Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRoaring Fork Conservancy Referral Letter 9.19.25September 18, 2025 John Leybourne, Planner III Garfield County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street, Suite 401 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 jleybourne@garfieldcountyco.gov RE: PUDA-12-24-9048 and PUDA-07-25-9079 Harvest Roaring Fork and River Edge PUDs Dear John, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Land Use Change Permits submitted by Harvest Roaring Fork. Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC), an independent, not-for-profit organization, is one of the most respected watershed organizations in Colorado. For 30 years, RFC has used data driven science and hands-on research to support regional water quantity, water quality, and riparian habitat preservation. Within the 283-acre Harvest Roaring Fork property under review, RFC holds the 54-acre Cattle Creek Conservation Easement. The Cattle Creek Conservation Easement, acquired in February of 2000, preserves unique and valuable riparian habitat at the confluence of Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Riparian habitat (vegetation along river and stream banks) is among Colorado’s most important plant communities for wildlife and healthy waterways. This essential riparian habitat, which comprises less than 1% of the landmass within the state of Colorado, also includes a thriving great blue heron nesting colony, critical elk winter range, and high-quality water on this property. RFC is obligated in perpetuity to protect, preserve and enhance these outstanding conservation values within the Cattle Creek Easement. RFC holds a second Conservation Easement along the Roaring Fork River downstream of the Conservation Easement bordering the Harvest Roaring Fork property to the confluence with Cattle Creek. In combination, these two Conservation Easements represent an important contiguous conservation area for the protection of water quality, the Heron nesting site, other wildlife, Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Harvest Roaring Fork has made a proactive effort to communicate with RFC, and we anticipate this relationship to continue to address current and future concerns with the potential effects of commercial and dense residential development on the nearby Conservation Easements as well as the Roaring Fork River and Cattle Creek. RFC recently completed a 10-year comprehensive scientific study of Cattle Creek with the goal of understanding and improving water quality BOARD OF DIRECTORS Pat McMahon President George Kelly Vice President Michelle Schindler Secretary Don Schuster Treasurer Jeff Conklin Breckie Hunt David Knight Jim Light Rick Lofaro Executive Director Rana Dershowitz Diane Schwener Larry Yaw PROGRAM STAFF Rick Lofaro Executive Director Heather Lewin Science & Policy Director Christina Medved Director of Community Outreach Phoebe Caldwell Business Manager Megan Dean Director of Education Jayla Brown Watershed Educator Chad Rudow Water Quality Program Manager Sheryl Sabandal Development Director Andrea Tupy Ecologist Matthew Anderson Water Quality Technician throughout the creek. The study concluded that Cattle Creek has “generally good water quality and healthy aquatic life... Short reaches of the stream near the mouth face a combination of impacts from busy transportation corridors and legacy land use.” Protection of the Conservation Easements is essential to preservation of good water quality and healthy aquatic life. RFC has engaged in preliminary conversations with the applicant and expressed our desire to continue to work closely with Harvest Roaring Fork, LLC on all matters concerning development as it relates to the Roaring Fork River, Cattle Creek and the associated vegetation, wildlife, habitat, and terms of the Conservation Easements. Should the proposed PUD be granted, RFC respectfully requests that the applicant be required, as a contingency of approval, to work in cooperation with RFC staff to ensure the outstanding conservation values as defined, identified, and regulated by the easement, as well as the ecological integrity of the surrounding area are upheld in the current and future planning and development of this property. Specific concerns related to the conservation easement are detailed below. Sanders Ranch Conservation Easement Deed Comments Limitation on Public Access The Conservation Easement severely restricts access by residents of the Harvest Roaring Fork property and the general public. The Conservation Easement prohibits recreational activities, limits the construction of trails and prohibits improvements within the Conservation Area. Harvest Roaring Fork’s Application states in its Project Narrative (Exhibit A) that it will be “dedicating over 25% of the land to conservation, open spaces, and trails throughout the project and along the Roaring Fork River.” The Conservation Easement does not permit trails along the Roaring Fork River. The Project Narrative goes on to state: “The 54-acre conservation easement will protect natural habitats, support biodiversity and provide residents with access to nature for recreation and education.” The Conservation Easement does not permit access for recreational purposes. Harvest Roaring Fork’s Comprehensive Plan Analysis (Exhibit B) states “The proposed P.U.D. is bisected by the Rio Grande Trail providing regional connectivity from Glenwood Springs to Aspen and will have an internal trail system for residents and patrons to enjoy and proposes enhancement and enjoyment of the Conservation Easement on the Property.” RFC is solely responsible for determining any enhancements to the Conservation Easement. Any enjoyment of that property by the residents and patrons must be passive and not based on access to the Conservation Easement property. Harvest Roaring Fork’s Rezoning Justification Report (Exhibit C) states “The P.U.D. will produce several additional uses in high demand, including … accessible public river access and management….” That document goes on to state “Access to the Roaring Fork River currently located on private land will be appropriately managed and opened to a greater portion of the Garfield County community, expanding public access to nature trails and river enjoyment.” 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. The Conservation Easement requires Harvest Roaring Fork to be responsible “… for erecting fences and/or other barriers on the Property or within the Easement Property at such points of actual or potential public access to discourage any form of unauthorized access or trespass upon the Easement Property.” The Application does not include any such protections for the Easement Property. Proposal Feedback: Harvest Roaring Fork should be required to address with specificity how it intends to protect the Conservation Easements and the conservation values from negative impacts, including trespass on the easements, from such a large, dense development. Cattle Creek Crossings The Conservation Easement permits two road crossings across Cattle Creek subject to RFC’s review and approval of the location, structure and drainage design, screening and vegetation and revegetation requirements. (5.4c) The Application does not include any plans for the crossings of Cattle Creek and RFC has not been provided with any such plans to review as of the date of this letter. Proposal Feedback: 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. 5.3 Screening/Buffering Summary Requirements: The Conservation Easement requires Harvest Roaring Fork to construct a pond on the Conservation Easement property and to provide extensive screening to protect the Heron Rookery and the conservation values (Section 5.3 a-c). The screening is required to be shown on a landscaping plan to be submitted to Garfield County in connection with the development process. Neither the landscaping plan nor the required pond are depicted in any of the Exhibits to the Application. Lots located within 200 meters of Heron Rookery must be bermed and visually screened with vegetation. Screening shall be dense as possible. Lots located south-east of and above the Rookery Zone, abutting the Rookery Zone and outside 200 meters of the heron rookery, shall be visually screened from the heron rookery by the planting of trees strategically located so as to screen human activity from the rookery, but which screening shall not be as dense as the screening on the lots within 200 meters of the rookery. The Applicant is obligated to install sufficient screening, through the planting of appropriate natural vegetation, along the common boundary of the Cattle Creek/Lower Roaring Fork Riparian Zone and the Rookery Zone, including screening of any adjacent trails built within or adjacent to this portion of the Easement, in order to deter entry into the Rookery Zone and minimize the disturbance of the blue heron habitat and other similar fragile wildlife habitat located within the Rookery Zone. Proposal Feedback: • 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. This would preclude the buffer zone from being dense and providing a visual barrier that screens from human activity as stated in the Conservation Easement. A trail within the Wildlife Buffer compromises the purpose of a buffer zone. • The Applicant’s “Wildlife Buffer” proposes one tree every 100 feet. This is inconsistent with the requirements of the Conservation Easement and insufficient to establish the necessary screening. • The Application states community trails will be paved and a minimum of 6’ in width and the wildlife buffer will only be 6’/12’ wide (pg. 45). If a 6’ trail is created within a 6’ wide buffer then, effectively, there is no buffer. • 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. • A detailed landscape plan should be required prior to any development approvals. Cattle Creek Park The Application proposes a park along both sides of Cattle Creek (Exhibit D, pg. 47). Paving and furnishings would be permitted in the proposed park (pg. 45). The park would abut the Conservation Easement along Cattle Creek and would need to be separated from the easement property by as fence to avoid trespass onto the easement and Cattle Creek. Proposal Feedback: 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. 5.6 Pet Restrictions. No dogs shall be allowed on any future lots abutting the Rookery Zone, which property is located primarily to the south and southeast of and above the Rookery Zone, which lots shall be agreed upon by RFC, in order to reduce potential adverse noise and other impacts upon the animal population of the Rookery Zone. Similarly, cats shall be permitted on such lots but shall be required to be kept indoors at all times. Dogs shall be restricted to one dog per unit, with a kennel or "electronic fence" restriction, on all other portions of the Property. Dogs shall be required to be leashed at all times while utilizing any trail access located upon the Easement Property and otherwise controlled upon the Property. These requirements shall be made part of any covenants or other similar controlling development documents, that all owners of such lots shall be bound by such conditions, and that such documents shall establish enforcement mechanisms through fine and lien provisions for violation of such conditions. Proposal Feedback: • No pet restrictions are stated in the Application and no controlling development documents have been provided. 5.7. Building Restrictions. No outdoor construction activities such as excavation, foundation, framing, siding, masonry, roofing or related activities shall occur upon that property immediately adjacent to the Rookery Zone (upon the bluff located to the south and south-east of the Rookery Zone) any time between February 15 and July 15 of any year. Building heights on such property shall not exceed twenty-five feet (25'). Second story decks and accessory dwelling units shall be prohibited upon this property. Proposal Feedback: • No seasonal construction restrictions are stated in the application or in the phasing plan. • 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. • 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. Thus, it is difficult to comment on specific impacts from the various types of units proposed. Such a map should be required. The Proposed Hotel Location/Height The Application proposes a 120-room hotel to be located in the Sopris Neighborhood at the southernmost end of the property adjacent to the Conservation Easement. According to the PUD Guide (Exhibit D, pg. 14) the hotel would be up to 55 feet tall above the 6,066’ elevation contour. The specific location of the hotel is not identified, nor are the hotel amenities, necessary parking areas or other infrastructure. However, the most buildable areas of the Sopris Neighborhood have elevations between 6,030 and 6,040 feet. Thus, the proposed hotel could be between 80 and 90 feet tall, towering over the Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River. The ecological and aesthetic impacts of such a hotel would be extremely negative. Proposal Feedback: The hotel should be relocated away from the Conservation Easement and the Roaring Fork River. Grading/Drainage The Grading/Drainage Section 6 of the Engineering Report (Exhibit E) provides no design for the retention of stormwater, drainage from impervious surfaces or lands. The Engineering Report merely states that “… common engineering practices suggest that properties directly adjacent or in close proximity to the ultimate receiving water body should release storms above the water quality storm directly to the receiving body.” Although this statement is somewhat confusing, we interpret it to suggest that drainage from the property would be directed into Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. 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. Proposal Feedback: This is a significant omission and needs to be addressed prior to any development approval. General Comments The purpose of the Cattle Creek Conservation Easement is stated “to assure that the Conservation Values of the Easement Property… are retained forever and to prevent any use of the Easement Property that will significantly impair or interfere with such Conservation Values.” RFC is legally bound to uphold the terms of the conservation easement, both those noted here and those further described in the complete easement documentation. The proposed application involves significant change to a historically open landscape. With regular visits to the property, RFC staff have observed a wide variety of wildlife and birds, both their presence and signs of use. While the conservation easement will remain intact, significant loss of habitat, feeding and migration corridors should be considered. In addition, the impacts of possible increased light pollution and traffic are also of particular concern. Light pollution can inadvertently interfere with the circadian rhythm and migration patterns of wildlife, including birds, potentially interrupting their growth and reproductive cycles.1 In addition, lighting and traffic increases have been shown to negatively affect great blue heron colonies potentially leading to site abandonment.2 Also of note, the increase in impermeable surfaces associated with residential and commercial development can increase runoff and erosion, raising concerns about potential pollutants reaching the waterways. 1 http://sierraclubmass.org/wp/?incsub_wiki=dark-skies-outdoor-lighting 2 http://www.pugetsoundnearshore.org/technical_papers/herons.pdf RFC appreciates the efforts of Harvest Roaring Fork to initiate communications in the planning process, including on site meetings and planning discussions. RFC is dedicated to upholding the terms of the conservation easement and to be a voice for the river and riparian areas adjacent to this unique property. We are committed to working with Harvest Roaring Fork throughout the planning and development process to achieve a result that protects the Conservation Easements, the conservation values, Cattle Creek and the Roaring Fork River. Thank you for your consideration. RFC staff are available to answer questions, concerns, or provide additional details upon request. Sincerely, Rick Lofaro Executive Director