subdivision, the impact on Mid Valley Metro, the impact on the
town of Basalt, the impact on winter wild life that range in this area, the impact of TOO
MANY HOUSES, TOO MUCH PROPOSED RETAIL AND DUPLEXES in a small
unincorporated area. (If we have to call a sheriff for any reason in our area we have to call
Vail dispatch first!) The Eagle Planning Office who think this is such a great development
is out of touch with the residents and the traffic problems that exist in this area.
The proposed Fields Sub Division is within a mile of Ace Lane’s Woody Ventures project
that wants to add 400 homes, 20% bigger than his last proposal and 134,558 square feet
of retail square footage. Dave Marrs of Ace Lane’s Woody Ventures was quoted in the in
the Aspen Times as saying “The El Jebel area is the perfect place for highdensity
development”. REALLY? According to who? Dave Marrs? You? The developers? The
residents of El Jebel? The residents of Basalt? The commuters who sit in traffic at the light
at Highway 82 and El Jebel Rd? The County Commissioners? Both proposals are TOO
MUCH development for this small unincorporated area too soon without any concern for
the above mentioned! Why don’t these two developments go to vote and you ask the
registered voters and residents of this area what they think of the high density project that
are on the table for this area? Remember we recently voted down the massive recreation
center.
We will ask for a unbiased traffic consultant; not one paid for by the developers. We will
provide a petition of concerned home owners, not only the registered voters who voted
down a massive recreation center, but Basalt residents and Missouri Heights residents
who will be impacted by the two developments for the Eagle County commissioners. We
will ask that this proposal be put to a vote to scale back both ACE Lane’s Woody Ventures
2/3
9/17/2015
proposal and the Fields Sub Division. Many of us cannot make meetings at 2:00 pm and
4:00 pm due to work. The Fields Subdivision is a proposal from a firm from in Atlanta, GA. Have they done their
homework as to how the combined 26 single family homes and 36 duplexes along with
the 400 homes and 134,558 sq feet of retail the ACE Lane Woody Ventures project will
affect the traffic and congestion in this small unincorporated area of Eagle? Our way of life
and quality of life will be negatively impacted by the two developments. The growth in this
area needs to be slowed down and not driven by an increase development and tax base
for Eagle County. We invite your firm from Atlanta and Commissioners Jeanne McQueeney, JIll Ryan, and
Kathy ChandlerHenry to come down and witness the traffic from 3:00 pm to 6:00 pm and
from 6:45 am to 9:00 am on any given week day at the intersection of Hwy 82 and El
Jebel Rd. Try turning right from westbound Hwy 82 onto El Jebel Rd and witness how
crowded and dangerous it is. We'll make a video to show at the first scheduled hearing.
What will the developers of these two projects do to relieve the congestion? These
developments will only add to the current problem. They both need to be scaled down with
time spent on the traffic problems and improved governmental services in this area. What
makes anyone think that El Jebel is the “perfect place for high density development”?
We’d like to hear the reasons. Appreciate your time with this matter. I will forward this email on to the Eagle County
Commissioners, the above Homeowners Associations, the Roaring Fork Regional
Planning Commission, The Basalt Town Council and Planning and Zoning
Commissioners, Missouri Heights and Basalt residents, the Aspen Daily News and the
Aspen Times since you have asked to not have a “group email”.
Appreciate the opportunity to give a comment.
Lisa DiMento
Blue Lake Subdivision
Sean Hanagan
Planner II
9703288748
[email protected]
3/3
To:
Eagle County Planning
Eagle County Planning Commission
Eagle County County Commissioners
Re:
Mid Valley Residential Development Proposal Review
Dear Decision Makers,
Recent proposals for residential development in the Mid Valley area near El Jebel have triggered familiar
comments in favor and in opposition of development. Much will be said in formal and informal forums as you
review and determine the fate of housing opportunities in the area. The desired outcome of sending this letter is
for you to have access to a well-rounded information base by which your decisions regarding residential
development in the Roaring Fork Valley are guided. Some of the information presented below is new and some
derives from long range planning considerations from the past that apply today.
The primary intent of this letter is to share with you the recent publication of a video documentary and a
weeklong series of articles on the housing issue faced by residents of the Roaring Fork Valley. The Glenwood
Independent Post released the documentary video and a weeklong series of front page articles titled “The Price of
Paradise”. You can find the article series in the paper or online each day of the week (Sept 21-25), and the video
documentary is on their website according to The Post. Links to the articles and video are as follows for your
convenience:
The Editor’s introduction letter can be found at:
http://www.postindependent.com/opinion/18212555-113/how-can-we-help-people-stay-here-in
The Article Series “The Price of Paradise” can be found in the news section each day this week at:
http://www.postindependent.com/
The Documentary Video can be found at:
http://www.postindependent.com/news/18278879-113/the-price-of-paradise-documentary
The secondary intent of this letter is to shine a reminding light on some of the adopted plans and considerations
made in recent years after thorough professional and public processes that led to decisions for long term planning
in the area. Some of these considerations are as follows:
A. Public Debate: The “Big 2”. There are typically two primary debates that arise when new development
is proposed:
1) “No More Growth!” vs. “Growth is Inevitable”. The two sides of this debate are both very loud. Is
there any data supporting the idea that growth will not continue in our area? Has anyone presented a
long term planning strategy that can legally stop growth and address affordable living
simultaneously? If not, then wouldn’t it be prudent to encourage smart growth near existing
Community Centers that has been vetted and approved upon thorough professional master planning
and public process such as that which yielded the Mid Valley Area Community Plan? Although this
debate tends to get loud, especially in emotional public hearings, please consider the rational and
professional consideration that went into Area Master Plans which identified appropriate areas for
absorbing growth near existing infrastructure to curb urban sprawl.
2) Political Debate. It is not uncommon for jurisdictional entities to voice their preference for any
development proposed outside the area they have determined belongs to their jurisdiction and
economy to be denied in favor of the development happening within their jurisdiction. We must
applaud the decision makers at these entities for wanting what is best for the economy within their
jurisdiction, but what about the best interest of the rest of the Valley? Please consider the regional
needs when reviewing appropriate development proposals consistent with the Mid Valley Area
Community Plan that respects El Jebel as the Community Center we all know to be.
B. Development Impact Fees. Some of the infrastructure and public services may have experienced
insufficient funding to keep up with the rapid growth we saw a decade ago and some facilities (i.e. roads)
and/or public entities are showing the stress of their growth which is sometimes a topic for comment
when development is proposed. Could County officials ease some of the concerns of this issue by
reminding the public of the major adjustment to the development impact fee structure that has occurred
during the downtime since the last growth boom? The increase of the Road Impact Fee is a great example
as one that would now generate approximately $375,000-$450,000 for a roughly 100 home development.
Could a better understanding of the positive impacts of appropriate development be fostered by more
consideration and discussion on the significance of fees generated for School District, Emergency
Services, Rural Fire, Road Impact, etc.?
C. Curbing Urban Sprawl. The first comment from opposition to development in the Mid Valley is almost
always about the impact it will have on their rural lifestyle or existing vistas. As a result, the core of what
drove the effort of master planning that resulted in the Mid Valley Area Community Plan (MVACP) was
preserving the rural valley floor and surrounding hillsides by accepting growth near existing Community
Centers that already have infrastructure, shopping, mass transit, and job proximity. Is there any new data
to justify deviating from the adopted Mid Valley Area Community Plan if development is proposed
consistent with the densities outlined in the Plan? Most of the rural property in the area beyond the
MVACP is zoned to allow no smaller than 2 acre lots so if development is not allowed near the
Community Centers at a higher density then pending growth that requires 100 homes would be forced
into the rural areas and thereby spreading homes, traffic, and utilities over 200 acres. Is that an acceptable
alternative? Are there any homes on 2 acre lots in the mid valley priced in a manner that can be
considered attainable or affordable?
D. The costs of workforce commute. The typical discussions on the costs of workforce commute revolve
around public detriments such as pollution, traffic delays, and road deterioration; but what about the
personal costs to the workforce? The list of impacts on the individual such as emotional, physical, and
circumstantial costs for a person having to commute from down valley to jobs up valley are are extensive
and sometimes subjective, but consideration could be given to a non-subjective or calculated impact on
income regarding the cost of fuel to travel back and forth. For example, a person living in New Castle
and traveling to the Snowmass area for work would travel 40 miles one way (80 miles round trip). If the
fuel mileage for the average worker’s vehicles is 17mpg (assuming some trucks and some cars) then
roughly 4.7 gallons of fuel are consumed during each day’s commute. The average gas price in the valley
is generally around $3.25/gal. so the cost of the commute is roughly $15.29 per day. Therefore,
disposable income could be increased by saving roughly $3,670 per year in fuel for a 5 day work week if
thoughtful development is allowed to take place closer to up valley employment centers. This is just one
of the many benefits smart and appropriate development in the Mid Valley can provide to the existing and
future residents of the area, and after viewing the Independent Post’s series “The Price of Paradise” the
significance of such a savings becomes clear.
Thank you for your time reading this letter and considering the points brought forth within as you consider
proposed residential developments in the El Jebel area.
Respectfully,
Keith Ehlers
Planning Representative
The Fields Development Group
12/2/2015
Eagle County Government Mail The Fields development
The Fields development
Thomas O'Keefe <[email protected]>
Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 2:49 PM
I ‘m urging the planning department to reject the Fields development. This is a quiet peaceful neighborhood that
will be destroyed if this project is approved. Way to big ,way more congestion that a huge majority of the
residents do not want. The people in the midvalley have had enough of these greedy land developers. Oh by the
way this project is funded by out of state money . Please nip this in the bud right now. Thank You Tom
O’Keefe El Jebel 3193472
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=1515f85f76088cb9&siml=1515f85f76088cb9
1/1
12/8/2015
The Fields 1 message
Schendler, Auden J. <[email protected]>
Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:17 PM
Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission:
Hi. I have a quick comment on the proposed Fields development.
As with the Tree Farm proposal, I don’t understand why we’d sprawl down the valley
when we haven’t built out Basalt and Willits. Until we have done that, I don’t think we should rezone
sprawl parcels for residential units. I’m not antidevelopment. I’m in favor of completing commercial and
residential opportunities in
Basalt and Willits first, and building them densely and at four stories if necessary.
But until we’ve done that, the landowner of the Fields can develop as zoned; changing that zoning doesn’t serve
the valley.
Thanks,
Auden Schendler
Basalt, CO
(970) 3095383
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=604fa0b842&view=pt&search=inbox&th=1518374a9bb48ddd&siml=1518374a9bb48ddd
1/1

"The Fields" subdivision

Transcription

Similar documents

This redemp on is for the Weber “Grills and Thrills” Promo on. Send in t

RADIO COMMERCIAL

iPhone Instructions - New Albany Schools website

PDF

Música: Time to said goodbye (Sarah Brightman y Andrea Bocelli)

FS 1000 Owners Manual

ordering instructions mail order

INSIDE High Climbers

Wednesday, March 20 6 to 8 p.m. Centerra Mirage Elementary

Service Request - MEDI