The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.01 Supplemental Application MaterialsNon-Regulatory Harvest Roaring Fork Executive Housing Summary Harvest Roaring Fork Executive Housing Summary Purpose This document serves to summarize the key assumptions, housing types, and the affordability of Harvest’s proposed housing offerings. Disclaimer This document is not regulatory and should be considered supplemental information that directly corresponds to, and further explains, the materials provided in the PUD application. Key Development Assumptions Harvest proposes to offer 150 Mitigation Units, 300 Workforce-Occupied Residences, and 1,050 Market Rate Workforce Residences for a total proposal of 1,500 residences. Table 1 below summarizes this housing mix. Each residence type is described in greater detail within their respective sections of this summary. Harvest’s 1,500 residences will be a mix of single-family detached homes, zero-lot line homes, townhomes, cottages, bungalows, and apartments, as permitted within the PUD Guide. Table 2 below summarizes each unit’s key characteristics and approximate sizes. TABLE 1 - UNIT MIX Unit Type Unit Count Description Mitigation Units 150 Price-capped and deed-restricted units as required by Article 8 of the LUDC. Workforce Occupied Residences 300 Deed-restricted units sold only to households with a full-time job in Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin County. These units are not price-capped. Market-Rate Workforce Units 1,050 Market-rate housing that is designed to house the diverse local workforce. These units are not price-capped or deed-restricted. Total 1,500 Not all of the above residence types are permitted within every Harvest neighborhood. The PUD Guide specifles which of these residence types are permitted in speciflc neighborhoods. Mobile homes are not allowed in Harvest. Harvest has obtained multiple cost estimates from large contractors (who have extensive residential construction experience on the Western Slope) to construct single-family detached homes between $220 per square foot and $350 per square foot (See Exhibit G). It is important to note that these contractors expect their cost estimates to decline further when Harvest constructs dozens of these residences at one time – benefltting from economies of scale. Additionally, these contractors have indicated that the costs per square foot to construct Harvest’s townhomes, bungalows, and apartments may be less than the TABLE 2 - RESIDENCE TYPES Unit Type Typical Size Range (SF)Description Max Height Min. Lot Width Min. Lot Depth Front Garage Rear Garage SF Detached Homes 1,200 to 2,800 Detached residences on separate lots. See Exhibit A for Example. 2 Stories 40 FT 85 FT Permitted Permitted Zero-Lot Line Homes 1,000 to 2,200 Detached residences on separate lots. See Exhibit B for Example. 2 Stories 30 FT 75 FT NO Permitted Townhomes 900 to 2,000 Attached residences on either separate or a common lot. See Exhibit C for example. 2 Stories 20 FT 65 FT NO Permitted Cottages 800 to 1,600 Detached residences on a common lot. See Exhibit D for example. 2 Stories 60 FT 60 FT NO Permitted Bungalows 700 to 1,400 Attached residences on a common lot. See Exhibit E for example. 2 Stories 60 FT 60 FT NO Permitted Apartments 450 to 1,400 Stacked multi- family residences on a common lot. See Exhibit F for example. 3 Stories 60 FT 80 FT NO Permitted range provided above. These construction costs have a direct impact on the anticipated sale prices and rental rates for the Workforce Occupied Residences and Market-Rate Workforce Residences, which is discussed in more detail in the “Workforce Occupied Residences” and “Market-Rate Workforce Residences” sections later in this summary. Housing Type 1 – Mitigation Units Harvest will provide at least 150 Mitigation Units, as required by Article 8 of the LUDC. Many of these mitigation units will likely be provided through the smaller attached residential type offerings, such as the townhomes, bungalows, and apartments. The sizes and prices of these residences will be governed by Article 8 of the LUDC, which is summarized below in Tables 3, 4, and 5. It is important to note that size and pricing requirements are not dependent on the residential type (townhomes, bungalows, or apartments) to ensure affordability and conformance with Article 8 of the LUDC. For clariflcation, the Harvest team does not expect to list each of these Table 3 - Category I Mitigation Units 20% of Mitigation Units Up to 80% of AMI Unit Type Min. Size (SF) Residents Max Rent Max Price Studio Apt 500 1 $1,644 $181,456 1-Bed 700 2 $1,878 $207,203 2-Bed 950 2.5 $1,996 $220,199 3-Bed 1,200 3 $2,113 $233,195 Table 4 - Category II Mitigation Units 30% of Mitigation Units Up to 100% of AMI Unit Type Min. Size (SF) Residents Max Rent Max Price Studio Apt 500 1 $2,056 $226,820 1-Bed 700 2 $2,347 $259,004 2-Bed 950 2.5 $2,494 $275,249 3-Bed 1,200 3 $2,642 $291,494 Table 5 - Category III Mitigation Units 50% of Mitigation Units Up to 180% of AMI Unit Type Min. Size (SF) Residents Max Rent (110%) Max Price (120%) Max Price (140%) Max Price (180%) Studio Apt 500 1 $2,261 $272,184 $317,548 $408,276 1-Bed 700 2 $2,582 $310,805 $362,605 $466,207 2-Bed 950 2.5 $2,744 $330,299 $385,349 $495,448 3-Bed 1,200 3 $2,906 $349,793 $408,092 $524,690 Mitigation Unit types for sale and for rent. An estimate of the residence mix at full build-out is presented in the “Community Build-Out Snapshot” section at the end of this summary. Harvest’s Mitigation Units will be price-capped and deed-restricted per the guidelines included within Article 8 of the LUDC. These prices and rents may only fiuctuate with the annual AMI limit publishing of the Garfleld County Housing Authority (GCHA). As a reminder, examples of Harvest’s townhomes, bungalows, and apartments can be found in Exhibits C, E, and F, respectively. Housing Type 2 – Workforce Occupied Residences Harvest’s 300 Workforce Occupied Residences will speciflcally require the owner to (i) hold a full-time job (working no less than 30 hours per week) in either Garfleld County, Pitkin County, or Eagle County, and (ii) live full-time in their Workforce Occupied Residence (primary place of residence). This deed restriction for these residences will be perpetual, ensuring that any future sales are made only to other local full-time employees and residents. This mechanism grants homeowners more fiexibility than the Mitigation Units but still aims to ensure these homes are owned exclusively by the local workforce. Harvest’s Workforce Occupied Residences are not subject to Article 8 of the LUDC because they are not required by the LUDC. Hence, there are no minimum or maximum sizes or prices imposed on these units. This allows a greater level of design fiexibility for the Harvest team. To provide one example, a detached, 1,100 SF, three-bedroom cottage would otherwise be prohibited by Article 8 of the LUDC (due to size requirements) but may still be an attractive home to many workforce households. Given the construction costs from the “Key Development Assumptions” section provided earlier in this summary, and the anticipated land, design, and flnancing costs, and a reasonable proflt margin, the Harvest team expects to be able to price this unit between $475,000 and $575,000. Housing Type 3 – Market-Rate Workforce Residences The remaining 1,050 Market-Rate Workforce Residences follow a similar theme to Harvest’s 300 Workforce Occupied Residences, however there are no proposed deed restrictions (except for typical HOA and architectural control restrictions). This gives the workforce full control over their home ownership, while maintaining the vision of providing attainable workforce housing. The PUD Guide promotes thoughtful and cohesive development within each neighborhood, which will be the guiding factor in determining the residence mixes, sizes, and prices of these homes. These homes will generally range from $400,000 to $1,500,000 and will be designed to accommodate the entirety of the workforce – from nurses, flreflghters, and police officers to doctors, bankers, and executives. Table 6 below expands upon Table 2 by providing a few different examples of Market-Rate Workforce Residences. Community Build-Out Snapshot Attempting to summarize the exact phasing of Harvest would likely add confusion and cause incongruities between this summary and reality. To provide a more accurate insight, Table 7 below aims to capture the Harvest team’s estimated residence mix and prices/rents (in today’s dollars) of the community at full-build out. TABLE 6 - MARKET RATE WORKFORCE UNITS Unit Type Typical Size Range (SF) Average Household Size Typical Price Range Typical AMI Range Per Average Household Size Annual Household Income Range SF Detached Homes 1,200 to 2,800 3 $576,000 to $1,344,000 120% to 250% $114,000 to $238,000 Zero-Lot Line Homes 1,000 to 2,200 3 $480,000 to $1,056,000 100% to 200% $95,000 to $190,000 Townhomes 900 to 2,000 3 $432,000 to $960,000 100% to 200% $95,000 to $190,000 Cottages 800 to 1,600 3 $384,000 to $768,000 80% to 150% $76,000 to $143,000 Bungalows 700 to 1,400 2 $336,000 to $672,000 80% to 150% $68,000 to $127,000 Apartments 450 to 1,400 2 $1,300 to $3,750 (Rent) 70% to 140% $59,000 to $118,000 TABLE 7 - BUILD-OUT SNAPSHOT Unit Type Unit Count Average Size Target Price Mitigation Units Townhomes 25 950 $396,000 Bungalows 25 950 $396,000 Apartments 100 700 $2,300 (Rent) Subtotal Mitigation Units 150 783 SF $396,000 Workforce Occupied Residences SF Detached Homes 75 1,800 $864,000 Zero-Lot Line Homes 50 1,600 $768,000 Townhomes 50 1,400 $672,000 Cottages 50 1,200 $576,000 Bungalows 50 1,000 $480,000 Apartments 25 800 $2,750 (Rent) Subtotal Workforce Occupied Residences 300 1,383 SF $631,975 Market-Rate Workforce Units SF Detached Homes 300 2,600 $1,248,000 Zero-Lot Line Homes 100 2,150 $1,032,000 Townhomes 100 1,900 $912,000 Cottages 50 1,400 $672,000 Bungalows 50 1,200 $576,000 Apartments 450 900 $2,950 (Rent) Subtotal Market-Rate Workforce Units 1,050 1,638 SF $1,052,000 Total 1,500 1,502 SF $908,757 EXHIBIT A – EXAMPLES OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES 1,300 SF 1,600 SF EXHIBIT B – EXAMPLE OF ZERO LOT-LINE HOMES EXHIBIT C – EXAMPLE OF TOWNHOMES EXHIBIT D – EXAMPLE OF COTTAGES EXHIBIT E – EXAMPLE OF BUNGALOW COURT EXHIBIT F – EXAMPLE OF APARTMENTS ....... ~ • • ; • • ,·I '-i: -·-•• ' .. EXHIBIT G – CONTRACTOR COST ESTIMATES PROJECT WORKSHEET - PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE Project: 1,200 SF HOUSE EXAMPLE 7/21/2025 Site S.F.4,000 Gross Building S.F.1,700 Rentable S.F.1,200 Garage S.F.500 Total Number of Residential Units:1 Average Unit Size:1,200 PROJECT COST SUMMARY ITEM:Project Totals Cost /Gross S.F.% of Costs:Ave. Cost /Unit GLINSURANCE 3,509.70$ 2.06$ 0.83%3,509.70$ GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 30,000.00$ 17.65$ 7.12%30,000.00$ SITE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 29,600.00$ 17.41$ 7.03%29,600.00$ CONSTRUCTION COSTS 274,224.72$ 161.31$ 65.09%274,224.72$ CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 34,950.00$ 20.56$ 8.30%34,950.00$ CONTRACTOR CONTINGENCY 11,063.24$ 6.51$ 2.63%11,063.24$ CONTRACTOR FEE 37,983.80$ 22.34$ 9.02%37,983.80$ PRICING IS FOR NON-HUD PROJECT PAYMENT PERFORMACE BOND (HUD) By Owner WINTER CONDITIONS By Owner TEMP POWER/GAS BY OWNER By Owner ON SITE SECURITY/CAMS.By Owner 3RD PARTY INSPECTIONS By Owner NO DEWATERING INCLUDED By Owner TOTAL SITE WORK 29,600.00$ 17.41$ TOTAL CONCRETE 34,950.00$ 20.56$ TOTAL HOUSE 274,224.72$ 161.31$ TOTAL GL, GC'S, CONTINGENCY, FEE 82,556.74$ 48.56$ TOTAL PROJECT 247.84$ PROJECT COST BUDGET DIVISION:UNITS Cost /Gross S.F.% of Costs:Cost / Unit 1000 General Requirements 30,000.00$ 17.65$ 7.12%$30,000.00 2000 Site Construction 38,100.00$ 22.41$ 9.04%$38,100.00 3000 Concrete 25,250.00$ 14.85$ 5.99%$25,250.00 4000 Masonry -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 5000 Metals -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 6000 Wood and Plastics 69,800.00$ 41.06$ 16.57%$69,800.00 7000 Thermal and Moisture Protection 49,400.00$ 29.06$ 11.72%$49,400.00 8000 Doors and Windows 19,225.00$ 11.31$ 4.56%$19,225.00 9000 Finishes 48,200.00$ 28.35$ 11.44%$48,200.00 10000 Specialties 6,450.00$ 3.79$ 1.53%$6,450.00 11000 Equipment 5,649.72$ 3.32$ 1.34%$5,649.72 12000 Furnishings 1,200.00$ 0.71$ 0.28%$1,200.00 13000 Special Construction -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 14000 Conveying Systems -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 15000 Mechanical 42,000.00$ 24.71$ 9.97%$42,000.00 16000 Electrical 33,500.00$ 19.71$ 7.95%$33,500.00 421,331.45$ Roaring Fork Valley, CO RICHARDSON VAN LEEUWEN CONSTRUCTION I I PROJECT WORKSHEET - PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE Project: 2,000 SF HOUSE EXAMPLE 7/28/2025 Site S.F.5,500 Gross Building S.F.2,500 Rentable S.F.2,000 Garage S.F.500 Total Number of Residential Units:1 Average Unit Size:2,000 PROJECT COST SUMMARY ITEM:Project Totals Cost /Gross S.F.% of Costs:Ave. Cost /Unit GLINSURANCE 5,337.72$ 2.14$ 0.83%5,337.72$ GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 45,000.00$ 18.00$ 7.02%45,000.00$ SITE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 45,000.00$ 18.00$ 7.02%45,000.00$ CONSTRUCTION COSTS 414,349.72$ 165.74$ 64.66%414,349.72$ CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION COSTS 56,500.00$ 22.60$ 8.82%56,500.00$ CONTRACTOR CONTINGENCY 16,825.49$ 6.73$ 2.63%16,825.49$ CONTRACTOR FEE 57,767.52$ 23.11$ 9.02%57,767.52$ PRICING IS FOR NON-HUD PROJECT PAYMENT PERFORMACE BOND (HUD) By Owner WINTER CONDITIONS By Owner TEMP POWER/GAS BY OWNER By Owner ON SITE SECURITY/CAMS.By Owner 3RD PARTY INSPECTIONS By Owner NO DEWATERING INCLUDED By Owner TOTAL SITE WORK 45,000.00$ 18.00$ TOTAL CONCRETE 56,500.00$ 22.60$ TOTAL HOUSE 414,349.72$ 165.74$ TOTAL GL, GC'S, CONTINGENCY, FEE 124,930.73$ 49.97$ TOTAL PROJECT 256.31$ PROJECT COST BUDGET DIVISION:UNITS Cost /Gross S.F.% of Costs:Cost / Unit 1000 General Requirements 45,000.00$ 18.00$ 7.02%$45,000.00 2000 Site Construction 59,100.00$ 23.64$ 9.22%$59,100.00 3000 Concrete 40,400.00$ 16.16$ 6.30%$40,400.00 4000 Masonry -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 5000 Metals -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 6000 Wood and Plastics 105,100.00$ 42.04$ 16.40%$105,100.00 7000 Thermal and Moisture Protection 77,600.00$ 31.04$ 12.11%$77,600.00 8000 Doors and Windows 29,600.00$ 11.84$ 4.62%$29,600.00 9000 Finishes 72,900.00$ 29.16$ 11.38%$72,900.00 10000 Specialties 10,500.00$ 4.20$ 1.64%$10,500.00 11000 Equipment 5,649.72$ 2.26$ 0.88%$5,649.72 12000 Furnishings 2,000.00$ 0.80$ 0.31%$2,000.00 13000 Special Construction -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 14000 Conveying Systems -$ -$ 0.00%$0.00 15000 Mechanical 60,000.00$ 24.00$ 9.36%$60,000.00 16000 Electrical 53,000.00$ 21.20$ 8.27%$53,000.00 640,780.45$ Roaring Fork Valley, CO RICHARDSON VAN LEEUWEN CONSTRUCTION I I Mineral Owner Research 4-203.B.3 - Mineral Owners and Lessees Estate of T.M. Sanders Heirs of Ella J. Chase Garfield Co unty CERTlfl CA TION OF MINERAL OWN ER RESEARCH This f o rm i s to be completed on d SCJbmitted with any application for a Land Use Ch ange Permit. Mineral inte r est s may be severed from surfa ce right inte res ts in real property. C.R.S. § 24~65 .5-101, et seq, requires noti fica tion to minera l owners when a landowner applies for an applicatio n for development from a local government. As such, the l andowne r mu st research th e cu rrent owners of minera l interests for the property. The Ga rfield Cou nty land Use and Developm ent Code of 2013 (•LUDC'') Section 4 •101{E)(l)(b)(4) requires wr itten not ice to owne rs of minera l interests in the subj ec t property in accord ance w it h C.R.S. § 24·65.5 -101, et seq, "as such owners can be identified through the record s in the office of the Cl erk and Recorde r or Assessor, or t hrough other means." This form is proof of appl ica nt's compliance with th e Colorado Revi sed Statutes and the lUOC. The undersigned applicant certifies that mineral owners have been researched for the subject property as required pursuant to C.R .S. § 24-65.5 ·101, et seq, and Section 4-101 (E)(l)(b)(4) of the Garfield County Land Use and Development Code, as amended. As a result of that research, the undersigned applicant certifies the following (Please initial on the blank line next to the statement that accurately reflects the result of research): _ I own the entire mi ne ral esta t e relati ve to th e subject property; or _ Minera ls are own ed by the pa rties listed below The narnes and addresses of an y and all mineral owners iden tified are provided below (a ttach ad dit ional pages as necessa ry): Name of Mineral Owner Malling Address of Minera l Owner Es ta t e of T.M. Sa nders Un known Heirs of Ella J. Chase Un know n Applicant's Signature Date Referral Comment Responses 1 October 10, 2025 REFERRAL LETTER RESPONSES HARVEST ROARING FORK PUD APPLICATION The following documents the applicant’s responses to the referral letters received on September 23, 2025. The applicant has listed the question/comments from the referral agency in green, and if there was a corresponding correction or clarification in the PUD document then it is referenced in red. Any comments or questions can be directed to Tim Coltart – tim@realtycapital.com 2 Roaring Fork Conservancy Letter Dated – September 18, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: The February 2000 Conservation Easement governs the 54 acres along Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. The easement document has extensive rules and regulations regarding the care and operation of the conservation easement land. Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC will abide by all the terms of the easement and looks forward to working with the Roaring Fork Conservancy for years to come. Referral Comments by the RFC: 1. “The Conservation Easement severely restricts access by residents of the Harvest Roaring Fork property and the general public.” Response: We concur. While some dirt trails are allowed in the Conservation Easement, we will correct our Project Narrative to mirror the severe restrictions of pedestrian access in the easement area. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 18 2. “Any enjoyment of the property by the residents and patrons must be passive and not based on access to the Conservation Easement property.” Response: As stated above, we will abide by all easement restrictions. What we were trying to state in Exhibit B of HRF’s Comprehensive Plan Analysis is that HRF will have an internal trail system outside of, but possibly somewhat near, parts of the easement area. We have spoken to RFC about the possibility of creating wildlife blinds outside in HRF outside of the easement that would overlook parts of the easement area. RFC seemed receptive to this idea, subject to review and approval of specific blind locations and details. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 18 & 49 Easement Compliance: The Applicant shall abide by all restrictions and requirements of the Conservation Easement, including limitations on access, disturbance, and improvements within the 3 easement area. No construction, grading, or public access shall occur within the easement boundaries except as expressly permitted by the easement terms and approved by the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC). Internal Trail System: The Applicant may construct an internal trail system located outside of, but in proximity to, portions of the Conservation Easement. Trail design and alignment shall ensure protection of the easement’s conservation values and avoidance of any disturbance to protected habitat, riparian areas, or visual buffers. Wildlife Viewing Features: The Applicant may, in coordination with RFC, propose the installation of wildlife viewing blinds or overlooks located outside of the easement that provide opportunities for public education and appreciation of the natural environment. The location, design, and materials for any such blinds shall be subject to review and written approval by RFC prior to installation. Plan Integration: Any trails or wildlife viewing features approved by RFC shall be shown on the corresponding landscape and open space plans submitted to Garfield County for development review and shall include notes confirming RFC approval. 3. “Public access to the Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River is not permitted. Harvest Roaring Fork’s Application does not provide any specific provisions for the protection of the Conservation Easement and the conservation values.” Response: The Conservation Easement is quite clear regarding the requirements of HRF to protect the Conservation Easement. The actual construction plans of landscaping and fencing are required to be submitted to RFC for their approval. We will have these plans created and submitted to the RFC during the subdivision/development approval process for each phase of the HRF development with the County. 4. “Harvest Roaring Fork should be required to address with specificity how it intends to protect the Conservation Easement and the conservation values from negative impacts, including trespass on the easements, from such a large, dense development.” Response: 4 Section 5.3 of the Conservation Easement goes into extensive detail regarding the requirements of HRF to screen and fence the three different zones of the easement. We intend to comply with these requirements. In addition, we have discussed with the RFC various fencing and vegetative screening options. They have recommended some options that we agreed with. After the re-zoning of the property, but during the subdivision & development approval process for each phase of the HRF development, HRF will submit detailed landscaping, screening and fencing plans to RFC for their review and approval. This reflects the plan approval process written in the easement; that language states, for example, in Section 5.3 (c): “All plans and materials for such screening shall be reviewed and approved by Grantee (RFC) prior to the installation thereof. Such screening shall also be shown and included on any future landscaping plan for the Property submitted to Garfield County in connection with the development process.” Coordination with Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC): In accordance with the Conservation Easement, the Applicant shall submit detailed landscaping, screening, and fencing plans to the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) for review and approval during the subdivision and development approval process for each phase of the Harvest Roaring Fork development. Plan Integration: All approved screening and fencing plans shall be incorporated into the project’s landscape plans submitted to Garfield County for corresponding development approvals, consistent with Section 5.3(c) of the Conservation Easement, which states: “All plans and materials for such screening shall be reviewed and approved by Grantee (RFC) prior to the installation thereof. Such screening shall also be shown and included on any future landscaping plan for the Property submitted to Garfield County in connection with the development process.” Implementation and Maintenance: All approved screening and fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the Conservation Easement and the specifications approved by RFC, ensuring consistency with the intent to preserve visual, ecological, and open space values along the Cattle Creek and Roaring Fork River corridors. 5. The Applicant should be required to provide detailed plans for the proposed crossings of Cattle Creek, as required by the Conservation Easement, prior to any development approvals. Response: We concur, and we will provide those during the subdivision/development approval process. 5 6. The proposed “Wildlife Buffer” in the Application (Exhibit D, pg 48) abutting the Conservation Easement states a community trail may be inside of the buffer. Response: HRF is not planning for a community trail to be inside of the buffer. Based on our meetings with the RFC, creating a few wildlife blinds inside the Wildlife Buffer (but outside of the easement) were discussed. If RFC approves any blinds in the Wildlife Buffers, the only trail to such blinds would be a 4’ wide, natural trail from a community trail to the blind. This narrow, very short trail should have no material impact on the screening/visual barrier effectiveness of the Wildlife Buffer. Note that this short trail requires approval of the RFC. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 48 7. The Applicant’s “Wildlife Buffer” proposes one tree every 100 feet. Response: As with all of the comments, we will comply with the requirements of the Conservation Easement. These trees mentioned above are in addition to the easement’s buffer requirements. 8. The Application states community trails will be paved and a minimum of 6’ in width and the wildlife buffer will only be 6’ to 12’ wide (pg 45). If a 6’ trail is created within a 6’ wide buffer then, effectively, there is no buffer. Response: As stated in #6 above, we are not proposing any trails inside of the landscaping buffers (only a very short, natural trail to a blind, if approved by RFC). We apologize for any misunderstanding on this issue. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 48 9. “The South Riverfront Area “offers views through the Conservation Easement to the Roaring Fork River” (pg. 15). This statement conflicts with the visual screening requirement.” Response: This statement was meant to suggest the possibility, if approved by RFC, of one or two wildlife viewing blinds, nothing more. We apologize for any misunderstanding on this issue. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 15 10. “A detailed landscape plan should be required prior to any development approvals.” 6 Response: We concur, the Applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan for County review and approval with the Preliminary Plan Application. 11.“A detailed plan for the Cattle Creek parks should be provided, including how the Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek will be protected, prior to any development approvals”. Response: We concur. Park and Open Space Plan Requirement: The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for the design, access, and long-term management of the Cattle Creek parks and open space areas in the Preliminary Plan Application. Conservation Easement Protection: The plan shall demonstrate how the Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek will be preserved and protected during and after construction, including appropriate buffers, revegetation, and restrictions on disturbance or encroachment. 12. “No pet restrictions are stated in the Application and no controlling development documents have been provided.” Response: Section 5.6 of the Conservation Easement has very specific pet restrictions. We intend to comply with those restrictions and will incorporate those restrictions into all HOA/POA documents so that such documents shall establish enforcement mechanisms through fine and lien provisions for violation of such restrictions. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 7 13. “No seasonal construction restrictions are stated in the application or in the phasing plan.” Response: We will comply the seasonal construction restrictions in the Conservation Easement. 7 14. “The Application (pg.34) states that 2 story buildings will be a maximum of 30’ from the highest perimeter grade to the eave and may include habitable attic space above that.” Response: This statement applies to the two-story buildings that are not subject to the 25’ height restriction in the Conservation Easement. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 34 15. “The Application does not provide a PUD Plan Map depicting what type and density of buildings are proposed for areas adjacent to the Conservation Easement.” Response: The Regulating Plan (a PUD plan map) can be found on page 8 of the Harvest PUD Guide, which shows the neighborhoods adjacent to the Conservation Easement. Pages 7 and 9 through 19 of the Harvest PUD Guide lists the types, density, and restrictions applicable to buildings in the Harvest neighborhoods. 16. The hotel should be relocated away from the Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River. Response: As mentioned in the RFC comments, most of the buildable areas in the Sopris Neighborhood have elevations between 6,030 and 6,040 feet. We wish to correct an error in the PUD Guide regarding the hotel. We stated that the hotel could be constructed to 55’ above the 6,066’ elevation contour. That is not correct. The hotel would be limited to 3 stories and a maximum of 39’ above the 6,040’ elevation contour. Note that the Roaring Fork River is approximately 80’ below this elevation. Also note that Highway 82 is approximately 30’ above the 6,040 elevation, which means that residents and hotel guests will be looking up at Highway 82. This is planned to be a boutique hotel. Along with the main building, there may be some small cottages that are part of the hotel that are built below the 6,040 elevation to the south of the main building (all limited to the 120 key maximum). This area of the Sopris Neighborhood is close to Highway 82 and the Rio Grande Trail. It also overlooks a much smaller amount of conservation easement area than the rest of Harvest Roaring Fork. Correction to PUD Guide: The Applicant shall revise the PUD Guide to correct the stated reference elevation for the hotel site. The hotel shall be limited to three (3) stories and a maximum building height of thirty-nine feet (39') above the 6,040-foot elevation contour, rather than 55 feet above the 6,066-foot contour as previously noted. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 14 8 Contextual Elevation Reference: The Applicant has verified that the Roaring Fork River lies approximately 80 feet below this elevation, while Highway 82 is approximately 30 feet above the 6,040-foot elevation contour. These topographic relationships support the finding that the hotel and associated buildings will remain visually subordinate to the highway corridor. Hotel Configuration: The hotel is planned as a boutique lodging establishment, with the main building located near the 6,040-foot elevation. Additional smaller cottage-style lodging units may be constructed below the 6,040-foot elevation to the south of the main structure. The total number of hotel keys shall not exceed 120 units as stated in the PUD Guide. Site Relationship to Public Corridors and Open Space: The Sopris Neighborhood hotel area is located near Highway 82 and the Rio Grande Trail and overlooks a smaller portion of conservation easement area than other neighborhoods within Harvest Roaring Fork. Building placement and design shall continue to minimize visual and environmental impacts to the surrounding open space and trail corridor. 17. Grading/Drainage. Unless drainage and storm run-off are retained and filtered or cleansed onsite, the potential for pollution of the Easement property, Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River is significant. Response: We agree. Storm water will be treated for water quality prior to being released back into the river. Rain runoff from surfaces such as parking areas or roadways will be cleaned with water quality treatment infrastructure such as grass buffer areas, small settling ponds, shallow swales and other water quality treatment methods/systems deemed appropriate when we get to preliminary plan of the first phase. This water will be clean before it enters back into the stream system. Further design and drainage report will be provided as we move to preliminary plan and construction drawings. 18. Traffic and light pollution concerns. Response: We agree regarding the importance of dark sky lighting standards. Our PUD Guide currently states that outdoor lighting shall be designed to minimize skyward facing light with shielding, 9 directing the light downward. This will be required for all streetlights, commercial buildings and residential buildings. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 7 Shielding and Direction: All outdoor fixtures, including those associated with street lighting, commercial structures, and residential buildings, shall be fully shielded and directed downward to prevent skyward illumination or light trespass onto adjacent properties or open space. PUD Guide Consistency: The project’s PUD Guide shall continue to require that all outdoor lighting be designed and installed in accordance with these principles. Future building and site plans shall demonstrate compliance through fixture specifications, photometric plans, or other documentation acceptable to the County. 10 Garfield County Vegetation Management Letter Dated – August 21, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the review from Garfield County Vegetation Management. We will continue to follow all County requirements regarding weed control and vegetation management through the entire community buildout. Referral Comments by Garfield County Vegetation Management: 1.Plan Verification Response: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC is actively treating the site twice per year for noxious weeds. It has provided the existing Noxious Weed Management Plan and has provided documentation of the most recent dates of treatment to Garfield County Community Development. 2.Updated Inventory Response: The Applicant shall complete a new noxious weed inventory during the next growing season, including updated mapping of infestations. 3.Management Strategies Response: The updated report shall identify management methods for all inventoried species and specify control measures for each species listed in the plan. 4.Seasonal Implementation Response: 11 The Applicant has been and shall continue actively managing noxious weeds on the property during the upcoming spring and summer seasons in accordance with best management practices and the approved plan. 5. Responsibility and Record-Keeping Response: The landowner or future Homeowners Association (HOA) if applicable, shall be responsible for implementing the approved Noxious Weed Management Plan on required open space areas, maintaining records of all management actions, and coordinating with contractors as necessary. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 7 6. Annual Reporting Response: An annual summary of noxious weed management activities and outcomes shall be submitted to Garfield County Vegetation Management in accordance with county requirements. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 7 12 Garfield County Public Health Letter Dated – August 26, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC values the review and input from Garfield County Public Health. We acknowledge the importance of addressing temporary housing, noise, asbestos, fugitive dust, radon, and public health considerations related to mixed-use operations, and will incorporate these requirements into the project in compliance with County and State regulations. Referral Comments by Garfield County Public Health: 1. Temporary Contractor Housing Response: The Applicant intends to work with Garfield County to establish details for temporary housing for Harvest Roaring Fork contractors. Additional details shall be provided to Garfield County with any Preliminary Plan application. 2. Noise Compliance Response: The Applicant shall comply with the Colorado Noise Abatement Act (C.R.S. § 25-12-103). Maximum noise levels measured at or beyond the property line shall not exceed state standards by zone and time of day. These restrictions shall be incorporated into the PUD Guide and/or recorded covenants. The Homeowners Association shall serve as the first arbiter for enforcement and complaint response. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 7 3. Asbestos Compliance Response: Prior to demolition of existing structures, the Applicant shall comply with Colorado Regulation No. 8, Part B, and submit to Garfield County a copy of the Colorado Department 13 of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) approved demolition permit confirming asbestos inspection and permitting requirements. 4. Fugitive Particulate Emissions (Dust Control) Response: We agree. The Applicant will be subject to Storm Water Management Permit protocols. The Applicant shall abide by fugitive dust control measures consistent with existing County regulations. 5. Radon Mitigation Response: Applicant shall comply with all applicable building codes applicable to radon mitigation. 6. Mixed-Use District Health and Safety Oversight Response: We agree. All regulated activities within the mixed-use district, including food sales and community special events, shall be properly reviewed, licensed, and inspected by Garfield County Public Health Consumer Protection staff and any applicable federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction. 14 Carbondale Rural Fire Letter Dated – September 14, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the review from the Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District. We understand the importance of ensuring safe access, compliance with the upcoming WUI Code, and proper funding of district services. We are committed to coordinating closely with the District on road design, impact fee agreements, and future fire protection needs as the project advances. Referral Comments by Carbondale & Rural Fire Protection District 1. Section D105 – Confirmation of width of Fire Access Roads: Response: While the applicant and Fire Marshall have discussed some reduced widths for streets and fire lanes (when justified), the applicant proposes to provide clarification within the PUD that buildings of height greater than 30’ will require fire lanes to be a minimum of 26’ unless an exception is made by the Fire Marshall pursuant to the provision of sprinklers and/or a sidewalk that can support the weight of fire apparatus. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 31 2. Confirmation and acceptance of Impact Fees and/or dedication of land: Response: The applicant confirms and agrees to contract with CRFPD to require the payment of Fire Impact Fees at the time a final plat is approved and building permits for construction are obtained. Pursuant to mutual agreement, the CRFPD Board of Directors may agree to a land dedication in lieu of impact fee payment. 15 Colorado River Engineering Letter Dated – September 17, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the review provided by Colorado River Engineering. We recognize the importance of having an adequate physical water supply, documenting historic irrigation use, and ensuring compliance with floodplain requirements. The applicant has secured a Nationwide Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and has provided Garfield County copies for review. Referral Comments by Colorado River Engineering: 1. Physical Water Supply: Response: We appreciate that the letter indicates that the applicant likely has the required water rights to complete the project. The Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District has recently completed well testing to confirm their capacity. The general agreement is that Harvest will permit and construct a surface water treatment plant to supplement existing capacity by treating water out of the Roaring Fork River pursuant to existing water rights. The applicant requests Colorado Engineering to review the water rights analysis by the law firm of Patrick Miller & Noto, detailing the water rights held by the applicant. The applicant anticipates the dedication of a portion of existing deeded water rights to be conveyed to the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District. 2. Floodplain Permit Required: Response: Applicant acknowledges the utility crossing of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River will require both a Flood Plain Permit (from the County) and the approval of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) from the United States Corps of Engineers (USACE). Applicant has obtained the NWP from USACE for the Cattle Creek crossing and provided County staff with 1) a copy of the approved NWP from USACE, and 2) a request for a Floodplain Development Permit. 16 Town of Carbondale Letter Dated – September 18, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the Town of Carbondale’s review of our PUD application and recognizes Carbondale’s interest as one of the closest municipalities to the project. We understand the concerns regarding transportation impacts, growth patterns, and housing needs, and we are committed to continuing an open dialogue with Carbondale staff and officials as the project moves forward. Referral Comments by the Town of Carbondale: 1. Timing of Highway 82 improvements Response: The applicant confirms that all improvements to Highway 82 will be completed with the first phase of development (including traffic signals). 2. Bus Stops and Traffic Generation Response: Existing Transit Access: The Applicant has confirmed that existing Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) bus stops are located near both the northern and southern ends of the Harvest Roaring Fork community. These stops are conveniently connected to the development via pedestrian and bicycle linkages along the Rio Grande Trail (which is plowed in the winter) , providing safe and efficient non-vehicular access to public transit. Highway 82 Intersection Improvements: The new intersection serving the project on Highway 82, designed by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), shall be constructed in accordance with the approved Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Kimley-Horn and approved by CDOT (Exhibit I). It should be noted that the proposed new intersection is expected to improve service levels for all immediately adjacent intersections. 17 Coordination with RFTA: The Applicant continues active discussions with RFTA and shall continue to evaluate and pursue opportunities for future transit service connections to the development, including potential stop enhancements, pedestrian safety improvements, and signage as appropriate. 3. Connection across Highway 82 Response: We agree that Cattle Creek is a cycling route via the existing use of the Highway 82 pedestrian/bike underpass directly south of the Cattle Creek intersection. 4. Affordable Housing Response: Workforce Housing Commitment: The Applicant has proposed a 300% increase in proposed deed-restricted housing within the Harvest Roaring Fork community, demonstrating a commitment to providing attainable housing opportunities for teachers, first responders, and other members of the local workforce who serve the needs of the Roaring Fork Valley. Transfer Tax Option: The Applicant reserves the right to implement a real-estate transfer tax or similar community benefit mechanism to further support workforce-housing goals and other community programs, subject to County approval of applicable legal instruments. Phased Delivery Requirement: To ensure balanced delivery of deed-restricted and market-rate housing, no Certificate of Occupancy (CO) shall be issued for any unit or project element in a subsequent phase until Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for all required deed-restricted units in the immediately preceding phase. This is intended to prevent front-loading of market-rate housing and to ensure proportional construction of workforce units throughout project build-out. Monitoring and Compliance: The County shall verify compliance with this phasing requirement as part of each Final Plat or Site Plan approval, ensuring that the number, location, and timing of deed-restricted units align with the approved Housing Plan for the project. 18 5. Parking Standards & Transit Access Response: Transit Coordination: The Applicant shall continue coordination with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) regarding potential transit service to the Harvest Roaring Fork community. While two existing bus stops are located within approximately one mile of the project, the Applicant remains open to evaluating options for enhanced or rapid transit access in consultation with RFTA and Garfield County. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 19 Parking Requirements: Parking shall be provided in accordance with the standards established in the PUD Guide and approved site development plans. Parking supply shall be responsive to market demand while maintaining functionality, accessibility, and compatibility with surrounding land uses. Resident Storage Facilities: The PUD authorizes the inclusion of limited storage facilities or designated storage areas to accommodate resident-owned trailers, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), rafts, and similar recreational equipment. These facilities shall be designed and screened in accordance with the PUD design standards and landscape requirements, ensuring minimal visual impact and compatibility with adjacent development and open space areas. 6. Senior Housing Response: The applicant agrees that Senior Housing projects will be required to address the needed transportation solutions to ensure resident needs are served. 7. Water Rights Response: The summary of water rights by Patrick Miller & Noto clearly demonstrates the availability of sufficient deeded water rights to supply the proposed project. 8. Commercial demand 19 Response: Commercial Use Intent: Consistent with direction provided by County leadership, all commercial uses within the Harvest Roaring Fork community shall be project-centered and neighborhood-serving, rather than destination-oriented. Permitted Commercial Uses: Commercial activity shall be limited to small-scale uses that directly support the needs of residents and employees of the community, such as medical offices or clinics, food service establishments, and daycare facilities. Design and Compatibility: All commercial uses shall be designed in accordance with the PUD Guide to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential and open space areas. Building scale, signage, lighting, and parking shall reflect the neighborhood character and maintain a pedestrian- oriented environment. 9. Sustainability Response: The Conservation Easement encompasses all water ways on the project, and the applicant is committed and required to protect adjacent critical habitats, riparian areas and waterways. 10. Building Performance Response: There are many housing types proposed for this project and the applicant seeks to use best practices to reduce energy impact for all homes within the HRF community. 11. Solar Ready Homes Response: Applicant is actively exploring all options (including solar ready) to help ensure the project has minimal demand for energy. 12. Enhanced Water Conservation 20 Response: The proposed PUD contemplates options to ensure efficient water use and is committed to using deeded water rights in an efficient manner. 13. EV Charging Response: EV charging is an important requirement for the success of any community and will be included for individual development components of this project. 14. Density Adjustment Response: The PUD is clear on the maximum residential units the project may contain along with a maximum for each neighborhood in the community. 15. Hotel Location Response: The applicant maintains the uniqueness of the proposed boutique hotel location is a key component to its success in serving the Harvest Roaring Fork community. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 14 21 Colorado Geological Survey Letter Dated – September 17, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the review from the Colorado Geological Survey. We recognize the importance of evaluating potential geologic hazards, including soils, slope stability, and flood-related risks, and will coordinate with our engineering team to address these items at preliminary plan review. Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District / SGM Letter Dated – September 15, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the review and comments from the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District, as prepared by SGM. We understand the importance of updating the existing pre-inclusion agreement to match the approved zoning from Garfield County. At that time, we will agree to design and construct the required system improvements and the appropriate phasing of these improvements. Roaring Fork School District Letter Dated – September 17, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: 22 Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC thanks the Roaring Fork School District for providing input on the PUD application. We appreciate the school district’s recognition of how the Harvest community can help stabilize student enrollment and provide workforce housing opportunities for teachers and staff. We will continue to engage and work with the District as the project moves forward. Xcel Energy Letter Dated – September 10, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the referral review from Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel Energy). We understand the importance of maintaining existing utility rights and coordinating with Xcel on future service design, relocation, or reinforcement needs. We will follow Xcel’s application and design process to ensure service is provided in accordance with their requirements. 23 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Letter Dated – September 18, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC acknowledges the importance of transit connectivity to the success of the community. We are committed to working with RFTA to explore feasible solutions for multimodal access, coordination on bus service, and trail connections, while balancing the realities of phasing. Referral Comments by RFTA: Since receiving the referral comments from RFTA, we have had additional meetings and conversations to discuss their comments and the opportunity for potential transit improvements to ensure the best service for the existing and future RFTA ridership (incl the Harvest community and Cattle Creek). It was discussed that the actual improvements agreed between RFTA, and the applicant will depend upon the final PUD approvals received from Garfield County. Applicant is supportive of RFTA service to the site. Specific Responses/Clarifications: Permitted use: SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 19 which contemplates transit stops and associated parking as a permitted use by right. Crossing of Highway 82: There is an existing pedestrian/cycle underpass at Cattle Creek that is used by people on the eastern side of Highway 82 to access the Rio Grande Trail. Applicant does not believe it is feasible to replace or enhance this or any crossing under Highway 82 due to existing topography, grade disparities and accessibility challenges to existing infrastructure on the East side of Highway 82 and the confluence of the Frontage Rd and Cattle Creek which contribute to significant geometry challenges. Mobility Study: While the applicant is actively seeking additional data and analysis from Kimley Horn as to likely ridership and trail use, it would seem prudent to contemplate more in-depth research and analysis at a time when density and phasing of the project is better understood. 24 Separation of the Rio Grande Trail at the southernmost crossing: The Applicant has proposed to construct a new grade separated portion of the Rio Grande trail within the easement to prevent any vehicular and pedestrian/bike conflicts at this primary road crossing. Applicant understands that the Rio Grande trail is required to stay as close to existing grade as possible to protect the future opportunity for rail use. In addition, the northern crossing/access point will also be grade separate to prevent conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. We anticipate receiving an updated letter from RFTA soon and will distribute. 25 Mountain Cross Engineering Letter Dated – September 18, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC appreciates the thorough review provided by Mountain Cross Engineering. We will clarify and refine standards related to parking, setbacks, drainage, and phasing, and remain committed to meeting County requirements and ensuring safe, functional infrastructure throughout the project. Referral Comments by Mountain Cross: 1. Tracking and calculation of FAR is difficult. Response: Agreed. The PUD has a specific limitation on the maximum number of residences within each neighborhood and the total project. The commercial buildings are limited in size by neighborhood and the total project. This is a more efficient way for the County to regulate the project density. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 6 2. Minor changes vs. formal zoning amendments Response: We have reviewed the outline of Minor Changes permitted in the PUD guide (Article 1) and believe that those are appropriate. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 6 3. Clarification on parking stall dimensions and angles Response: The PUD guide permits angled parking of up to 60 degrees and the drive lanes reflect the appropriate width to accommodate vehicular movements (10’ minimum). 4. Recommendation that street parking widths (S-30, S-25, S-20) should better define how intermittent parking will be managed. For example, if parking it allowed on the street, an extra 8' of width is needed to accommodate. 26 Response: We have consulted with our engineering team regarding the residential street widths, and they recommend the current proposed street standards promote safety. It is important to also note that all streets will require approval from the Fire Marshal. During preliminary plan further analysis will be completed and submitted to ensure appropriate widths are provided for easements, utilities and other variations including topography. 5. Alley widths and traffic flow (A-20, A-12) need to be clarified. They currently suggest 2-way traffic, which would mean a 16' width would be needed. Response: We have consulted with our engineering team regarding the residential alley widths, and they recommend the current proposed alley standards promote safety. During preliminary plan further analysis will be completed and submitted to ensure appropriate widths are provided for easements, utilities and other variations including topography. It is important to also note that all alleys will require approval from the Fire Marshal. 6. ADU's are allowed. Mountain Cross states that this should be quantified and that we need to address EQR's related. Response: We will defer to county regulations and EQR analysis will be completed in cooperation with RFWSD. 7. Neighborhoods without garages should require 2 parking spaces per lot. Response: Agreed. PUD already requires two parking spaces per single-family lot. 8. Commercial Garage Doors. Response: Agreed, we will revise the PUD to reflect this comment. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 35 9. States that rear garage/alley access with 3' setbacks in difficult (SF-1 through SF-4). It affects garage walls and backing out to make it impossible to see conflicting traffic 27 Response: We agree and have increased the required setback from a SF-1 through SF-4) garage to be a minimum of 5’. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGES 35-44 10. SF-2 with a zero-lot line, 5' setback, does not allow for proper drainage. A drainage easement will need to be in place for at least 10' Response: The PUD provides for a minimum of 6’ between single-family homes. Our engineers have stated that this is sufficient for proper drainage. If topography or other engineering factors require additional width, we will address at the time of Preliminary Plan application. 11. Recommends a RFTA bus stop at Village Center Response: Harvest Roaring Fork is actively in discussions with RFTA regarding bus stops. 12. Recommends that storm water-quality treatment should be provided although detention is not warranted Response: We agree that storm water quality treatment is important and will provide specific engineering plans at the time of Preliminary Plan approval. 13. CDOT permits (#325027, #325028) Response: There were some issues with corruption in some documents. The applicant will update and include 325027 & 325028 in the application. 14. Traffic study – 90% internal capture rate Response: 90% internal capture was determined to be accurate by both CDOT and Kimley Horn. The village center will be predominately neighborhood commercial and thus, a 90% internal capture rate was used. 28 15. Recommends that geotechnical reports are completed for each phase. Response: The Applicant agrees to prepare and submit a geotechnical report for each phase of development within Harvest Roaring Fork. Each report shall be prepared by a Colorado- licensed Professional Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering. 16. Fire station timing Response: The letter from Carbondale Rural & Fire included as Exhibit T (in the application) contemplates there may be a need for an additional fire station in the Harvest Roaring Fork community. We are in active discussions with the fire department, and it has not been yet decided. The applicant will continue to explore with the department. 29 Colorado Department of Wildlife (CPW) Letter Dated – September 19, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: September 23, 2025 Harvest Response: October 6, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC would like to thank CPW for its attention to our application and for the proactive recommendations provided. We acknowledge that we are required to follow the strict requirements set forth in the Conservation Easement and will carefully consider the suggestions of the Wildlife Report and the referral letter provided by CPW. Referral Comments by Colorado Parks and Wildlife: 1. “Due to the high level of use of this area by deer and elk, and its proximity to Highway 82, CPW recommends that appropriate measures be taken to prevent wildlife from entering or crossing the highway at the proposed development entrances. Game guards or other recognized alternatives should be placed across the length of any breaks or deviations in wildlife fencing along the roadway.” Response: Agreed. Harvest will install game guards or other recognized alternatives at each entrance to the community. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 21 2. “Game fencing should also be extended from the northern terminus of the Hwy 82 game fencing, west to the Rio Grande trail in the North Frontage neighborhood, as that area has been the site of numerous deer/elk/vehicle collisions as deer and elk try to cross Hwy 82.” Response: Agreed. Harvest will complete the extension of game fencing along Hwy 82 to our northernmost property boundary and then west to the Rio Grande Trail ROW boundary. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 51 3. “Black bears are known to inhabit the project site and adjacent properties. The proposed development raises specific considerations regarding potential human/bear conflict, particularly related to waste management and food attractants. Improperly managed trash receptacles, bins, and storage areas in both commercial and residential developments can 30 become strong attractants for bears, leading to increased bear-human conflicts, habituation, and potential threats to both human safety and wildlife health. Bears attracted to readily available food sources, including garbage, frequently become habituated to human presence, increasing risks of property damage, vehicle collisions, and management actions, including lethal removal of problem bears.” “To proactively address and mitigate these potential impacts on bears, CPW recommends consideration of the following strategies during construction and general operation of the development:” a.“Install round handled doorknobs on all exterior doors.” Response: Bear-Resistant Door Hardware: The Applicant shall incorporate rounded or bear-resistant doorknobs and locking hardware where appropriate and feasible to reduce the potential for wildlife intrusion into structures and waste storage areas. ADA Compliance Exception: In locations where the installation of rounded or non-lever doorknobs would conflict with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility standards then ADA-compliant hardware shall take precedence. Long-Term Implementation: The installation and maintenance of bear-resistant building hardware shall be addressed in the property’s Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners’ Association (POA) documents to ensure ongoing compliance and uniform application of wildlife protection measures. b.“Avoid planting any fruit, berry or nut bearing or producing trees or shrubs for landscaping.” Response: Agreed. Harvest will prohibit these types of plantings throughout the community. This recommendation will be followed in the HOA / POA documents. c.“Install bear-resistant trash receptacles throughout the facility, particularly in parking areas, fueling zones, and near food service locations.” 31 Response: Bear-Resistant Trash Receptacles: The Applicant shall ensure that any trash receptacles to be bear-resistant including recycling receptacles throughout the facility, with emphasis on parking areas, fueling zones, and any food service or outdoor gathering locations. Ongoing Maintenance and Enforcement: The use, maintenance, and replacement of bear-resistant containers shall be incorporated into the property’s Homeowners’ Association (HOA) or Property Owners’ Association (POA) documents to ensure long-term compliance and wildlife protection. d. “Ensure regular trash removal schedules to prevent accumulation and potential attraction.” Response: Agreed. This recommendation will be followed in the HOA / POA documents. e.“Fully enclosed or locking bear resistant storage for communal waste bins and dumpsters.” Response: Agreed. This recommendation will be followed in the HOA / POA documents. f.“Deploy signage and visitor education programs to inform customers and employees about proper waste disposal practices and bear awareness.” Response: Agreed. This recommendation will be followed in the HOA / POA documents. g.“Ensure waste storage and food-related operations are located in centralized portions of the development, away from habitat edges, to minimize bear attractants near natural habitats.” Response: Agreed. These types of operations are already centralized within the community per the PUD Guide. Applicant proposes to work with the County and CPW to meet this request where practical. 32 h.“During construction, all food trash must be stored in an IGBC - certified bear- resistant container or taken off site at the end of each day.” Response: Agreed. This recommendation will be placed in the PUD Guide as the building inspector can review. i.“Use only bear proof dumpsters and store trash securely until the morning of pickup.” Response: Agreed. Harvest will require bear-resistant dumpsters in the HOA / POA documents. SEE PUD CLARIFICATION ON PAGE 7 4.“The area of proposed development is in close proximity to several historic osprey nests on the Roaring Fork River. CPW recommends no surface occupancy (beyond that which historically occurred in the area) within 1⁄4 mile (1320 feet, 400 meters) radius of active nests. No permitted, authorized, or human encroachment activities within 1⁄4 mile (1320 feet, 400 meters) radius of active nests from March 15 through August 15.” Response: Existing Habitat Assessment: The Applicant has confirmed that the development parcel has been previously disturbed and lacks mature trees or suitable nesting structures capable of supporting osprey habitat. While the applicant understands there may be a past osprey nest located across the river, the applicant is not aware if any active or historic osprey nests within or adjacent to the project area. Applicability of Seasonal Restrictions: Because suitable habitat is not present, no seasonal construction restrictions related to osprey nesting are required at this time. 5.“In addition to the osprey, there are several historic Great Blue Heron colonies within the RFC conservation easement area. The specific site has moved up and down the river as the herons have killed the trees they are in but generally remain in the Cattle Creek confluence area. The CE held by RFC is specific that buffers with adequate vegetational screening be established before neighborhood construction can begin. The Wildlife Impact Report 33 provided by Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC addresses this issue and those recommendations should be followed.” Response: Conservation Easement Compliance: The Applicant shall comply with all restrictions and requirements of the Conservation Easement held by the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC) related to protection of Great Blue Heron colonies and associated riparian habitat near the Cattle Creek confluence area. Implementation of Wildlife Impact Report Recommendations: The Applicant shall implement the applicable recommendations contained in the Wildlife Impact Report prepared by Colorado Wildlife Science, LLC, including the establishment of adequate vegetative screening and buffer areas between nesting or foraging habitat and nearby development. Timing of Construction: The applicant will cooperate with the Roaring Fork Conservancy to ensure neighborhood construction or grading activity shall be aligned with buffering recommendations identified in the Wildlife Impact Report. Ongoing Coordination: The Applicant shall maintain coordination with RFC and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to ensure ongoing compliance with habitat protection measures and to address any adaptive management needs that may arise during project build-out. 6. “The Roaring Fork River is designated as a Gold Medal Water and is an important resource to the community. This designation as an Aquatic Sportfish Management Waters falls under High Priority Habitat and are CPW-mapped waters where the protection and enhancement of aquatic habitat is important to maintaining sportfish and their associated recreational opportunities. The CPW recommended window for in-stream or riverbank work projects is between August 15th and September 30th to avoid disruption of spawning behavior and activity of local fishes, including Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Mountain Whitefish. Any instream disturbance (e.g., any activities in the wetted channel including crossings, maintenance, repair, or construction) should occur within this window. Deviations from this construction window should be justifiable and based on necessity and should not exceed 4 days beyond the stated work window. In-channel disturbance (including worksite clean-up) must halt no later than October 3rd to avoid impacting the locally imperiled whitefish population.” 34 Response: Work Window Limitation: All in-stream or riverbank work associated with the utility crossing shall be conducted only between August 15th and September 30th, consistent with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) recommendations for protection of spawning and rearing habitat for Rainbow Trout, Brown Trout, and Mountain Whitefish. Restriction on Extensions: Any deviation from this approved work window shall be justified by necessity, pre-approved by CPW and the County, and shall not extend more than four (4) days beyond September 30th. All in-channel disturbance, including worksite clean-up, must cease no later than October 3rd. Coordination with CPW: The Applicant shall maintain coordination with CPW prior to, during, and after in-stream construction to ensure compliance with timing restrictions and to avoid impacts to the locally imperiled whitefish population. Environmental Protection Compliance: All work methods, materials, and schedules shall conform to the conditions of approval issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and any additional stipulations provided by CPW regarding aquatic habitat protection. 7. “Implementing best practices to minimize downstream river turbidity include visually monitoring turbidity 100 meters downstream of the construction site. If water clarity is noticeably different 100 meters below the site of disturbance, pause construction activities to allow water to clear before resuming. Discourage the creation of tubifex worm habitat by reducing areas of fine sediment deposition. To prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species (e.g., Zebra/Quagga Mussels, Whirling Disease, New Zealand Mud Snail), any equipment used in the Roaring Fork River or Cattle Creek, should be cleaned prior to and after construction. All equipment should also be allowed to thoroughly dry between work sites. Disinfection with QAC: Remove all mud and debris from equipment (tracks, turrets, buckets, drags, teeth, etc.) and spray/soak equipment with a disinfection solution containing quaternary ammonia compound (QAC). Treated equipment, keeping it moist for at least 10 minutes. The recommended concentration for any commercially available QAC product used to disinfect equipment is 6 ounces of QAC solution per gallon of clean water, or 35 disinfection with Hot Water: Spray/soak equipment with water heated to more than 140 degrees Fahrenheit for at least 10 minutes.” Response: River Work Timing and Coordination: All in-channel utility work within the Roaring Fork River shall be performed only during the time period approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) to minimize disruption to fish spawning and aquatic habitat. Turbidity Monitoring: The Applicant shall visually monitor river turbidity at a location approximately 100 meters downstream of the construction site during all in-channel activities consistent with the permit requirements. Sediment Control: Construction methods shall be designed to minimize fine sediment deposition and discourage conditions favorable to tubifex worm habitat or other benthic habitat degradation. Aquatic Nuisance Species Prevention: All equipment used in or near the Roaring Fork River shall be cleaned, disinfected, and dried prior to entering and after leaving the waterbody. Disinfection shall be performed using a quaternary ammonia compound (QAC) at a concentration of 6 ounces per gallon of clean water with a minimum contact time of 10 minutes, or by hot-water treatment exceeding 140°F for at least 10 minutes. All mud and debris shall be removed from equipment prior to disinfection. Post -Construction Restoration: Upon completion of the utility crossing, the Applicant shall restore the riverbanks and adjacent disturbed areas to pre-construction contours and conditions, including stabilization and revegetation with native species as approved by CPW and USACE. These requirements are also included in the construction plans. 8. “Also of importance to CPW is the revegetation of disturbed soils and the control of noxious weed species. Much of the project area has previously been disturbed and as such a variety of undesirable weeds already exist on-site. To minimize impacts, CPW recommends that open space and undeveloped areas of soil disturbance be revegetated with native species by using a native seed blend that closely matches the surrounding vegetation to 36 restore ecological function and maintain habitat integrity. Where ground disturbance occurs, establish a diverse plant community, including native grasses, woody plants, and broadleaf forbs, to support wildlife nutrition and cover. Prevent the spread of invasive plant species and listed Noxious Weeds by incorporating a comprehensive weed management plan, including monitoring and treatment as needed. Conduct long-term monitoring to assess revegetation success and complete weed control and maintenance to ensure the establishment of a functional, native plant community.” Response: Revegetation of Disturbed Areas: All areas of soil disturbance, including open space and undeveloped portions of the site, shall be promptly revegetated upon completion of grading or construction activities using a native seed mix that closely matches the surrounding vegetation communities. Revegetation efforts shall be designed to restore ecological function and maintain wildlife habitat integrity and have been included in the river crossing plans. Diversity of Plant Materials: The revegetation plan shall include a mix of native grasses, forbs, and woody plant species appropriate to the site’s elevation, soils, and moisture regime to establish a diverse and resilient plant community that provides wildlife forage and cover. Noxious Weed Management Plan: A comprehensive Noxious Weed Management Plan shall be implemented to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species. The plan shall include methods for early detection, treatment, and follow-up monitoring consistent with the Colorado Noxious Weed Act and applicable county vegetation management requirements. Long-Term Monitoring and Maintenance: The Applicant shall conduct periodic inspections and monitoring of revegetated areas and weed control efforts until vegetation is successfully established. Corrective actions, including reseeding or additional weed treatments, shall be performed as needed to ensure long-term establishment of a stable, native plant community. Coordination with County Vegetation Management: Annual summaries of noxious weed management activities and outcomes shall be submitted to the County Vegetation Management Department, including records of treatments, monitoring results, and adaptive management measures implemented. 37 9. “CPW recommends leash ordinances and strict enforcement of outdoor domestic pets in the residential areas after development. Loose or uncontrolled dogs can have a significant impact on wildlife including direct and indirect mortality, increased stress and disturbance, and displacement to less preferred habitats. Further, dogs can be viewed as a prey item for predators. These impacts and conflicts can be mitigated by keeping unsupervised outdoor dogs in a fully enclosed kennel (including roof) near a residential building and otherwise leashed or under direct human supervision and control when outside.” Response: The Conservation Easement has detailed restrictions on handling of pets and mitigation requirements which Harvest will abide by. 10.“The North and South Riverfront neighborhoods of the Harvest Fork PUD proposal pose substantial concern for habitat degradation and potential human impact by residents if enforcement is not done to ensure that access to the Roaring Fork River through the conservation easement areas is controlled. Per language in the CE, neither human intrusion nor recreational trails are allowed within the CE areas. Fencing, signage, education and enforcement are necessary so that residents comply with the restrictions but also have an understanding of the importance of the riparian areas for wildlife. These concerns also extend to the Nature Area Neighborhood as described in the development ordinance.” Response: Agreed. The Conservation Easement has restrictions that help protect against habitat degradation and human impacts. Harvest will follow and enforce these restrictions. 11. “Overall, there are potentially substantial impacts to wildlife to be considered for the Harvest Fork PUD project. CPW has concerns for both terrestrial and aquatic species in the area proposed for development, along with high potential for degradation of riparian areas currently protected under a conservation easement. As this PUD application is vague on details, additional recommendations are likely when specific Neighborhood planning begins.” Response: The Conservation Easement’s restrictions are designed to protect against impacts to terrestrial and aquatic species and degradation of riparian areas. Harvest will follow and enforce these restrictions, and welcomes/supports obtaining additional recommendations from CPW. Harvest will continue to consult with CPW as plans for the proposed community continue to progress. 38 12. “As stated above, 1500 new residential dwellings will have on-site as well as off-site impacts. With the potential of 3000-6000 new residents there will be an increased appetite for recreation on surrounding public lands and resources. The proposed level of on-site development will limit the potential for on-site mitigation. With ever tightening budgets and increasing costs to implement habitat enhancements, CPW would encourage the applicants and the county to explore the potential of establishing a mitigation fund that could help pay for off-site mitigation work in the surrounding area. As the project moves forward CPW would be happy to discuss this potential further.” Response: Harvest understands and agrees to explore a mitigation fund for improvements and maintenance of the conservation easement area and Cattle Creek with CPW. It is important to communicate that one of Harvest’s main objectives is to provide affordable housing for its residents, and the more fees or dues we obtain from our residents, the less affordable the community will become. Nevertheless, we support the idea of collaborating with CPW to find a way for our community to contribute to CPW’s work. 13. “Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the Harvest Fork PUD project. We appreciate your consideration of our recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts to wildlife. In addition to the recommendations above, please incorporate the mitigation measures outlined in the Wildlife Impact Report completed by Colorado Wildlife Science. If you have any additional questions regarding wildlife concerns for this project, please contact Assistant Area Wildlife Manager, John Groves, at 970-948-3013 or john.groves@state.co.us.” Response: Harvest shall take careful consideration of the Wildlife Impact Report’s recommendations, many of which are like CPW’s. In addition, the applicant acknowledges that we are required to abide by all restrictions provided in the Conservation Easement. UPDATED Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) Letter Dated – October 31, 2025 Letter received by Applicant: October 30, 2025 Harvest Response: October 31, 2025 Overall Comment: Harvest Roaring Fork appreciates RFTA’s continued coordination and review of the Harvest Roaring Fork PUD. We share RFTA’s goal of expanding multimodal access and improving transit opportunities on Highway 82, including potential improvements at the Spring Valley Park and Ride. Since receiving RFTA’s original referral, our team has met with RFTA to understand the feasibility of expanded service and potential improvements that could benefit both the Harvest community and the greater community. We acknowledge that RFTA’s current priority is enhancing existing transit infrastructure, particularly at the Spring Valley Park and Ride. Harvest Roaring Fork remains open to discussions regarding the potential expansion of Spring Valley to a future BRT station. We recognize that an expansion would require long- term funding mechanisms and are willing to collaborate with RFTA, Garfield County, and the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District to further the discussion post zoning. Referral Comments by RFTA: 1.BRT Station and Service Expansion: RFTA’s updated letter prioritizes the expansion of Spring Valley into a future BRT station. Harvest supports this direction and believes the success of existing BRT stations in other mixed-use developments in the Roaring Fork Valley demonstrates the viability of an expansion. For example, at Willits Town Center in Basalt, residents regularly walk or bike a half mile or more to access the existing BRT station. Based on RFTA’s March 2025 ridership data, the Willits station averaged approximately 800 up-valley boardings during AM peak hours and 300 up-valley boardings during PM peak hours. (These numbers do not take into account down-valley boardings). This level of ridership shows that BRT ridership remains strong even when residential areas are located a half mile or more from the station. This data supports that a walking distance of a half mile is not a deterrent to transit use. Harvest benefits from a direct connection to the Rio Grande Trail, which runs through the community where residents could walk or bike to the Spring Valley station. A future Spring Valley BRT station would be able to serve both existing riders and future residents of Harvest. 2.Multimodal Transportation Impact Analysis (MTIA): Harvest agrees with RFTA’s request for a two stage approach to a multimodal transportation analysis to evaluate potential impacts to transit ridership and trail use. A preliminary multimodal study is currently being prepared by Kimley Horn using the proposed zoning density and residential mix. Once zoning is approved, the applicant will complete a comprehensive MTIA. Conclusion: Harvest Roaring Fork remains committed to an open and collaborative partnership with RFTA . We believe the success of the Willits BRT station provides a clear precedent for the feasibility and outlines the community benefits of a future BRT station that would serve the current riders of the Spring Valley station and the future Harvest Roaring Fork residents. Kimley Horn Multi-Modal Study Harvest Roaring Fork 196960001 Page 1 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 November 18, 2025 Mr. Tim Coltart Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway Suite 150 Irving, Texas 75039 Re: Harvest Roaring Fork Preliminary Multimodal Analysis Letter Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Coltart: This letter documents the results of a preliminary multimodal analysis for the Harvest Roaring Fork development proposed to be located at the intersection of State Highway 82 (SH-82) and Cattle Creek Road (CR-113) in Garfield County, Colorado. The analysis summarizes existing bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities, identifies potential future multimodal uses, and estimates bicycle and pedestrian trip generation for the site. A vicinity map is attached as Figure 1. Harvest Roaring Fork is proposed as a primarily residential development including up to 1,500 dwelling units as well as some additional amenity retail space. A conceptual site plan for the project is also attached. EXISTING BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN, AND TRANSIT FACILITIES The Rio Grande Trail runs parallel to Highway 82 for approximately 42 miles, connecting Glenwood Springs to Aspen and passes directly through the Harvest Roaring Fork development site. The trail’s paved surface varies between eight (8) and 10 feet wide and accommodates pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians. Amenities such as trash cans and dog waste stations are provided. The trail is plowed in winter to ensure year-round accessibility. A map of the trail and its uses is attached for reference. Currently, there are no sidewalks within the development vicinity, as the Rio Grande Trail serves as the primary pedestrian route along the southwest side of Highway 82. The signalized intersection of Highway 82 and Spring Valley Road includes crosswalks and curb ramps on all four corners but lacks sidewalk connections to the external roadway. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) provides commuter bus service throughout the valley, including intra-city routes in Aspen and Glenwood Springs, as well as ski shuttles to Aspen ski areas. Bus stops are located at the northwest and southeast corners of the Spring Valley Road and Highway 82 intersection, served by the Local Valley route at half-hour headways for 16 hours from 4:00 am to 12:00 am on weekdays. The VelociRFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route does not stop at this station. Both bus stops for Down Valley and Up Valley offer covered shelters, benches, and trash cans, and are accessible from the development via the Rio Grande Trail, which RFTA maintains year- round to support commuter access. Kimley >>> Horn Harvest Roaring Fork 196960001 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 During peak ski season in March, ridership at the Willits Town Center Bus Stop 312, approximately 13 miles up the valley, is about 1,000 riders per day traveling toward Aspen. Willits Town Center, which includes residential and retail uses, occupies roughly one-third the acreage of the proposed Harvest Roaring Fork site. This station offers a connection to the VelociRFTA BRT. RFTA bus stop locations are shown on the attached map of the Rio Grande Trail for reference. The 2023 census data provides the percentage of transit and walk/bike commuters for the Town of Basalt, Town of Carbondale, and City of Glenwood Springs. Walk/bike commuters account for approximately 2–8% of total commuters, while transit riders represent about 5– 10%. The attached census data is included for reference. PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT TRIP GENERATION Site-generated traffic estimates are determined through a process known as trip generation. Rates and equations are applied to the proposed land use to estimate traffic generated by the development during a specific time interval. The acknowledged source for trip generation rates is the Trip Generation Manual1 published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). ITE has established trip rates in nationwide studies of similar land uses. ITE provides a trip generation rate for pedestrian, bike, and transit use. Since residents of the Roaring Fork Valley heavily rely on transit and the Rio Grande Trail, the rates associated to the Multifamily Low-Rise Housing for a dense multi-use urban, close to rail transit location for all residential housing types are applicable. Given the Roaring Fork Valley’s reliance on transit and the Rio Grande Trail, rates for Multifamily Low-Rise Housing in dense, transit- oriented urban areas were used for all residential housing types. For comparison, rates for suburban locations not adjacent to transit are also provided. Table 1 summarizes the estimated pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips anticipated to be generated by the development. Residential units are expected to account for approximately 17 to 19 percent of trips by these modes, reflecting local travel patterns where residents utilize the Rio Grande Trail and RFTA bus system for commuting between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. For context, a nearby development, one-third the size of Harvest Roaring Fork (Willits Town Center), generates nearly 800 bus boardings during the morning peak (7:00–9:00 am) with 19 bus pick-ups, suggesting that ITE’s ridership estimates may be low. The current local valley bus route operates every 30 minutes; RFTA may consider increasing service frequency to meet future demand resulting from new development. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers,Trip Generation Manual, Twelfth Edition, Washington DC, 2025. Kimley >>> Horn Harvest Roaring Fork 196960001 Page 3 kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 Table 1 – Harvest Roaring Fork Multimodal Traffic Generation Land Use and Size Weekday Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Total Residential (ITE 220) – Urban/Close to Transit Rate 1,500 Dwelling Units 0.17 255 0.19 285 Residential (ITE 220) – Suburban/Not Close to Transit Rate 1,500 Dwelling Units 0.03 45 0.03 45 FUTURE CONDITIONS To support multimodal transportation, the development should provide sidewalk connectivity to the Rio Grande Trail and to the existing RFTA bus stops. Additionally, internal to the site, sidewalks and ADA compliance curb ramps should be provided. Locations where the proposed internal roadways cross over the Rio Grande Trail, pedestrian crossing signs W11-2) and crosswalk markings should be placed at each trail crossing. Additional data is required to estimate the number of trail commuters based on current trail usage. However, it is assumed that at least 8% of commuters from the development will use the trail to walk or bike to work CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the preliminary multimodal analysis for the Harvest Roaring Fork development, the site is expected to generate 255 morning and 285 afternoon peak hour pedestrian, bicycle, or transit trips, with ridership at the Local Valley Bus Stop 14 projected to increase by at least 200 riders during each peak period. The development is suitably located to access existing infrastructure, including the Rio Grande Trail and RFTA bus service, with an estimated 17 to 19 percent of residential trips utilizing these modes. It is recommended that the development establish sidewalk connections to the Rio Grande Trail and RFTA bus stops, provide internal sidewalks and ADA-compliant curb ramps, and enhance safety at trail crossings with appropriate signage and markings or grade separated crossings. Additionally, given the anticipated increase in transit demand, RFTA may consider increasing the frequency of the Local Valley route and/or adding the VelociRFTA route stop at this project site location to better serve Harvest Roaring Fork. If you have any questions or require anything further, please feel free to call me at (720) 738-3435. Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Mary Gormley, P.E., PTOE, RSP1 Project Manager 11/18/2025 Kimley >>> Horn kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 Figures Kimley >>> Horn kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 Conceptual Site Plan Kimley >>> Horn SOUTH RIVERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD CATTLE C R EEK 0’ 50’ 100’ 200’ Scale: 1” = 100’-0” THE FARM VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE CENTER NORTH RIVERFRONT NEIGHBORHOOD CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD SOPRIS NEIGHBORHOOD H W Y 8 2 R I O G R A N D E T R A I L R O A R I N G F O RK RIVER C A T TLE CREEK RD H W Y 8 2 NORTH CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH FRONTAGE NEIGHBORHOOD RI O G R A N D E T R A I L C O N S E R V A T I O N E A S E M E N T PR O P E R T Y B O U N D A R Y SIEVERS GRAVEL PIT IRONBRIDGE NEIGHBORHOOD S P R I N G V A L L E Y R D CAVERN SPRINGS MOBILE HOMES STORAGE AND INDUSTRIAL AREA HABITAT RE-STORE D I T C H SMALL BUSINESS PARK BUILDING MATERIALS & SUPPLY TOWING AND AUTO SHOPS IRONBRIDGE GOLF COURSE GL E N W O O D kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 RFTA Bus and Trail Map Kimley >>> Horn RIO GRANDE TRAIL RioGrandeTrail.com ASPEN GLENWOOD SPRINGS 42 Miles of Continuous Multi-use Trail The Roaring Fork Valley's Bikeshare. Free 30-minutes rides. Serving Aspen, Snowmass Village Basalt, Willits, El Jebel, and Carbondale with a fast, flexible, reliable transportation option. we-cycle.org [i] . ,.' 1' •• Courthouse ft , 14th Street Pedestrian Bridge .... ' . s Legend ......... -Rio Grande Trail 0.0 -Mile Markers (approximate) Q -Parking li] -Bike Bus Stops fB -Fix-it Bike Repair Station f1' -Rest Area tJD -Restrooms O -Potable Water (At Basalt High School only) @ -State Highway @ -County Road Glenwood Sprin ~ • Par WO [ffl courth 14th Street Pedestrian Bri r.\ Rosebud 'I Cemetery >- C I >. :, ~ 0 C: V ':, J2 '1 8 QJ QJ ll= -,__ I Ol b O ,/ml ',,, _______ _ \ (ill) Buffalo Valley , R d 154 • \ : County oa ~,i.\:j I fl'\ 11 R \ Bo 4\~~nch To Eagle ► ·• ......... ~ CMC Park & Ride Q [i] (ml ~ Colorado ~ Mountain . ~'b College Class 1 & 2 E-Bikes Only I I I (ml Spring Creek issouri Heights Reservoir @ ! \ J? Gm) Season-al ,Detour Route ~ Aspen GI 103 along county roads \ -.'i!i etween CatherineeBridge f Sat {O \ Glassier Open Space & Trails ---~ Access to Buckhorn W, & Prince Creek '•,,,',,,,_ El Jebel - Willits Milemarker 16.0 to 20.5 1:rm,nm: ~ Q f,. C illits Carbonaa ------..p.!.•s.-;~ b I r.;, I ~ Park & Rid •••••••••• • •• e Ride~ Basa t "'··· ·ts - '\.../ _ Garfi_e~d~LmtL_ ___ _ Pitkin County Eagle asalt-0/d Snowm~~s-7i-ra-il-----Pitkin County ------- ···• .. ..J ·•-............ ····•... • ro Trai/head Q ltHighr..1 2 001 tfh La f<Jsr Old Sn • So,o,is Carbondale • KOA Campground To Redstone Cree,f -1'q Milemarker 12.0 to 16.0 & McClure Pass "f erbazWay ·tkin Iron ody . Q Brush Creek Park & Town Park Station/ Rodeo Lot "-¢ Brush Creek _ i(1\1;1()i\ <:}~' -Base , age Snowmass Mall [i.J Q anch ilk Station wlCreekRd in Pt)D en Airport Sta Cemetery Lane Aspen [iJ ~oai~~ s en Post Office Woody Creek lrd fflitlPfl~• Snowmass Trail To Independence Pass ► free we ,,,.,✓✓ community ._,,,. bikeshare CYCLe ·-,,~asalt/Old Snowmass Trail -~~>·:---... Lazy Glenn l<Jq,, ·-.. \ Open Space Snowmass Village erron Park/Neale St. Glel/1/ kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 Willits Town Center Bus Ridership Data Kimley >>> Horn Bus Stop (Up Valley) - 312 Willits Town Center service_date direction period_abbrev boardings alightings num_trips 3/3/2025 UV AM Peak 710 710 20 3/3/2025 UV PM Peak 285 285 14 3/4/2025 UV AM Peak 889 889 19 3/4/2025 UV PM Peak 287 287 13 3/5/2025 UV AM Peak 958 958 21 3/5/2025 UV PM Peak 308 308 14 3/6/2025 UV AM Peak 828 828 21 3/6/2025 UV PM Peak 373 373 14 3/7/2025 UV AM Peak 1051 1051 22 3/7/2025 UV PM Peak 337 337 14 3/10/2025 UV AM Peak 765 765 19 3/10/2025 UV PM Peak 349 348 15 3/11/2025 UV AM Peak 820 820 21 3/11/2025 UV PM Peak 313 313 16 3/12/2025 UV AM Peak 791 791 21 3/12/2025 UV PM Peak 317 317 16 3/13/2025 UV AM Peak 823 823 22 3/13/2025 UV PM Peak 342 342 15 3/14/2025 UV AM Peak 927 921 22 3/14/2025 UV PM Peak 333 333 14 3/17/2025 UV AM Peak 753 753 19 3/17/2025 UV PM Peak 294 294 13 3/18/2025 UV AM Peak 817 817 20 3/18/2025 UV PM Peak 235 235 10 3/19/2025 UV AM Peak 755 755 18 3/19/2025 UV PM Peak 315 315 16 3/20/2025 UV AM Peak 730 730 19 3/20/2025 UV PM Peak 305 305 15 3/21/2025 UV AM Peak 847 847 22 3/21/2025 UV PM Peak 339 339 16 3/24/2025 UV AM Peak 785 785 22 3/24/2025 UV PM Peak 215 215 12 3/25/2025 UV AM Peak 759 759 21 3/25/2025 UV PM Peak 287 287 15 3/26/2025 UV AM Peak 723 723 20 3/26/2025 UV PM Peak 295 295 15 3/27/2025 UV AM Peak 738 738 21 3/27/2025 UV PM Peak 229 229 13 3/28/2025 UV AM Peak 650 650 19 3/28/2025 UV PM Peak 323 323 14 3/31/2025 UV AM Peak 711 711 22 3/31/2025 UV PM Peak 288 288 15 Willits Town Center 13 Miles Ù NORTH Ù NORTH kimley-horn.com 6200 South Syracuse Way Suite 300, Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303 228 2300 Census Commuter Data Kimley >>> Horn Table: ACSDT5Y2023.B08301 Label Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Estimate Margin of Error Total:2,595 ±389 3,975 ±311 6,212 ±412 Car, truck, or van:2,015 ±318 2,606 ±353 4,988 ±429 Drove alone 1,778 ±285 2,238 ±331 4,205 ±402 Carpooled:237 ±140 368 ±177 783 ±246 In 2-person carpool 237 ±140 275 ±192 622 ±197 In 3-person carpool 0 ±13 0 ±19 136 ±114 In 4-person carpool 0 ±13 0 ±19 0 ±21 In 5- or 6-person carpool 0 ±13 0 ±19 19 ±32 In 7-or-more-person carpool 0 ±13 93 ±102 6 ±10 Public transportation (excluding taxicab):200 ±102 217 ±131 139 ±86 Bus 200 ±102 217 ±131 139 ±86 Subway or elevated rail 0 ±13 0 ±19 0 ±21 Long-distance train or commuter rail 0 ±13 0 ±19 0 ±21 Light rail, streetcar or trolley (carro público in Puerto Rico)0 ±13 0 ±19 0 ±21 Ferryboat 0 ±13 0 ±19 0 ±21 Taxicab 27 ±45 0 ±19 0 ±21 Motorcycle 0 ±13 0 ±19 0 ±21 Bicycle 0 ±13 325 ±154 276 ±160 Walked 136 ±110 226 ±137 327 ±156 Other means 0 ±13 13 ±20 0 ±21 Worked from home 217 ±121 588 ±227 482 ±180 %Bike and Walk 5%14%10% %Bus 8%5%2% Basalt town, Colorado Carbondale town, Colorado Glenwood Springs city, Colorado data.census.gov | Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy 1